1935-05-20

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and the permission of hon. members of the house I should like on behalf of all of us, before the afternoon's proceedings begin, to say to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister how glad we are to see him again in his accustomed seat.


Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure I need not say to my right hon. friend how deeply we all regretted the illness which rendered unavoidable his absence from this house for so many weeks, nor with what degree of real satisfaction we received from time to time reports of the progress he was making towards recovery, which recovery in deepest sincerity we hope has been very real, and we trust will prove to be complete. We were particularly pleased that my right hon. friend's recovery was such as to make it possible for him to visit England, and to be present to represent Canada at the ceremonies in connection with the silver jubilee of King George; also to take part in conversations which he had while there with the members of the British government and the prime ministers of other parts of the British empire. Possibly at his convenience my right hon. friend may wish to give to the house a word or two respecting the ceremonies, and also, if he is free to do so, with respect to the conversa-

Greetings to Prime Minister
tions he has had on matters of concern to us all. That, however, will be a matter for himself to decide and for the convenient moment. At present I just wish to repeat that, irrespective of party, as a united House of Commons, we welcome him back to the place which he has occupied during the past five years. I know hon. members on his own side hope, and we of the opposition join very sincerely in that hope, that he may find himself, regardless of what the fortunes of political warfare may be, sufficiently well and strong to be able to continue in the leadership of his party for .many years to come.


Léopold Demers: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to add just one further word; that is to say to my right hon. friend how much we all admired the manner in which his loyal and faithful colleague and lieutenant, the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) conducted the proceedings of this house-


Léopold Demers: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -as acting Prime Minister during my right hon. friend's enforced absence. The right hon. member for Argenteuil has added one more laurel to the many he has earned in the course of a long public life for the self-effacing service he has been ready to render his party at all times and the conspicuous service he has given in times of need.


Léopold Demers: Hear, hear.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on this occasion all hon. members of the house can forget their political differences in order to extend a very hearty welcome to the Prime Minister on the occasion of his resuming his duties as leader of this house. I concur very heartily in the sentiments so ably expressed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) not only in welcoming the Prime Minister back to his duties in the house, but also in that portion of his remarks expressing our appreciation of the manner in which the acting leader of the house conducted the business while the Prime Minister was away. Having that in mind, I trust that the Prime Minister will recognize that in the event of his not feeling as well as he might wish, he can safely leave the business of this house in the hands of the colleagues who surround him. May I express the hope that the Prime Minister's health will continue to improve and will soon be fully restored.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to express in words one's appreciation of the kindly sentiments voiced by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. leader of the third party (Mr. Gardiner). But I do appreciate their kindly expressions, and I thank them and thank this house from the bottom of my heart. Shakespeare said that:
The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be. Whether or not there is any thought of that in the mind of hon. gentlemen who spoke I know notl I said to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that there was another saying "de mortuis nil nisi bonum"; possibly that also was in the minds of some who are not in this chamber but perhaps within sound of the voices of those who are in the chamber!
But I should like to say how grateful I have been for, first of all, the prayers of many people. I do not refer to those formal expressions of sympathy or those formal appeals that are made to the Godhead, but to the letters I received from remote parts of the country, from the multitudinous poor, which make one believe after all that the great solid sentiment of this country is a sound sentiment and that the people have a proper appreciation of their relations to the problems of the country. Then to those who are members	of this	house,	on bothsides, may I express my very sincere and deep sense of obligation for the kind terms in which they have expressed their interest in my well being and welfare. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was particularly happy in the expressions of sympathy which he conveyed on behalf	of himself	and his	party,	and thesame might be said of the party opposite and to the extreme right. Then the flowers, the telegrams and messages from various parts of the	world made	one think that	after allit was	not a bad	thing to	be ill	if for a
moment it afforded people an opportunity to speak well of one who is still living! But I value most the expressions of goodwill which have been made this afternoon with such apparent sincerity. I know that some -and this has been expressed in the printed page-have felt that there was no reason why one should be ill because one should not have worked so hard. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that during the last five years I have seen no opportunity to slacken or lessen the efforts I was compelled to make from day to day in the discharge of what I

Greetings to Prime Minister
conceived to be my duty to the country. That I overdid it is, of course, a matter that is known to most hon. members now; that I regret having overdone it is equally true, but if I had to do it over again I know of no way in which I might escape it, and I say that in all sincerity.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to represent this country at the recent jubilee celebration, about which I shall make some further observations at another time. To the other matters referred to by the right hon. leader of the opposition, in connection with the discussions that took place in Great Britain between the prime ministers of the various overseas dominions and the Prime Minister and ministers of the motherland, I shall also refer later. It is sufficient for my purpose to say to this house this afternoon that the European situation is one of great difficulty, and at times it gives evidence of being very dangerous. But I am hopeful that the efforts which have been made during all these years by the government of the United Kingdom to secure, shall I say, a collective security pact and peace with disarmament, may prevail. Great Britain has disarmed to the point of insecurity; at this moment she finds herself in a position of very great difficulty. I think that is not too strong a statement to make in view of the knowledge we have all obtained from the press as well as from other sources. At this moment I shall not do more than say that I think it very desirable that I should at once make it clear that so far as this dominion is concerned no commitments were sought with respect to the matters to which reference has been made, nor were any given. I say that because it is desirable that there should be no false conceptions and no misstatements or misunderstandings abroad with respect to matters of such importance to us all. That the future is difficult to foresee goes without saying; that public men who have a firm and clear grasp of the situation are doing their utmost to preserve the world's peace is equally true, but that the task is difficult I do not for a moment deny.
A moment ago I was speaking of the health of the body politic. So far as my personal health is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I did consult the best opinions that I could secure, and the advice I have received is that if I were able to proceed with a certain amount of leisure and rest-I see one of my hon. friends who is a medical practitioner looking at me as though he knew what I was about to say, as he probably does-and avoid too much effort, in the fullness of time I might recover my wonted strength and health. I think I

should say to this chamber that they urged me not to return at this time, but knowing as I did what were the conditions with respect to this house and the date of its adjournment I felt it my duty to do so, whatever might be the consequences. I may not be able to give to public business that measure of attention and that strength of purpose that sometimes has characterized my conduct-so, at least, I have heard-but I shall do my very best while I am here to make clear what my appreciation of the situation may be with respect to the legislation that will engage the attention of the house during the balance of the session.
There are many things that men forget; there are some they always remember. When I say to you, my fellow members of this house, this afternoon that I shall never forget this moment, I but state the simple truth.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 66 for the relief of Mary Frances Isobel Brown Gauthier.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 67 for the relief of Amy May Wells Gorman-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 68 for the relief of Charles Michael McGuire.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).

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

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What was the amount paid to Mr. G. T. Clarkson, as trustee for the Home Bank?
2.	What was the amount paid to I. E.
Weldon, K.C., as assistant trustee for Home Bank?	.
3.	What firm or firms of solicitors were
employed in connection with Home Bank proceedings?	_
4.	What amount or amounts were paid to such firm or firms of solicitors?
5.	Is the said I. E. Weldon, K.C., or the said G. T. Clarkson, at the present time in receipt of any remuneration from any governmental sources?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. The liquidators of the Home Bank of Canada are appointees of the Supreme Court of Ontario. Their remuneration and accounts are within the jurisdiction of the court and must be passed and approved by the master. The Department of Finance has no detailed statement of payments to liquidators or solicitors employed in connection with liquidation proceedings.
5. No.

Questions


COAT-OF-ARMS ON MINISTER'S MOTOR CAR
Mr. FOULIOT:: On February 7, 1933, was Canada's coat-of-arms placed on an automobile privately owned by one of the ministers?
2.	If so, on which one and in virtue of what authority?
3.	Is it still there?
4.	If not, since when and why?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


CRAND CASCAI'EDIA AND BONAVENTURE RIVERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARiCIL:
Have the Grand Cascapedia and Bonaventure rivers, in Bonaventure county, been declared non-navigable streams, and if so, by whom and when ?
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Not by Department of Public Works.


TAX ON HAY
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	At what date did the government impose a tax on hay for export?
2.	At what date was the said tax removed?
3.	Following the removal of this tax was any provision made, at the same time, to exempt the hay merchants from securing a special permit from the department to export their hay to the United States?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: So far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned:
1.	No tax imposed.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


ADULTERATION OF BUTTER
Mr. DUPUIS:: 1.	Does the federal Department of Agriculture employ inspectors to keep a check on butter makers and see to it that butter is not adulterated ?
2.	If so, what is the number of inspectors in each of Canada's large cities, from Halifax to Vancouver?
3.	How many warrants were issued against butter makers charged with adulterating butter in each of the previously indicated cities during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
4.	How many of such butter makers were convicted and fined for adulterating butter?
5.	How many pounds of adulterated butter were seized in each of Canada's large cities during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
6.	What ingredients did the analyst discover in the adulterated butter, and what is the method generally employed' by butter makers in connection with the adulteration of butter?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Complaints laid against manufacturers:
Quebec, Que. .	1931 .. 15	1932 3	1933 2	1934 3Montreal, Que.	.. 11	9	6	3Ottawa, Ont. ..	.. 1	_	_	1Toronto, Ont..	.. 1	1	1	1London, Ont..	.. -	2	.	_Hamilton, Ont.	.. -	-	-	1
4. Convictions secured against manufacturers:
1931	1932	1933	1934Quebec, Que. .	.. 15	3	2	3Montreal, Que.	.. 6	9	6	3Ottawa, Ont. ..	.. 1	-	_	1Toronto, Ont..	.. 1	1	1	1London, Ont..	.. _	2	-	Hamilton, Ont.	.. -	-	-	15. Quantity of butter confiscated:	1931	1932	1933	1934lbs.	libs.	lbs.	libs.Montreal, Que.	. 1,455	2,128	64*	326.	Water, in- excess of the legal maximum of sixteen per cent; salt in quantity sufficient to reduce the percentage of fat below the legal minimum of eighty per cent; foreign fat.
Adulteration of butter by manufacturers is almost exclusively done by churning the butter so as to contain more than the legal maximum of sixteen per cent water or by adding salt to the extent that the fat content of the butter is reduced below the legal minimum of eighty per cent.
Adulteration by the addition of fat other than that of milk, in so far as practised, is usually performed by mixing butter already manufactured with foreign fats.


NEPEAN TOWNSHIP, CARLETON MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the letter carrier delivery system been introduced in any part of the township of Nepean, Carleton county, during the past year?
2.	If so, in what part of it?
3.	Where does the letter carrier system now exist in this township?
4.	Is it contemplated to extend the system in this township during the present year, and if so, in what part?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Richmond road area, Ottawa West and Westboro.
3.	In addition to the area mentioned in 2, delivery is given to the Island Park driveway and to residences between the city limits and Island Park drive.
4.	No decision has been reached.


TARIFF ITEM 1035
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Was tariff item 1035 stricken out of the customs tariff schedule "B" in the budget tariff amendments in June, 1934?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
2.	Have any rebates under tariff item 1035 been granted betwen June, 1934, and April 1, 1935?
3.	If so, by what authority?


Mr. CAHAN (for Mr. Matthews):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. In respect only of goods imported in good faith prior to the tariff changes for the use mentioned.
3.	Ruling from office of Auditor (General on this particular item and opinion of Deputy Minister of Justice in respect to similar changes.


MR. EL1E BEAUREGARD-LEGAL FEES
Mr. LAFLECHE:: What amount has been paid by the government in legal fees to Mr. Elie Beauregard, solicitor of Montreal, between 1921 and 1930?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 

This upon a former occasion was question No. 7 asked' by Mr. Lafleche, and through my mistake it was dropped. At the present time I should like to file it on Hansard.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Are there any departments whose officers come under the supervision of the High Commissioner in London?
2.	If so, since when, what departments and who are those officers?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


DOCTOR GORDON L. BELL
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Was Dr. Gordon L. Bell of Sioux Lookout, Ontario, employed by the government in any capacity?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and for how long?
3.	Is he a returned soldier?
4.	Is he still in the employ of the government?
5.	If not, why not?
6.	If he is no longer employed by the government, who has been appointed in his place?
7.	Is the new appointee a returned soldier?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


POTATO INSPECTION-NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What amount was received from inspection of potatoes in the province of New Brunswick from September, 1934, to date?
2.	Who paid this inspection fee and how much was paid by each shipper, giving the number of cars on which each shipper paid?
3.	Are there any inspection fees reported as unpaid?


Robert Weir: Return tabled herewith.


PAUL COMTOIS
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Is Paul Comtois, former candidate in the county of Yamaslca, in the employ of the government?
2.	If so (a) since what date; (b) in what capacity; (c) is he permanently or temporarily employed; (d) what salary does he receive;
(e) does he still dispense political patronage?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


PRINTING OF VOTERS' LISTS
Mr. McPHEE:: 1.	What is the total cost of installation of new machinery in the printing bureau in connection with the printing of the voters' lists under the Franchise Act?
2.	From whom was said machinery purchased?
3.	What was the price paid for same?
4.	Where was said machinery manufactured?
5.	What is the total cost to date, of the operations of the Franchise Act. including the cost of installing said machinery?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


ST. PAUL DE L'lLE-AUX-NOIX, QUE.-WHARF
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Were repairs made at the wharf at St. Paul de I'Ue-aux-Noix during 1934 done by day labour?
2.	Who was the foreman of works and' what salary did he receive?
3.	Were tenders called for in connection with the purchase of materials?
4.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers?
5.	From whom was the cement, stone, sand, and other materials purchased, and what prices were paid for such materials, also what quantity was purchased from the respective parties?
6.	What disposal was made of the lumber from the demolished wharf, was it sold or given away, and to whom?


CHAMBLY CANAL-DAY LABOUR
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Were the works done at the locks on the Chambly canal at Saint-John's during the years 1933-34 by day labour?
2.	If so, what are the names and' addresses of the persons employed on such works?
3.	Were the materials used in connection with such works purchased on a tender basis?
4.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the prices of stone, cement, sand, and lumber?


Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Were the works on the Chambly canal at Saint-John's during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, done by day labour?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the employees?
3.	Were the materials purchased on a tender
basis?
4.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the prices of stone, cement, sand, and lumber?

Questions as Orders for Returns


W. T. HAYDEN, ESQ., K.C.
Mr. BUTCHER:: 1.	What amounts have been paid to W. T. Hayden, Esq., K.C., New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, out of the consolidated fund since August 1, 1930, and for what services?
2.	Is there any arrangement whereby W. T. Hayden, K.C., New Glasgow, is employed or is to have employment in connection with legal work for the Department of National Revenue, and what are the terms of such arrangement?
3.	Is there any arrangement whereby W. T. Hayden, K.C., New Glasgow, is employed or is to have employment in connection with the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and what are the terms of such arrangement?
4.	Is there any arrangement whereby W. T. Hayden, K.C., New Glasgow, is employed or is to have employment in connection with the Dominion Franchise Act or the work of revision thereunder, and what are the terms of such arrangement?
5.	Is there any arrangement whereby W. T. Hayden, K.C., New Glasgow, is employed or is to have employment in connection rvith the Canadian Farm Loan Board, and what are the terms of such arrangement?
6.	Are there any other cases in which W. T. Hayden, K.C., is acting or authorized to act for any department of the government, or any board, commission or other body acting under government authority, and what are the terms of the arrangement in each case?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


JEAN J. PENVERNE
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	Has Jean J. Penverne, advocate, of Montreal, been employed by the government or any department or departments of the government in any capacity since September 1, 1930?
2.	If so, in what capacity, in what cases, law suits or matters, and what amount or amounts was he paid, by each department for his services to date?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.



BOW RIVER PROTECTION WORKS

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Regarding protection works on the Bow river,-
1.	Was the contract for the creosoting of the piles and timber let by tender?
2.	What firms competed and what was the amount of tender in each case?
3.	What were the wages paid to labourers on the said protection work?
4.	What is the average number of men employed on this work?
5.	What percentage of the total amount expended will be used for costs other than labour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Return tabled herewith.



GASPE PENINSULA REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. MARCIL:: Has the Prime Minister or any member of the administration received the following resolution adopted by the county council of the county of Bonaventure at its last meeting, and if so, what answer has been given, if any?
"That representatives of your government, together with the members of the county, the mayors of each municipality, representatives of the brotherhood connected with all railway operations, and leading business men of the district, do meet at New Carlisle, at an early and convenient date, to discuss matters of vital interest to all for the improvement of general conditions in the Gaspe peninsula, relating to lumbering, fishing, agriculture, cheaper transportation, and better marketing facilities for our natural products. And further resolved that the employers of labour covering all lines, be solicited to give preference to men of this district as required."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.



COMPANIES BRANCH REVENUES

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What were the revenues of the companies branch, Department of the Secretary of State, for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1928, 1929, and 1930?
2.	What were the revenues of such companies branch for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1933, 1934, and 1935?
3.	What is the number of such companies with shares of no par value incorporated during the course of the above fiscal years?
4.	What is the proportion in numbers and in amount of capital stock value of companies with shares of no par value compared with the total number of companies incorporated?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return, tabled herewith.



RADIO BROADCASTING

Mr. McKENZIE (AssLniboia):: 1.	How many licensed commercial radio broadcasting stations are there in Canada?
2.	How many of these stations are the physical property of the radio commission, and how many are independent, that is to say, under private ownership?
3. How	many	exclusive	wave	lengths
(frequencies) have been allotted to Canada to serve all these stations?
4.	How many wave lengths (frequencies) shared with the United States are at the disposal of all these Canadian stations?
5. How	many	exclusive	wave	lengths
(frequencies) have the United States, that is to say, wave lengths (frequencies), that Canada does not share?
6.	(a) What Canadian stations enjoy an exclusive wave length, or frequency?
(b)	Of these, which stations belong to the commission and w-hich are independent?
(c)	What is the power of each of these stations?
7.	Has the radio commission since its inception increased the power of certain of these stations?
8.	What are the stations whose power has been increased, rvhat is their wave length (frequencies) and what is the power as of April 1, 1935?
9.	What private stations have had their power increased, since the establishment of the radio commission? What was their former power, and what is their power as of April 1, 1935?
Motions for Papers

10.	What private stations have in the last eighteen months requested an increase of power and obtained it? What are their wave lengths (frequencies) and their power as of April 1, 1935?
11.	Under what arrangement between Canada and the United States are wave lengths (frequencies) shared betwen the two countries?
Who negotiated this arrangement, and on what date was it completed?
On what date will it be revised?
12.	What is the cost to the radio commission of each of the stations established in Canada?
(a)	For transmitting equipment;
(b)	for studios?
Specify in case of purchase the price and terms. If rented, specify the terms and the duration of the operation of each of these stations in regard to;
(a)	Operators and technicians;
(b)	Directors or managers;
(c)	Administration staff;
(d)	Artists.
13.	What are the stations at which the commission owns only the transmitter?
What has been the cost of installation of the said transmitter, and to whom have the sums been paid? In places where the commission owns or uses studios, does it own the fixtures and equipment? If not, with whom have the leases been signed? For how long, and on what terms?
14.	In the past year what proportion of the programs presented by the commission^ over its network or through individual stations has come from concert halls, dance halls, dining rooms, hotels, clubs, cabarets, theatres, etc., and not from commission studios?
(a)	Dance music;
(b)	Concert music;
(c)	Opera or symphony?
15.	Does the radio broadcasting commission exercise control over facilities or transmission lines between independent stations in Canada?
16.	There are in Canada three different transmission companies, The Bell Telephone, The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. In the case of independent stations, business firms, publicity agencies who desire transmission lines in order to send their programs from one station to another in Canada, have they the privilege of choosing from among the three transmission companies the lines which they prefer? If not, why not?
17.	Have the rates for the leasing of transmission lines been increased or decreased in the past eighten months?
(a)	In what proportions;
(b)	Why?
18.	Is there an understanding between the three companies and the commission, whereby the three companies charge the same rates?
If so, has this combine been approved of by the Minister of Railways and Canals?
19.	Does the Canadian radio commission receive any commission or remuneration directly or indirectly from transmission companies or publicity agencies or independent stations or business firms on the rental of lines for the transmission of radio programs?
If so, why, and by virtue of what agreement with the above mentioned companies or publicity agencies or firms?

20.	Have any independent stations asked leave of the commission to broadcast programs from the National Broadcasting Company or the Columbia Broadcasting System or similar organizations in the United States?
What are those stations, and on what date was the request made?
Has permission been granted or refused?
Why?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DUPUIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents, exchanged from 1931 to date between the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) or any other persons, and the Right Hon. the Prime Minister or any member of his cabinet, respecting a grant to be made by the federal government for the completion of the university of Montreal.



GRAND RUISSEAU-DECHARGE NOIRE WATER COURSES

Vincent Dupuis: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents, exchanged between the federal government and any individual respecting drainage works on Grand Ruisseau water course and Decharge Noire water course in the county of Vercheres, also respecting Laprade and Des Aulnages water courses in the counties of Richelieu and Vercheres.



CUSTOMS TARIFF REBATES-ITEM 1035

Mr. STEVENS moved:: For a list of all rebates granted under tariff item 1036, schedule "B" of the customs tariff, during the period June, 1934, to April 1, 1935, such list to show,-
1.	(a) The names of the firms applying and the names of the persons making application on behalf of the firms.
(b)	The amount claimed for rebate in the original application.
(c)	The amount actually rebated.
(d)	The date of the importation of the goods for which rebate is sought.
2.	A copy of the minute of the treasury board or order in council, as the case may be, authorizing the refund in each case described in the preceding paragraph.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this motion will have to stand for the moment. The Minister Oif Finance and the Minister of National Revenue are not present. In addition, I have only seen the motion this morning, but my information, is that it has not been the practice of any government at any time to produce in this chamber the names of those bo whom rebates have 'been granted under the Customs Act. That may or may not be accurate, but it can be checked up.
Motion stands.

Duties on Japanese Goods



VICTORIA DAY SITTING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker-, I should like to ask the government whether it is intended that the house shall sit on the twenty-fourth of May.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the matter has not been considered, but I shall advise the house to-morrow.



DUTIES ON JAPANESE GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be better if I were to make a statement with respect to this matter because it has engaged my attention to some extent during my absence.
We have in this country a law respecting the dumping of merchandise, and we have also a law which has been on the statute books for many years with respect to depreciated currencies. I had no idea .that this question would 'be asked to-day, but my memory is that the provision with respect to depreciated currencies was passed .on the initiative of Mr. Fielding, the then Minister of Finance:. These provisions of our la,w apply to all countries that have depreciated currencies.
It is well known, of course, that for some time the currency of Japan has been depreciated and that the yen has not .been worth anything like its normal figure. The result was that automatically the provisions of our statute applied.
The re has been, it is alleged, an increase in the cost of living in Japan during the last few months with the result that the benefits that accrued under their depreciated currency did not accrue to the same extent to exporters from that empire to Canada. The matter has received the very careful consideration of an inter-departmental committee that was set up some weeks ago and they have been endeavouring to devise' ways and means whereby there might be such modifications of the provisions of the statute arising out of changed costs of living conditions as would be applicable to all countries, based upon the1 index of the cost of living as supplied by the League .of Nations. The. matter is still under advisement and my information this morning was that oommuncations had been sent to the government of Japan to ascertain the extent to which the changed economic conditions bad increased the cost of living index during the last few weeks, and to ascertain also what the report of the League of Nations' economic bureau was upon that point.
The matter is one of very great importance not only to the Dominion of Canada with respect to its relations with Japan but with respect to its relations with other countries whose currencies may be depreciated, for it is perfectly clear that if a currency is depreciated fifty per cent, then of course the basis upon which the tariff was arranged originally would no longer have the same application at all because a twenty-five per cent tariff, for instance, based upon the normal value of the currency of a country, would be only a twelve-and-a-half per cent tariff if that currency were depreciated fifty per cent, and that of course would mean disaster to many Canadian enterprises. All these factors are being carefuly considered, and from the reports which I received this morning I believe that a most earnest effort is being made to arrive at an adjustment that will be satisfactory; by that I mean an adjustment that will be fair and just to Canadian enterprise while at the same time not being unfair or unjust to trade between Japan and Canada.



EXPORTS OF CANADIAN NICKEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disturbed international situation will the government take steps to cooperate with the League of Nations in order to prevent any Canadian nickel passing into the hands of armament firms?
Santo Domingo Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been so frequently discussed in this house that I do not propose to discuss it again this afternoon at any length beyond saying this, that the reports that are received from time to time do not indicate that shipments of nickel are made directly from this country to foreign countries or to armament firms in the sense that it would be used for armaments, but on the other hand it is equally clear that large quantities of nickel leave this country that are sold to purchasers direct from the dealers or producers, and what happens to it after that is beyond the power of this government to control, or any other government for that matter, for once the property becomes vested in a purchaser that purchaser makes such disposition of it as he sees fit. However, the matter is under further investigation by departmental officials, and possibly at a later date I may be able to give a more complete statement with respect to it, together with figures and statistics.



SANTO DOMINGO TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago
I brought to the attention of the government the fact that the government of Santo Domingo had increased the duty on fish from Canada to that island' from $225 per 100 kilos to SI 7.25 per 100 kilos. They also increased the duty on potatoes from two cents per kilo to seven cents per kilo. In other words a ninety-pound bag of potatoes that paid 83 cents duty previously now pays if imported, a duty of $2.90. On onions the duty on a 100-pound bag instead of being 92 cents as previously is now $3.22.
I would like to ask the government what they have done with respect to this situation following my previous question, and if I may be permitted, sir, without moving an amendment on the house going into supply, I would like to call to the attention of the government now that this is a very important and serious matter. For instance, in the year 1934 there were shipped to Santo Domingo from Halifax, 21,635 drums of dried salted fish; 51,645 boxes of smoked herring; 312 barrels of pickled fish; 3228 bags of potatoes; 730 barrels of potatoes, and 1,480 bags of onions. Up to March, 1935, there was shipped this year 4,989 drums of dried salted fish; 12,417 boxes of smoked herring; 52 barrels of pickled fish; 2,010 bags of potatoes; 111 barrels of potatoes, and 1,150 bags of onions.

I would call the attention of the government to the fact that these figures are for the exports from Nova Scotia only. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are just as much interested as Nova Scotia. The fishing season this year has started in the maritime provinces and I would direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) and the government to the fact that unless some arrangement is made with Santo Domingo, not one dollar's worth of that business will come to this country and the fishing for this class of fish will be ruined. Since March 9 not one bag of onions, one pound of fish or one bag of potatoes has been shipped to Santo Domingo. The duty on fish has been increased from $225 per hundred kilos to the prohibitive rate of $1725 and the great reason for this increase is that this country does not allow sugar to come in from Santo Domingo under a fair rate of duty, and it is a retaliatory measure.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the hon. gentleman did not see fit to give me notice of his question as I have not the necessary papers before me. However, I would say to him, to the house and to the country that long previous to the time he brought this matter to the attention of the government in this house representations had been received in regard to it from exporters in Nova Scotia. We immediately got in touch with the situation and we found that the Santo Domingo government had passed regulations not only against this country but against every country in the world. Immediately these facts were verified we requested the British minister to make the necessary representations to have this situation corrected. I have not been in Ottawa for the last few days and I cannot give my hon. friend or the house the exact position of this matter. I shall have a statement prepared and if possible I will deliver it to-morrow. I would reiterate and reaffirm what I said a moment ago, the prohibitive measures adopted by this republic were not adopted only against Canada, they were adopted against the whole world.


William Duff: Does my hon. friend mean to say that this matter was brought to his attention before I brought it up on the floor of the house a number of weeks ago?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sudbury):: Quite so


William Duff: I brought this matter before the house at the same time the minister received the protest from exporters and others.

Public Works Program



DUTY ON SALTED FISH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) if it is true that Italy has raised the duty on salted fish from this country and as a result exports have fallen off very considerably, especially in fish from the Gaspe coast?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. gentleman will allow his question to stand as a notice I shall give him the information to-morrow. In the meantime I would say that the whole matter is under consideration and negotiation.


William Duff: The reason is that the British trade agreements provide for quotas.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right HON. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if he would give to the house at an early date an outline of what further legislation the government intends to bring down before the conclusion of the session. In that connection would he indicate whether negotiations are still continuing between the United States and Canada with respect to a trade agreement, and whether he contemplates the probability of submitting an agreement to the house before prorogation?
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this morning I endeavoured to make a precis of such legislation as I thought would be desirable to introduce to the house before the end of the session, but at the moment I have not been able to complete this. I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date, but I cannot say that it will be done tomorrow, because some of the bills which it is proposed to introduce are now under consideration by the cabinet and certain legal formalities will have to be observed to determine their constitutionality and other matters of that kind. With respect to the last question asked by the right hon. gentleman, I can only say that negotiations with Washington have been continuing, but it would be idle for me to express any view at the moment as to whether or not they would crystallize in the form of an agreement within the period of time which will elapse between
now and the rising of the house. If, as and when I am informed so as to be able to give an answer to that question, I shall be glad to give such information to the house.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BROWN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, on the Tuesday evening before the house adjourned I made a statement in connection with the chairman of a Senate committee; I accused that hon. gentleman of casting reflections upon the private bills committee of this house. It may be that he was misre-ported, or that I had misinterpreted the report of his remarks, but I have received a letter from the hon. gentleman assuring me that he intended to cast no reflection upon the committee of this house. I accept his assurance and I gladly withdraw the statement I made.



PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 17, 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 section 2-Authority to execute and complete works.
Mr. FACTOR:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned we were discussing item 7 of the schedule, tunnel at western entrance Toronto harbour, $1,000,000. Are you calling that item?


The CHAIRMAN:: We are following the bill and are taking up section 2.


Samuel Factor: I regret exceedingly that I was absent when the committee had under discussion this item with regard to the construction of a tunnel at the west entrance to the city of Toronto. I suggest that it would have been fair for the gentlemen who inaugurated the tunnel scheme to have taken into their confidence the people's representatives in this house and give them more information than they have offered in regard to this item. I may say that the city council of Toronto was unaware that this item was coming up for discussion in the house, and I will show later on that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) and the hon. member for
Public Works Program

Parkdale (Mr. Spence) were under a misapprehension when they said that the corporation of Toronto undertook to expend a certain sum of money to maintain the tunnel. I should like to make it abundantly clear that the members on this side of the house who opposed the item did not oppose any expenditure for the relief of unemployment so far as Toronto is concerned. I think the member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) made it clear that we on this side are ready to expend any amount-the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) suggested $2,000,-000-to relieve unemployment. But the question was whether the expenditure was justified under present conditions if the purpose was to allocate it to the construction of a tunnel at the western entrance.
I need not urge on this house the position of the men and women who live on the islands of Toronto. They have an opportunity of getting away from the turmoil of the city, from all the traffic, from the noise and the smoke, in order to spend a few months on the Toronto islands. Now this may be a narrow way of looking at the matter. I am willing also to concede that at some future time there may be need of connecting the islands with the Toronto mainland in order to afford an opportunity to more people to patronize the islands. But the question that ought to be discussed at the present time is this: Are we justified in spending $1,000,000 for the construction of a tunnel, or should we spend this money in the construction of some more useful public work? Let me make it clear that the construction of the tunnel is not primarily for the purpose of connecting the islands with the mainland; primarily it is an airport scheme, and the tunnel is not required unless first of all an airport is established at the location indicated on the plan. I realize the need of airports and air bases, but the question arises whether this is the proper time to spend money on airports.
In the expenditure of public money I think we should adopt the same attitude as any individual who is spending his own private funds. We are passing though very difficult days of depression and it is about time that this government realized that public money should be expended only for useful purposes, because after all it is the taxpayers who will have to pay the money. I think there are many other useful works in Toronto to which this money could be allocated. For instance, there is the elimination of level crossings- something that endangers human life; these crossings have taken a heavy toll. Why not allocate this $1,000,000 to the elimination of eome level grade crossings in or about

Toronto? Then there is the question of slum clearance. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario has handed in a useful report on slum clearance. The city council has not taken action in the matter-perhaps there are financial reasons

and there is an opportunity here for the government of Canada to help to put into effect the recommendations contained in Lieutenant Governor Bruce's report, by spending this money, and more perhaps, for the purpose of slum clearance. Then there is the question of building a court house in Toronto. The courts are now located in the city hall and the building is overcrowded. Here lies an opportunity of reviving construction-and nothing will get us out of the depression unless the construction industries revive. There are masons, carpenters and all kinds of builders, mechanics and labourers out of work, and the construction of a city hall would give them employment. I suggest that $1,000,000 used for any of these purposes would go a longer way than it would in the construction of a tunnel to be used only for an airport base.
I want to make it clear that in the plans prepared by the engineers of the harbour board of Toronto there is provision for the expenditure of $1,000,000 for the construction of a tunnel; but that is predicated, first upon the corporation of the city of Toronto expending $119,000 in connection with the tunnel; secondly, the sum of $305,000 in connection with the establishment of an airport; and thirdly, the sum of $186,000 in filling in lagoons and making parking areas.
The Minister of National Revenue in the discussion in the house at the adjournment made the statement that the city had undertaken to assume the cost of maintenance, including paving and ventilation, reducing the cost to the federal government to approximately $1,000,000; and the hon. member for Parkdale made a similar statement, that the tunnel would cost only $1,000,000 and that it would be there forever, maintained by the city. I may inform the house to-day that the city council has not been consulted about this scheme. The city council of Toronto has not agreed to maintain this tunnel nor to expend any money. It does seem to me that it is putting the cart before the horse. The harbour board might have approached the city council and obtained their opinion with reference to this expenditure, because as a matter of fact there is a great difference of opinion in the council. There are members of the city council who are absolutely opposed to the expenditure of money, not because they are opposed to spending money

Public Works Program
for relief but because they feel, as members of the city council, that there are many other purposes for which the money could be spent.
I need not take up the time of the house giving any further explanation of this matter. Members on this side are ready and willing to vote any sum of money for the purpose of relieving unemployment, but they feel that any work recommended for the expenditure of money ought to be, in the first place, an essential work; that secondly it ought to be useful work; and thirdly that there are more useful works on which this money could be spent. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock):
That the words "tunnel at western- entrance, Toronto" be struck out and the following substituted: "for construction of such public works or undertakings to relieve unemployment as may be agreed upon between the corporation of the city of Toronto and the government of Canada-$1,000,000."


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Rule 510 reads:
It is not allowable to attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a resolution in the committee of supply, or to change the destination of a grant.
Inasmuch as this definitely falls within that provision I shall have to rule it out of order.


Mr. CHURCH:: There was never a vote
before this committee that was so much misunderstood and concerning which some of the speakers had so little knowledge of the facts as this vote of the 17th of April. The city of Toronto is the largest tax-paying city in the dominion, in excise, customs, postal receipts and other forms of revenue. It was said here the other day that the total was 867,000,000. You will find from the report of the Minister of National Revenue that customs duties amounted to 861,000,000, and postal receipts to nearly 87,000,000. The city of Toronto gets little or nothing. Comparison has been made of the Toronto harbour commission with the harbour commissions in Montreal, Quebec, Saint John, Halifax, Port Arthur and Vancouver, but there is no comparison. The other harbours I have mentioned are federal ports, money spent on those ports is spent by the government of Canada. In the case of Toronto it is totally different, the harbour commission is a city commisison, it spends nothing but city money. Any money that this government furnishes in connection with the entrances to Toronto harbour comes under the agreement of 1913, and is spent under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. The Toronto harbour commission consists of five members, of whom three are appointed by the city-1
was a member for twenty-two years and chairman for some time-and the other two by this government. We never had any politics on the commission while I was there. There is in fact so little politics that while all the other harbour boards from Vancouver to Halifax resigned or were removed when a new government came in, this commisison has two of its members on it yet, two representatives appointed by the late government, they were on the commission in 1930 and are there to-day. They are two, good reputable men and they have done good work.
This proposition has been misunderstood. In the first place Toronto island is a breakwater in itself. It is formed by a sand bar, about three and a half miles long, and there is an entrance to the harbour at each end. Those two entrances are navigable waters and as such come under the British North America Act, and also under an act known as the Navigable Waters' Protection Act. By the British North America Act the government of Canada has jurisdiction over boundary waterways, interprovincial streams, and in relation to navigation. That is how it comes that the federal government has something to do with Toronto island. From 1867 to the present time the government of Canada have had to spend large sums of money for protection of the shore of Toronto island. Since confederation there have been some twenty-one votes, as shown in a return I had to an order of the house a few years ago. The government of Canada have always been responsible for that work, firstly under the British North America Act and secondly by the special agreement of 1913. In 1913 under an order in council validated by act of parliament a contract was made between three parties, the city, the harbour commission and the government. Any party to this contract who is aggrieved can bring the government of Canada into the exchequer court. We had the opinion of the law officers of the crown that there was a contract and we were about to bring the government on the viaduct case into the exchequer court when a meeting was held upstairs with the late Minister of Railways, the Right Hon. Geo. P. Graham, and we settled the case. So the contract has been established. The contract provided for some way of getting across these two entrances, the western entrance which is just east of the exhibition grounds, and the eastern entrance. The government of Canada agreed to build two bridges across those two entrances costing 8400,000 each. That was agreed in 1913 with the Hon. Mr. Rogers, then Minister of Public Works. This contract was signed and the three parties started work simultaneously;
Public Works Program

the harbour commission started its work, the city started its work and the dominion government started its work of building a turning basin in the industrial area at the east end and improvements to the western entrance.
Toronto island is a great asset to the city. But to-day very few people use the island. Hanlan's point is at the western entrance, where Ned Hanlan who held the rowing championship of the world lived. As I say, the island is only used by a very small percentage of the people. It can only be reached by a ferry boat. The ferries were privately owned until 1928 when the city took them over and they are now operated by the Toronto transportation commission. Instead of being used for only three or four months of the year by a small number of people this island could be used all the year round. It should be for all the people all the time, not for some of the people some of the time. The working people of Toronto carried the harbour by-law for the new harbour in 1911. In 1910 I moved in the board of control for a committee of the council to report on a greater harbour. The committee sat for nine months, and after investigation of harbours the world over we presented our report, which went to the people, and they by a vote of almost ten to one carried the by-law for a greater harbour. Fifty per cent of the work was a beautification scheme and the other part an industrial development, bringing into being a large industrial area in what is known as Ashbridge's bay where 760 acres of land have been reclaimed.
That work has gone on from 1913 until today, the work being now practically complete except these two bridges, one across the western entrance and the other across the eastern. Since these bridges were planned the traffic of the harbour has grown so rapidly that the type of bridge required instead of costing $400,000 would require $800,000. But the fact is that with the great increase in shipping, passenger boats as well as freight, the proposed bridges are now obsolete, as was found in the Detroit river, and a tunnel is considered the suitable provision for navigation and the safety of the public. It will be recalled what happened in the Detroit river, sometimes there were accidents with the ferries, and with bridges that would have to be lifted every few minutes there would be interference with shipping and with road traffic. Economy will be effected by substituting a tunnel for the bridge.
The expenditures of the city and the harbour commission amount to $28,600,000, that is entirely city money. The federal government has only given $8,000,000.

Bridges are out of the question in view of the increasing tonnage of the harbour. For example hundreds of thousands of tons of coal are coming in by water. Oil tankers come from all over the world bringing oil for Imperial Oil, British American Oil, MeColl-Frontenac and many other companies which have great areas of land and investments of millions of dollars in oil refining plants and storage facilities in the harbour area. The tonnage of the harbour has gone up from 959,234 tons in 1929 to 3,215,000 in 1934.
As I say, the proposed tunnel is the modem method of handling traffic under these circumstances. The estimated cost of the tunnel is given in the bill- at $1,000,000. Someone spoke of the maintenance of the tunnel as compared with bridges. If this bill passes an agreement will have to be made, fallowing the practice of 1913, to build the entrances. An agreement was also to be made between the city and the harbour board, and this government represented by the Minister of Public Works, providing for the matters referred to on April 17, by the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Factor). These agreements as to approaches to and maintenance of the tunnel have not been completed, but negotiations are going on at the present time and it is hoped that in a few days these agreements will be concluded. The approaches to the* bridge of course, are a matter for the city, involving as they do roadways, road widening and many matters of that description*:
I may say that the city of Toronto has received very little from the federal government since confederation. We have not even a central post office there to-day; instead we have a number of sub post offices in rented quarters all over the city. We have been given a- few new buildings, but the large city of Toronto has not a proper, up-to-date post office. It was only recently that we were able .to get a customs house, though for nine ye*ars I salt in this house toying to get one. Toronto brings in. $61,000,000 a year in, customs revenue, but until recently there were only ramshackle buildings scattered all over the city. The city of Toronto is not asking for very much. Our case is similar to that of the city of M.ontreal, where the government contributed $14,000,000 or $15,000,000 towards the cost of constructing a bridge between the city and an island owned by the city. In Toronto the. new harbour plan and the new entrance are all provided for. When I was connected with it .there were no politics in connection with .the harbour board; previous governments have done very handsomely by the harbour board of Toronto.

Public Works Program
When I was sitting across the way we had a viaduct built there, and I give a great deal of crediilt to Right Hon. George P. Graham for the solution of that problem. The horn, member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) was also active in .the matter. When we started the greater harbour he was the pioneer who started that work.
The people want to use .this island all year. In Detroit they transformed .an island into a magnifioenit playground that is visited by people from all over the1 world, and the same thing could be done in Toronto. These islands cotuld be used all year, and if this tunnel is constructed a great deal of revenue will accrue.
Now I should like to say juisb a word as to the relief situation. The construction of this tunnel, as well as 'the construction of the airport and seaplane base, will mean a tremendous amount of work. I have an analysis here showing the percentage of the money that will be paid for labour. In connection with the tunnel the labour cost will amount to from 78 to 80 per cent of the total. In connection) with the subway the direct labour cost will amount to over 51 per cent and the indirect labour cost to more than 26 per cent, at total of nearly 78 per cent. In connection with the1 airport and seaplane' base the direct labour cost will amount to over 59 per .cent 'and the indirect, labour cost to more than 18 per cent, a total of almost 78 per cent. So you see there will be a great deal of work created. I think the time hase come when we must do more than carry on reconstruction and housing plans if we are to solve the labour problem and get people off the dole. We should be following the example of Italy, where the government are building in advance of the present age in oomneotian with municipal institutions of all kinds, such as hospitals, schools, trunk sewers, Labour improvements, registry offices and so on. All these are being built by the federal government of that country. It is far better to provide work for masons, bricklayers, carpenters and other skilled workmen than to have them on the dole. The Conservative party are protectionists, but if we believe in protection we should protect all the people; we should believe in it ,as a principle and not as a privilege for the eight or ten men who control the means .of production in this oountry to-day. That is where we all have gone wrong; we must bring protection up to date.
I believe that in this matter the Liberal-Conservative party is quite consistent, since 92582-183
nearly eighty per cent of this amount will be spent directly and indirectly for labour. All the newspapers of the city, including the Toronto Star, the Toronto Globe, the Evening Telegram and the Mail and Empire, have come out strongly in favour of this proposal. They think something is due the city of Toronto, in view of the revenues that have been collected there in the past and that are being collected at the present time. Toronto contributes well over $1,000,000 a week, and all we are asking for is $1,000,000 to help us with this work. I have a return here showing the amounts expended in various harbours, but I am not going to discuss that point today because I believe in the principle of confederation, each for all and all or each. I believe that what is for the benefit of Vancouver harbour is also for the benefit of Toronto harbour, Halifax harbour and all the other harbours, though the figures show that Toronto is receiving a very small return in proportion to its population and the revenues it contributes to the federal government.
There is a demand for this work from labour, as well as from nearly all of the municipal associations in the city. At the present time the island is used by only a few people; it has only about ten thousand permanent residents, who rent the ground at so much per foot and build their own improvements. If this vote goes through the island will be opened up to thousands of others. As hon. members know, because of the construction of the viaduct Toronto bay is only about sixty per cent as wide as it was formerly, and the result is that it has not the attraction it previously had. The city has taken over the ferry boats and invested a great deal of money in the island.
Reference has been made to the agreement of 1913. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Toronto is the only city in the Dominion of Canada that has contributed to the cost of grade separation. Toronto did not need to contribute one dollar to the cost of constructing the viaduct; the railways were responsible for that undertaking, but the city voluntarily contributed over $8,000,000 towards the cost of that work, though in other parts of the country grade crossings are eliminated under the grade crossing fund. Let us be fair to the city of Toronto and to the province of Ontario, which contributes about 44 per cent of the total cash taxes of the dominion but which gets very little in the way of public undertakings. The people voted on this proposition on January 1, 1911, and, as I have said, the by-law was carried by a very large majority. I do not believe I can add anything to that which I have

Public Works Program

' already said, except to repeat that the minister is to be commended upon the proposed expenditure. It will greatly improve the city of Toronto. We know that during the war that city was selected as the headquarters for operations of the royal air force. Eighteen thousand cadets were in training, and this number does not include the mechanics. Camps were located at Leaside, Armour Heights, Long Branch, the University, and at various other points. I say Toronto is the logical center for an air port, and that such a development would be in keeping with the general growth of the country.
Only a short time ago we celebrated the silver jubilee of the reign of His Majesty the King. If hon. members would look back twenty-five years they would bring to mind the beginning of the harbour improvements program, at which time the government committed itself to expeditures both by contract and under the provisions of the British North America Act., At that time the prediction was made that when automobile and air transportation were developed railway travel would be eliminated. That however has not proven to be so, because to-day the railway is still the safest and most economical method of transportation; perhaps it always will be. Today aeroplanes are used to a very limited extent as a means of travel; then, in addition in Europe they are used for the transportation of rich men, by frightened politicians who in Europe go from capital to capital, and by embezzlers who wish to leave the country quickly. But in Canada an important part will soon be played by commercial aviation. We believe however that the proposed expenditure will supplement expenditures being made by the municipality, and that commercial aviation may in time assume a proper relationship to travel by land and water.
I suggest it is essential that the proposed expenditure be made. While I must observe that harbour development originated through a Conservative administration, politics has not played a very great part in the discussion of plans for the Toronto harbour and the Liberals settled the viaduct case for us. In 1924 the city of Toronto approached the then government, and I believe upon this occasion I would do well to pay tribute to the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Graham, for the part he played at that time.
As the hon. member for Parkdale has said, we are not asking very much. Out of an expenditure involving many millions of dollars we are asking only SI,000,000, and I believe the government would do well to make this expenditure.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the appropriation for the tunnel to Toronto island. Before proceeding to make further observations, however, I should like to make some comments on the remarks of the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) who I believe said that hon. members on his side of the house had not opposed the vote for the city of Toronto when, before the adjournment, the matter was under consideration. I would remind him that four hon. members sitting around him spoke in this connection and in each case opposed the expenditure.
First we heard the hon. member for West Lambton who, concluding his observations, said:
I think this committee as a whole believes that it would be to the better advantage of the city of Toronto if this amount of money weTe utilized for slum clearance instead of for the construction of this tunnel.
The question of slum clearance was not under discussion, nor does the bill refer to it. I would direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the bill referred to a tunnel, and that that was the matter under discussion. Then the hon. member for West Middlesex concluded his observations as follows:
But I think, Mr. Chairman, that this item ought to be cut out or stand until such time as the committee is given some satisfactory explanation in regard to it.
Again, concluding his remarks the hon. member for North Waterloo said:
Would it not be better for the balance of that $1,100,000 to be expended in the city of Toronto for other relief work which would provide the employment that this tunnel would give.
I say the tunnel is one item which will give employment. Whether or not under this vote the house would be prepared to discuss other means of providing employment, I do not know. I do say however that an expenditure for the building of a tunnel would provide employment, and I repeat that that is the subject now under discussion. Concluding his observations the hon. member for Melville said:
I do not think we should be asked to vote a million dollars to build a tunnel unless we know what it is for and how much it will really cost.
I suggest if the hon. member for Toronto West Centre had read the observations of hon. members on his side of the house-and perhaps he may have done so-he would have recognized that every speech made by his colleagues was made in opposition to the building of the tunnel.

Public Works Program
Now he rises in his seat and voices his opposition to this construction. He said that at some future time there may be good reason for connecting the island with the city of Toronto. I am one who believes the time has arrived when that should be carried out, and in view of the fact that 78 per cent of the money required for the tunnel's construction would be spent for direct and indirect labour I say this should be the proper time to do the work. That money would go into the pockets of workmen in cement mills and steel mills, and into the pockets of those men who in an indirect way, by their operations in factories, would supply material to do the work. Directly, money would go into the pockets of the men actually engaged in the operation. I can think of no item which has come before this house during the present session in which a greater percentage of the expenditure would go directly into the pockets of the working men.
Although I have not had time to digest the circular dealing with unemployment sent out by the hon. member for Temiscouata, I should like to commend him for his energy in compiling the details therein set forth. Upon casual consideration of these details one is amazed to learn the number of men unemployed simply because they have no trade and are in the class known as that of the labourer. In the building of a tunnel the ordinary labouring man would receive a great part of the expenditure, and I suggest that in this vote of a million dollars he would receive more than in any other items or other works of which one could think.
With no desire to criticize the hon. member, and merely by way of consideration of his observations, may I refer to the fact that the hon. member for Toronto West Centre stated that the scheme was one chiefly of developing the airport. As I see it the development of the airport is subsidiary to the building of the tunnel. In 1918 an agreement was entered into by the Toronto harbour commissioners and the federal government. Upon that occasion the then Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Robert Rogers, signed for the dominion. I believe at this point it will be proper to express my regret that the hon. member through illness has not been in his seat for some time, and I should like to state that the citizens of Toronto have a very warm spot in their hearts for him, and for the part he played in connection with the development of our harbour. I could present an argument for
92582-183}
the tunnel on the ground of the airport but the argument for the tunnel does not depend upon the airport scheme, although that is very necessary from the point of view of future development and additional reason for the tunnel.


Samuel Factor: Can the hon. gentleman say whether the government would be prepared to construct the tunnel without the airport?
Mr. MacNI'COL:	I am not speaking for
the government but I would support the government if it constructs the tunnel without any reference to the airport. The tunnel was part of the origitnal scheme of 1913. Under that original scheme the federal government had to do certain works. They have been detailed to the house before but it will do no harm for me to repeat them. The federal government undertook to build a western breakwater, an eastern breakwater, and to build bridges over the western gap and the eastern gap and the marginal way and perhaps some other items. As I understand it, the federal government has carried out its part of the agreement outside of the two bridges, one for the eastern gap and one for the western gap and the eastern breakwater.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Is it not a fact that certain other work was done by the federal government that was not contemplated in the 1913 agreement and it was understood that we should not continue with this tunnel?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understand that the
construction of a bridge over the western gap was in the agreement, and that part was not carried out. The engineers say to-day that it is not advisable to build a bridge, that the tunnel is the advisable thing to-day, and that part of the agreement should be carried out irrespective of anything else that is or is not to be carried out.
The city of Toronto had also to do certain works, and as I understand it the city of Toronto has carried out its part of the agreement one hundred per cent more or less. The harbour board had also to do certain work, and this work has been carried out to the extent of eighty per cent.
Anyone who is at all conversant with aviation must realize that if the time is opportune to build an airport, we have there an ideal situation for an airport. Planes are being built to larger and larger sizes, and according to the laws of aviation there must be a considerable distance between the point at which a plane first touches the ground and the point where it commences to descend. In the selection of airports that is a problem
Public Works Program

that all aviation engineers have to face, and from that point of view the proposed airport site is excellent, I am told, both for land planes and seaplanes.


Samuel Factor: How many acres?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot tell the hon.
member that, but he has the report of the Toronto harbour commission before him and he can find the answer to his question there.
The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) has detailed the amounts that each one of the parties to the 1913 agreement has already contributed. There has not been any finding of fault with the city of Toronto for not carrying out its part of the agreement because, as the member for East Toronto has just said, the city of Toronto has carried out its part and has spent 64 per cent of all the money that has been spent under all these agreements.
It has always surprised me, Mr. Chairman, to see the anxiety of certain hon. members on the other side of the house, not all belonging to one party, to oppose votes for the city of Toronto. The background of such a member passes my comprehension, how he can rise and oppose just requests from that great city. The Conservative members, ten of the twelve members from the county of York sitting in this house, have never in my recollection risen and opposed votes for the great city of Montreal, for instance. That is a port that any country may well be proud of. It is one of the great ports of the world, and I for one would be delighted at any time to support any vote for Montreal harbour which the harbour commission felt was for the benefit of that great port. Neither do I recall any instance where the ten of the twelve members from York county sitting on this side of the house have opposed any votes for the great harbour of Vancouver, which is rapidly growing to be one of the great harbours on the west coast of North America. And, similarly, with respect to the great ports of Halifax and Saint John. I would be glad to support any vote that would be for the benefit and welfare of this country, and particularly if it is a vote that will provide a lot of employment and provide a large amount of labour proportionately, which this proposed tunnel will do.
Some hon. member-I forget just who it was-said that this tunnel would benefit only a small number of people. But, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that when these works are completed the number of people who will benefit from them will be tremendously increased over to-day. I for one very seldom

go to the island. When I want to go I have to go down in my car and park it in some parking ground, or else go down by street car, and after having done either one or the other,
I have to go into a pen and stay there perhaps ten or fifteen minutes, perhaps not quite that length of time, and then I have to rush over a dock to a boat, and on returning from the island I have to go through exactly the same procedure. The result is that only a very small fraction of the mothers and children who would dearly love to go over from the city of Toronto to the island, if there were only some way to avoid all this trouble and the payment of two fares, do go over to the island to-day. Toronto island is one of the finest breathing spaces on the continent of North America. I have travelled a great deal, have visited many cities and have seen their parks and islands, and I say this without fear of contradiction, that there is not a finer park anywhere on the continent of America than on Toronto island, and I for one am opposed to the few permanent inhabitants of Toronto island attempting to preserve that island for themselves, if they are behind any opposition to this scheme, and I do not say they are. The great mass of humanity, thousands and thousands of mothers and hundreds of thousands of children would dearly love to get over to the island on one fare, and to get there without having to travel over on a boat.
I quite realize that the plan proposed1 at the moment does not permit of their riding around the island or riding perhaps very far on it, but the hon. member for Toronto West Centre knows as well as I do that the Toronto harbour board has so laid out its plans that within a reasonable length of time-I believe they say three years more or less-what is called the lagoon will be filled in, and street car or motor car traffic will be allowed to go right on to the main part of the island. Knowing the hon. member for Toronto West Centre as I do, knowing his interest in the comfort and happiness of the women and children of Toronto, I know that he would like to see these thousands of mothers and children have easy access to the island, and I really cannot understand his opposition to this vote.


Samuel Factor: The hon. member should see the houses in which these women and children live.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am in favour of slum clearance but that question is not before us; the question before us is the construction of a tunnel to Toronto island. If the government introduces a motion in connection with slum clearance I shall be only too glad to

Public Works Program
support it. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) referred to the amount of tonnage now entering Toronto harbour. As a citizen of Toronto I am proud of what the harbour board has done in this connection. The tonnage entering Toronto harbour is the third largest of any port in Canada, being exceeded only by Montreal and Vancouver. The Toronto harbour commission state that it would be practically impossible to build a bridge across the western entrance to the harbour. They state that if a bridge were built it would have to be lifted between six and seven thousand times during the season, so that taking everything into consideration a bridge is out of the question.
The hon. members from Toronto and the county of York

I shall not specify them- have at all times supported votes in favour of other large cities. As a member from Toronto I appeal to hon. members opposite to come forward and give our great city an opportunity to have every access to its island. This complete project will provide labour to the extent of over $1,000,000, taking into consideration the expenditures by the harbour board and by the government. The hon. member for East Toronto pointed out that Toronto furnishes twenty per cent of the revenue of Canada while Ontario furnishes forty-five per cent. I do not like to make comparisons with what other cities have received, but I would mention that last year and this year Montreal received over $9,000,000; Quebec received over $2,559,000; Halifax, $2,134,000; Saint John, $2,000,000 and Vancouver, $1254,000. If this vote is passed Toronto will have received, along with the votes of last year, a total of only $2,466,000. I do not think anyone can say that Toronto has been particularly favoured.
I cannot understand the attitude of hon. members opposite and particularly hon. members from Toronto or from the ridings adjacent thereto. I notice the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) is ready to get up and support his hon. friend. He lives in Toronto and represents a riding adjacent thereto and I am surprised at his seconding the motion of the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). I am surprised at his opposing the construction of a tunnel to the island.
The hon. member for Toronto West Centre referred to the elimination of grade crossings. I am in favour of such work as I believe there are some grade crossings in Toronto which should be eliminated. But the only question before us at the moment is the construction of a tunnel to the island and I contend that this vote will provide more labour than any other vote which has been passed recently by this
house. It will provide an easy access to the island and make possible a splendid airport for both sea and land planes. Of all the great cities on the continent of America, Toronto is the least favoured in this connection. Toronto is situated in the southerly portion of Ontario and is in close proximity to the great centres of population on the American side of the border. I feel quite confident that if we had an adequate airport there would be an increased air traffic betweeen Toronto and the great American cities.
There is a certain amount of opposition to a tunnel and the argument has been advanced that this matter came up in this house before being brought before the city council. I was glad to see the hon. member for Toronto West Centre at a meeting which was held in Toronto the other day. I will state quite frankly that the hon. member is as much interested in the city as I am. At that meeting the engineers of the Toronto harbour commission produced evidence to show that the procedure followed in this case was identical to that followed in every other case where the harbour board had applied to the government and there was no slight intended to the city council or any other civic body. If that is so I cannot see why there should be any opposition from the opposite side and particularly from hon. members from Toronto and adjacent ridings.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to clear up a point which seems to be in doubt in the mind of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. MacNicol). There is no hon. member on this side who does not agree with everything he has said with regard to the excellence of Toronto harbour. It is not a question of whether or not this shall go to Toronto, the question is whether this work should be done at all and particularly at the present time. If my hon. friend were in a position to say to the committee that the city council of Toronto was agreed upon this scheme he would have a much stronger argument.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend cannot say that the city council has expressed itself as being against this scheme.


John Campbell Elliott: Here is a proposal to
spend a million dollars and if the best argument he can make is that the city council is not opposed to it, that is not a very strong contention in favour of spending $1,000,000 in this way. I want to follow another suggestion which he threw out and it is this. It is not a question of opposition because this is Toronto; that is not the case at all. I believe that every member on this side would quite concur in the sug-
Public Works Program

gestion which I think was put forward by the hon. gentleman who just sat down, if I understood him correctly, that if there were substituted for this scheme the spending of this amount of money on slum clearance he would be in favour of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to put words into my mouth. I said I was heartily in favour of the tunnel, but the question of slum clearance was not before the house and if it came before the house I would support it as an altogether separate motion.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is now making himself clearer than he did before. I am perfectly agreeable, and I am satisfied that members on this side are perfectly agreeable to seeing this amount, if it could be arranged, devoted to the other purpose. If there could be substituted for this item the expenditure of this amount of money in slum clearance in Toronto, I do not believe there would be a dissenting voice.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are you or are you not in favour of building the tunnel?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think I am much more opposed to the building of the tunnel than my hon. friend, and I say so for this reason. The hon. gentleman said in his speech that so far as the tunnel was concerned he was anxious that it should be constructed, but that so far as making it a connection with the airport was concerned he was not very particular whether that took place at the present time or not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend has a
habit of putting words in other people's mouths. I made no such statement and I would ask him to be good enough not to attribute it to me.


John Campbell Elliott: I took down the exact
words my hon. friend used. He said: "I am in favour of the tunnel altogether without any reference to the airport." Perhaps the hon. gentleman will permit me to follow that up. He means by that, what I think is apparent to everyone, that the airport is now one of the reasons why they would support the building of the tunnel. That, I think, is what my hon. friend has in mind, and it is what others understood him to mean.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Pardon me again. My
hon. friend must not continue to misrepresent what I said. I distinctly made it clear just what I meant. I know he understood me correctly, but he is used to twisting witnesses in the witness box. Well, he will not get me mixed up that way. I distinctly said that

I was in favour of the tunnel, irrespective of the airport, but that the airport is necessary also, my argument being that the tunnel can stand on its own feet, and if the airport is added to it that makes two reasons why I am in support of the tunnel.


John Campbell Elliott: If the hon. gentleman did not make it clear before he has made it perfectly clear now, that the connection with the airport is not an essential feature of this scheme. Now I do not think there can be any doubt that there is a great difference of opinion in Toronto. I wonder if my hon. friend would say that a majority or a third of the people on the island are in favour of this scheme.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe that the island has or will have in the coming general election-it will be within the riding of the present member for Toronto West Centre-approximately 163 votes.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If my memory is correct it was about 163 the last election. Now if I have to choose between the wishes of 163 odd permanent residents on the island and seven or eight hundred thousand people off the island, my choice is rapidly and easily made. I am in favour of the great mass of the people.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not intend to get
into any argument with my hon. friend with regard to the merits or demerits of the great city of Toronto. Everyone knows that it is a great city, that it contributes a great deal to the revenues of the country and that it has a great harbour, and for the relief of unemployment in that city, or for that matter in any other part of the country, I do not think there is any great difference of opinion among the members here. Let me point out that the arguments that have been made in support of this bill are about the strongest arguments that could be made against it. First of all it was mentioned in the agreement that was made and not carried out-away back in 1912 or 1913, it has been said. Now if they got along all these years without carrying out that agreement it could not have been just as urgent as it would seem to be at the present time. I think the minister will have in his possession the memoranda relating to that agreement and probably the agreement itself; he was going to produce it when we were here before. I think he will agree with me when I say that the things that have taken place in the years since that agreement was made have practically waived that clause

Public Works Program
in the agreement so far as this government is concerned. That is to say, other things have been done by the federal department apparently more essential than the carrying out of that arrangement at that time. May I point out to my hon. friend that, as was mentioned by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), one of the leading newspapers of Toronto, when this matter was first brought forward, declared that it did not see any necessity for the tunnel. Apparently it was not in favour of the project. I understand, however, that several newspapers have recently written editorials in favour of it.


Mr. SPENCE:: The Globe changed its
mind since then.


John Campbell Elliott: That may be. I should
expect in a matter of this kind, if it were as good a proposition as my hon. friends suggest, if it were as necessary as they tell us, in the present state of the country's finances, it would have occurred to the newspapers in that city that it was a good thing; it would have occurred to them right away and we should not have seen any articles against it.
At the present time our finances demand that only those things that are absolutely essential shall be done. That is one of the greatest reasons why we shoidd scrutinize with the utmost care every one of these items. I wonder if the committee would permit me to read an editorial that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of April 22. That is a journal that does not criticize severely appropriations made by this government. It says:
That proposed Toronto tunnel.
We dislike saying it, and' for obvious reasons


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Inasmuch as the article from which the hon. gentleman is quoting is a comment on an item now under discussion before the committee, it is out of order. It is introducing a new member into the house, the Ottawa Journal.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not for a moment think that the chairman would go so far as to rule that newspaper statements regarding the advisability of expenditures included in an appropriation bill that is under consideration cannot be read. However, I am not going to argue the point. What this paper says is that every opportunity should be afforded to the people of Toronto to escape from themselves and their environment, but in answer to the argument that the dominion is obligated because of some agreement in 1913 it says:
A fairly reasonable answer to that, we suggest, is that if this agreement has been let stand for twenty-two years it won't harm anybody much to let it stand a little longer.
That is the point. This proposed expenditure is in the way of relief, that is the argument. It is not an urgent matter otherwise. Then it continues:
A million dollars, in these days, is a lot of money. If it has to be spent then by all means let it be spent in some way or for something that will give people work. Later on, when we get out of these woods, we can consider that world's hub in Toronto.
As far as Toronto is concerned I think my hon. friend will give me credit for having always taken a fairly generous attitude towards that city.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why are you fighting against Toronto labour now?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not fighting against Toronto labour, I do not intend to let my hon. friend get away with that argument. I am quite prepared to agree to this money being expended for relief in the city of Toronto in any reasonable way, but I say there will not be a large percentage of this expenditure go into the pockets of labourers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Seventy-eight per cent.


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all. In the second place I say that this is not the kind of expenditure that should be made in a crisis such as we are in at present, for a work between an island owned by the city of Toronto and the city, connecting it with an airport. That is the reason I am opposing it, and I suggest that any other reasonable expenditure of that amount of money that will relieve unemployment will be supported-I know I am expressing the opinion of everyone on this side of the house-supported by all members on this side. But we cannot go home and justify an expenditure for this purpose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Toronto members supported the building of the London post office.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend be silent for a moment? We have certain responsibilities. I ask hon. members on the other side who are going back to ridings similar to the ridings that a number of us represent, can they go back and justify at the present time an expenditure of a million dollars for a purpose of this kind? They cannot. For that reason I submit that the government should not press this. Do not let it get into the position of arguing for or against Toronto. Toronto is a great city, the great city of Ontario, a credit to Ontario, and the works that have been done in the harbour there are a great credit to the gentleman who designed them and those who assisted in carrying them
Public Works Program

out. But this is not the kind of expenditure that can be justified at this time, therefore I suggest to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Public Works that they relieve unemployment in some other way than by a fancy scheme of this land that will not appeal to the people of this country at this time.


Mr. GEARY:: It occurred to me as I
listened to my hon. friends on the other side that they are quite aware of the adage that there are more ways of killing a cat than stuffing it with butter. The indications are clear enough that by whatever means it be done, or whatever arguments may be advanced, this vote is to be done away with. My hon. friend who has just sat down introduced the suggestion, entirely out of his own imagination, that the city council or city authorities do not want this. What possible evidence is there of that? There is no evidence that they do or do not.


William Daum Euler: Some do not. Does my hon. friend say the city council are unanimously in favour of it?


George Reginald Geary: They may be or may not, I do not know, but the city council have always been in favour of this work, the people of Toronto have always been in favour of it, and there has been no change in the situation that my friends can point to. That idea is only dragged in because of some newspaper editorial that my hon. friend has read.


William Daum Euler: What about Controller Mc-
Bride?
Mr. GEARY':	A newspaper reports that
some controller has opposed it. I do not know that he has so expressed himself.


William Daum Euler: Ho certainly has according
to the paper.


George Reginald Geary: Are we to carry or reject
this vote on such a report before the matter has been up for discussion in the city council? That shows how far-fetched are the arguments adduced to destroy this vote.


Mr. GRAY:: Did the hon. member know himself that this item was going into the bill?


George Reginald Geary: I see it in the bill, that is
all I know about it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: That is the first you knew of it?


George Reginald Geary: It is in the bill. What
difference does it make whether I knew it on Monday or Wednesday? It is in the bill and the people of Toronto want this item passed. It is true that is not an argument why it should be passed but I am stating the facts in
(Mr. Elliott.]
opposition to what has been said by hon. members opposite. There are some people opposed to this, always have been since 1913 and before. Those, generally speaking, are people who pass their summers on the island, they want it kept exclusively for themselves. But hundreds of thousands of the common people of Toronto want to get over there, and for the moment they are prevented because they have to pay two fares to get there. This will allow them to get on the island for one street railway fare from whatever part of Toronto in which they happen to live.


Mr. MULOCK:: What about the airport?


George Reginald Geary: There was not any such
thing heard of twenty-two years ago. When the agreement was made for a bridge in 1913 no one dreamed of airports. A bridge was agreed upon on the insistence of the people who wanted access to the island long before airships were heard of, let alone airports.
My hon. friend protests too much his desire to help Toronto in some way, in any way but that immediately at hand. I say frankly that I thoroughly agree that we would like all sorts of money spent on Toronto, I would like to see housing schemes, a new court house, any one of the things suggested, but hon. members who made those suggestions know as well as they know that they are sitting there that there is no hope of getting them at the present time, because those things have not been considered. If they succeed in getting this item knocked out of the estimates this money will not be spent in Toronto. And 8700,000 of it would go in labour. I am interested in this because this work will be at the bottom end of the constituency which I represent and hope still to represent in this House of Commons. The people of that constituency are more interested than those in ridings to the right or left, but in common with all the people of Toronto they are interested in getting to this beauty spot across the bay.
What is the use of talking of allocating the amount of this vote to a housing scheme? The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) who is chairman of the housing committee presented a most excellent report with which this house will be called upon to deal. That predicates a housing scheme taken by and large, not one applicable only to the city of Toronto. How can Toronto expect special treatment in regard to slum clearance and housing when the whole dominion is crying for it, when any scheme must be general and fair to the east and west as well as to the centre? We cannot hope for that.

Public Works Program
My hon. friend suggested the construction of a court house. Who ever heard of the dominion government spending money in order to build a court house, which clearly comes within the sole jurisdiction of another authority? My hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) said we had run along for twenty-two years without this tunnel. That is quite true, and it is quite possible that we could run along for another twenty-two years.


John Campbell Elliott: I was just quoting from
a newspaper which supports my hon. friend very strenuously, the Ottawa Journal.


George Reginald Geary: Yes, quoting it with
approval and adopting the language as your own, I take it. It is quite true that we have run along for twenty-two years, but the matter has become more urgent all the time. We might run along for another twenty-two year3, but this is the opportune and proper time to carry out the work. Why should there be delay when the money is offered to us by the government, to be spent in the city of Toronto? My hon. friend makes a point of the airport. I am quite willing to agree with him on that matter; I am quite willing to say that this will be of great advantage to the city of Toronto, inasmuch as it will connect the mainland and the city with the airport. That airport is an actual thing at the moment, although at present it is devoted only to seaplanes. Toronto must have its airport, and according to the best authorities this is the proper place for it.
For twenty-two years at least, to my knowledge, the idea has been held that there should be access to the island around the lake shore, both from the western and the eastern channel, and I say the time is opportune to provide that access. The dominion has made a solemn agreement to construct this undertaking, so why should we refuse the offer of the government, one party to the agreement, at this time?
I do not desire to repeat arguments that have been advanced already. Let me say in summing up that twenty-two years ago the dominion entered into a solemn bargain to construct this undertaking. We are still bound by that bargain, and now the dominion says it will implement the agreement and do its part. As I say, this is an opportune time, because we can spend from 8780,000 to $1,000,000 for direct labour in the city of Toronto. It is true that this tunnel will connect one part of the city of Toronto with the rest of the city, but this is a harbour. The city of Toronto could have operated its
little ferry boats across this gap had it chosen to do so, but the requirements of the harbour navigation prohibit anything of the kind. The harbour authorities knew that shipping would be interfered with if a fleet of small ferry boats should be operated; across that gap, and they decided that they could not operate the entrance properly with any such disturbance of navigation.
I need not go into the question of cost, because the tunnel will cost about the same as the bridge which the government agreed to construct. One point I should like to make, however, and which I urge upon members of this house, is that this undertaking is designed to help the common people of the city of Toronto reach a part of the city to which they are denied access at the present moment. This is the most beautiful part of the city, I think, during the summer months; it should be a playground for the people but now it is reserved for the few. Those of us who are anxious to see that the common people get all that can be given them are most anxious that this item should pass. It will not be money wasted; it will be money well spent, and for many reasons this is an opportune time to proceed with the work.


James Houston Spence: Mr. Chairman, as another Toronto member I want to apologize for rising, because I think perhaps enough has been said from this side of the house. I do not see why this item could not have been put through in five minutes, nor do I see why it should have been opposed as it has been by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott). The hon. gentleman says he has supported many things for Toronto, but I never noticed that although I have watched his career ever since he has been in this house. The hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary) has expressed my views and put forward many of the arguments I was going to put forward, so I need not repeat what he has said. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), however, does not know what he is talking about when he makes the statement that the city council of Toronto are not behind this proposal. I have information to the contrary, and I think it will be found that the city council of Toronto are almost unanimous in their support. At the most I believe there is only one member against it, but one swallow does not make a summer. I must say that if other public men were as small as the hon. member for Toronto West Centre the city of Toronto to-day would not be much bigger than Newmarket or Aurora. I have
Public Works Program,

just had laid before me editorials from all the Toronto newspapers in support of this project. I do not want to read them; I do not want to take up the time.
I believe men who are elected by the people should have a vision of the future, but sometimes the vision exhibited in this house is not very great, even in connection with the development of a greater Canada. I remember that when I was a member of the city council of Toronto there were some public men who were very small, and I advanced the same argument then that I brought forward to-day, that if it depended on such people the city would not be bigger than Newmarket or Aurora. But that is not the class of men who build up. I have been behind every public development in Toronto since 1890, and particularly since I entered the city council in 1910. I was with my good friend from Toronto South on the first inspection made by the harbour board, in 1912, and I may say that the present consulting engineer of the harbour board is the gentleman who was chief engineer at that time. I believe he has made a splendid job of the Toronto harbour, and I think that harbour should be given credit by all Canada, and particularly by the province of Ontario, for the developments that have taken place. In Toronto harbour we have the third largest tonnage in Canada to-day. Montreal is first; Vancouver is next and Toronto is third, unless it happens that Saint John gets a few boatloads of wheat. I believe Toronto should be given some encouragement.
The agreements entered into in 1912 and 1913 between the harbour board, the city of Tononito and the government dealt with bridges. There was some diversity of opinion at that time, because we had people like the hon. member for Toronto West Centre, who had friends on the island who wanted to keep the island for themselves. The opposition to this tunnel comes from a very small minority, probably not more .than five per cent of the people of that city. One horn, member quoted me as having said that there would be no maintenance cost in oomneotion with a tunnel, while there would be in connection with a bridge. I did not say anything of the kind; I said the maintenance of a tunnel to the island would not cost nearly so much as the maintenance of a bridge. The tunnel will cost Sl.000.000 to construct, while the bridge will cost $800,000 or $900,000. The bridge will have to be of steel construction'; it will be an inconvenience all the time it is there, and after forty years it will have to be replaced. That is why Toronto has not been
fMr. Spence.]
agitating for the construction of a bridge. Many of us saw that it would be foolish to put a bridge there, because -of the' 'traffic through the western gap, which has greatly increased in the last few years. It must be remembered that the western gap has been dredged through solid nock to a depth of 27 feet; that is why our business has increased. The eastern gap cannot be dredged; it is sand bottom, which fills in again. The western gap always will be deep enough to accommodate any ships that come through the Welland canal.
I hope the members of this house will see to it that Toronto gets a fair deal. The exMinister of Public Works said this project would not provide .any labour, but I say he is wrong, and I think I know more about it than he does. I have been behind the construction of many bridges and hundreds of miles of roads, and I know how labour enters into the construction of these undertakings. This job will provide more labor in the city of Toronto than would be provided by any other job. There has been talk of a court house. Why should the dominon government build a court house .there? I believe we must have this airport, to keep pace with the cities of the United States. Take a trip to that country and see the beautiful airports they have established. We need this airport to provide another link in the chain of airports which it is proposed to build from Halifax to Vancouver. It must be remembered that at the present time seaplanes are travelling between the north country and the city of Toronto, and they must have accommodation where there is water. Why not bring the airport there too, and have them both together? The airport on Dufferin street is about six or seven miles from the centre of the city, and the one now suggested would be much more convenient. I fully realize that after the tunnel is built the city of Toronto will have to spend money, but the .maintenance charges will be nothing compared with the original cost of the work.
Aeroplanes now coming to Toronto do not land under favourable conditions, and particularly is that so when weather conditions are not favourable. I have never been in an aeroplane in my life; I have not enough nerve to ride in one, but I know that the conditions in Toronto should be improved. The proposed airport would be of a first class type; it would be up to date and probably one of the best on the continent. That is the way Toronto builds. Toronto spends money in development, and for that reason I suggest the vote now before us should have support.

Public Works Program
I hope hon. members. in the corner of the chamber, belonging to the third party, will see their way clear to lend their support. It ill behooves any hon. member-the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray), or any other hon. member-to rise in his place and knock any improvement for the city of Toronto. I would depend on the support of the hon. members of the third party rather than the support of the hon. member for West Lambton. It is ridiculous to observe how members from western Ontario knock the city of Toronto. I do not wish to read editorials, nor is it my desire to take up further time, but I do hope the house will delay no longer in the matter and will proceed to give Toronto the square deal it deserves.
As the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) has said, that city has spent millions of dollars on improvements, but it receives no encouragement. I shall not talk about what we receive, nor shall I go into detail about the money voted for the port of Montreal. I realize it is an ocean port, and I would add that hon. members have never heard representatives from Toronto kicking about expenditures made in Montreal. Further, we are not getting this million dollars for nothing; it is to be spent to give relief, and will not be wasted. We will be building for the future. More than seventy per cent of the money will be spent for labour.


William Pate Mulock: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mac-Nicol) has stated that this expenditure is to be made upon the western entrance to Toronto harbour. If he will look at the front page of the bill he will see that it is "an act to create employment by public works" and so on. Hon. members on this side of the house are not opposing expenditures in the city of Toronto; in fact I regret the government has seen fit to make provision for only a million dollars in the proposed expenditures. If the money were to be expended upon some sort of useful work I would be quite willing to support it.


James Houston Spence: The same kind of bunk.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where does the hon. member stand?


William Pate Mulock: 
James Houston Spence: The government is not spending SI.600,000; the city of Toronto is spending all over a million.


William Pate Mulock: Yes, the city of Toronto would be called upon to pay that.


James Houston Spence: Please do not mislead the house.


William Pate Mulock: If the hon. member had been paying attention he would know that I made it quite clear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And more than five people will be employed.


William Pate Mulock: We received the information that five people would be employed at the port. I wish it understood that in that connection I am not referring to the construction work, because I previously stated that work would afford employment to many men. In the opinion of hon. members on this side however, more useful work could be done. There is no use saying that we are trying to block the expenditure of this money in the city of Toronto, because that statement would not be correct. We are quite satisfied to see money spent in that city, if it is spent for useful purposes. If the government would see fit to use the money for slum clearances hon. members on this side would support the expenditure of a million dollars, or even a million and a half. Unfortunately hon. members opposite take the attitude that because we contend the building of the tunnel is not justified and is not a proper project, we are opposed to spending money in the city of Toronto. That is not a true representation of our position.


James Houston Spence: Would you vote for a Newmarket canal to pump the water up the hill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Public Works Program


Mr. HEAPS:: Before the vote is carried I should like to speak to another point quite apart from the building of the Toronto tunnel.
I speak about the providing of employment and the manner in which it is being attended to in some parts of the country. I have before me a communication the contents of which I wish to place before hon. members. I realize that when a party is in opposition it is most virtuous-and I believe that observation would apply to all parties.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: What about your party?


Abraham Albert Heaps: We are of the opposition. Upon several occasions the question of patronage has been discussed, and as a rule it has been raised by members of the opposition. From my seat this afternoon I again raise the question of patronage and direct the attention of hon. members to the manner in which work is being provided under the government's relief scheme.
I have before me a communication from the city of Calgary. This communication comes from the carpenters' union, one of the largest unions in the city of Calgary, and in it we find the complaint that in connection with the construction of the barracks in that city work is being given to men who are practically nominated through channels which ought not to have control of the providing of the work. I should be pleased to hand- the communication to the Minister of Public Works but I must observe that a statement should be made by the minister here and now to the effect that in giving work on these public undertakings no political interference is allowed.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Has the hon. member read the amendment I .moved immediately prior to the adjournment?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am sorry to say that I was not in the house upon that occasion. The communication before me comes from a responsible labour organization, and in it the complaint is made that a person has to have certain political credentials before his name is placed on the eligible list of those entitled to work. That condition should not obtain in any part of Canada. I do not know whether or not the Minister of Public Works is aware of such a condition, but I believe it is common knowledge that in .many quarters certain political influence is necessary before men are allowed to obtain work on the relief undertakings. That to my mind is one of the bad features of political life. A few years ago when the Conservative party were in opposition they claimed that men who wanted 
to get work on the Rideau canal relief works had to apply through certain officials of the party then in power before they could obtain work, and I remember the howl that came from the Conservative party. To-day of course the situation is reversed and there is no howl from the Conservative party in regard to providing work. I do hope that the Minister of Public Works from his place in this house will state definitely and most emphatically that so far as he and the government are concerned they will use every means in their power to prevent the unemployment situation being used as a political factor to provide work for the men who are unfortunately out of work at this time. I would like a statement from the minister before the item carries.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in discussing the subject that has been raised by my hon. friend. It is one of difficulty and one that has given the department a good deal of concern. The department does not desire that in the carrying out of these works there should be discrimination on any ground1 whatever. In some cases, as. my hon. friend knows, the work is carried out by contract and' the employment of the labour upon the work undertaken is to a large extent under the control of the contractor. I think my hon. friend will agree that the government cannot in a case of that kind dictate to the contractor whom he shall employ.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask who provides the contractor with lists of names?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not the government that provides them. I do know that the contractors in some cases get lists from various sources. They get them from unemployment agencies, from churches, from returned soldier organizations, from Daughters of the Empire, and other bodies. The fact is that a contractor is simply swamped with applications for employment. The government leaves it largely to the contractor whom he shall employ, with this reservation, that we stipulate in our contracts that he must employ a reasonable quota of returned soldiers and local labour where it is available and competent. That is as far as we can go, I think, in reason with the contractor. If we go further, then the contractor has the right to make a claim for extras or anything else if you are going to dictate to him just whom he shall employ.
As to the work at Calgary that my hon. friend refers to specifically, that is under the control not of this department but of the

Public Works Program
Department of National Defence; but I do know that the government has no policy of discrimination and that it does not dictate or control in the matter of those who shall be employed on these works. It is not done through political channels, and it does not meet with the approval of the government if it is. But we do meet with this situation, that sometimes where friends of the opposition have been in control in a province, the complaint has been made that a Conservative cannot get work there at all, and these people come and argue that because they have been deprived of that work they should be given work by this government. We often get that complaint.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, when this item was under discussion last month I made some objection to it, and I did so for one reason only. It was that I felt that this amount of $1,000,000 could be expended to much better advantage in the city of Toronto than for the purpose which is indicated here, the building of a tunnel from the mainland to the island.' I am confirmed in that opinion, despite all that the hon. members on the other side have said as to the unanimity of opinion in the Toronto city council, when I find it stated in the Toronto press, and I do not think they are all incorrect, that at least one very prominent member of that council, a controller of long experience, stated exactly what I said in this house over a month ago, that he thought the money could be expended for unemployment relief in much better ways than by building a tunnel to the island.
One other reason, and it was voiced I think by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff) before the recess: Certain things fall strictly within the category of municipal obligations, while others are within the category of national obligations, and it does seem to me that the building of a tunnel entirely within the city of Toronto, if it is desirable, should be paid for, to put it bluntly, by the people of Toronto rather than by adding to the general taxes upon the Canadian people. I am confirmed in that opinion not only when I find it stated here that there is disagreement in the city council with regard to the matter, but when the members themselves from that great city do not seem to be agreed as to the propriety of carrying out this work.


James Houston Spence: The hon. member should not make that statement. He has no evidence of that at all.


William Daum Euler: I have the evidence from the paper that I am sure my hon. friend reads every morning.


James Houston Spence: Never mind the paper.
Make your own statement.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend has had his say, and he may have another one if he likes later on. I named the Globe when I referred to this matter a month ago.


James Houston Spence: You quoted the Globe, but it was not the Globe that was speaking at all.


William Daum Euler: I quoted an editorial from the Toronto Globe which stated that both the tunnel and the ferry were not required, that either one or the other was unnecessary, and that already a contract had been made for the providing of a ferry to do the work that is supposed to be done by this proposed tunnel. Now I read in the news columns of the Mail and Empire that Controller McBride is very definitely opposed to the construction of this tunnel. How are we supposed to get our information? I cannot sit in at the meetings of the Toronto city council, but I take it that the Mail and Empire is correct when it reports Controller McBride of Toronto as being opposed to the construction of this tunnel.
Another point I should like to bring out- and it has been brought forward as a very important factor in this question-is that the federal government many years ago committed itself to the construction of bridges over both the eastern and the western channels I think I am coiTect in that. It is said now that the tunnel is to be a substitute for the bridges. Now I read this report in the Mail and Empire of Saturday of a meeting that was held at which the Toronto members w ere present, and the consulting engineer of the harbour commission, Mr. Cousins, is reported as follows:
He (Mr. Cousins) assured Mr. Church that the city and harbour commission, if it accepted the tunnel as a substitute for a bridge over the western channel, would not in any way be abrogating or surrendering its rights under the o d agreement whereby the government is obligated eventually to bridge both the eastern and western channels.
According to that, the city of Toronto is not going to accept this tunnel as a substitute for the bridges mentioned in the contract many years ago, but they will get the tunnel and then later on they will come along and ask for the bridges as well. I throw that out as showing somewhat of an inconsistency.


James Houston Spence: That statement is not true. I was at that meeting.


Samuel Factor: So was I, and it is true.


William Daum Euler: We who are not residents of Toronto cannot be in attendance at their council meetings, and surely we are justified
Public Works Program

in depending somewhat on the newspapers of that city to tell us what actually goes on. There is no question in my mind that both Controller McBride and Mr. Cousins said something very similar to what I have quoted from this paper to-day.
I do not desire to take up any more time. My opposition, such as it is, is twofold. First, I believe that this money could be expended to better advantage at this time than for the construction of a tunnel, and, second, if it is a good thing for the city of Toronto, I am of the opinion that it becomes the duty of that city to provide the tunnel rather than to have it provided out of taxes paid by the Canadian people.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I should like to refer
to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) in connection with patronage. The minister has outlined the policy which he states has been followed by his department. I do not know whether that policy is followed only in Ontario; I know it is not followed in the part of the country from which I come and especially in the district which I represent. I want to say quite plainly that in the construction of public works since this government has come into power, more especially last year and this year, only friends of the Conservative party could obtain employment. I refer particularly to certain works at Pointe au Pic.


James Houston Spence: That is absolutely wrong.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In order to obtain employment a man must be recommended by the gentleman who is to be the next standard bearer of the Conservative party. I should like the minister to tell me if a different system is in use in Ontario and other parts of the country. The same procedure was carried out in connection with works at Ste. Anne de Beaupre. Only those who worshipped at the altar of my hon. friends opposite were able to get a few days' work.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to say a word or two in reply to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). I am not altogether satisfied with the statement he has made. He seemed to imply that in certain parts of the country only Liberals could get work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said that that was the complaint made to us.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We now have another complaint that only friends of another political party can get employment. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I do not think we can argue on that basis. I contend that any form

of political patronage in providing work to those who are unemployed is absolutely wrong and cannot possibly be defended by any hon. member. No matter where the works may be located, there should be no patronage in connection with the providing of work. The party in power, whether federally or provincially, is the only party which can put a stop to this practice. I have always been in favour of no patronage in connection with the granting of contracts and the providing of employment. I should like to read an extract from a communication received from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, local union No. 1779, at Calgary. Alberta, as follows:
Contractors opened lists for the carpenters who had worked for them at various periods, and many workmen hoped that after waiting many months for the work to begin, at least they would be able to get a few days' employment. Now we are to understand that the only hope of ever getting work on the barracks job is when his name is on the approved list which is furnished to the contractors.
The minister has said that these lists might be furnished by the Daughters of the Empire, churches and other organizations, but he did not say that they might also be furnished by the political party in power. The communication continues:
The members of local 1779 request that when parliament is opened a protest be vigorously made against the practice of using this patronage list as it is debarring carpenters who are loyal and have been citizens of this country for the last twenty-five to thirty years, also a large percentage of the members being ex-service men. Owing to this approved list being used certain carpenters are being given employment by the various contractors on the scheme, thereby making it impossible for others to get employment.
I think that statement is fairly definite. It is quite true that this particular work does not come entirely within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works but I assume that what applies in this instance will be applicable to other public works being undertaken by this country. I wish the minister would be explicit in answering this important question. I feel we are only aggravating a problem which has been a sore spot in the political life of this country for many years. It would appear that men who have lived in Calgary for twenty-five or thirty years, men who have served overseas, are being discriminated against because they happen to be members of a trade union and their names do not appear on an approved list. The minister was careful to make the statement that he objected strongly to such lists being given to contractors no matter

Public Works Program
from what source they came, but I wish he would be more explicit and state that he objected to lists being provided by any political party. I have no objection to semipublic organizations or churches providing contractors with lists of eligible members, but I do object strongly and always have objected to lists being provided by political parties.


Mr. QUINN:: Are these men not entitled to work?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. but through the proper channels. The contractor should have the privilege of choosing his employees and this should bo done on a fair and proper basis. After all is said and done, a political party does not gain by such practices and no hon. member can defend them either in or out of the house. I say they should be stopped. We are on the verge of providing vast sums of money for the construction of public works and I should like the minister to state in no uncertain terms that he will raise his voice and the voice of the government to put an end to this practice so that a man in need of work will not have to obtain it through a political organization.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I should
like to refer briefly to the point raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I could not help but wonder while he was speaking whether the charge he makes was founded on knowledge or fact or simply upon the letter from which he quoted. There is a large number of unemployed in Winnipeg and I think my hon. friend is well informed as to the method that is adopted in placing men on the different works being constructed. At the present time there is approximately $3,000,000 worth of buildings under construction in Winnipeg, and so far as I know there is no system of political lists or political influence in connection with the employment of men. I have made it my business to keep in close touch with this matter because it so happens that the whole $3,000,000 is being expended in my constituency. I take no special credit for this as it happens that my constituency is situated in the heart of the city in which the works are being constructed. I am constantly in touch with it, and even if I did not seek to keep in touch with it there are sufficient unemployed to oblige me to do so.
The circumstances are these. The buildings are erected under contracts let by the government after public tenders have been invited and in each instance the contract is let to a
reputable firm submitting the lowest tender. The government exercises no control whatever as to who shall be employed on these works. When a contractor gets a contract for the work it is his responsibility to carry out the work in accordance with the plans and specifications and to a degree of workmanship which will pass the architect in charge of construction; apart from the supervision by the architect the government exercises no control whatever so far as the personnel of those employed is concerned, with this reservation, that in all contracts there is a specification to the effect that the contractor shall employ a reasonable quota of ex-service men. That is the only reservation.
With a view to seeing that that provision was carried out in spirit, I made it my business as soon as the works were undertaken to communicate at once with all ex-service men's organizations in greater Winnipeg, in order to obtain from them a list of needy unemployed ex-service men. I also asked them not to confine the list to membership in their organizations but to include all ex-service men who were in need of employment. These lists were made up by the organizations themselves from such sources as were available to them, and these names were supplied to the contractors. So that a contractor could not say, "I did not know whom to employ in the carrying out of that provision of the specifications." I can say this and say it very frankly and truthfully, that there was no question at all about the politics of returned men. If a man was an ex-service man in need of work he qualified. Thousands of names were submitted to me and I can say to the hon. member for North Winnipeg that no question was asked nor any information sought as to the politics of any man. These lists were placed with the contractors in order to put them in a position to carry out the spirit of the contract. Apart from that the contractors employed their own men and they are responsible for carrying out the works according to plans and specifications to pass the architect. They employ their own men. But with a view to seeing that those really in need of work obtained employment as far as possible, representations are made to the contractors from time to time by various organizations, by the federal representative on unemployment relief and by other agencies in the city of Winnipeg, all non-political. If the practice which has been indicated by the hon. member for North Winnipeg prevailed to any large extent at this time, surely it would come to our notice in the city of Winnipeg.
I say that it does not exist.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I accept the explanation of
my hon. friend. I have never made any
Public Worhs Program

complaint regarding the way in which things are done in Winnipeg. I say that in all fairness to the hon. gentleman and in fairness to the manner in which matters have been conducted in connection with' the granting of employment. I based my whole statement on the communication I have received and I put that statement before the house, with the name of the organization that sent it and the one that signed it, a veTy large and responsible organization in Calgary, and I do not think there can be any doubt about the correctness of it.
I believe that certain statements have been made in this house in regard to other parts of the country and have gone without refutation. What I plead for is that where the practice prevails under which men who are out of work find it necessary to pass through any political organization that practice be stopped as soon as possible. It is a bad practice; to use an expression which has been used in this house before, it is a vicious principle. I know that complaints usually come from parties in opposition, but so far as Winnipeg is concerned we have done fairly well in this regard; we have not asked men out of work what their political affiliations have been or are at the present time. I trust that the minister wall state from his place that where the practice prevails-I do not say that he has knowledge of it-it will be stopped once for all.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I hope that before this carries
we shall discuss an amendment which was moved on April 17, which deals to some extent with matters mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). I presume that the committee will complete the schedule before discussing clause 2 as a W'hole. I wish to express again my objections to the vote of $1,000,000 for the Toronto tunnel. It has been suggested this afternoon by some hon. members opposite that those of us who oppose this vote oppose it because it is for Toronto. It is not because it is for Toronto but because we are surprised that the city of Toronto cannot find a better purpose for the money.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ross Wilfred Gray: When the committee rose I was calling attention to the fact that members on this side have been criticized for opposing this vote, and it was suggested that they were opposing it because it was a vote for the city of Toronto. If hon. members will read the

statements made from this side of the house on April 17 they will see that we emphatically stated that we were criticizing this vote not because a million dollars was being allocated to the city of Toronto for a public work as an emergency measure, but because we felt that the city of Toronto, the second largest city in the Dominion of Canada, could surely find works more essential than a tunnel proposition involving that expenditure. One has only to review the reasons that have been given to this committee by various hon. members from the other side, to realize how far apart even members from the city of Toronto are to the reasons for including this item in this bill and I might include in that the minister who is ini charge of the1 bill. The minister has stated that this vote is in satisfaction of an obligation entered into many years ago. Upon investigation we1 find that if there is an obligation at all it is to build a bridge, and the need for that has been done away with. Furthermore, according to the Minister of Public Works we are to vote a .million dollars in respect of an obligation entered into some twenty-two years ago; certainly, therefore, there is no emergency about it. Nor should .there have been any secrecy about it., certainly not the secrecy in regard to this whole project which I shall endeavour to show has prevailed as concerns not only members of this house but also the Toronto city council.
What does the hon. member for Toconto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) say? He says that the key .to the whole situation is the airport. We must develop this airport, he says; it is one of the great airports of this continent. That is borne out 'by what has been said in the press .and elsewhere by the chairman of the Toronto harbour commission. The hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mac-Niool) is not much concerned with the question whether it is an obligation or an airport; one would almost take it that he would not be concerned abouit it at all; so long as it is a Tory vote he would vote for it. But his main suggestion is: We are going to undertake ithis work, not to develop am airport or to fulfil an. obligation but in order that the people .of Toronto may enjoy this island resort and take their picnic baskets there. If his speech meant anything that is what it meant. I suggested, and hon. members criticized me to some extent for it, that this vote instead of being for the purpose' of building a tunnel should have been for the purpose-not- Limited necessarily to a million dollars-of starting the necessary work of slum clearance in Toronto.. My hon. friend

Public Works Program
the .member for Toronto Northwest said: We have only this vote to consider, and we cannot consider any other; we cannot consider slum clearance, for that is not under debate. I grant that what we have before us here is a vote of a million dollars for a tunnel. When .this bill was introduced on April 15, 1935, this house did not have the report of the housing committee, but it did have sufficient evidence of what had taken place before that committee. If horn, members will read the evidence taken before the special committee on housing they will find that the committee decided, I think without dissent, that slum clearance would have to be introduced as a federal aid measure.
It is not the kind of thing that can be done in cooperation with private enterprise or for which you can get private funds; it has to be undertaken by the federal government, in cooperation perhaps with the municipality or the province. As I pointed out on April 17, the legislature of Ontario introduced a bill permitting the municipalities to treat some slum clearance as a relief measure. Hon. members on both sides of the house had in their hands on April 15 when this bill was introduced the Bruce report. Again I am going to read a paragraph of that report dealing with slum conditions in the city of Toronto. I know the hon. member for Toronto Northwest is sincere in his desire to better the condition of the people of that city; I know that all hon. gentlemen who represent Toronto are sincere in that desire. But when they speak of contributing to the happiness of the people by enabling them to get to this island by means of a tunnel, let them read what Hon. Doctor Bruce said in his report concerning slum conditions in Toronto. Remember that this report came out long before the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) introduced his motion to set up a special committee on housing; it was in the hands of hon. members before this session commenced. On page 115 of the report we read:
Our survey of Toronto housing conditions reveals that there are thousands of families living in houses which are insanitary, verminous and grossly overcrowded....
Bad houses are not only a menace: they are active agents of destruction. The committee is satisfied from its investigations and inquiries that they destroy happiness, health and life. They destroy morality and family ties. They destroy the basis of society itself by their destruction of self-respect and their promotion of delinquency and crime.
I ask the hon. member for Toronto Northwest, if as he says we are considering only this particular item-and I agree it is the 92582-184
item now before us-whether before this item was placed in Bill No. 63 he was consulted as to what he considered the most essential measure to be introduced to relieve unemployment in the city of Toronto.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I answer the hon.
gentleman's question?


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The vote now before
the committee calls for $1,000,000. If what the hon. gentleman now suggests, namely slum clearance, had been considered by the government, the vote would not have been for 81,000,000; it would necessarily have had to be for many millions of dollars, because land purchase alone in the downtown areas of the city would consume that amount and there would not be a dollar left for building.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am sorry I did not make
myself clear. I repeat that this bill was introduced on the 15th day of April. The report of the housing committee was considered in camera, and certainly at that time my hon. friend did not know what that committee would report. But whether or not he knew that, at the time this bill was introduced and prior to that time, even prior to the allocation of 81,000,000 for a tunnel between Toronto mainland and Toronto island, was my hon. friend consulted and did he recommend this as the most essential work for the relief of unemployment in the city of Toronto?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The matter was discussed with the Minister of Public Works.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The hon. member is not going to get away with that. Did he recommend it?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I recommended it to the Minister of Public Works, yes.


Ross Wilfred Gray: This afternoon the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) said it did not matter whether he saw it on Monday or Wednesday, whether it was on wash day or on ironing day. Was the hon. member for South Toronto consulted as to what were the most essential works that could be undertaken for the relief of unemployment in the city of Toronto, and after due consideration did the hon. member for South Toronto recommend this as the most essential work to which this money could be devoted?


George Reginald Geary: I am not speaking; I do not propose to be catechized by anyone in this house.

Public Works Program


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) say whether or not he was consulted?


James Houston Spence: I have made my speech. I am not going to answer.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Here we are asked to vote $1,000,000. Someone has said it is only a small amount, yet hon. members from the city of Toronto will not say whether or not they were consulted in any shape or form. Are they proud of it, or are they ashamed to say whether or not they recommended this amount prior to the time it was placed iD the estimates?


James Houston Spence: We do not have to confess to you.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I know one member who, I am sure, is not ashamed and who will say whether or not he was consulted. In my opinion he was, because he knew a good deal about this matter on April 17. I will ask the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough if he was consulted and if he recommended this as the most essential measure for the relief of unemployment in the city of Toronto.


Mr. HARRIS:: I am on record.


Mr. GOTT:: Get on with the burlesque.


Ross Wilfred Gray: If it were a case of burlesque I would take my seat at once and allow the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) to carry on. I think it will be found that the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough did not make any statement in that regard. If the truth is known I do not think one of these Toronto members who now come forward and ask us to support this item was consulted at all. I believe their first intimation of such a vote was when they read it, as the rest of us did, when the bill was introduced on April 15.


An hon. MEMBER:: Amen.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes, it will be amen for a whole lot of you. If this is the case with the representatives of the city of Toronto in this house, what about the municipal representatives? We find that this measure was discussed informally for the first time by the controllers of the city of Toronto on Tuesday, May 14, and that at that time Controller McBride and others complained that they had not been consulted before this item was included in this bill. Was there any reply by any elected representative of the people of that city? There was not. The reply was made by the chief engineer of the harbour commission, who said, "This is the

way I do things. I go to Ottawa and find out what they will do, and then I come back and place my plans before you." But he did not even do that; this item was included in this bill before the controllers or any other representatives of the city of Toronto knew of it.


Joseph Henry Harris: Would my hon. friend permit me to interrupt him? I am quite sure he wants the correct information. Under date of June 1, 1929, plans and specifications were submitted recommending the establishment of this airplane and seaplane base in the northwest section of Toronto island immediately south of the western channel. They recommended that this airport be developed progressively and passed a recommendation authorizing the expenditure of $1,000,000 thereon.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am sure the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough does not wish to mislead this committee, either. Was that done by the controllers of the city of Toronto or by the harbour commission?


Joseph Henry Harris: The recommendation was made first by the board of control and then by the council.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) has just handed me the report, and if my hon. friend from Toronto-Scarborough will turn to page 2 he will find in the paragraph from which he was reading, under date of June 1, 1929, that the harbour commission submitted plans and estimates to the city of Toronto-. I just asked whether it was the harbour commission or the city.


Joseph Henry Harris: The city of Toronto passed the plans.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The whole complaint of the controllers, and especially of Controller McBride, is contained in these words:
When Controller McBride criticized the commission for not laying its plans before the board of control before making representations at Ottawa-


Mr. SPOTTON:: Carried.


Ross Wilfred Gray: They will carry out the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) so he need not worry.
-Mr. Cousins said that it had always been his practice to find out what Ottawa would do and then put his plans before the board for approval.
Here we are faced with the situation that the hon. gentlemen who represent the city of Toronto in this house did not know about this item. I believe if they would speak up they

Public Works Program
would say that if they had been given a choice they would not have recommended this as the most essential public work upon which a million dollars could be spent in the city of Toronto. I think the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol), the hon. member for Parkdale, and the others, if they had been given a choice, would have felt that there were more essential things, and that is the criticism from this side of the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) cannot interpret for me at all.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Our criticism is that we are not spending the money of the taxpayers of the city of Toronto or of the province of Ontario; we are spending the money of the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada, and we believe that the elected representatives of any municipality that is obtaining funds from the dominion government should be consulted and should make the recommendation, rather than someone who is not even an elected representative of the municipality in which the money is to be spent. Someone, I think it was the hon. member for Parkdale, said the city council were pretty unanimous in connection with this matter. If I am wrong in my recollection, the hon. member will correct me. According to the Toronto Star of the latter part of last week the tunnel and airport plan was supported by eleven of twenty members of the city council. I presume hon. members opposite will say that is certainly a majority, but I should like to quote the views of some aldermen who supported it. I do not know these gentlemen, but I imagine they are estimable men or they would not have been elected. I find that Alderman F. M. Johnston said:
About eighty-five per cent of the expenditure on the tunnel will go to labour, and if the government will not give us the money for anything else, I am in favour of it.
What does the hon. member for Parkdale say to that? He is mute. Speaking in this chamber on April 17 I said that one of the penalties we pay as representatives of constituencies is that when money is to be voted for our constituencies we believe ourselves in honour bound to support such votes, whether they be good or bad. My criticism is this- and the government must take full responsibility for it-that apparently hon. gentlemen opposite representing the city were not consulted. It is quite evident this is not the most essential work which could be provided for the city of Toronto.
92582-184}
Alderman McNish states: "I wo.uld like to see the money spent on housing." So would
I.	I shall not delay the committee to any greater extent, but would simply point out that if hon. members representing Toronto are content blindly to support this measure, then of course they must take the consequences. As for the hon. member for Toronto Northwest, who has been weeping for the people who could not enjoy the privileges he has described, I would ask him this question: Would it not be better to give them some of the privileges which Lieutenant Governor Bruce has indicated should be given? Would it not be better for the committee, if necessary by unanimous consent, to transfer this vote? I believe I am speaking for all hon. members of the opposition when I state that we are prepared to increase the amount of the vote if the government would consent to use it in connection with what we consider one of the most essential public works, namely that of slum clearance in the city of Toronto.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon and again this evening I listened with a good deal of interest to the observations of hon. members opposite. I believe I could clarify the situation by directing attention to two or three points. First may I lay down the principle, one to which no hon. gentleman would take objection, that the development of a port such as the port of Toronto is one of national importance. That point was recognized long ago, and in order that the end might be achieved an agreement was made under the provisions of which the city of Toronto by itself or through its harbour commissioners was to undertake and complete certain works in Toronto harbour, and the Dominion of Canada was to contribute its share to this important national undertaking. The provisions were distinctly outlined, and the contribution which the city of Toronto and harbour commission were to make has been made. The contribution the Dominion of Canada was to make has been fulfilled only in part.
In this connection I believe it is necessary to refer only to that part of the undertaking in which the Dominion of Canada agreed to construct a bridge across the western entrance to Toronto harbour. At the time the agreement was made a bridge may have been sufficient, but conditions have changed. To-day it is well recognized that where possible and practicable a tunnel affords a better means of communication than does a bridge. The literal carrying out of the agreement would have involved about the same expenditure as

Public Works Program
is involved in the construction of a tunnel, the only difference being that had a bridge been constructed there would have been annua! maintenance charges.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister say that because of the building of the tunnel the federal government is relieved of the necessity of some time in the future constructing the bridges?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certainly there
will not be a tunnel and a bridge at the same place.


William Daum Euler: That is contrary to the
opinion expressed by Mr. Cousins of the harbour board.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it is not.
There is provision for two bridges, one at the eastern entrance and one at the western entrance. Surely my hon. friend does not suggest that when a tunnel serving the same purpose as a bridge is constructed we would be required afterwards to construct a bridge?


William Daum Euler: That is what the engineer
has said.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think
so. I certainly do not so understand it, anyway. A further advantage in favour of a tunnel as against a bridge is that a low level bridge would be constructed, and the traffic would involve the opening of such a bridge at least six or seven thousand times in a year. The construction of a tunnel is much more desirable and would serve all purposes better than would a bridge. Surely hon. members opposite do not contend that the port of Toronto should not be developed or that any agreement made respecting its development should not be observed. This vote has for its purpose the carrying out of the agreement for the development of the port. It has the added advantage that since the development was first considered it has been found that an airport could be located to the west of the entrance, and communications established between the airport and the heart of the city by way of the tunnel. Hon. members opposite seem to think that other means could have been provided for the expenditure of the money, and with that in mind they suggest a housing scheme. Again I say with confidence that a housing scheme must have general application. We cannot select the city of Toronto, and simply say to that city, " So far as you are concerned we are going to have a housing scheme." What right has the dominion to say to,Toronto, "We want to clean up your slums." Surely that is a matter which must be considered by the city,

in cooperation with the provincial government, and with such assistance as may necessitate as a matter of general policy the passage of legislation by this chamber.
There has been considerable discussion about division of opinion in the city of Toronto as to whether or not the building of a tunnel is desirable. I believe I could end the discussion at once by stating that the government is not going to force the project on the city of Toronto. If through its city council it states, " We do not want the suggested development," then we certainly will not make the expenditure. We will not force the city of Toronto to take any position it does not desire to take. I submit there is no work there or elsewhere which will more literally or substantially comply with the avowed purpose and object of the measure now before us than this work, wdiich will provide an expenditure on labour of between seventy and eighty per cent. The object of the bill is the carrying out of useful works, works which will employ labour and give such employment immediately. I cannot think of any work which could be more readily undertaken or which would employ a larger volume of labour than would the construction of this tunnel. Let me repeat, the object is that of the development of a great port, the satisfaction of an obligation, and speedy provision of employment for a large body of labour.


William Daum Euler: May I ask one other question? Is the building of the tunnel by the dominion made conditional upon the city of Toronto consenting to the maintenance of the tunnel?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That will be part of the agreement. If they do not agree to accept that and do not accept the tunnel on those conditions, they do not have to have it.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: In other words, they get no money at all if they do not accept it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They do not get any money at all; we build the tunnel.


Milton Neil Campbell: Suppose they do not accept it on your terms; is provision made under this bill for relieving unemployment there in any other way?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We certainly
could not apply this 11,000,000 in any other way than the construction of the tunnel.


Samuel Factor: Could we pass this vote without allocating it to the tunnel and then conduct negotiations with the city of Toronto and arrive at some agreement?

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, that is exactly what my hon. friend's leader and many other hon. gentlemen opposite have objected to. They want to know exactly where the money they vote is going.


Samuel Factor: I disagree with the minister, with all due respect. In the motion I submitted to the house, which was ruled out of order, I suggested that the $1,000,000 remain as a vote for unemployment relief and that the government negotiate with the corporation of the city of Toronto in order to agree upon some public work or undertaking which will relieve unemployment. Is it not possible for us to pass this vote without allocating it to the tunnel, and then for the government to negotiate with the corporation of the city of Toronto? If both agree on the tunnel, very well; but if not, can the vote not be allocated to some other work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think anything of that kind has ever been done in this parliament.


Mr. POULIOT:: What minister will be in charge of this construction, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Marine or the Postmaster General? Here we have a bill, this seven-headed monster, now being piloted through the house by the Minister of Public Works, for whom I have a great personal regard; but I have asked which minister will be in charge of this particular construction. Will it be the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Marine, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, or some other minister? The minister a few moments ago was speaking of the improvement of Toronto harbour. Is this tunnel part of the harbour? Is the harbour being built underground? That would be a most curious thing, and this is the first time I have ever heard of it.
I would ask another question: How will the money be paid back? What taxation will be imposed on the Canadian people for the building of this tunnel?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to the first query of my hon. friend from Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), I would call his attention to that section of the bill which provides that these works will be undertaken under the direction of the governor in council and assigned to such minister as may be deemed appropriate.


Jean-François Pouliot: But no one knows yet
who it will be. That is still a secret of the gods, and that is why I strongly object. We do not know who is going to be responsible. Why is the legislation drafted the way it is?
It is because the government is not serious. This money will never be spent. It is just a bait for the electorate, so that the government can say to the people of Toronto, " We will build you a wonderful tunnel," when all that will be done will be simply to remove a small quantity of earth sufficient to bury the defeated Tory candidates. There will be a kind of chapel under the water in Toronto, I suppose. It is most ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. Not only that, but the minister, who is an able man, should tell us how this money will be paid back to the people. What taxes will be imposed on the Canadian people for the building of this tunnel in the city of Toronto? Is the minister in a position to tell us if there is a sinking fund for the building of this tunnel and for all the other construction mentioned in the schedule? I ask him that question now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, there is no
sinking fund provided in respect of any of the items in this bill. These works will be built in the same way as other public works, and paid for out of revenue.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the same old story,
this government borrowing money all the time. It reminds me of the man who borrows $2,000 and wants to refund it, so he goes to another bank and borrows $3,000, and pays off the S2,000 that he owes; but still he is in debt and so he goes to another bank and borrows $5,000 and says to himself: I will pay off what I owe the other party. But after he has paid off the man to whom he owes $3,000 he still owes $5,000 to the bank.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend can tell me where anybody can do all that he has suggested, I shall be very glad to know it.


Eccles James Gott: Perhaps he wants some money for a new station.


Jean-François Pouliot: A new station is more of
an asset to the country than the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott). On account of the uproar in the house I did not quite catch the minister's answer to my question. I asked him to let me know how the money which will be spent for the excavation of this tunnel will be refunded.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will not be
refunded.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is well to know that.
That means that the debt of this country will never be paid back by hon. gentlemen opposite. I am surprised to hear my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, who can be so able in the conduct of his own depart-
Public Works Program

ment when he wishes, make an answer like that. Surely he is not serious when he suggests that the money will never be paid back. If so, it means that the debt of this country will never be paid back so long as the Tories are in power, but on the contrary will be increased, as it has been increased ever since they have been in office. That is the answer, and now we know it. But we hope there will be a change of government in the very near future and that the debt of this country will be paid back as it was paid back when Jim Robb was Minister of Finance and when the bills as they came due were met out of the Canadian exchequer. I ask the minister once more, under what department this tunnel construction will come. Next to him sits the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). He is in charge of harbours. The Minister of Public Works says that the building of this tunnel will improve Toronto harbour. Is the hon. Minister of Marine ashamed to go to the queen city? He should not be, because it is perhaps the only place in Canada where he will find a handful of Tories to greet him on his arrival. As the Minister of Public Works has not answered my question, may I ask the Minister of Marine to drop his smile and kindly tell me if the construction of this tunnel will come under his supervision or under the supervision of the Minister of Public Works. No answer? Is there a doctor in the house to look after the hon. Minister of Marine? May I ask the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) to lend the minister his voice in order that I may get an answer to my question, who will be in charge of this work? Will the Minister of Marine be in charge of the construction of this tunnel which we are told is going to improve Toronto harbour? I will sit down and ask the minister to answer my question. No answer? Well, if he is dead, let us bury him. Let us have a procession and accompany his corpse to the city of Montreal. I am not surprised that this government is not alive, for the minister is dead. This is a mortuary chamber. We have a corpse among us. The minister is dead. As the Minister of Public Works has shown some signs of life, may I ask him to answer my question in a very definite way?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps I can satisfy the hon. gentleman by quoting section 5 of the bill, which reads:
The governor in council may from time to time place the administration, management, construction and execution of any of the works mentioned in schedule A to this act under such minister or department of the government as may be considered most advisable in the public interest.
(Mr. Poiiliot.]


Jean-François Pouliot: This is rotten legislation; we have never seen anything like it before. I realized that section was in the bill and that is why I asked the minister to give me the information. The members of the government do not know, and it is such a pity to deceive the electorate of the city of Toronto. It is shameful to do this. I know that every sound-thinking citizen of that proud and great city will resent the manner in which this thing has been handled by the government. Even the Tories admit this. It is sad and unbelievable that after the lengthy discussion before the recess and to-day members of the government do not know what minister will be in charge of the construction of this tunnel. This bill is being piloted through the house by the Minister of Public Works, not because he will supervise the work but because he is from the province of Ontario. There is another hon. gentleman from Ontario for whom I have great regard, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). I ask him if the building of the Toronto tunnel which is to cost $1,000,000 will be under his supervision? No answer. Do my eyes deceive me when I see a smile on his face? I do not hear a sound from his lips, but he must be alive because I see his genial smile. But I get no answer. Will he tell this committee what minister will be in charge of the construction of the tunnel in the city of Toronto, mentioned in the schedule of this bill, to cost over $1,000,000? I will sit down. No answer. I see the Minister of Public Works has left the chamber; apparently he has had enough of this.
I have also great regard for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). He does not represent the city of Toronto; he represents the very beautiful city of Guelph. He is an old parliamentarian, one of the deans of this house, and I ask him if he will supervise through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the building of this tunnel in Toronto at a cost of $1,000,000. No answer. Here comes the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I am glad to see him; perhaps he has come in to take the place of the Minister of Public Works. Oh, I see the Minister of Public Works has returned. We will soon have the whole cabinet here. I ask the Minister of Labour, who comes from the delightful northern part of Ontario, if he in his capacity as Minister of Labour will supervise the building of the Toronto tunnel which is to cost $1,000,000. I ask him if he will kindly answer my question, and I will sit down.

Public Works Program


Eccles James Gott: You do not sit down long enough.


Jean-François Pouliot: No answer. I ask the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Gordon) if in the capacity of Minister of Mines he will dynamite the excavation for this tunnel? Will he tell me if this construction will be under his supervision? No answer. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) comes from the beautiful city of Woodstock in the province of Ontario. Will he supervise the construction of this tunnel in order that the sanitary conditions may be perfect while it is being built? No answer. They are all deaf. I will leave Ontario now. I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), who comes from the province of Saskatchewan and who is, I assume, interested in the welfare of this country, if he will supervise the construction of the Toronto tunnel? No answer. I notice the Minister of Justice is leaving the chamber. Probably he is going to see if something cannot be done in this regard. I put the same question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson). He comes from the delightful province of New Brunswick.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
I can do it all right.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not ask my hon.
friend if he can do it; I assume he can, but I want to know if he will.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: One out. I now ask the
Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) if he will be in charge of the construction of this tunnel.


Mr. SAUVE:: No answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: No answer, that is right. That answer shows that the hon. gentleman is at least alive. I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) if he will be in charge of the construction of this tunnel. He is a member of the privy council and a full-fledged minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is too far from
Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have asked every minister who is present to-night if he will be in charge of the construction of this tunnel in Toronto. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would not and the Postmaster General said "No answer." I got no answer from the other ministers. Not one of them will tell me who will be in charge of this work. I am sorry the Minister of National
Defence (Mr. Stirling) is not present, as I have no doubt he is one of the many who will be in charge of this work.
This is the most absurd piece of legislation which has ever been brought down to parliament. The Minister of Public Works has just stated that this money will never be paid back, and this should be a good lesson to those who have invested money in the $60,000,000 loan. The many millions expended by this government will never be paid back, perhaps because they will never be spent.


Mr. BAKER:: What is so sad about the
whole thing is the valuable and expensive time of this committee which is being wasted.


Jean-François Pouliot: I suggest to the hon. gentleman that if his services to his party were more valuable he would be a member of the cabinet representing the city of Toronto. Until he is appointed to such a position I ask him to remain in his seat, and not interrupt hon. members who work harder than he does. I ask him if he is satisfied when no minister has given an answer to the question which has been put to each of them. I wonder if the electorate of Toronto are satisfied with sending my hon. friend here. It has been said that this is a bait to catch votes, and the ministers do not know who will be in charge. They admit that the money will never be paid back-why? Because it will never be spent, and if it is never spent that will be much more useful than if it is spent for a tunnel which will be of no use to the people of Toronto or the people of Canada.


William Duff: This bill came up on one or two occasions before the house adjourned for the recess of five weeks. It is an important measure, the object being to vote $33,000,000 to be expended in this country, and we are asked to vote this money notwithstanding the fact that in June, 1934, this parliament voted $40,000,000 for unemployment purposes. If that $10,000,000 had all been spent I could understand why we should be asked to vote this $33,000,000; but we are told by the government that up to March of this year only $10,000,000 of the S40.000.000 had been spent. I notice to-day that the Minister of Public Works is getting busier. The nearer we get to the elections the more orders in council will be passed to try to hurry up contracts or the arrangements for the expenditure of the $40,000,000 voted last year. But in view of the fact that, in spite of the horse stables in Calgary and other expenditures contemplated in the bill last year, the government
Public Works Program

could spend only $10,000,000 in nine months, I see no reason why we should be called upon now to vote this large sum of money at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: An election is coming.


William Duff: I know there is an election and I presume that is the reason. As I said a moment ago, this important bill providing for the expenditure of 333,000.000 came up in this house only about twenty-four hours before the adjournment on April 17, and this particular vote with regard to the Toronto tunnel was brought forward only at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute before that adjournment. At that time very little was said with regard to the reason given tonight for this expenditure-that it is intended to provide an easy access to the airport on the island near the city of Toronto. On the former occasion before the adjournment we were told that the tunnel was necessary in order that the people of Toronto might be able to go to the playground on the island. To-day government members are changing their tactics and we are now informed that the reason for this expenditure of $1,000,000 is the fact that an airport is in course of construction or that it is proposed to construct an airport on this island.
I should like to know from the minister whether this airport is a private matter or a municipal matter, or whether it is proposed to be a federal expenditure. Does it come under the department of the Minister of National Defence? Is it to be built by the city authorities of Toronto or will it be built by private capital? We on this side have been blamed, we were blamed shortly after the adjournment on April 17, for blocking this bill and holding up the expenditure of the money provided for in it. I have under .my hand a dispatch from Ottawa sent out by one of the newspaper men in the gallery. It reads:
The blockade by which the Liberal opposition , in the Commons prevented the passage of the government's public works program before the adjournment for the long Easter recess is likely to cost Canadian workers in railway equipment shops several million dollars in loss of wages during the coming season, it is learned to-day in government circles.
I do not know how this gentleman got this information from government circles, but I may say to him or to anyone else who believes anything contained in this dispatch that the members of the Liberal opposition made it quite clear that they were perfectly willing to sit in parliament and discuss the matter,

being opposed to the adjournment. And I believe there were a great many members on the other side who were opposed to an adjournment of five weeks from April 17 to May 20. The great majority of the members of the house were opposed to it, and therefore no one has any right to criticize the Liberal opposition for delaying the passage of this bill. It was the government who wanted the adjournment. At half past five on April 17, when he found that there was some information required in regard to one or two of these items, the Minister of Finance moved that the committee rise and report progress. The Liberal members, and Conservative members as well, were willing to sit and have the bill and the schedule properly discussed, so that any moneys which the house deemed it necessary to vote in the interests of the unemployed should be passed upon before the house adjourned for that long Easter recess. I say therefore to the gentleman who wrote this dispatch, which was published all over the country, that it is not fair or decent to try to blame the Liberal opposition on the ground that the passage of the bill has been delayed. He goes on to say in this dispatch:
The program as originally drawn up contemplates the expenditure of $15,000,000, but the expectation of the government was that the legislation authorizing it would be passed without any delay and an immediate start made possible.
Does the writer of this article think that it would be fair to the taxpayers of this country for this house to pass in twenty-four hours a bill involving the expenditure of 333,000,000? Is it right or fair to the taxpayers of Canada that their representatives in parliament should be denied adequate time to discuss so important a matter? If anyone is to blame for delay in the passage of the bill it is not the Liberal opposition but the government, who wanted the adjournment for special reasons of their own.
With regard to the railway vote-and it is referred to in the dispatch-I think I voice the sentiments of the people at large when I say that as regards a vote for the railways, for the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, we are quite willing that, provided proper precautions are taken, the money indicated in the bill should be spent. But we object to an expenditure, whether in connection with railways or any other matter, which will mean that contractors will use steam shovels, as in connection with the Toronto tunnel, while little money will be spent for labour. With regard to the moneys

Public Works Program
for the railways, this gentleman is trying to make the railway people believe that the Liberal opposition is opposed to the votes of $9,000.000 and 88.000,000-


Mr. MANION:: Eight and seven.


William Duff: Eight for the Canadian National and seven for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Let me say that so far as we are concerned we are satisfied to have the money expended; but there are railway shops all over the country where railway employees have been on half time and quarter time during the last four years while this government has been in office. If this money is to be spent for railway purposes, instead of giving it to private concerns the railway shops all over the country should benefit from it.


Mr. RIXFRET:: I wish to say a word about this item, rather to clear my mind than to offer any criticisms. The minister has said that the Toronto harbour is of national importance., which statement I shall not deny, though there is no doubt that it is not of the same character as the harbour of Montreal or the harbour of Quebec. I understand that the Toronto harbour commission is not a federal body but is appointed by the city of Toronto. I understand further that the harbour of Toronto is the property of the city. What I want to know is, does the work of which that million dollars is to be spent become the property of the city of Toronto? When this government spends money in the harbours of Montreal or Quebec, that work remains a federal property under the harbour commission, and the responsibility is federal. But when the government spends money in the Toronto harbour, is that money a pure gift to the city of Toronto? I am not going so far as to object even to a gift, but I should like to have the difference made clear between spending 83,500,000 in Montreal on works that remain federal property under the harbour commission appointed by this government, and spending money on a tunnel in Toronto. Will the tunnel become the property of the city of Toronto? There is certainly an essential difference there. The minister says that Toronto harbour is of national importance, bu.t it has not in the past been treated as such because it is the city's property, while the national harbours are the property of the federal government under a federal commission. Will the minister >be good enough to explain the difference between the two situations, and clear ,my miind as to how the money is to foe spent and whether the works constructed are given- to Toronto or remain the property of the federal government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Replying ito the question of the h-on. member for Antigoaish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) all I can say in connection with the airport is that there is no commitment by the dominion government in respect to the development of it. A considerable amount has been spent by the city of Toronto itself-


William Duff: So it is purely a municipal matter and not a federal matter?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I say there is no commitment by the dominion- government with respect to an airport there. It may become a matter of policy in the future what contribution, if any, should be made by this government to the development of an airport there.


William Duff: Is any commitment contemplated by the federal government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not saying what is contemplated; at -the present time it is not under consideration-. It is a matter for the future as to what -the policy shall be in connection with the development of airports I should say it will be all the better fo,r the dominion if the city of Toronto is prepared to undertake to build this -airport, much better than if they should be coming here and asking for a contribution. Up to the present they have not done so. What may be the policy either of the city of Toronto or of the dominion in the future I cannot say.


William Duff: II-ow is it a federal matter?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The fact that
the city of Toronto is doing this itself is an added reason why we should make this contribution towards the tunnel.


William Duff: Quite the reverse.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Is the
tunnel necessary for the airport?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is necessary
to the location of an airport in the harbour if there is to be easy, rapid communication with the city to facilitate the transaction of business, the transfer of mails and everything in connection with an airport.


William Alexander Fraser: Who
told you you could build an airport there anyway?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We are not
building the airport. That is up to the city of Toronto, if they want to build it.


William Alexander Fraser: Then
why are you going to spend a million dollars to jump across a creek so that the city of Toronto can build an airport?
Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
surely has not heard the debate here to-day.


William Alexander Fraser: I certainly have.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And he is not
familiar with what has happened in the past. We are building this tunnel because we solemnly agreed to do so as our share of the development of the port of Toronto. It was agreed upon as our share that there should be means of communication between the island and the city by way of a bridge. Now, instead of a bridge, with the approval of the city and with much advantage to the development of the port, we are adopting the construction of a tunnel.


William Alexander Fraser: By
reason of an obligation incurred in 1913 the government is going to undertake to build a tunnel at a cost of SI,000,000 to a prospective airport that the city of Toronto is going to develop. Let me tell the minister that since 1930 this government have broken so many obligations that they do not have to worry about one incurred in 1913.


Mr. RINFRET:: My hon. friend has not
replied to my question. I asked if this tunnel is going to be the property of the city of Toronto.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall ask the
Minister of Marine to explain the position of the harbour commission, because that is under his department.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I congratulate myself
upon being luckier than the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in that I have drawn an answer from the minister.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I think the hon.
member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) is under a misapprehension when he states that the property of the harbour commission of Toronto belongs to the city of Toronto. All the harbour commissions are separate bodies from the cities in which they function. They have all been incorporated by federal legislation. In some cities, like Toronto and New Westminster, a certain number of the members of the harbour commission are appointed by the city authorities-


William Alexander Fraser: How
many?


Alfred Duranleau: I could not say-I
think in Toronto three out of five are appointed by the city.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Isn't it three?


Alfred Duranleau: Pardon me. That
does not change the situation. The harbour

commission of Toronto is a separate body from the city and own almost all the waterfront property and improvements in the harbour. So I do not see any material difference between Montreal and Toronto, except that in Montreal the harbour properties are vested in the crown.


William Alexander Fraser: The
only difference is that when the federal government spend money they require title to the land on which they make the expenditure.


Jean-François Pouliot: Taking advantage of the fact that the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) has lent his voice to the Minister of Marine, may I ask the latter if he will kindly answer the question I put to him not long ago as to who is going to supervise the construction of that tunnel. Is it himself or one of his colleagues?


George Spotton: Sweezey.


Jean-François Pouliot: I see the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) is a ventriloquist, but I would like the hon. Minister of Marine to answer.


Mr. RALSTON:: The first point the minister made when he proposed this vote was that it was in fulfilment of an obligation incurred in 1913. That point was made also by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) when he was speaking as a member for Toronto. Since that time I think my hon. friends have realized how extremely weak that is as a ground for putting through this vote at this time, and we have seen some rather remarkable gyrations on the other side of the house. At one moment it wras said that it was for the benefit that would come to those who live on the island, then that there was to be an airport there. Now my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is back to the original promise of 1913. He says that because twenty-two years ago the friends of my hon. friends then in power made a promise, we should now in 1935 when this country needs the money in the worst way take that as an excuse for spending a million dollars to build this tunnel in Toronto, as an emergency. And what does he say about it? He says that in 1913 we promised to build a bascule bridge. They have managed to get along without the bascule bridge up to the present time. I presume that bridge was going to be built in order to see to it that the ferries connecting the city with this island did not interfere with the traffic, but apparently traffic has managed to get along for these twenty-two years without the construction of

Public Works Program
the bridge, and without any extra means of communication. But now in 1935, on the eve of an election, this twenty-two year old promise is to be fulfilled. As my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) suggests, it is just like my hon. friends opposite; they begin to fulfil promises twenty-two years after they are made. They have made some more that I do not think will be fulfilled even in that time, judging by the magnitude of the promises they made in 1930.
I submit that there is nothing in the answer given by the Minister of Public Works. He has to have some other reason than this old, mouldy promise made in 1918. His friends were in power until 1921; they had eight years. His friends have been in power since 1930 and it is now 1935; that is five years more. Why did they not do it long ago if the carrying out of this promise was so important? Now when this country is having to borrow money and has gone into debt to the tune of over $800,000,000 in the five years during which my hon. friends have been in power, they propose to spend SI .000.000 in order to fulfil this promise. There must be some better reason than that. My hon. friend says it is for the purpose of providing employment. I agree that probably it will afford some employment, but as a first principle in connection with these public works the minister lays down that you must have a useful, productive, self liquidating public work. Those were his words. Secondly he says you must have works which will provide employment. I submit there is nothing in the fact that there was a promise made in 1913 which makes this a self liquidating public work. This is not the kind of work we are doing under the financial stress which exists to-day. and I submit that this house is not here for the purpose of paying the overdue promissory notes of the government which was in power in 1913 unless the public works which were then promised are of the class described by the minister.
Further than that the minister rather ridiculed the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) when he suggested that this money should be used for slum clearance; the minister suggested that that was a provincial matter. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) brought out the point that this very tunnel is a purely municipal matter. In this case the minister says an airport is going to be constructed some day if somebody decides to spend the money,, but in the meantime the people of the Dominion of Canada are to
be taxed for $1,000,000 out of federal funds in order to build a tunnel across to that island in the hope and with the vague possibility that somebody may think it worth while to spend the money for an airport when the time comes. I suggest to my hon. friend that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) was quite right the other day when he said that the bridge had not been built in 1913 because they could not make up their minds whether they wanted a bridge or a tunnel while others wanted nothing at all, and they apparently have not made up their minds yet. As my hon. friend! from West Lambton pointed out to-night, the Toronto authorities have not yet decided what they want in connection with this particular work. I submit that if my hon. friend is going to put this on the basis of an airport he should have some understanding first, some commitment from somebody, that an airport is going to be built. Otherwise what is the use of spending $1,009,000 and saying we are preparing for an airport without knowing whether there will ever be one? Before he has an airport he and the Minister of National Defence will have to have the plans for that airport; they will have to know whether it is feasible and whether it fits in with the national system of aviation.. My hon. friend knows perfectly well .that there is an airport at Lea-side now. I do not know whether or not it is sufficient, but no representations have been made by the Minister of National Defence, who has charge of aviation, that further accommodation is required in Toronto. So I say this vote cannot be justified by this old, forgotten promise, nor can. the minister justify it on the ground that it is for an airport when he has no commitment from anybody to build an airport. In addition, as my hon. friend from West Lambton has stated, I do not think the people of Toronto themselves are convinced as to the necessity for this work.


James Houston Spence: Not all the people, but about ninety per cent. [DOT]


James Layton Ralston: Have they decided that they want a tunnel in order to develop the island, or have they decided that they want a tunnel in order to fulfil the promise of 1913, or have they decided they want a tunnel for an airport? If they have decided they want a tunnel for an airport, who is going to build the airport? Has any commitment been made in that connection? So far as I know that has not been done.


William Duff: The municipality.
Public Works Program


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend from
Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) reminds me again that if an airport is built it will have to be built by the municipality; therefore this is a municipal work. Until the authorities of Toronto are of one mind in connection with this matter, and until the Minister of Public Works has something to bring before this committee in the way of a work which will be a feeder to something which is going to be actually established, rather than something which is in the far distant future and is merely a matter of hope in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, I have a suggestion to make in connection with a project of this kind which I think will much more nearly fill the bill and meet the requirements which the minister has laid down. The minister knows, or at least his officials know, that there is a community on Cape Sable island, consisting not of one hundred families or less as is the case with this island in Toronto harbour, but of about two thousand or more citizens, engaged in the fishing industry out there in the Atlantic. This is a focal point where men bring their fish, and from which they go out, where probably about $500,000 worth of fish are handled during the year. It is a distributing point for the Tusket islands and Seal island, out in the Atlantic. If my hon. friend wants to vote money to provide employment and also to provide a means of communeiation with the mainland, there is a place where he can do it with great benefit and justification there. This is a project which will be for the benefit of the community; he can make it self liquidating in the sense that it will produce revenue in the shape of increased catches of fish and increased facilities for the marketing of these fish. Here is an opportunity for him. My hon. friends may say this is a provincial project, but I say this very government and the government that preceded it recognized that these facilities were necessary. The previous government had already constructed two ice piers in the channel between. Barrington Passage and Cape Sable island with the idea that the provincial government some time might put a bridge there, and the government of my hon. friends actually constructed terminals for a ferry service, recognizing that these people needled facilities of that kind. You do not need anything like a million dollar tunnel down there, where you have two thousand industrious, hardworking, enterprising people who are bringing in new wealth every year. If you have a million dollars to spend, until the city of Toronto or the harbour commission or whatever authority is going to build this 
airport make up their minds and decide an airport is needed I suggest that you spend some of that money in providing decent facilities for communication between the mainland and Cape Sable island, where these enterprising people live. This is a project that I can recommend to my hon. friend without hesitation, and I would hope that the Minister of Finance would recommend it also. I think my proposal would be very much more in keeping with the principles under which money for relief works is being voted to do this than to proceed blindly, in the dark, simply because in 1913 somebody wrote into an order in council that they would build a bascule bridge, and now in 1935, just before an election, to vote $1,000,000 for a tunnel on the ground that the promise which we have disregarded for twenty-two years must suddenly be fulfilled.
I submit that there is nothing more than that behind this vote. My hon. friends wanted to spend $1,000,000 in Toronto; they wanted an excuse to do so and they found this old order in council. This matter of the airport has been simply dragged in in order to justify this expenditure, but my hon. friend knows there is really no commitment, no considered decision and no undertaking that this airport will ever be built. I commend the Cape Sable island-Barrington project to my hon. friend, and I say this committee can well afford to wait until we have more information before voting this million dollars in connection with this project about which there seems to be so much uncertainty and contradictory opinion.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When the hon. member states that this is a musty and empty promise he fails to recognize that the development of the port of Toronto is a matter requiring serious and careful consideration. He seems to regard the construction of the tunnel, or this particular means of approach, as the only undertaking entered into. Let me say to him that this was a joint undertaking. The agreement was made that the dominion should perform certain works and that the city of Toronto or the harbour commissioners should perform certain other works. The matter has not been lying dormant since that time. From time to time the work has been undertaken progressively. The city of Toronto has carried out its agreement in full, and I do not believe the hon. member would suggest that the federal government should welsh or go back on any agreement it has made.
Mr. CASGRAIN; Was the agreement in writing?

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work has been done in stages, but this particular part of it has not been done, although it should have been done some time ago. The time is now appropriate for the carrying out of the work. This is not an emergent work, although hon. members opposite have so described it. I would point out to them that the bill does not provide the works must be emergent. These are works calculated to give the greatest measure of employment, and in carrying out the agreement and thereby providing a great measure of employment I say we are meeting the obligation now existing.


James Layton Ralston: I believe the minister will concur in what the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) said on April 17. He did not say the dominion government was welshing, but he did say, "The difficulty was that the people of Toronto could not decide whether there should be a bridge or a tunnel, while others wanted nothing at all." That is the situation, as I understand it, which still exists.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They want it now.


John Campbell Elliott: Is not the tunnel a substitute for the bascule bridge originally contemplated? Is it not a fact that only recently the tunnel has been suggested as a substitute for the bridge originally contemplated?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a substitute; certainly there will not be a bridge and a tunnel.


John Campbell Elliott: As I understand it, several operations were contemplated in the order in council passed in 1913. Most of those have already been performed. In the first place the western breakwater was built. Then there was provision for an eastern sea wall from the eastern channel to Woodbine avenue. This has not been constructed, and I am informed there have been no recent representations requiring its construction. Apparently that is not being urged at the present time. There was provision for an eastern harbour terminal area, which has been completed. Mention was made of a bridge over the western entrance and another over the eastern entrance. As I understand it representations have been made from time to time concerning the desirability of providing a bridge over the western channel, and there have been no recent representations concerning the necessity for a bridge over the eastern channel. As an alternative it is now proposed to construct the tunnel. Assuming I am correct-if I am not I hope the minister will correct me-the situation boils down to this: It is proposed to
connect with the mainland an airport which does not now exist and which if my information is correct, in view of the limited area at the disposal of the government, can never exist as a proper airport. I am informed the amount of land available is not sufficient.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Seventy-five acres.


John Campbell Elliott: The suggestion has been made to build a tunnel instead of a bridge. May I observe that there never was an agreement to build a tunnel; let us get that point cleared up. In view of that fact it is only a stretch of the imagination to state that these operations are to take place in order to satisfy an agreement.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is an excuse.


John Campbell Elliott: This is a plan which has emanated from some fertile minded gentleman whereby the island may be connected to the mainland by means of a tunnel. The city has not undertaken to build an airport; no body has undertaken to build an airport. What we have, then, is a suggestion to build a tunnel connecting with the mainland an island, seventy-five per cent of the inhabitants of which are opposed to such tunnel, and an airport which does not exist, and for the construction of which no arrangements have yet been made.
This is a non-digested, half-baked proposition which should have been given a good deal of consideration before presentation to this chamber. The information which the minister was good enough to furnish me does not reveal that any arrangements have been made whereby such a plan could be considered feasible. There is no reason in the world why the federal jurisdiction should build a tunnel of this kind. Is there any precedent for the building of a tunnel comparable to this one, where an island belonging to a municipality containing an airport which does not exist has been connected with the mainland? On any previous occasion has such work been done with federal funds? I venture to say the minister does not know of any similar undertaking. Without doubt this is about the most unfeasible, impossible, uncalculated ill-considered proposition which has ever been placed before a committee of this chamber. I am greatly surprised to find the Minister of Public Works making a suggestion of this kind. I do not believe the time of the committee should be taken up unduly in a consideration of the matter, but I do say so many undertakings are so greatly needed that, having in view the limited amount of money at the disposal of the department, the minister should be content
Public Works Program

to follow the suggestion made by one hon. member from the city of Toronto to the effect that the matter be allowed to stand. Matters in connection with the airport and in connection with this tunnel have not developed far enough to enable the committee to pass favourably upon it; the only decision it can come to on the information given so far would be an adverse decision. I urge upon the minister that he let this item stand for the present and see if there is not some feasible scheme that can be proposed that would get away from attempting to argue it out here until he can convince the committee that it can be done. As the matter stands no information has been furnished that would convince a reasonable committee that the proposal as presented should be adopted.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, the only question which the people of Toronto voted on in connection with the harbour was the question which was submitted to them in the form of a by-law in 1911: Are you in favour of a new harbour commission to have supervision over the whole fifteen miles of waterfront, with the members to be appointed by the city council? That by-law was carried and the new harbour commission appointed. Prior to that there was an old harbour commission which had jurisdiction only over the old Toronto bay, but the new harbour commission was given jurisdiction over the waterfront from the Humber river along the north shore, including Humber bay, the old Toronto bay and the whole territory east of the eastern gap as far as Woodbine avenue. The harbour commission's jurisdiction ran from the Humber river in the west to Woodbine avenue, and for a distance of three miles south. The people voted on that by-law for the appointment of a new commission: 18,460 yeas, and 4,720 nays.
The old western entrance to Toronto harbour was at a point which would be about three quarters of a mile inland to-day. A new entrance was made and built under the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. As I said this afternoon, both political parties have dealt fairly with the city of Toronto in connection with harbour improvements. We have had Liberals and Conservatives on the harbour commission and we all worked for the good of Toronto harbour. The new entrance was built in 1907 for $700,000. Mr. Pugsley happened to be Minister of Public Works at the time, and the work was very well done, the new entrance being two thousand feet long and four hundred feet wide,

with eighteen feet of water. There were just two parallel cribs; the north crib was all water and the south crib was all water. Seventy-five acres of water lots north and south of the western channel were dedicated by the Laurier government to the new harbour board, in a deed of trust, for park purposes, aquatic purposes, and a marginal way, and the commission filled in all that seventy-five acres. At one time Mr. Solman, who had a ball park over at Hanlan's Point, wanted to move his ball park to the city on account of the dilapidated ferry service to the island. I remember the harbour board and the private applicant Mr. Solman, who was a brother-inlaw of Edward Hanlan, meeting at the old Union station in connection with his application. Mr. Solman was a public spirited citizen; he had built the old rink on Mutual street and the Alexandra theatre, and he owned the ball park at the island. He went to the minister, Hon. Mr. Graham, who had always been very much interested in the harbour and in the baseball team, and applied for permission to use for a ball park five acres of that seventy-five acres that was originally dedicated for aquatic and park purposes and a marginal way. Permission was granted and the ball park was built on the north side of the new entrance. On the south side of the newr entrance there was a water lot, which has been filled in by the harbour commission. The sand for filling came out of the lake. They had a pipe line five or six thousand feet out in the lake, and they filled in all that land south of the west entrance and made it into a very valuable property.
With respect to the use of these lands on the south side for an airport, there will have to be another order in council passed along the lines of the order in council respecting the application for the ball park, to enable the harbour commission to use it for airport purposes. Toronto is a federal harbour, as hon. gentlemen may see if they look up the act of 1911. It is in a somewhat different position from Halifax and other harbours as regards the division of the work between the city and the government. The harbour board consists of five members, three appointed by the city, one by the government and one nominated by the Toronto board of trade which has taken a great interest in the harbour since 1854. Some of the old commissioners are still on the harbour board. There may be a difference of opinion as to the merits of this or any other scheme in connection with the Toronto harbour, but all the money that is spent by the Toronto harbour commission as a federal commission is

Public Works Pruymrn
purely city money, money handed to them by the board of control of the city, some of which is raised 'by city taxes. No Toronto harbour deficits have ever been paid by this government, and all the improvement of federal lands has been paid for by the city taxpayer. The harbour board bought the largest dredges in the world, one of which was the Cyclone, and filled up all these waterfront lots for twelve miles, including the industrial area in Ashbridge's bay.
The people of Toronto did not vote on bridges. They voted only on the question: Are you in favour of a reconstruction of the harbour and a new fusion harbour board. Under the Harbour Act of 1854 four bodies had something to say about Toronto harbour-the property department of the city, the provincial government, the federal government, and the old harbour board. There were thus four different bodies having a say in the harbour, and it is no wonder that Toronto harbour was away behind the times. When I became controller in 1910 I moved for the appointment of a committee to bring about a fusion board in place of these four different interests. There was opposition to the appointment of the committee, but it was appointed and met for a year. We had three good Liberals on the board, the late Mr. Spence, Mr. John O'Neill, and another splendid citizen. We went all over the harbours of the world and then made our report, which was adopted; the question was submitted to the people on January 1, 1911, and the by-law was carried by 18,000 to 4,000 odd. The new harbour board made an agreement with the city by which the city government gave to the new harbour board all its property along the waterfront and all the docks at the foot of Yonge and York streets. The dominion government did not give us any property. They then started to improve the western and eastern entrances, and that work has all been completed. A large number of industries have been located in this particular district. Many of the oil and coal companies have located here. The Imperial Oil Company, the British American Oil Company, the McColl Frontenac Oil Company, have spent fortunes in this particular locality. They have built new tankers and are bringing oil and gasoline to Toronto from all over the world. The tonnage in the harbour has increased considerably and this work has all been justified.
After (the people had voted cm. this matter a detailed agreement was drawn up. The minister at that time was Mr. Rogers. The engineers of the dominion government and representatives of the city and the harbour
board met together and an order in council was drawn up upon which was based an act of the parliament of Canada which received the unanimous approval of this house. The commissioners were appointed in 1912; they were Lieutenant-Governor Clark, Mr. Home Smith, Mr. Gourlay, Mr. Spence and myself. I continued in office from 1905 until 1928. I was reappointed at that time but I did not accept the appointment. We received no salary and I know I spent thousands of hours upon1 this work. We would spend as much as two or three days a week and all we received was a lot of (abuse. However, we cleaned up the water front of Toronto and saved1 i:t for the people.
The question of jurisdiction -has come up. The government is committed to the construction of two bridges, one across 'the western channel and one across the eastern channel. We are not abrogating that agreement because it was followed by an act of parliament which was passed in 1913. It was necessary to go to the provincial legislature and to this parliament in order to validate the transfer of the land. The western entrance is a navigable stream and the dominion government has jurisdiction over boundary waterways, over interprovincial streams and over questions affecting navigation. This matter is thus brought within the four comers of .the British North America Act. The same situation arose in- Montreal. I do not object to what was done there; in my opinion that *city was entitled to a large vote for its harbour. As I said this afternoon I believe in the policy of each for all and all for each. The people of Vancouver are just as much interested as we are in a vote for Montreal or Halifax harbours. Waterborne traffic has never had the benefits which have been provided for railibome traffic.
The people who live ton Toronto Island do not own the island. I understand there are only 1,000 leases. Miost of the houses are boarding houses where young people reside during two or three -months in the summer. I should imagine there are about 10,000 residents during -the summer season. The city of Toronto has spent over $100,000 of the taxpayer's money .to improve the island and the revenue does not begin to pay for the expenditures made. It was necessary to extend all services such as gas, electricity, water, telephone, street cleaning and other matters. The island belongs to and is part of the city and is separated from the mainland by the federal entrance. The government has already admitted jurisdiction as it assumes jurisdiction' over the entrances to
Public Works Program

the hanhour. The late government dealt very generously with the city and I want to repeat the tribute I paid them this afternoon. This national scheme for a Toronto harbour was commenced in 1911, 1912 and 1913. The idea was to have it fifty per cent beautification and fifty per cent industrial sites. Industries are locating here to a large extent, so much so that the other day the mayor of Montreal said that they would have to look to their laurels.
An application would have to be made for this tunnel under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, because this channel is a navigable stream just like the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers. No erection along, over or under such waters can be made without application under the federal act. This matter will come before the Minister of Public Works in the usual way. Five acres of this harbour property was transferred to Mr. Solman. This was originally a water lot but it had been filled in by the harbour commission and was to be used as a ball park. Last Saturday the board of control passed a resolution strongly in favour of this tunnel. I admit that I was not in favour of this tunnel when I first heard of it some months ago. I thought that we would be abrogating our right to have bridges constructed across the eastern and western entrances. However, I have visited many harbours and I realize that bridges are rapidly being discarded. We have an example in the Detroit river where a traffic tunnel has been built. A tunnel is more economical and efficient and it is possible to have services all the year around.
I am in hopes that this island will be used all the year around and not only for two or three months in the summer time. I want to see the present ramshackle cottages replaced with homes for working people who will be able to get to the island with the payment of one street car fare or possibly an additional one or two cents. This would be much better than having to be put into pig-pens as they are at present or as they were when baseball was being played on the island. I have seen some of my hon. friends across the way at the island in the old days when Toronto had a good team. They will remember the railway crossing at the foot of Bay and Yonge streets and how they had to wait for the ferry boat. They will remember how they did not get home until six or six-thirty o'clock.
At one time a suggestion was made that a bridge be built at the foot of Yonge street to permit passengers to get down to the boats. Like many other projects, this was never gone on with. Instead the city put through the

wider scheme of a viaduct along six miles of the water-front. I believe that Toronto is the only city in Canada which has paid for grade separation. The city of Toronto told the railroads they were ready to do business, they put their cards on the table and to-day there is not a level crossing across the waterfront.
In connection with the use of these lands for an airport, application wild have to be made to the governor in council for permission to divert whatever acreage is necessary for this purpose. As regard the question of jurisdiction, application will have to be made to the minister under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and he no doubt will see to the insertion in the order in council of the necessary riders to protect navigation. As to the substitution of bridges, the people did not vote on specific bridges; they voted on a wider harbour scheme by which the city, the government and the commission would be required to contribute. So far as the interests of the inhabitants of the island are concerned, that aspect of the matter has been emphasized altogether too much. What about the 650,000 people in the city who pay the taxes to maintain the island? The people on the island get more out of it than anyone else does. Are we not going to consider the interests of these 600,000 or more taxpayers who have to maintain the island, providing various services? I say that the island should belong to all the people all the time and not to some of the people.
I may say that we went into this matter very thoroughly.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) said that the approaches to this particular tunnel were a matter for the city, but the same principle will have to be adhered to as was observed in connection with the viaduct approaches. As regards the other phases of the matter, an agreement will have to be made between the harbour commission and the city of Toronto, with respect to roads and approaches. I was on the commission for a good many years and if I were asked to undertake the duties again I would not give five minutes of my time to the work, because all that one gets out of it is abuse. When we came here as a harbour commission, however, and represented our case with regard to the viaduct, I must say that we were treated generously by hon. gentlemen opposite, who were the government of that day.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: There is one aspect
of this matter that does not seem to have received the attention it deserves, and that is the airport. I do not think there has been

Public Works Program
clearly represented to the house the situation that exists in Toronto in connection with air traffic. It cannot be gainsaid that there is not a city of its size at the present time in North America that has worse air facilities than has Toronto, and the authorities there, realizing that, have had in mind for a number of years some permanent development which would be in keeping with the size and importance of that city. They have been working on the problem. As the former Minister of National Defence said, there was an airdrome at Leaside which was dangerous and has been abandoned. At the present time there are in the north three or four different airdromes but none of them might be called either first class or second class; they have not the facilities to cater to the air trade which offers both from the republic to the south and from the northern country of which Toronto is the logical clearing house. Now the harbour commission fully realized that difficulty and this is not a sudden development which they have proposed; it is one they have been working on for a number of years, the idea being to provide the island with a combined sea and airport which would be suitable for landing seaplanes as well as land machines. When it is fully developed in accordance with the plans that have been laid out, Toronto will have an institution of which it can well be proud, one which will be as efficient as any on the continent. It is very different indeed from the situation in Montreal. Everyone must remember, I think, that this dominion spent over 82,000,000 to equip Montreal with an airport, and of that sum 8500,000 went into the mooring mast for an airship that made only one trip. It was used only on one occasion. That was done by the former government and I find no fault with it at all, but there was an expenditure of $500,000 which, for any use that was made of the structure, might as well have not been made. For that reason it does not seem to me to be out of the way to help Toronto at this time in this particular matter, especially when we remember that there was a dominion commitment of many years' standing with regard to a bridge over that western gap. If we can put a tunnel there instead of the bridge and make possible the development of the airport, I think we shall be doing a very excellent thing. Indeed, I do not know of any one thing that will prove of greater value and more lasting good to Toronto than this combined airport and tunnel, and I think the question should be looked at from that point of view; I do not think that the house should regard it as the outcome of a discussion 92582-185
lasting only a month or two. It is nothing of the kind. It has been carefully thought out and it will be a very useful public work. I know the airport situation there and I submit that it will be of great benefit to the city of Toronto.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has discussed very fairly the provision of airport facilities, but I think he has left a wrong impression on the committee with regard to the airport at St. Hubert. In the first place, Montreal does not enjoy an airport anywhere as close to the city as the airports to the north of the city of Toronto, because St. Hubert is nearly twenty miles from Montreal. In the second place, I think that if the minister looks up the records he will agree with the positive statement I make, that St. Hubert was provided as a national airport to serve as a first-class air base on the eastern coast of the dominion. Aeroplanes contact transatlantic ships, inward or outward, connecting with them at Father Point or even farther down, and it was necessary to have a suitable landing place at a convenient point near the seaboard on the eastern coast of Canada. From here inward overseas mail radiated west and south and to this point was directed mail bound for overseas from a great part of the continent. St. Hubert was not provided as an airport for Montreal and never was so regarded; it was the first great- national airport in Canada. The former government took some care in this matter. The airport was not selected there because it happened to be near Montreal. We had a group of three gentlemen from England, men who understood the requirements of airports and aviation, skilled outstanding men in their profession- one of them was Commander Scott, who perished in the R101, and there were two other gentlemen of outstanding ability-who travelled throughout eastern Canada from Sydney and Halifax to Toronto, examining every possible site in order -to suggest the ideal spot for the purposes of a national port, a terminus for aeroplanes on the eastern coast of Canada. After a most exhaustive examination they unanimously recommended St. Hubert and the Department of National Defence and the government acted on their recommendation. It was in no sense an airport for Montreal. There are a number of sites on the island of Montreal itself which might have been chosen had the interests of the city been the paramount consideration. Those are the circumstances under which St. Hubert was selected.

Public Works Program

With regard to the expenditure on the mooring mast, my hon. friend is quite fair about that; he does not criticize it. The money was voted in order that Canada might do its share in connection with the experimental flight which was proposed to be made by lighter than air craft from England. The Prime Minister of Canada when he was at the imperial conference, in 1928 I think, undertook that if Great Britain would build the ship and send it out, Canada would provide a mooring mast for that purpose. It was as a part in the development of a great commonwealth scheme of aerial transportation that that mooring mast was constructed. My hon. friend was quite right; only one airship landed there-the R100. We all know the very sad tragedy that occurred in connection with lighter than air machines when later the R101 was lost on that fateful trip to India, and since that time Great Britain has not entered extensively into the construction of such machines. It may be that the mooring mast will never be used again. But Canada fulfilled its obligation; it was voted for by every member of this house; there was no opposition to it inside the house. That experiment was conducted safely and successfully I am glad to say, as far as the trip of R100 was concerned, but the R101 met a different fate.
The airport in Toronto is quite a different thing. My hon. friend knows that the policy of the Department of National Defence has been that airports are to be established by municipal authorities. Assistance by the Department of National Defence and the government of Canada is given in the way of lighting them and providing accessories. But the airport itself, as far as I know, and I do not think my hon. friend has made any change in that regard, has been provided by the municipality. While my hon. friend has made a contribution to this debate in suggesting that airport facilities at Toronto are not as good as they should be, I do not think he has advanced any argument why we should spend a million dollars, not for an airport but for a tunnel without any suggestion of any commitment by anyone to construct an airport in Toronto at the terminus of this tunnel. We come back to that time and time again no matter how much we may appear to wander from it; the vote now is for a tunnel from the city of Toronto to an island in Toronto harbour. One of the members for Toronto who just sat down gave the thing pretty well away, I think, when he suggested that one argument in favour of this thing is that if that tunnel were built residents of

Toronto could ride to the island for the price of a street car fare. What has that to do with the dominion government, with dominion funds? No matter how deserving the people may be, is this house going to vote special funds to provide them with cheap transportation facilities? Are we going to vote funds to reduce the city transportation fares of Winnipeg, of Calgary, or of Vancouver? The argument is just as strong for on-e place as the other. I think the hon. member brought out very forcibly the point we are trying to make, namely that so far as any evidence submitted to this committee goes, this tunnel is not a national project, it is purely a local project; in connection with the national aspect of it there has been no commitment or definite assurance whatever, and I submit that as a project in conjunction with an airport which may or may not materialize, it is a project which requires, as the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) says, a good deal more examination and careful study and investigation and reports from competent aviation engineers than appear to have 'been given or supplied having regard to the meagre information that has been laid before this committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thought the hon. gentleman was going to answer, and now that I rise I see all the ministers rising. I ask them, if they are ready to speak, to answer the question I put to them before, and I shall be very thankful.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not think that the former Minister of National Defence or the other gentlemen on the other side who have spoken have given this matter very careful thought. They seem to have followed the lead of the hon. member for Toronto. West Centre (Mr. Factor) early in the afternoon and decided, every one of them, that the scheme should be opposed. Now there have been carefully prepared plans for this airdrome-I saw them; the engineer of the harbour commission showed them to me. This is not a suddenly conceived idea. The St. Hubert airdrome is a national airdrome, it is true. It clears the flights coming in from the south, from New York, and when we get a transatlantic air mail undoubtedly it will be a very important link in that. But the proposed airdrome at Toronto will really be a national airdrome also, with this difference, that the government are not called upon to pay for it, and will not be called upon to pay a cent unless it be something in connection with the lighting, as the hon. member has mentioned. I consider that Toronto is

Public Works Program
practically as important an air base as Montreal. It will clear from the whole central part of the United States from which the large amount of traffic is naturally coming up into Canada. If they find an airdrome there just as good as any, it will be made use of.


Samuel Factor: Is this proposed airdrome part of the trans-Canada airway development?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Undoubtedly it will be. All that will be needed in Toronto to form a link in that system will be an airdrome. Under any circumstances, of course, mail will be taken from Toronto to the transcontinental airway when it comes into operation. Toronto will undoubtedly be on the map as an air centre if it gets this airdrome. Toronto will be just as important a link as Montreal. I think the government would be missing a very important chance if they neglected to do this work, and to make the scheme possible by providing access to the airdrome by means of a tunnel. This airdrome will be one and a half or two miles from the centre of the city as at present constituted.	That gives it advantages which very few airports have. It will be better than St. Hubert because it will combine the water and the land features.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr.	Chairman, this
started as a tunnel and now it is an airport. What is the link between them? It reminds us of the tunnels which are built to test model airplanes. It is a most curious thing. No one objects to an airport in the proud city of Toronto. The minister seems to think that the members who object to this expenditure are objecting on account of the fact that the tunnel is not to be built in Montreal. It is not that at all; it is because it is most silly to build a tunnel costing a million dollars for an airport. In order to justify that enormous expenditure-


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The airport at
Montreal cost S2,000.000.


James Layton Ralston: I must correct that. It
is not in Montreal; it is a national airport. It is not the same thing at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not the same thing.
I would not object to that million dollars if it were being spent for an airdrome or an airport, but what I find absurd is wasting a million dollars to build a tunnel to go to that airport. Let the aeroplanes come to it. The money is not only thrown in the water, it is spent under the water, and excavations made to waste money.


James Houston Spence: How are you going to get to the airport without a tunnel or a bridge?
92582-185 i


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You don't need it; the people get there at present without a tunnel.


Jean-François Pouliot: There must be a clear distinction. No one objects to the airport, and the minister is wrong when he makes a comparison between Montreal and Toronto. There is no tunnel at St. Hubert. But if the government build this tunnel, we have no assurance that the airport will ever be built. We object to legislation of this kind. If this tunnel is built we maintain that the money spent will be a pure loss This is our point of view, and I was surprised that at least one of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken, an hon. member who usually speaks very well, did not see the point. It is very plain. No hon. member would object to any effort being made in behalf of the city of Toronto. Who does object? This is shadow boxing, that is all. We want to play fair with the city of Toronto, as we want to play fair with every other city, but we do not want the taxpayers of Toronto and other parts of Canada to be imposed upon by such silly expenditures as this. Who are the contractors behind the scheme? The reason no minister answered the very pertinent questions that were asked was that no minister dared disclose the names of the contractors the government had in mind for this fat contract. Have you ever heard of a case, Mr. Chairman, where not one member of the cabinet was able to take the responsibility for a scheme such as this? The only answer I received from those sitting on the treasury benches was, " I will not do that " from one minister; from the others I got no answer at all. I need not tell the Minister of Public Works that he is an able man and an able minister; he knows his department very well, so if this work is ever done -although" it is absurd to do it-I should prefer to see it done under his control rather than under the control of any other minister, because he has had experience in the Department of Public Works and this is a public work. May I ask the minister now if he will take that responsibility or if some other member of the cabinet will have charge of this matter?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Whatever differences of opinion there may have been in the Toronto city council while they were getting acquainted with the idea, it seems to me their attitude is very clearly set out now, when the mayor says it is important that unemployed men be put to work on the project as soon as possible, and when he expresses his hope that those who have the interests of the unemployed ait heart might expedite rather than attempt to
Public Works Program

hinder the city's support of the schema. It see,ms to me that this clearly expresses what the mayor, the controllers and the city council of Toronto think about it. I really believe the hon. member for Toronto West centre (Mr. Factor), who started the opposition this afternoon, was very ill advised to do so, bearing in mind the benefits that will accrue to his own city and his own riding.


Samuel Factor: In' .the first place I should like to say to the minister that hon. gentlemen opposite do not possess any monopoly when it comes to having the interests of Toronto at heart. Being a member from Toronto I am just as much interested in providing employment in that city as are the minister and the other members who have spoken. The expression of opinion by Mayor Simpson, to which the minister has just referred, is merely the individual opinion' of that gentleman; the matter lias not been brought before the city council for consideration, and there is a strong body in the council absolutely opposed to an airport.
Let us analyze the situation as it presents itself after discussion. This airport is either part of the trans-Canada air development or iit is a municipal airport. If it is one of the airports to be built by the federal government as part of the large scheme, then it is up to the federal government to provide in the estimates a sufficient amount of money to build the airport as well as the tunnel. That lias not been done; they have merely provided SI ,000,000 for the construction of a tunnel in the event of an airport being built by the municipality. Is it not a reasonable proposition that if the airport is to be provided by the city of Toronto the governing body of that city should express its approval fust? That should be the very foundation for this expenditure of 81,000,000. The city council has not approved of this plan; it has not been proposed to the city council. As a matter of fact the harbour board have not consulted the members of this house in reference to this development of the airport.
The government aay this is simply a matter of providing relief for unemployment; they express great concern now with regard to unemployment. Why did they wait until the very last hour of the very last day before bringing down the unemployment relief bill? If they were so anxious to provide work for the unemployed they should have consulted the municipal council months ago, and they should have consulted -the members of this house who have a vital interest in seeing that work is provided in the city of Toronto. In
(Mr. Sutherland.]
the very last hour this bill was presented and $1,000,000 was provided for the construction of a tunnel in the event of an airport being built by the city. No one consulted the municipal governing body; no one consulted the members on the government side of the house, even. They did not know anything about this vote.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, they did.
Mr. FACTOR.: Perhaps one or two did, but most of them did not know about it. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) did not know anything about it; at the conference with the harbour board he knew no details with regard to the construction of this tunnel, and he was provided with that information only on May 16, after the bill had been brought down. Then the harbour board officials called into consultation the members of the house and furnished them with the information in regard to the tunnel. Again I throw out a suggestion to the Minister of Public Works. When I mentioned it this afternoon he said it had not been done before. Well, here is an opportunity for him to establish a precedent. Let this amount remain in this bill without allocating it to the tunnel. I am just as anxious to provide relief for the unemployed as are hon. gentlemen opposite. Let the government confer immediately with the municipal authorities of Toronto. If they are satisfied to provide an airport; if they are satisfied to make an expenditure of 8500,000 on that airport at the present time, to build something that will create carrying charges and which will never pay its way, then I will withdraw my opposition. The engineer of the harbour board stated that he thought the income would be sufficient to pay operating charges only; so far as carrying charges are concerned, this airport will place a load of debt on the shoulders of the taxpayers of Toronto. An airport is a development that is bound to come; it is a development that should come, but the point is whether this is the opportune time to invest public money in this way.
I need not repeat what I said this afternoon. Hon. gentlemen opposite say $1,000,000 is not sufficient for slum clearance. Well, we are willing to treble the amount. Put in $5,000,000 as an unemployment relief measure, but devote the money to some useful purpose rather than to something which even the people in Toronto do not favour. I suggest to the government that if a plebiscite were taken in Toronto to ascertain whether the people were in favour of the construction of this tunnel I doubt very much whether it

Public TForfcs Program
would pass, because they realize that there are other and more worthy projects on which this money could be spent. But as I said a moment ago, leave this vote in the estimates without allocating the money to any particular purpose. Confer immediately with the municipal authorities of Toronto, and if the municipal council passes a resolution favouring the establishment of the airport, then so far as I am concerned I will withdraw my opposition.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As a last word to the committee I should like to endeavour to clarify the situation and to present it as I see it. In doing so I desire to point out what I think is a mistake in the way this matter has been dealt with by some of those who have spoken in opposition to it. Some hon. members insist upon dealing with this item as though it stood by itself, as if it were a new item and had no relation to what has gone before. They suggest that we come down now, for the first time, and submit a proposition involving an expenditure of a million dollars to connect the city of Toronto with the island. Other hon. members suggest the expenditure is being made for the development of an airport. I say it is made for neither one nor the other.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a proposition to carry out the terms of an agreement.


Samuel Factor: May I ask the minister
a question?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Please let me
finish. It is a proposition to carry out the terms of an agreement solemnly made after careful consideration.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No tunnel was discussed in that agreement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under the terms of the agreement it became the duty of the Dominion of Canada to provide a means of communication.


James Layton Ralston: No, a bascule bridge.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, a bascule
bridge; there is no question about that. That was the agreement, and no person denies it.


James Layton Ralston: Made twenty-two years
ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Let me finish.
That was the agreement, and may I add that the other parties to the agreement have carried out their part. This is not a new matter whereby out of the blue we proceed to build
a tunnel connecting one part of a municipality with another part. It is the performance of an agreement to do work in connection with the development of a harbour and an agreement which has been fulfilled by the other contracting party. That is a point which must not be forgotten and one which, I submit, destroys altogether the contention that this is a new work undertaken simply for the purpose of connecting one part of a municipality to another part. No doubt it has that effect, and it was intended that that should be the effect, but who would say that when an agreement states you are to construct a bascule bridge and you can construct a tunnel, it would be better to proceed with the construction of the bridge and not construct a tunnel? Surely no hon. member would suggest'that under those circumstances a bridge should be built, and that simply because an agreement stated a bridge should be built a tunnel must not be built if, as a matter of fact, the building of a tunnel would be to greater advantage.
It has been suggested that the expenditure is to be made for the purpose of establishing an airport. That is not the fact. The expenditure is made for the purpose of carrying out an agreement. It is fortunate, undoubtedly, that the development of the airport is an added reason and gives the tunnel added value and is a greater justification for its construction. I believe that is all I can say in the matter, except that we have given all the information available. I trust the committee will consider the matter. We are prepared to accept the judgment of the house. There has been full discussion, and we have endeavoured to answer all questions and to present all available information. I believe hon. members from Toronto will agree, upon reflection, that it would not be proper or fair to leave the item in blank.


Samuel Factor: If the city council of the city of Toronto came to the conclusion that this is not the proper time to build an airport, would the government proceed with the construction of the tunnel?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As the hon. member knows, the tunnel is a work undertaken for the relief of unemployment and at the same time to fulfil an agreement.


Samuel Factor: But that is not answering my question. In the event of the city council deciding against the building of an airport, would the government build the suggested tunnel between the island and the mainland?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should think it would have to do that, in satisfaction of its
Public Works Program

obligation. If the city of Toronto were prepared to cancel the obligation to build either the bridge or the tunnel, then I would say we would be very glad not to do either.


Samuel Factor: Before the item was put in the bill was there any understanding or agreement with the harbour commission that an airport was to be built?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; it was understood that the harbour commission had under consideration the development of an airport as an added reason why the work should be undertaken. While dealing with this point may I say something which I believe I overlooked, namely, that representations were made by nearly all hon. members from the city of Toronto before the item was inserted in the schedule of the bill.


Samuel Factor: They will not say so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I say to my hon. friend, and I ask him to accept my word, that before the item was placed in the bill I received representations in favour of it from nearly every member from the city of Toronto.


Samuel Factor: I accept the minister's word. I do know however that we conferred on May 16 with the harbour board and its officials, and that was the' first conference so far as I know respecting the item under consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know anything about that conference, but I do know about the representations from Toronto members with regard to this item.


John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister tell the committee what other work which was not included in the agreement has been done since the agreement was entered into by the government, and give us an idea what it cost? My recollection is a great deal of work was done in dredging the entrances, and in various other ways.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have before me a statement showing the work done between the years 1913-14 and 1934-35. The dredging done between these years was valued at $521,650; construction and improvements at $8,937,281, and repairs and maintenance at $83,528, making a total expenditure of $9,542,459. I have the amounts for each year, if the hon. member would like to have them.


John Campbell Elliott: Those are expenditures by the federal government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Samuel Factor: I cannot understand what objection the minister could have to leaving the item in the bill and allocating it for the purpose of unemployment relief in the city of Toronto, thereby affording an opportunity for conference with the city officials. After all, the municipal government is as deeply interested in providing unemployment relief as is the federal government. I cannot see any objection to holding the item, without allocating it specifically to the tunnel, and then conferring with the municipal government to ascertain whether or not the million dollars could be used to better advantage. If they come to the conclusion that the tunnel and airport scheme would be the most useful public work at the present time, then an agreement could be arrived at. What possible objection could there be to an arrangement of that kind?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say that under the Unemployment Relief Act, any negotiations such as those suggested by the hon. member are still open to the city of Toronto. However, the government has decided that this is an appropriate way to expend moneys for relief of unemployment in _ that city. We are doing it on our own account; we are not asking any contribution from the city of Toronto, and we are carrying out our obligation.


Samuel Factor: Will the government undertake to build this tunnel without the development of the airport?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say that they are under obligation either to build the tunnel or to construct a bridge irrespective of the development of the airport. But I do say that the development of the airport is an added reason, or an added justification, if one were needed, for the undertaking of this work.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have followed this discussion with a great deal of attention, and I must say that the more I hear about this vote the less I am convinced that it should pass. At first sight this would appear to be an improvement to the Toronto harbour.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think
my hon. friend puts it quite rightly, and I am sure he does not wish to misstate the matter. I say now, as I have said on several occasions, that there was a general scheme for the development of the harbour, that it was recognized that the dominion should have some part in that scheme, and that this was the part assigned to the government. In itself it is not strictly speaking a development of the harbour, but it was a work that was

Public Works Program
agreed to be done in connection with a large scheme for the development of the harbour, the city undertaking to do other things which properly perhaps the dominion government might well have undertaken to do. It was just the division of a general scheme of development. Divorced from all the rest, which I say it should not be, and taken by itself, perhaps it cannot be considered to be a harbour development.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am very glad we agree
on that point. The argument I was going to make was this. After looking over the schedule as a whole, at first sight it would appear that as the government was spending money in the harbour of Montreal and the harbour of Quebec it was also desired to spend money in the harbour of Toronto, but the moment we examine into the matter more closely we find that this tunnel project as an improvement to the harbour of Toronto simply does not exist. It cannot improve the harbour of Toronto at all.
The argument that is advanced in favour of this project is twofold. In the first place, it is said that an agreement was entered into with the city of Toronto some twenty-five years ago, as the minister has just repeated. In the second place, it is said that this tunnel might serve as an access to an airport which does not yet exist. I say that in both cases the argument is a very poor one.
In the first place, if the agreement has been left outstanding for a great number of years, no attempt being made to carry it out even when the country was prosperous and a lot of money could be spent everywhere, it is disputable at this stage, when money even for relief purposes is very cautiously spent, whether the agreement entered into some twenty-five years ago should be respected when it is acknowledged to-night that this tunnel is of no use at all so far as an improvement to the harbour is concerned. In the second place, we are told that the tunnel will furnish access to an airport. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that we hear of building an expensive access to something that does not exist. It would be much wiser first to let the airport be built, and then consider whether it would be worth while to have such an expensive method of access constructed.
Another argument which in my opinion is a very poor one is that this project is for relief purposes and to provide employment. That argument could be advanced in favour of anything at all proposed under this act. Of course we want money to be spent to relieve unemployment, but the mere fact that
it is to be spent for that purpose is no reason why we should build a tunnel rather than a bridge, or this work rather than another. I find that under item No. 10. for instance, there is a large amount appropriated without any specific purpose being set forth, and the proposal that has been made by my hon. friend from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) I think is a good one, that instead of having this one million dollars voted specifically for a tunnel it might be included in the general vote with the understanding that Toronto will have the benefit of it. If it is not used for a tunnel it might be used for a public building or improvements of another kind, and that would be serving the purpose of providing employment, for which we all stand. But it is not necessary to have the money voted specifically for a tunnel.
The minister seems to think we must take the bill as it stands, that we cannot possibly change one line of it. But this would surely be the first piece of legislation to come before the house. Mr. Chairman, in respect to which it was not considered possible to bring in any amendment. Surely the minister will not say it would not be feasible to withdraw that one line appropriating a million dollars for a tunnel at the west entrance of Toronto harbour and to add one million dollars to the amount appropriated in item No. 10. On the contrary. I think it would be very wise and very reasonable. Then it would be understood that one million dollars would be spent in Toronto anyway for the relief of unemployment, but we would not be committing ourselves to the building of a tunnel which in the words of the minister himself is not an improvement to the harbour but will lead to an airport which does not exist, and is being imposed upon a city which does not want it.


James Houston Spence: Why make a statement like that? How do you know what Toronto wants?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have followed the discussion very carefully, and it has been repeatedly stated here-


James Houston Spence: You had better stick to Montreal and something you know something about.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I cannot of course alter the temperament of my hon. friend but we have spent all day hearing about the airport.


James Houston Spence: Why do you-
Public Works Program


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman; I am trying to use it as a gentleman and my hon. friend will not interrupt me unless he does likewise. We have heard a good deal about the airdrome at St. Hubert in connection writh Montreal harbour, and when I said that this proposed tunnel would not be an improvement to the harbour of Toronto the minister would not even let me finish my sentence. I take the ground that there can be no comparison between the expenditures in the harbours of Montreal and Quebec and the harbour of Toronto because as an improvement to the harbour of Toronto this simply does not exist. This tunnel is proposed merely because it was agreed some twenty-five years ago that there might be built either a tunnel or a bridge, and there is the additional argument that it would lead to an airport when nobody knows whether the airport will ever be constructed. You do not need to be from Toronto to understand that the whole thing is absurd. It is very clear to a member coming from any part of Canada; and I will never admit in this house-I say this dispassionately

that unless you happen to reside in the very place where an expenditure is proposed you have no right to discuss it. If my hon. friend from Parkdale has that parochial idea, I have not. I claim the right to discuss expenditures in Halifax and Vancouver with the same dispassionate freedom that I have when it comes to discussing an expenditure in my own city. But I will not prolong that part of the argument. I know that my hon. friend (Mr. Spence) is very genial. He just popped up at the moment and regrets it I am sure, and I accept his apology even before he presents it to me.


James Houston Spence: I will just say this in reply, that when Toronto makes up its mind to get an airport it is going to get it whether the government pays for it or not. The people of Toronto get everything they want, and we will continue to do so.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: May I ask what is the population of the island? I ask only for information. I do not know much about it because I am from Montreal.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really do not know the population.


Paul Mercier: Is it a lonely island on a lonely lake?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is the very opposite of lonely,


Paul Mercier: Does not the minister think that the present papulation will be bothered by the tunnel when people come picnicing there from the city? They are living in peace on the island now.


Joseph Henry Harris: Seven hundred thousand people visited the island last year.


Paul Mercier: Then you do not need any tunnel.


Mr. HGWDBN:: I do not live in or near
Toronto and I am not particularly disposed to butt into other people's business. However, I should like to ask the minister a question or two. Is it contemplated by this bill to give the city of Winnipeg some assistance in connection with the sewage disposal scheme suggested for that city ?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I believe that
matter is under consideration, negotiation and discussion by the Department of Labour. That matter would be taken up under the relief act and not under this bill.


John Power Howden: Do I understand the
minister to say it would not come under the provisions of this bill?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That work would be undertaken in cooperation with the province or the city and such works are conducted under the Unemployment Relief Act through agreements between the dominion and the province.


John Power Howden: It might be permissible
to point out that the discussion to-day has brought out the fact that the federal government contemplates the expenditure of $1,000,000 to build a tunnel to connect the city of Toronto with an island in Toronto harbour, towards which the city of Toronto is to make a contribution of something like $100,000. This is not a necessary work. The minister has indicated that this work is being undertaken with a view to providing work for the unemployed, but I would point out that the city of Winnipeg is in a dire and desperate condition due to the necessity for sewage disposal. This work will cost some $900,000 and the federal authorities are offering assistance only to the extent of forty per cent. It is almost impossible to live along the banks of the Red river in the summer time because of the stench caused by insufficient water to carry away the sewage. Yet the federal government is offering to pay only forty per cent of the cost of this work when it is contributing $1,000,000 to construct a tunnel in Toronto and the city of Toronto is contributing only $100,000.

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I know my hon. friend would not want to state only part of the case. The dominion government is contributing its share of a larger amount which has been expended by the city in years past. This is being done on the basis of an agreement.


John Power Howden: 
Mr. BLAIR:: I cannot understand why the minister is anxious to spend $1,000,000 on such a proposition. I have it on fairly good information that the people on the island do not desire this tunnel. They do not want to have motor caTS brought across on the ferries; they think the island should be left without cars. Any person who has travelled through St. John's ward in Toronto will understand the report which has been made by Lieutenant-Governor Bruce of Ontario. People are living in houses under very unhealthy conditions and I am sure that if the people of Toronto had an opportunity of making a choice between cleaning up St. John's ward and building a tunnel, they would decide in favour of the former.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can the hon. gentleman tell me where is St. John's ward? Is he talking about Toronto or some other city?


John Knox Blair: We will leave it to the hon. member to look up the map.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would inform the hon. gentleman that there is no ward in Toronto called St. John's.


John Knox Blair: I know there is a ward which has the nickname of St. John's. I do not know whether they have a nickname for the hon. member.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There may be one in the village of Arthur but there is not one in the city of Toronto.


John Knox Blair: I practised in Toronto for many years and I have been in St. John's ward many times. Lieutenant-Governor Bruce brought in a report on slum conditions and I feel sure that the vast majority of the people of Toronto would rather clean up the slums and provide proper homes for these people than build this tunnel. Parts of these slums are in close contact with the better parts of the city. I agree with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) who suggests that this money be set aside and not allocated to any particular purpose until such time as we hear from the people of Toronto. If the people desire to spend this money on a housing scheme it would be much better than building a tunnel. With a housing scheme there would be some return from the money invested, besides providing comfort for the people. Under this bill it is proposed to build a tunnel which is not necessary.
It also is suggested that an airdrome is to be constructed on a seventy-five acre lot. There does not seem to be any more acreage and I cannot imagine how an airdrome which usually requires some three or four hundred acres can be built on a lot that size. It is suggested that seventy-five per cent of this expenditure will be used for labour, but I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that this labour will be mostly pick and shovel labour. If a housing scheme was undertaken employment would be provided for bricklayers, plasterers, caipenters and other forms of labour. Under this proposal a large percentage of the money will go to the big contractors, because much of the work will be done by machinery. The housing scheme, in my opinion, would be much better because it would give work to the unemployed in Toronto. This is a matter that should be referred back to the city of Toronto and I am sure that we might very well act on their advice. We might ask them how they would wish to spend the money to provide relief for the unemployed. If it were spent in connection with a housing scheme it would save the country north of Toronto from the travellers who are a public nuisance on the highways. I would gladly vote for a scheme that would keep the people of Toronto occupied so as to get them off our highways. It would also relieve the hon. member for Parkdale because he would not then find it necessary to provide a lot of ribbons and buttons for people at the next election. At the last election men were wearing buttons on
Public Works Program

their coats and they were all unemployed. I moved from one place to another and asked these men what they had been doing in the afternoon-this procession took place after six o'clock-and I found that about one-third of them had been working. If he has a parade of this kind the next time the hon. gentleman might have one in the afternoon too.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister given the house any information as to what percentage of this million dollars which will be used to construct the tunnel will be spent in wages, what percentage will represent cost of machinery, and what will represent labour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: According to the best information which I can obtain, between seventy and eighty per cent will be spent on labour, when you consider the labour actually on the work itself and the labour involved in the preparation of material.


Paul Mercier: Will $1,000,000 be sufficient?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is the
estimate.


Jean-François Pouliot: There has been a persistent rumour about the building of airdromes in the United States in close proximity to Canada. I wonder if the so-called tunnel will not be used as a shelter for the people of Toronto in case Canada is bombarded by American aeroplanes.


John Campbell Elliott: There is one phase of
this matter that has not been fairly stated. I have elicited from the minister the fact that practically $9,000,000 has been expended by the federal government in connection with the work in that harbour since the agreement was entered into. I happen to know something about the way in which these expenditures were made. They were made as a fulfilment in part of promises contained in that agreement. The agreement has not been placed before the committee, but the minister has given a memorandum containing some of the things set forth in it. The agreement was not an undertaking to do within any definite time all these works included in it; the work was to be done when funds were available, or words to that effect. It was never contemplated that this government should be called upon to make an expenditure of that kind as a matter of obligation under the agreement in times like these. That a bascule bridge, estimated originally to cost $800,000. was not built was due largely to the

fact that after a time there crept into the minds of the harbour commissioners a doubt as to whether such a bridge was desirable at that point.
Progress reported.



RESIGNATION OF A. B. THOMPSON

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the resignation of Alfred Burke Thompson, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of East Simcoe.
I have also the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the electoral district of East Simcoe, in the province of Ontario, consequent upon the appointment of the sitting member therefor, Alfred Burke Thompson, Esquire, as executive officer for the province of Ontario under the farm loan board.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 21, 1935