1935-04-15

Mr. L. G. BELL (St. Antoine) moved:: That the petition of Isabella H. Sadler Rice, presented on the 14th ultimo, praying for a bill of divorce from James Bedford Rice, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 60 respecting radio broadcasting.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: This bill has one section only and provides for the extension of the life and the powers of the radio commission for a couple of months in order that this matter may be dealt with more fully upon our return.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this might be an appropriate moment to refer again to the designation of the introducer of this bill. This bill appears on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and my right hon. friend who has just introduced the bill (Sir George Perley) is either the Prime Minister or the acting Prime Minister, he cannot be both. I see no reason why bills should not appear on the order paper in the name of whoever may be the acting Prime Minister if he is responsible for the measure so that the records may be complete. I looked up the votes and proceedings of the house to see what had been done in 1919 when Sir Robert Borden was unfortunately indisposed and unable to be present in the house for a time. Sir George Foster was the acting Prime Minister at the time and I notice that bills and resolutions were introduced in Sir George's name when he was the acting Prime Minister. It may be the modesty of my right hon. friend which has caused him to omit putting in his own name when acting as Prime Minister, I have no doubt he has been appointed acting Prime Minister by order in council of the cabinet and that he is the acting Prime Minister. Measures that are brought in by my right hon. friend should be in his name. Further on, on the order paper, we have a notice for adjournment and it again is in the name of the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend did tell us the other day that the Prime Minister was keeping in touch with matters in the house, but I submit that that is not sufficient. The procedure with respect to public measures where it is of permanent record should not be designated otherwise than as is strictly accurate. I mention this again though I do not want to make any particular point of it except to see that the proceedings of parliament and particularly of this house are kept and of record in the regular way.


George Halsey Perley: I have no particular objection to what my right hon. friend says except that when he accuses me of undue modesty he is making a great mistake.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 61, to amend the New Westminster Harbour Commissioners Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
Soldier Settlement Act


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The object of this bill is to empower She governor in council to determine a remuneration for the harbour commissioners of New Westminster for their services out of the revenue of the harbour. Hitherto the commissioners have served without remuneration and the business has been increasing every year since their incorporation. During the year 1934 they have made a splendid showing. They have met their operating expenses, the interest on debentures both to the public and the government, and they had a surplus of many thousands of dollars. I have not the particulars here but when the bill is in committee I will give the exact figures.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Mr. McINTOSH:: Explain.


Mr. GORDON:: Strictly spealdng, and in
order to keep the record correct, this bill should not be in the name of the Minister of Labour but rather in the name of the acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization. The bill is designed to make permanent employees of the Department of Soldier Settlement Board. I think it is pretty well known to all members of the house that the employees of this department have always been deemed to be temporary, and the department has been functioning now for some sixteen years. In the last few years the department has taken on a great many duties with which formerly it had nothing to do-duties which will undoubtedly continue for many years to come. Their work has been, I think, highly satisfactory and it is my view and the view of the government that the time has come when these employees should be made permanent and given a chance to enjoy the benefits of the Superannuation Act.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is it also
proposed to put them under the operation of the Civil Service Act?


George Gordon: Yes.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: How
many are affected?


Mr. McPHEE:: A good many of us are
interested in this matter, and in order that we may the better discuss this bill when the time comes I would ask the minister to furnish the house at the appropriate time with answers to the following questions:	1. What

are the names of the employees of the soldier settlement board who have been dismissed or removed from office since the present government came into office, giving positions held, salaries paid and where employed? 2. What are the names of the employees in this department who have been engaged since this government came into office, giving positions they hold, salaries paid, and where located? 3. Who made the survey in connection with the department and on whose recommendation were the dismissals and appointments made? The house will be better able to discuss the matter if the minister gives us this information at the proper time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CHURCH:: Will any announcement be made by the government before the close of this session as to the present position of negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of the United States regarding the proposed treaty (a) as to the St. Lawrence waterway;
(b)	as to a treaty to preserve the scenic beauties of Niagara falls?


George Halsey Perley: Perhaps I might be allowed to answer this question orally. It is impossible at the present time to give an answer to the question asked by the horn, gentleman, but I hope we shall be able to speak more definitely when the house reassembles after the adjournment.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. VEiNIOT:
1.	Who was in charge of patrol boat Bebee when she was ordered from Halifax to patrol work in New Brunswick in 1933?
2.	How long did the captain, then in charge, remain in charge of said boat?
3.	If any change took place in the position of captain, when did such change take place, and' why was the change made?
4.	Who was in charge during the season of 1934?
Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Gwyn WTlliam Pritchard Jones.
2.	From April 24, 1933, to June 22, 1933.
3.	Reginald Ray Kennedy was appointed coxswain of the 'Bebee on July 3, 1933, and actually took charge of the boat on July 5, 1933. Gwyn. William Pritchard Jones was discharged for cause.
4.	Reginal Ray Kenney.

Questions
BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS*


Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any instructions been issued to the board of railway commissioners instructing them to revise or change or review the present railway freight structure in Canada or portions thereof?
2.	If so, does any such order cover the railway rates existing between British Columbia and the other provinces?
3.	If not, is the government considering issuing such an order to the board of railway commissioners as suggested by the hon. the Prime Minister, and will any such instructions include the railway rates on grain and grain products for use in the province of British Columbia from the three prairie provinces?


Mr. MANION:: I think I can answer this question orally. No instructions have been issued to the board o<f railway commissioners to revise or change or review the present railway freight structure. The whole matter is under consideration.


GRANBY, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. HOWARD:: 1.	Were tenders called for repainting and interior decoration of post office at Granby, September, 1934?
2.	What is the name of the lowest tenderer and' what was his price?
3.	Who got the contract and at what price?
4.	Was a clerk of works appointed and who was he?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	Is Miss A. M. Bouchard, analyst, seed division, Department of Agriculture, Montreal, permanently employed?
2.	If so, since what date?
3.	Who signed her recommendation to the department and what members of the Civil Service Commission approved of same?
4.	How many days of sick leave did such person take since June 1, 1934?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.


CANADIAN LEGATION IN TOKYO
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What percentage of interest has the Canadian government paid and still pays for the amount spent for the building of a Canadian legation in Tokyo?
2.	What was the percentage of interest of the last issue of dominion bonds?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FINANCIAL STATISTICS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MoGIBBON:
1.	Up to and including December 31, 1934:
(a)	What was the total capital cost of the Canadian government railways?
(b)	What was the total amount of cash loans to the Canadian National Railways for capital expenditures?
(c)	WThat was the total amount of cash loans to the Canadian National Railways for refunding and retirement of its obligations due the public?
(d)	What was the total amount of cash loans to the Canadian National Railways for deficits?
(e)	What was the total amount of contributions to the Canadian government Railways for cash deficits which have been absorbed in consolidated revenue fund?
(f)	What was the total amount of contributions to the Canadian National Railways for cash deficits of eastern lines which have been absorbed in consolidated revenue fund?
(g)	What was the total amount of contributions to the Canadian National Railways for other cash deficits which have been absorbed in consolidated revenue fund?
(h)	What was the total amount of interest absorbed by the government in the consolidated revenue fund on account of money spent for items (a) to (g) inclusive?
2.	(a) What was the amount of cash deficit of the eastern lines for the year 1934, which was absorbed by the government in the consolidated revenue fund?
(b)	What was the amount of remaining deficit of Canadian National Railway system for the year 1934 which was so absorbed?
(c)	What was the amount of interest absorbed by the government in the consolidated revenue fund during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, on account of money spent for items detailed in classes (a) to (g) inclusive, of question 1?
3.	What was the amount of non-cash items of Canadian National Railways not taken up by the government for the year 1934 and what were the principal items?
4.	What was the amount of non-cash items of the Canadian National West Indies Steamships not taken up by the government for the year 1934 and what were the principal items?
Questions
[Stage Direction]
st. john's, que., unemployment belief camp
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	How many unemployed were admitted to the unemployed relief camp at Saint-John's, from November 1, 1933, to March 1, 1935?
2.	How many were dismissed from such camp?
3.	In each case, who recommended such unemployed ?
4.	Were some of them employed on construction work on the grounds of the Saint-John's barracks?
5.	Was the wage paid in excess of 20 cents per day?
6.	If so, what are the names of the persons so employed, their occupation and their hourly rate of pay?
7.	After the completion of such works, did they return to the camp as unemployed at 20 cents per day?
st. John's, que., militaby school


Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Who supplied the materials for all the works carried' out at the military school at Saint-John's, and any other _ building erected on the grounds of the military school (a) cement; (b) stone; (c) sand; (d) lumber; (e) paint?
2.	Were tenders called for in connection with these various materials?
3.	What are the names of the tenderers and their tender prices?
4.	What other persons were employed in connection with such construction works, apart from the unemployed, and what wage was paid to each such person?



SALARY DEDUCTION ACT

Mr. CHEVRIER:: What amount did the government realize by reason of (a) the deductions made from the salaries of the civil servants only, under the provisions of the Salary Deduction Act; (b) the withholding of statutory increases; (c) the stopping of promotions, during each of the years 1932, 1933, and 1934?


Mr. RHODES:: In. this connection I would like to point out that question (b) and (c) cannot be accurately answered. We will make the estimate as accurate as possible.



BOYAL COMMISSIONS

Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	How many royal commissions have been appointed since August 7, 1930?
2.	What was the purpose of each?
3.	What did each such commission cost?



PEBMANENT OR TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS

Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	How many permanent or temporary commissions other than royal commissions have been set up since August 7, 1930?
2.	What was the purpose of each?
3.	What did each such commission cost?
4.	How many are still functioning and at what annual cost?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In this connection may I ask the hon. .member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) who placed the question on the order paper, whether he wishes the information with regard to all commissions permanent or temporary. Several departments have inquired whether in the answer are to be included single commissioners, such as in commissions of inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act, commissioners appointed by a minister for the investigation of matters relating to his own department or commissioners appointed to inquire into charges of partisanship. Does the hon. gentleman wish all these commissions inquired into or only the general commissions such as those inquiring into matters concerning the provinces?


Mr. BERTRAND:: I am sorry I could not quite catch the sense of the explanation made by the minister. After I have read what he has said, I shall get in touch with a member of his department and arrange to get what is needed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Both of these questions relating to commissions will stand as orders for returns.



EASTER ADJOURNMENT


Right Hon.   S@: If agreeable to my right
hon. friend, I would move the following resolution that stands in the name of the Prime Minister:
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, April 17th, it stand adjourned' until Monday, May 29th next, at three p.m., daylight saving time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pleased that my
right hon. friend has seen his way to follow the correct procedure in the matter of the introduction of the motion, but I am not pleased with the resolution asking for such a long period of adjournment and the little regard that is paid thereby first of all to the wishes of the house, but more particularly to the needs of the country. I do not think it would be proper to let the motion pass without making another protest against the length of time asked for in this adjournment. I am not going to go over the arguments that were advanced in the course of debate a few days ago on this matter, but I wish to say that I do think the character of our political institutions is little by little being very materially changed. There was a time not so very long

Easter Adjournment
ago when it was believed at least in theory that government was carried on by the consent of the governed, but it can hardly be said that such has been the view entertained by the present administration since it took office. There is nothing more apparent than the fact that the government for a long time past has not enjoyed the confidence of the people of the country.


Alfred Duranleau: No, no. The right
hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear some
hon. gentlemen opposite saying: No, no. I do not know whether it is their hearing or their eyesight that is defective, but certainly after losing nine by-elections in succession they must have had some intimation of the fact that the country has completely lost confidence in them. Not only have they lost nine by-elections in succession, but their party has lost several provincial elections all of which have been fought largely on federal issues.


George Halsey Perley: I do not want
to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but I must say I am rather surprised he is starting to discuss this again. We had it under debate for two days. This is simply a reiteration of debate that took place before.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a
specific motion dealing with the question of adjournment and apparently the discussion of two days has fallen on deaf ears. I am trying, as I have said, not to reiterate what has been said, but simply to emphasize in a few words the seriousness of the indifference which the government apparently is showing to the needs of the country, to the public interest. A long adjournment at this time does mean-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice hon.
gentlemen opposite seem to think I am out of order. If I am, I shall stop, but I do not think I am. It is quite in order to discuss this motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend has been so kindly in his reference to the question of order that I would not have risen to a point of order because the widest latitude is shown to the leaders of the respective parties especially under circumstances such as this, but I feel if my right hon. friend proceeds at any length to debate this motion, other hon. gentlemen could claim the same right. As a matter of fact my right hon. friend is debarred from further debate, because this subject has been 92582-173
debated and decided at this session of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, the debate was on an amendment to a motion to go into committee of ways and means.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That was the vehicle,
but nevertheless it was a debate. The rule is with respect to debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to abide by the ruling of the Speaker, but I should be surprised if his honour ruled against me in regard to this motion, which is a substantive motion, and I am speaking immediately to it. However, I will relieve my hon. friend's anxiety by saying that I am not going to speak at any length. The point to which I wish to direct particular attention is this, that the public interest is the interest to which this parliament should give first consideration. I submit that the longer we delay permitting the public to express itself with respect to the government that is to carry on the business of this country for the next few years, the more we are going to prejudice the public interest in Canada. Hon. gentlemen know very well that until a general election is over it will not be possible for business to settle down in any normal way, nor will it be possible to hope for the normal and natural revival which we trust will come after a general election. I say this irrespective of the particular government that may be returned. The other day I heard someone refer to the presidential election year in the United States as a year in which very little progress is made with business, because of uncertainty as to what may result at the end of the election. Unfortunately next year will be the presidential year in the United States, there will be uncertainty there, from which this country will suffer in part. But if we are to wait until after midsummer and on into the fall of this year before the general election takes place business in Canada is going to be very materially prejudiced.
One pretext after another has been used by the government for continuing itself in office. After the by-elections of last fall, when we had what was spoken of as a miniature general election and government candidates were not only defeated but slaughtered everywhere, we were told that it was impossible to have a general election then because voters' lists were not ready. When parliament reassembled I spoke about the lists and my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) told us that the lists would not be ready until about April 15, but

Easter Adjournment

that they would be ready by that time. To-day is April 15. I think at that time the country had reason to hope that the lists being ready by April 15 it might expect a general election towards the end of April or early in May. Now the revision of the lists is being made, and I suppose we shall be told later that until the revision is completed we cannot hope to have a general election. The revision will probably take until July or August. That means that it will possibly be some time in September when the new government that is elected assumes office or the present government is confirmed in office.
Whether hon. gentlemen opposite are returned to office or another government is elected, it will take some little time after the election before the new administration whichever it may be, can begin to introduce and enforce its policies for the improvement of employment, the relief of unemployment, the furtherance of trade and the like. Also until after there has been a general election there will not be opportunity for any government satisfactorily to negotiate agreements with respect to trade. Until after a general election nothing can be done, for example, with respect to the revision of the Canada-United Kingdom agreements, nor is it likely that anything can be done satisfactorily with respect to a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States. Nor is it probable that any government in Europe, America or Asia will negotiate with the administration in this country until after the people have spoken. That means that with respect to the bringing about of such changes in conditions as can be effected through negotiations with other countries all this will be delayed until on into the fall. Being delayed that long means that winter will be approaching, and that the effect of any arrangements will not be felt until the year following. It will be too late for new markets. I think it is most unfortunate that such should be the case. The election should have been held last year, as hon. gentLemen well know. Now we are prolonging the session, not with a view of suiting the needs or interests of the country, or even considering the interests and the wishes of parliament, but simply to enable a moribund government to perpetuate itself longer in office in the hope that, not yet being able to win as far as they can see yet, something may turn up before the last moment arrives which will help to save the day.
I protest again against this delay because t means that we shall come back at the ..atter part of May, be held here possibly

through the greater part of the summer, and then there will be further delay before the general election. I think there is material enough, with the business on the order paper and what we have now before us in the form of reports, to enable us to continue after a recess of a few days, and thereby expedite the moment at which the people will come into their real and long denied right of expressing their wushes in a general election.


George Halsey Perley: I do not propose to answer the argument of the right hon. gentleman again or to traverse what we went through the other day. I feel very definitely that the remarks of the right hon. gentleman are entirely out of order, but we simply did not wish to interrupt him, on account of the latitude that is given to the leader of the opposition. Therefore in order not to continue a debate of that kind I do not propose to discuss the matter any further.


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


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Rennie). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South). I was paired with the .hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion,.


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


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


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. THOMPSON (Simcoe):: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ESLING:: I was paired with the hon. member for V&ncouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. CHARTERS:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bortneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gersbaw). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. ST-PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon).
' Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired with the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MULOCK:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MILLS:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Boyes). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville); otherwise, I would have voted for the motion.
TMr. Simpson.]


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


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land); otherwise, I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. PERRAS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett); otherwise, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell); otherwise, I would have voted against the motion.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto-Northeast (Mr. Baker); otherwise, I would have voted against the motion.



VALCARTIER UNEMPLOYMENT CAMP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) a complaint which I have received from persons residing in the district of Quebec to the effect that owing to the activities of the unemployed quartered at the Val-cartier camp a large number of summer residences in the vicinity have been broken into and acts of vandalism committed, and I am asked to transmit the request of respectable citizens of Quebec and vicinity that these activities of the unemployed at Valeartier oamp may cease forthwith.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that prosecutions of acts of depredation such as he has referred to are entirely in the hands of the Department of Justice of Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: I call the attention of the
minister to the fact that he is responsible for having 1,700 men there, and he cannot get away from it.



PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. MICHAUD (Restigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I

Bank of Canada
should like to direet to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) respecting orders in council tabled by him on April 12 under the Public Works Construction Act. In orders in council Nos. P.C. 1843 and P.C. 3224, references are made to contracts annexed thereto being made 'by the minister on behalf of His Majesty with the St. John Drydock and Shipbuilding Company, Limited. I direct the attention of the minister to t)he fact that the exhibits are not attached to the copies tabled, neither are they found in the return. I should like him to be kind enough to supply me with copies of these two contracts as well as with the correspondence referred to in such orders in council, and which should have been attached thereto, passing between the auditor general, the comptroller's staff, the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of Justice.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased
to look into the matter, see what has been tabled and if necessary complete the file.



THE KING'S SILVER JUBILEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes).
On April the 11th, page 2622 of the debates, the hon. Minister of Finance, answering a question from the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell), said:
I find that the master of the Royal Canadian Mint, acting on behalf of the Royal Mint at London, has received a quantity which he has arranged to be distributed through the ...
The names of five English Canadian firms are then given.
I do not know what the authority of the Finance minister in this matter may be, as far as the master of the Royal Canadian Mint is concerned, but may I ask the minister if he will be kind enough to see the master of the Canadian Mint and make sure that the latter will extend to French Canadian firms the same privileges as those granted English Canadian ones.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the house will appreciate that the Master of the Mint is not in the habit of merchandizing, and the distribution of the silver jubilee medals was not a merchandizing proposition. He was acting upon the request of the royal mint in London to distribute
medals for sale in a quantity which it was felt the market would consume, I do not quite understand how the question would arise as to having distribution through French Canadian firms, because my hon. friend will appreciate that those who are distributing the medals are incorporated companies, all of them. I believe it would be fair to assume that those companies would have French speaking employees and French speaking shareholders. If the companies were French I take it, conversely, that English employees and English shareholders would not be debarred.
I do not know that the subject could be elucidated any further by making inquiries from the master of the mint, although I shall be happy to do so. In conversation with him he advised me there1 were now some people desirous of distributing the medals and taking advantage of the advertising, which is being paid for by those companies who have the distribution in hand, although when approached by the master of the mint in the first place they were not interested.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question, the answer to which may remove some misunderstanding which exists. I notice that according to articles appearing in some French Canadian newspapers notes of the Bank of Canada printed in the French language are hard to obtain. Would the minister tell me what the rule is regarding the printing of bills in both languages, so as to remove any ill feeling which may develop in the matter?
Hon.E.N.RHODES (Minister of Finance): The statute provides that notes in both the French and English languages shall be available to those requesting them. If the circumstance exists whereby any particular branch of a bank is not making those notes available it is a matter which should be directed to the attention of the bank. I imagine a condition such as the hon. member has described must have arisen through sheer inadvertence, because the statute is there,



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,

C.NJt.-Denial oj Statement
before the adjournment on Wednesday will the acting leader of the government be able to advise the house as to whether or not when we resume there will apart from what appears on the order paper be legislation in addition to the bills based on the report of the price spreads commission and the housing committee, and if so of what nature such legislation may be? May I ask, further, after the house adjourns and before it reassembles if it would be possible to let me, as leader of the opposition have copies of such bills as the government may intend to introduce, and as may be drafted, a little in advance of the reassembling of parliament. That is a practice which on former occasions has been followed by governments, and might help to expedite business.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It might get into the newspapers.


Right Hon.   S@: I shall answer the right hon. gentleman to-morrow.



POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E, R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, as the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) is not in his seat for the moment, I will address my question to the Solicitor General: Is it true that, owing to a ruling of the Post Office Department, Easter Monday, the King's Birthday, June 3rd, and Remembrance Day, November 11th, will not be holidays this year for employees in that department? If instructions have been given to that effect, have they been given with the Postmaster General's approval?
Maurice Dupré: As the Postmaster General is not in his seat, with the hon. member's consent, I will call my colleague's attention to the question, so that the hon. member may receive a prompt answer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) a moment ago if he would favour me with information in connection with any legislation which might be drafted during the recess in advance to the reassembling of parliament, I was asking for the granting of a courtesy frequently extended by the government to the leader of the opposition in order to facilitate discussion
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
later on. However, as I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) say at the time I made the request that it might mean that information concerning the legislation might get into the press, I now ask that my request in this connection be disregarded by the government.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, April 13. This article makes a brief reference to the interruption by the minister of the speech of the financial critic of the opposition (Mr. Ralston) on the budget, and states:
But it is not hard to guess what Colonel Ralston intended to say. He was about to make a statement that after Judge Fullerton made a statement in Halifax last summer defending the Canadian National from the attacks of Mr. Beatty and the other advocates of "unification" (a blessed word this, so different from "amalgamation"!) he was told by the government not to offend Mr. Beatty and the government in this respect again.
It will be remembered that at the time various ministerial newspapers were scandalized at Judge Fullerton's temerity in talking back. They were, it now appears, reflecting the views of Mr. Bennett and Dr. Manion.
I should like to know if that statement is founded either on fantasy or fact.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to let me know that he was going to ask this question and I checked up the statement made by Judge Fullerton last year in the railways and shipping committee. As a matter of fact, I had already done this as other newspapers had taken somewhat the same attitude with regard to the statement made this year in the committee. I should like to quote a couple of sentences from the statement made in the committee last year by Judge Fullerton, I am glad to have this opportunity as I do not like being painted as a traitor to my country, as I have been in articles of this sort. Judge Fullerton is reported on page five of the minutes of proceedings of the committee held last year as follows:
There is one other matter to which I must
refer. Reference was made by a member of the committee to public addreses delivered by

C.N.R.-Refunding
the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I was asked to comment on these. It had not been my intention, for reasons which I shall later state, to refer to these speeches or to the efforts which are presently being carried on to promote the idea of amalgamation or, failing that, unified management of the two great railway systems, but since the matter has been raised in the committee I feel it my duty to make a brief statement.
Later on he speaks of having sent out some propaganda to the employees of the Canadian National Railways, and he says:
The results, it is believed, have been a strengthening of the morale of the employees. There is, however, a different attitude to be taken towards public discussions of these questions on the part of the trustees.
And again:
The trustees of the Canadian National Railways felt that if they were to carry out the obligation thus imposed upon them by parliament itself, they could not, consistently with their duty, enter into any argument or discussion in reference to subject matters which were expressly forbidden by parliament itself,-
He then goes on to state that section 27 of the Railway Act forbade such discussion and the trustees did not feel that they had any right to discuss the matter. On the following page he says:
The trustees have by their oath of office assumed the responsibility of carrying out on their part the terms of the act of parliament, and any attempt by them to publicly answer propaganda urging amalgamation or unified control might, and probably would, place them in a false position.
There might well be an even more serious result. The essence of all cooperative plans is goodwill and earnestness towards the accomplishment of the object in view. The public controversy of the nature indicated, as well as being improper on the part of the trustees, would, because of its futility, raise obstacles in the way of the plan of cooperation.
What I am seeking to do is to make clear the reasons which, even if I were minded to do so, prevent me from combating propaganda in a battle of words.
A little later the hon. member for Van-couver-iBurrard (Mr. Hanbury) and the horn, member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) complimented Judge Fullerton on his statement. Apparently this is the reason why Judge Fullerton has not been making any replies. I make the positive statement that Judge Fullerton has never at any time been instructed by me or the government, to my knowledge, to refrain from making any speech which he might choose to make. I say here publicly that Judge Fullerton is as much at liberty to make any speech as is Mr. (Beatty. The statement made in the Winnipeg Free Press is false in every word and line and merely illustrates the general perverted attitude of the editor of that paper.
I am not referring to the representatives of that paper located in Ottawa, but when the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press writes upon political matters he never tells the truth if a falsehood will serve.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, since my name has been brought into this matter may I be permitted to point out to this house that my reference was not to what was said last year in the committee by Judge Fullerton in connection with amalgamation or unification; my reference was to Judge Fullerton discussing the situation in Halifax with regard to the 'Canadian National Railways. I felt that Judge Fullerton had not been given the opportunity which he ought to have been given to explain fully this situation and to answer some criticism which had been made not only by the public generally but by the minister himself.
Mr. MAN'I'ON:	The hon. gentleman is
almost charging me with stopping Judge Fullerton from making a reply.


James Layton Ralston: With criticizing the Canadian National Railways.


Robert James Manion: I never criticized; I
helped to cure the condition of the Canadian National left by my hon. friend and his hon. friends. Judge Fullerton is just as much at liberty to make a statement in connection with the matter referred to by my hon. friend as he is in connection with any other matter. In fact, we have not the power to stop Judge Fullerton from making any statement he likes at any time and at any place.
Mr. MAR0IL:	Would such statements be
binding on the government?	.


Robert James Manion: Certainly not.




[Stage Direction]
Hon.E'.N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 24, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1935.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Power to issue notes.
Mr. POULIOT:: I forwarded to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) a copy of a protest which I had received from em-
C.N.R.-R ejunding

ployees of the Canadian National Railways against certain work being done outside of the shops which could have been done by the railways. Is the minister ready to make a statement in this connection?


Robert James Manion: I assume the hon. member is referring to equipment orders?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Other hon. gentlemen have sent me similar representations. Representations have also been received from different shops of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways. I might say that in the public works bill to be introduced the government will be given power to deal with these matters in so far as equipment is concerned. Of whatever money is spent in connection with equipment, a certain proportion will be kept for repairs so that the shops of both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway will have an opportunity to increase the work of their employees.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope they will have the first opportunity.


Mr. EULER:: On a previous occasion
money was given outright to the railways to afford them assistance in connection with unemployment. Does the bill before us contemplate anything of that kind or will the guarantee relate entirely to debts which it is hoped will be repaid if the money is actually lent or guarantees in full are released? Are you making a gift of any sort to the railways in connection with unemployment relief by providing labour in railway shops?


Robert James Manion: I doubt whether I should give that at the moment because it will come up later on, but I have no objection to giving the information now. The only thing that will be given either of the railways directly will be interest for two years on the money supplied for the purchase of equipment. The government intends to give to both railways the interest for two years, but outside of that both railways are expected to pay back the money. Needless to say the C-anadan National Railways in its present financial position will not be able to do that unless business increases to. a very large extent, and therefore in all probability this equipment over a period of fifteen years will be paid for completely by the government of Canada.


William Daum Euler: Take the Canadian Pacific Railway. Are they going to issue bonds

which will be guaranteed by the Canadian government, or what form does the guarantee take?


Robert James Manion: That matter is being canvassed at the present time between both railways and the government. It wall probably be in the form of a guarantee of notes of some kind, but I should not like to go too definitely into the question because the details have not been completely worked out.


William Daum Euler: Will the bill contain that?


Robert James Manion: I do not think so. I- shall be glad at that time, if we have worked it out, to give complete information, but I think the bill will be in general terms.


Mr. SANDERSON:: As regards new equipment for the Canadian National Railways, I have asked the minister several questions this session and I have certain remarks to make. I do not want to detain this bill; I should prefer to wait until the other matter is being discussed.


Robert James Manion: That is appropriate.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister give the committee some particulars in connection with expenditures under paragraph (a)? Is that for equipment already bought or new equipment?


Robert James Manion: Any money in this connection will, I assume, be for equipment purchased in the past. There is nothing dealing with equipment in the future.


Robert Gardiner: Does that apply to paragraph (b), so far as construction and betterments are concerned?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is only the funding bill,, comparable to the bill passed last year. It has already been passed on by the committee on railways and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On the preamble.
Charles Marcil: I do not want to enter into any long discussion of this matter, but I do not hold the Minister of Railways responsible, in connection with the question I am going to discuss, because he has repeatedly declared on the floor of the house that he has nothing to do with the administration of the Canadian National Railways-the whole thing rests with the trustees and the management of the road. In justice to my constituents, and in view of the resolution adopted a few days ago by the county council of Bonaventure, I must protest once more against

C .N.R.-Refunding
the policy followed in that constituency. First of all, as regards the shops, it is claimed that the work is being removed gradually from the shops at New Carlisle and the day is not far distant when those shops will be closed entirely. A good deal of the work that could be done there is being done at Camp'bell-ton or Moncton, to the great disadvantage of the railway men who have settled at New Carlisle. It is unjust to these men who have their residences there and have settled in the district. They are being turned away gradually, one after another, and the day is not distant when the shops will disappear entirely. The people of that constituency were under the impression, when the Gaspe railway was taken over, that what work could be done not only in Bonaventure but in the Gaspe district would be done in the shops at New Carlisle, and these men have protested that this is not being followed out. Work that could be done at New Carlisle is being done either at Campbellton or at Moncton. That is the first point.
The second point of complaint is as regards the terminus at Matapedia. When the Chaleur bay railway was built, with provincial subsidy, it was stated in the act that the terminus of the railway would be in the province of Quebec on the banks of the Restigouche river. For thirty or thirty-five years the terminus was at Matapedia in the province of Quebec, but the road was subsidized by the dominion and ultimately taken over by the Canadia National Railways, and they have transferred the terminus from Matapedia to Campbellton, New Brunswick. When the train reaches Matapedia it goes back eastward thirteen miles to Campbellton where the terminus is now located. The whole population of Matapedia valley and the county of Bonaventure, irrespective of party, have protested time and again against this action. The hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue), a strong supporter of the government at the present time, as he has been for the last five years, attended a meeting held at Matapedia where I was present and he protested strongly against this change being made. It is an injustice to that part of the county and should be remedied. The government may say that the administration has been handed over to the Canadian National Railways, and so on and so on; but when voting day comes along-and that day will come soon now-they will be held responsible for what has been.' done in Bonaventure county in the last five yearn.
I think some pressure should be brought to bear on the administration of the Canadian National Railways to give the people on the Gaspe coast their fair share of the work that is being done. That is the second point.
The third point is as regards the purchase of railway ties. A few days ago I wrote to Mr. Hungerford, asldng for information in regard to all tenders for ties in Bonaventure county .and the reply I .received, which was similar to the reply given the year before, was that it was contrary to the public interest to give figures, but he gave me the figures for the previous year. The people of St. Charles de Caplan, St. Alphonse de Caplan, New Richmond and Bonaventure, and all that district where these ties are being bought, claim that they are underpaid. They say that the price paid the contractors is out of proportion to what is received by the farmers who supply these ties. The claim is that the fanners are not getting a fair price. Is that so? I am not in a position to say, but as the representative of that county I think that when we are called upon to vote millions of money to a company who refuse to give us elementary information-, we have a right to protest, because we are entitled to have that information.
This is another instance of the ill feeling which is being created in that part of the country against the administration of the Canadian National Railways. I do not want to blame the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart, Leeds) at the present time for the very extensive outlay that he is and has been carrying on in the county of Bonaventure in the last four years. Public wharves that have been built in my time during the last thirty years are being improved in order to bring them to a state of efficiency, and in addition to that he is building a number of new public wharves. Those wharves of course will be required for water transportation, but the water transportation there works contrary to the interest of the Canadian National Railways, and that railway will probably show a large deficit this year as it did the year before on the administration of the Gaspe line. I cannot protest against those wharves being kept in repair and others being built if they are necessary, but if such large amounts are being spent to enable water transportation to be carried on, surely something should be done in the interest of the railways and of their employees as well as in that of the people who look to the government to have their interests in this connection protected. Of course the answer is a very poor one, but the minister I understand cannot do otherwise than say that the administration of the road rests with the commission, which is a creation of parliament; but I would not be doing my duty did I not bring these grievances to the attention of the house.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman is a very honourable gentleman, an old friend of mine of some thirty years standing, and being
C.N.R.-Refunding

the honourable gentleman I know he is, he will I am sure correct the notion in the minds of the people of his section, of the country that the government has anything whatever to do with the opening of shops either in his section or in any other, because he has submitted this to me many times, as have a number of others including the former defeated candidate and various other people in his section. I have done all I could in the matter so far as submitting it to the management of the railways is concerned, but they take the attitude that they consider the railway as served now by shops to be served in the most economical manner, and they submit that if they make any changes, they will be doing injury to the economic position of the railways. That being the case, my hon. friend knows very well-and indeed he said so himself a few moments ago-that the management are in entire control, and therefore I have no power to order them in any shape or form to change their plans.
As regards the question of ties, the hon. gentleman also submitted that matter to me, and I think Mr. Fullerton, in giving him the reply he spoke of, gave him exactly the same reply as is given to other members when they ask for prices of ties or other materials in the current year; he gave to my hon. friend the orders for ties and I assume the prices as given the previous year. That is the usual custom.


Mr. VENIOT:: Mr. Hungerford.


Robert James Manion: After I have finished I will answer my hon. friend. Again I have no power to order Mr. Fullerton or Mr. Hungerford to give more information than that. I have nothing to do with the orders for ties. Indeed I think I pointed out to the committee the other day that I was out of the city ill when the orders for ties were given this year, and I was in no way consulted. Last year I was at Geneva. I have not been consulted about the matter, and much as I would like to do anything I can to oblige a friend of such old standing I am sorry I am unable to do so. What was it the hon. member for Gloucester wanted?


Peter John Veniot: I was just substituting the
word " Hungerford ",


Robert James Manion: I probably should have used the term " the management".


Charles Marcil: I received a letter from Mr. Hungerford, not Mr. Fullerton. I quite realize the minister's position in respect to this matter, but public opinion is public opinion and the people of my constituency feel that the government of the day are in office, in power,

and hold them responsible. The explanation given may be all right according to the statute that has been passed, but the people are in the position that they cannot vote for or against the commission, but they can vote for or against the government.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend opposite ought to be pleased.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I gather that
my hon. friend intends mildly to criticize some of the expenditures on repairs of wharves and other services in his constituency undertaken in the last year by the Public Works department. I may say to him that the works undertaken are only a comparatively small number of those for which urgent requests were made. I -would be very glad if my hon. friend would just indicate what particular works were undertaken that he thinks should not have been. We have some estimates that I believe now apply to his constituency, and if he will indicate in those estimates the items that he thinks should not be undertaken during the coming year, I shall give the matter consideration and endeavour to check up in the near future so far as I have any power to do so in order to see that no unnecessary expenditures are made.


Charles Marcil: I am sorry the minister
misunderstood me. I do not want to blame the minister for the work he is doing. Of course I have not been consulted, being a member of the opposition. That is the unfortunate part of our system; unfortunately in my constituency everybody except the representative of the people can be consulted. The representative of the people is not consulted. What I wanted to say was this: If the minister and the government of the day can find it a proper policy to spend such large sums for water transportation, why should some of the money not go for land transportation and why should these shops at New Carlisle be cut to the bone? Why should the terminus at Matapedia be removed? Why should people have to supply ties at prices which I am told are ridiculous? If all this saving is being done on the land, how is it that the government is so generous as regards water transportation? I do not blame the government at all for what it is doing with regard to water transportation. Those wharves are dominion property and have to be kept in repair. There are certain parts of the country that do not have those advantages and they are being given them now. I do not want to blame the minister and I am sorry he understood my remarks in that way. I was trying

C .N.R.-R e funding
to open the eyes of the government in regard to the land policy. That is the only reason I spoke.


Mr. YENIOT:: Perhaps I am not quite in order in bringing up now the matter I wish to discuss, but some latitude, possibly too much, has been given since this bill has been brought before the committee and is cited as the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1935, the committee may grant me a little latitude in directing its attention to certain criticisms that have been made in regard to the amount of money advanced to the Canadian National Railways. There is a criticism made by Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and also a criticism I find in some of the newspapers in Montreal as well as west of that city in regard to the old Intercolonial railway and the amount of money that has been spent in connection with it. I wish especially to resent their implication that the Intercolonial railway has become and always has been a sink hole in Canadian financing of our railway system.
First let me refer to the criticism made by Mr. Beatty. About six or seven weeks ago I placed on the order paper a number of questions in relation to the amounts of money advanced to various railways in Canada. Among other questions I asked how much was advanced to the Canadian Pacific Railway, cash grants to the main lines and to its subsidiaries. I also asked what amount of land grants were accorded to the Canadian Pacific Railway, its main line and subsidiaries. The answers were laid upon the table of the house and partly published in the press. Mr. Beatty took exception to them and gave an interview to the press to which I wish to refer. One part of his interview was in regard to the land grants made to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in regard to which he is reported to have stated the following:
Of the 25,000,000 acres of land granted 6,793,014 were returned to the government for a consideration of $10,000,000-
Even there Mr, Beatty is not correct, because the amount paid by the government for the return of those lands was $10,187,000.
-leaving a net grant of 18,206,986 acres. The parliamentary statement duplicates these figures.
I wish to point out that the parliamentary statement does nob duplicate those figures and Mr. Beatty is wrong. I wish to give the figures as submitted to the house, which figures I consider to be quite correct:
Acres
To the C.P.R. main line, land
grants	 25,000,000
To subsidiaries	 7,928,896
32,928,896
Land repurchased from C.P.R..	6,873,000
26,055,896
Not 18,000,000 as stated by Mr. Beatty, but
26,055,896	to the Canadian Pacific main line and subsidiaries.
Now a great deal has been said1 by Mr. Beatty of the assistance, financial and otherwise, granted to the Canadian National Railways. Let us look for a moment and see if any other assistance has been granted1 to the Canadian Pacific. In the criticisms of the Canadian National Railway system, we never hear a word of the assistance granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have the figures which were submitted to this house and I am going to place them on Hansard. Aid to the Canadian Pacific consisted in the following: lands valued at $1.50 per acre-I use that figure because that is the price per acre which the Canadian Pacific charged to the Canadian government when they handed back the six million acres to which I referred.


Mr. MacDOUGALL:: What date was that?


Peter John Veniot: The time the Canadian Pacific was built.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No, the date they got the lands back.


Peter John Veniot: It was three or four years after they started to build.
Aid to the Canadian Pacific Railway
Aid in lands at $1.50 per acre
for 26.055,896 acres	$ 39,083,894
Cash subsidy	 25,000,000
Value of railway work passed to the C.P.R. when the government gave up construction of the road to the coast, valued by arbitrators and accepted by the C.P.R. at
that time as correct	 37,791,000
Cash paid for repurchase of
6,873,000	acres at $1.50.. ..	10,309,500
Subsidy paid to lines operated under lease and loan by the C.P.R. by the federal government	 27,855,089

This does not include subsidies paid by the provincial governments to lines since acquired by the Canadian Pacific for which they never contributed one cent to the federal government.
Now, sir, having put that on Hansard, let me refer for a moment to the charge made that the old Intercolonial railway has been a
C.N.R.-Refunding

sink-hole to the administration of railways in Canada. I have here before me the figures relating to the operations of the Intercolonial from the time it was built, divided into three periods:
Prom 1881 to 1898
Expenditures	? 51,828,282
Revenues	 49,032,399
management of the Canadian National Railways at Montreal. I for one will no longer stand for the argument that has been used against the eastern section of the Canadian National Railways.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Deficit in. 18 years	$ 2,795,883	PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM
From 1899 to 1912
Expenditures	
Revenues

Deficit in 14 years	$	1,690,786
From 1913 to 1920
Expenditures	
Revenues

Deficit in 8 years	$ 3,715,504
Following the second period the freight rates on the Intercolonial were raised to equal the rates west of Montreal.
In the first two periods the record shows fourteen surpluses ranging from $11,000 to $660,000. From 1913 to 1920 inclusive, when the Intercolonial was merged with the Canadian National railway system, there were five surpluses ranging from $12,435 to $1,517,296. It will therefore be seen that in forty years' operations of the Intercolonial, now known as the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways, revenues totalled $290,344,687 and expenditures $298,546,860, leaving a deficit of only $8,202,173 for the forty years. The greatest deficit was between 1913 and 1920 under increased freight rates. I wish to place these figures on Hansard .to close once for all, if I may do so, the mouths of those who under previous governments from 1919 right down to the present time have been using the argument that the old Intercolonial railway has been and still is a sink hole in the administration of the National railway system in the Dominion of Canada. We in the maritime provinces, Mr. Chairman, stand by the old Intercolonial. It was built as a bond of confederation. It was under the guarantee of the construction of that road that we in the maritime provinces came into confederation, and to-day I as a representative of one of the original provinces of confederation deprecate the idea of provinces outside the maritimes using the argument which they have been using to decry the operations of the old Intercolonial railway. The figures are there to speak for themselves. I take them as true from the accountant of the Department of Railways, and furnished no doubt by the



WORKS, UNDERTAKINGS AND GUARANTEES OP RAILWAY EQUIPMENT SECURITIES TO CREATE EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada, and to authorize the government to guarantee equipment securities of the Canadian^ National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the amount of fifteen million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
the desirability of relieving unemployment through the construction of public works has been so generally advocated and so universally accepted that I trust this resolution is not a controversial one in any sense. The house at its last session provided in round figures the sum of S40,000.000 to be expended on projects set forth in the schedule to the act known as the Public Works Construction Act, 1934. That act was passed about the end of June and works were undertaken where possible, particularly out of the general vote, during the last season. Plans had to be prepared and tenders invited, and on the 31st of March last, although the winter season had intervened and stopped construction practically entirely, there had been expended and earned the sum of approximately $10,000,000, leaving in round figures about $30,000,000 of the amount appropriated under that act still unexpended. Tenders have been invited and works undertaken on practically all of the larger projects in that schedule, so that it is fair to assume that during this year the larger part of the remaining $30,000,000 unexpended will be earned under the act of 1934.
A large number of men have been employed in putting buildings in repair, on improvements, and in actual construction work, and the building trades undoubtedly have been very much helped in this connection. It has been stated, and I think fairly accurately, that for each man employed on the actual con-

Public Works Program
stru-etion of a building you may assume that there are three others employed who do not actually appear upon the building.
Now it is deemed expedient to supplement the program of works undertaken last year under the act of 1934, and a bill based upon the resolution which has just been submitted to the committee will be introduced immediately upon the adoption of this resolution. There is in the resolution the added feature covering the guarantee of the securities of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway to the amount of $15,000,000 for the purchase of equipment, and the details of that will be set out in the bill. The same object and the same purpose is served in both these projects-the employment of labour. As the matter is not controversial I suggest that we adopt the resolution, after I have given such additional information as the committee may require at this stage, and immediately upon its adoption the bill which has been prepared will be introduced. I am convinced that members are all possibly more interested in the schedule of the bill than in the terms erf the resolution.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it proposed to bring down a bill in so far as public works proper are concerned in identically the same terms as last year's bill?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The wording of the bill based on this resolution is substantially the same as that of the bill of last year, with the added feature in regard to equipment for the railways.


Charles Gavan Power: Will -a specific sum be mentioned for public works?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Milton Neil Campbell: What is the amount?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The bill will disclose that.


Charles Gavan Power: Why not state the full amount of the bill now?


The CHAIRMAN:: The committee is discussing the principle of the resolution.


Charles Gavan Power: With all deference, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we are now in committee of the whole and that the principle apparently has been adopted, but surely we are entitled to ask the minister in charge of the bill what the amount involved is. I think it would be going quite a long way to prevent us when we are in committee on a resolution from asking what the amount of money involved in it is.
Mr. STEWART. (Leeds): I have no objection to giving it. It will be approximately $18,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In addition io the guarantee?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In addition to the guarantee.


Charles Gavan Power: So the bill will cover approximately $33,000,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will not provide for that amount of expenditure by the government. There will be the $18,000,000 that I have mentioned, but the expenditure in connection with the guarantee is not for the full amount of the equipment to be purchased.


Charles Gavan Power: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thought I had made myself clear on the- point, namely, that the object underyling the bill was that of providing employment. Thait is the only principle involved in it. The plan proposed for the guaranteeing -of the purchase of equipment for the railways is brought forward with the same object in view, namely providing employment. It is just a different way of doing the same thing.	[DOT]


Charles Gavan Power: From the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals made only a few moments ago I gathered that so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned this sum will be by way of advances, loans or guarantees and that generally speaking, as I understood him, it is proposed ithe government will absorb the interest on these advances for a period of two years. At the present time that is the extent to which the government will make a contribution, so far as the railways are concerned. Speaking for the Canadian National Railways, the principal amount will be a charge on those railways.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but of course it would not be fair to take it merely as a charge on the Canadian National Railways without taking the longer view, as I -pointed out in reply to some one, that the chances are about one hundred to one that over a period of years governments will pay the total amount.


Charles Gavan Power: It will -be added to the debt of the Canadian National Railways?
Public Works Program


Robert James Manion: Correct-well, may I in reply to the question say that part of course will, but it may be that part of the equipment charges is taken from operating expenses. I shall not go into the matter in detail, but I do not wish to say definitely that all of it will be treated as a charge against the Canadian National Railways. In a general way, however, that will be true.


Charles Gavan Power: If it is for the purchase of equipment that they would purchase in the ordinary way, how do we bring it in as a bill for unemployment relief?


Robert James Manion: A certain portion of equipment is, I think, usually charged to operating expenses. However, I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. member's way of phrasing it.


Charles Gavan Power: If we are relieving the Canadian National Railways of some of the expenditures in which they would normally be involved I do not see why it is brought down in this form. But if we are not-and I think probably this is the state of affairs-all we are doing is to ask the Canadian National Railways to spend a certain amount of money. Did the minister give the amount; is it $10,000,000?


Robert James Manion: The total amount is
$15,000,000. The suggestion is that $8,000,000 worth of equipment be purchased by the Canadian National Railways and $7,000000 by the Canadian Pacific Railway. At any rate, no principal will be repayable within two years by either company, so far as we know at the present time and for two years interest will be absorbed by the government. At the end of two years the Canadian Pacific Railway will be expected to begin repayment of the capital amount, and will carry its own interest. In its present financial position, in all probability the Canadian National Railways will be carried by the government so far as the total is concerned.


Charles Gavan Power: That is, $S,000,000 will be charged to the Canadian National Railways, in any event?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I have a recollection that not very long ago before the committee on railways and shipping the president of the Canadian National Railways said he did not need any equipment.


Robert James Manion: I do not think my hon. friend is right in that.


William Daum Euler: He said it.
[Mr. Power.l


Charles Gavan Power: He said they had sufficient equipment for all their present needs.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sufficient cars.


Charles Gavan Power: For the moment I have no intention of discussing the principle of making advances to private corporations. I address myself more particularly to a discussion of the principle of political interference with the Canadian National Railways, by asking them to spend money, as a matter of public policy. I am not speaking of what might be called low-brow political interference, but I am referring more particularly to using the Canadian National Railways as a vehicle for development of public policy.


Robert James Manion: To avoid allowing an impression to go out which I am sure the hon. member does not intend may I say that the Canadian government is not in any way interfering with the Canadian National Railways. Both railways have stated to us that they could economically take equipment on certain terms. Despite what may have been said in the committee the other day-and it was Mr. Hungerford who spoke on that occasion- they both expressed the opinion to us that on certain terms they could economically take equipment. They are not being forced to take it. The Canadian government has taken the attitude that for the sake of starting the heavier industries in operation, and assisting in the general uplift in business, it could go through certain forms and carry out certain financial liabilities, particularly that of paying interest, if the railways could economically cooperate. The Canadian National Railways will in no way, shape or form be placed in the position whereby they will be asked to do anything unless they consider it economically wise so to do. The Canadian Pacific Railway is in exactly the same position.
Although it is not usual to quote from the proceedings of a committee while such committee is still sitting, being merely adjourned, I shall take the liberty of quoting from the proceedings. I believe the circumstances are to a certain extent as the hon. member has stated. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) questioned Mr. Hungerford respecting equipment, to which Mr. Hungerford replied:
Mr. Hungerford: We have enough equipment to take care of the traffic requirements.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Mr. Heaps, that comes under the next account.
Mr. Heaps: I am asking the question because it arises out of Mr. Gray's question; I did not get the answer, I did not hear it.

Public Works Program
Mr. Hungerford: I say we have in repair enough equipment to take care of traffic requirements.
Mr. Heaps: You have enough?
Mr. Hungerford: We have kept in repair sufficient to do that.
Mr. Heaps: You have enough equipment?
Mr. Hungerford: It all depends, when we say we have sufficient equipment. There are .peak periods during which we are short of certain types of equipment for a short period of time.
Mr. Hanbury: Would you make that statement again?
Mr. Heaps: Speak a little louder.
Mr. Hungerford: I say, in general we have lots of equipment, surplus of equipment, but again there are peak periods and it is during that time that all railroads may be short of a particular class of equipment for a short period of time.
Mr. Hanbury: How do you prepare for that shortage ?
Mr. Hungerford: We borrow from somebody who has it to spare. We all borrow and lend equipment as between railroads.
Mr. Tummon: That is the practice of all railroads?
Mr. Hungerford:	Yes, sir.
Mr. Hanbury: You never have any difficulty in taking care of the peak in that way?
Mr. Hungerford: No, not for many years.
I repeat there will be no attempt and there has been no attempt in any way, shape or form to force the Canadian National Railways to do anything which is not economically sound or correct.


William Daum Euler: Did they ask for this?


Robert James Manion: They asked for equipment a long time ago. Some time ago they suggested equipment requirements on certain financial conditions.


Mr. GRAY:: On what terms?


Robert James Manion: They suggested that we
pay one-third of the total cost, and stated that if the government would absorb one-third they could economically carry the other two-thirds. My submission is, although I have not figured it out, that that is what we are doing to-day. If the notes are sold on a three and a half per cent basis we carry the principal-the principal is not repayable for two years-the interest is paid by the government for two years, and the Canadian National railway is charged up with something the government really pays in the end. I repeat the Canadian National Railways are going to be in the position of saying as to whether or not on this basis they will take equipment. No force or pressure is being used upon them, and at the present time they have not given a definite reply as to whether or not they want the equipment on these terms.


Charles Gavan Power: Although I appreciate the
frankness with which the minister has answered I am not prepared to admit that when a bill is introduced and passed through the house providing for a substantial loan to the Canadian National Railways to buy equipment it is not a very strong means of coercing them into buying,' whether they want it or not. In this connection I should like to refer to the report of the Duff commission. During the debate on March 16, 1933, in connection with the Canadian Pacific-Canadian National bill, I quoted paragraph 146 of the Duff report, as follows:
Of direct political interference by ministers and members of parliament in the detail operations of the railway, we were assured by the officials there -was little or none. It was in the larger sphere of policy that political considerations led to unwise and unnecessary capital expenditures, the result of which was to create an atmosphere in which the ordinary principles of commercial operation of the railway were lost sight of.
I was pointing out at the time this bill was being discussed that it had been heralded throughout Canada that this bill was to do away with political interference when in fact it did not do away with political interference in matters of policy. In my humble opinion this is one instance in which there is political interference. I have no reason to doubt the minister when he says that he is not forcing the Canadian National to take this equipment but we have the evidence given only a few days ago by Mr. Hungerford, general manager of the road, to the effect that he does not require any new equipment. We now have a bill being introduced which provides that they will be able to purchase equipment on certain terms. I am not discussing the advisability or the soundness of the principle which is being laid down perhaps for the first time in connection with relief legislation, namely, that certain private corporations shall be assisted directly as that is another matter which may be discussed at some other time; my objection to this section of the bill is that the Canadian National Railways is being asked or is being invited-


Robert James Manion: That is a far better word than "coerced."


Charles Gavan Power: -being invited to sit in at the feast. The company is being induced to spend money which its chairman and president do not consider necessary.


Robert James Manion: They can refuse the invitation the same as you and I refuse an invitation to dinner.
Public Works Program


Charles Gavan Power: They can refuse the invitation but the minister is leaving them open to very strong pressure from people in high positions and from sectional, personal and political interests. I suggest to the minister that that is not a fair position in which to place the trustees and the management of the road. If they do not consider it necessary to purchase equipment I do not think the government should blazon it forth to the people of this country that they are willing to buy equipment whether or not the Canadian National officials are. I suggest to the minister that this matter should be given further consideration from the standpoint of the principle that there shall be no political interference with the Canadian National Railways. I think he would be well advised to look over these sections again before introducing them.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, I am more concerned with the work which might be given to employees of the railroads. Two or three times during this session I have asked questions of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in connection with new equipment for the railroads, especially for the Canadian National road. I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I should like to refer to the first question which I asked on January 21 of this year. This question is reported on page 16 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Railways. I have under my hand four communications, two letters and two telegrams, from different associations of the Canadian National Railways employees in the city of Stratford, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to read the shortest of the telegrams which will take only a moment. It is addressed to me at the House of Commons, and read's as follows:
"Press reports indicate that new equipment for Canadian National Railways may be constructed by private companies. Canadian National Railways employees protest such contracts as equipment can be advantageously constructed in Canadian National repair shops. Respectfully request that you use your influence for this work to be done by the Canadian National Railways in their own shops, whereby former employes may be returned to work. A reply would be appreciated.
J. Thomas."
I shall not read the rest of my question, but the minister's reply was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the same telegram I presume came to me among many others. There were many telegrams and letters from various sections of the country that were based upon a statement in the press which was not an official statement of any kind, and my reply to all the telegrams and letters has been that the matter has not been decided upon by the government; that there have been proposals put to the
f Mr. Manion.]
government for equipment by railway ear equipment companies, but that no decision of any kind has been arrived at.
On the following day, January 22, I put a further question to the Minister of Railways, which is reported on page 66 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) based on a telegram I received this morning from the city of Stratford. It is as follows:
"Lodge 103 International Association of Machinists at Stratford with over 400 members protests that contracts for new equipment for Canadian National Railways be let to private companies while railway shops have worked only sixteen days a month for the past three years.
W. Lyons,
Recording Secretary,
73 Dufferin Street, Stratford."
On February 25 I put another question to the minister, and again on March 18, but I shall not delay the committee by reading these questions. My object in putting these questions was to urge that this new equipment, including repairs, be constructed as much as possible in the Canadian National shops. While ordinarily it would be out of order, I submit that as the minister quoted from the evidence given before the standing committee on railways and shipping, I should be granted the same privilege. I should like to refer to something more recent than the questions which I put to the minister in the house. I have before me the minutes of the evidence of the select standing committee on railways and shipping for April 10, and I should like to quote from page 111, as follows:
Mr. Gray: Then I should like to ask the chairman of the board a question. I notice on page 6 of the analysis of operations there were no purchases of new equipment during 1934. There have been reports in the press, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Sanderson in the House of Commons has asked questions from time to time, first on the 21st day of January, of the Minister of Railways, and he asked me to ask again with respect to this question of new equipment. There have been some newspaper suggestions that a large amount of money was to be spent for new equipment and that the orders were to be placed with private firms and that this would affect the Canadian National shops. The minister at that time was not able to give an answer.
Hon. Mr. Manion: I gave an answer that the matter had been submitted to us and was still under consideration by both ourselves and the railway company, and it is still in the same position to-day.
Mr. Gray: Is there any suggestion that there will be money spent?
Hon. Mr. Manion: There are lots of suggestions, particularly on the part of the Canadian railway equipment manufacturers, but there has been no decision arrived at. _
Mr. Gray: Is there anything in the budget?

Public Works Program
_ Hon. Hr. Manion: No. When I say "nothing in the budget," I mean I do not think there is.
Hon. Mr. Fullerton: There is nothing in the budget except betterments.
Then on page 112, which I think the minister has put on the record, we find questions asked by Mr. Gray, Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Heaps. I will not take up the time of the committee quoting that. We find that the resolution before this committee, standing in the name of the Prime Minister, reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada, and to authorize the government to guarantee equipment securities of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the amount of $15,000,000.
I find no fault with that at all. My sole concern is that if the government decide to assist the railways to the extent of $15,000,000,	$8,000,000 to the Canadian
National Railways and $7,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific, whether by loan or by guarantee-it makes no difference what it is -it will create a large amount of employment for the employees who make railway equipment of every kind; and I would strongly urge the minister, especially in connection with the Canadian National road, to insist that every dollar of the $8,000,000, or whatever the amount may be that is to be voted to the Canadian National for equipment, be paid to employees of the Canadian National Railways in Canadian National shops. I wish to put on the record some other communications I have received from the city of Stratford. I think it is my duty to do so because I feel very keenly in this matter. There is an opening here to assist, and assist greatly, the unemployed among the railway men.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: In Stratford.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not catch the
interruption.


James Dew Chaplin: In the city of Stratford. There are others besides.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, I will be frank
with my hon. friend from Lincoln and say the city of Stratford, and I have no apologies to make, none whatever. I want to put on the record a telegram I received dated Stratford, Ontario, January 18, 1935:
Press reports indicate owing to economies by railway management, railway equipment and locomotives need to be replaced by new equipment. Respectfully point out that large amount of such economies were made possible by many employees being laid off and others placed on reduced work hours. Respectfully request that if new equipment needs to be constructed that such work be done in our railroad shops where there is now ample accommodation to do such 92582-174
work and thus return to the laid off employees their jobs and those now working 128 hours per month again resume 40 hours per week. Above is copy of resolution sent to Dr. Manion.
Your hearty support and influence in the house requested. Please reply.
Russell,
C.N.R. Local Federated Crafts, 116 Ontario street, Stratford.
I also received two letters and I hope it will not weary the committee if I put these on the record. The first is dated January 19, 1935:
Dear Sir,
Press reports indicate that there is to be considerable construction of new railroad equipment in the near future. Our members wish to draw to your attention their claims for having this work done in our own shops.
During the past four years our members in main shops have, in an effort to avoid the laying off of men, been voluntarily working less than 30 hours per week when our agreements entitled them to claim a minimum of 40 hours per week. This was agreed to by the men. many of them knowing that this sacrifice would cause considerable hardship to themselves and their families. Many have lost their life savings which were invested in homes and many more are anxiously looking for improved conditions in order to avoid this hardship. We feel therefore that we are not being unreasonable when we ask that all orders for new equipment should be placed in our own shops on the C.N.R., they being quite capable of taking care of this work without additional overhead costs of supervision, etc.
Trusting that we can count on your influence and support and assuring you that a reply would be appreciated' by our members, I am,
Yours truly,
K.	Cockburn,
Secretary.
I have another letter dated January 18, 1935:
Dear Mr. Sanderson:
I have on behalf of our local organization forwarded the following night letter to Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion, Minister of Railways:
"Press reports indicate that owing to economies by railroad managements, railroad equipment and locomotives need to be replaced by new equipment.
Respectfully point out that large amount of such economies were made possible hy many employees being laid off and others placed on reduced working hours.
Respectfully request that if new equipment is needed that work be done in our railroad' shops where there is now ample accommodation to do such work, and thus return to employment the laid off employees and restore the forty hour week to those now working less than an average of thirty hours per week?'
Railway Carmen of Stratford, Ont.
The members of our organization would request that you help them in every way, to make possible their desires as outlined in above request.
Respectfully yours,
F. J. Cullum
For Stratford Lodge No. 928.

Public Works Program

As I said to my hon. friend from Lincoln, I have no apologies to make for putting these letters on the record. I would strongly urge on the minister that the $8,000,000 in connection with the Canadian National be spent in the shops.
I want to ask the minister a question, and I do not need a reply now; it will be satisfactory if he will be good enough to answer when I get through with my remarks. Has he any estimates as to the equipment required? For instance, can he tell the committee how much money will be spent on, say, repairs to old equipment? Has he any estimate of the amount that will be spent on entirely new equipment in the shops?


Robert James Manion: I did say earlier in my remarks that we should probably ask the two railways to give about $3,000,000 of this money for repairs in their shops throughout Canada.


Frederick George Sanderson: I wish now to say a word or two with regard to railway matters generally, because I think that this is an appropriate time to discuss to some extent at least the great railway problem of Canada. I believe that all hon. members will agree with me when I say that the railways in this country present one of the most vital problems that face the taxpayers of Canada. We have two railway systems, one publicly owned and one a privately owned system. Perhaps I can say without fear of contradiction that in these two railway systems we have the two best in the world. I do not think I am at all exaggerating when I make that statement. During the last four or five years both these railways have been carrying on under great difficulties, but their difficulties are no greater comparatively than those of every business firm, every industrial concern in the dominion. I think I can go further and say that comparatively their difficulties are no greater than those of the individual, no matter in what business he may be engaged. In my opinion the railway industry of this country is its second greatest. I do not think it is the first, because I would put the great basic industry of agriculture first, but I do regard our railways as the second greatest industry in Canada. If we stop to consider the business that these railways are doing, we see that under normal conditions the Canadian National uses 22,000 miles of track and the Canadian Pacific Railway 18,000; and combined, when traffic is normal, they employ 190,000 men with an annual pay roll of $290,000,000. That includes salaries and wages, and that pay roll of $290,000,000 sustains almost 1,000,000 people. That will give you some idea of the immensity of the railway system in Canada. But both railways

lack one thing at present; they lack the normal tonnage in traffic, going back to the twenties. I have no hesitation in putting myself on record this afternoon, that when normal conditions return in this country, as they will, both these railways will have solved all their difficulties; and when revenue and traffic increase the deficits will automatically be wiped out, and we shall not hear very much criticism of the railways. Go back ten years ago; there was no criticism of the railways then. They were doing well; their earnings were large and they were employing a very large number of men. They were in the same condition as all business was at that time-they were what we called prosperous. I repeat that when normal conditions return to this country the railways will be able to take care of themselves without very much assistance.
I am not going into the financial structure of the Canadian National Railways or ancient history .as to how all those conglomerations of roads were brought into the national system, but I say that if we have patience; if we preserve the railway intact and if we do not allow any insidious and vicious propaganda to undermine it, when we come out of our difficulties, the Canadian National will be one of the great assets of our people. We should be proud of the Canadian National Railways and we should also be proud of the Canadian Pacific Railway; they are both assets to the country. But there is a propaganda being spread throughout Canada to undermine and if possible injure the publicly owned road. I know that the minister does not assume any responsibility for that; as a matter of fact he stated on the floor of the house not more than two weeks ago, when speaking on Canadian National affairs generally in regard to the amalgamation or unification of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, that the government of which he is Minister of Railways is opposed to anything of that nature. I put the question to him myself and he was good enough to permit the question and to reply. He said that he was speaking for the government. I asked him a second question, if he were speaking for the Prime Minister, and he was good enough to reply that he was. Of course I must take his answers as he gave them to me. But apart altogether from that, a very eminent gentleman, an outstanding man, is going throughout the dominion spreading propaganda to injure and is injuring the Canadian National: I refer to the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I want to point out to the Minister of Railways and to the government that they are the directors of the Canadian National

Public Works Program
system for the people, for the taxpayers of this country, and as regards this propaganda that is being spread-and apparently no effort is being made by the government to combat or contradict or stop it-I think their duty is to combat that propaganda.


Robert James Manion: I do not think I should
let my hon. friend make that statement, because within the last four or five months I have made at least three statements, one in Smith's Falls, one in Brockville, and one in this house, in all of which I have taken absolutely the opposite standpoint from that taken by Mr. Beatty. I have done everything in my power to combat the propaganda.


Frederick George Sanderson: I accept the minister's statement in good faith and I think he is sincere, but I believe I can tell him something he should do. At the head of the Canadian National board we have Judge Fullerton. He has made one speech mildly contradictory of the speeches that Mr. Beatty has been making throughout the whole dominion. The minister said this afternoon when a certain bill was up, before this resolution came before the house-I think it was this and if I am wrong, the minister will correct me-that he never did anything to interfere with Mr. Fullerton making speeches on behalf of the Canadian National system, speeches that would be contradictory to and combating those of Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Am I right in that?


Robert James Manion: Well, it has been stated in the Winnipeg Free Press, as quoted by the hon. member-and I saw an editorial in a newspaper which is usually much fairer than the Winnipeg Free Press, making the same statement-that we had in some way prevented Mr. Fullerton from making speeches. I pointed out that Mr. Fullerton was at liberty to make any speeches he chose, and in no manner, shape or form, did we interfere; but I quoted1 Mr. Fullerton as stating in the committee last year that he did not consider that he had any right to get into a controversy with Mr. Beatty regarding amalgamation, and he was approved in that by two members of the committee from my hon. friends side of the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: I accept the statement of the minister, but does he not think it is the duty of the government of the day, and of himself as Minister of Railways, to instruct Mr. Fullerton, or someone who has responsibility in regard to the publicly-owned system which is controlled more or less by the government of the day, to go out and combat the propaganda that Mr. Beatty is putting out?


Robert James Manion: I have no power to instruct Mr. Fullerton. He is the chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian National. Certainly I think if misstatements of fact are made about the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Fullerton should correct them, but it is debatable, and apparently it was not the opinion of the committee last year that Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Beatty should be travelling around the country carrying on an amalgamation and anti-amalgamation vendetta on the public platform. But I have no power to instruct Mr. Fullerton. My own opinion was that the feeling for amalgamation in this country was so slight that in spite of Mr. Beatty's arguments for it there was no great body of public opinion favourable to it at the present time.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, again I accept the statement of the minister. But if he says he has not the authority to instruct Mr. Fullerton, and perhaps he has not, surely in the interests of the Canadian National system he should advise him that some steps should be taken to combat Mr. Beatty's propaganda. I would put Mr. Beatty in this category, as far as his propaganda against the Canadian National Railways is concerned: I would call him "public enemy No. 1." He has no right to do it, and I do not think he should be permitted to do it.


Robert James Manion: How would he be stopped?


Frederick George Sanderson: Let me go on to explain. It would be bad enough for any private citizen-


Charles Gavan Power: Section 98.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, or he might do it under peace, order and good government. This government can do almost anything under peace, order and good government.


Mr. McGIBBON:: And do it well.


Frederick George Sanderson: If they do not know of any other method, it might be under peace, order and good government.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was struck out of the act at your suggestion.


Frederick George Sanderson: Oh, no. Mr. Beatty
has been spreading this propaganda over the country for the last four years. He should be the very last man to be permitted to go about the country attacking the Canadian National. It would be bad enough for any private citizen to do that, but it is even worse that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the privately owned road, the chief competitor of the Canadian National, which is owned by the people, paid for and financed by the tax-
Public Works Program

payers, should go about systematically attacking the credit and the structure of and everything pertaining to the Canadian National. Some effort should be made to stop it. It is not fair to the people of Canada, it is not fair to the Canadian National Railways, and it is most unfair to the vast army of employees of the Canadian National.
What is Mr. Beatty's object? I think I would be safe in saying that in this propaganda Mr. Beatty's object is to bias and prejudice the minds of the people in regard to their own railroad. He is doing all the injury he can to the publicly owned road. I hope I am fair in saying that I think his object is to depreciate as much as possible the people's road so that when the time comes he as president and manager of the privately owned road can gobble up the publicly owned road at his own price and we shall have but one railroad system in this country. I think that is Mr. Beatty's object.
In regard to amalgamation or unification, so far as I am concerned I am absolutely opposed to it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am absolutely opposed to any system of any kind that will unite these two railroads.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: We want the two
railroads in this country.


Robert James Manion: Either under government
or under private ownership?


Frederick George Sanderson: Absolutely. We want the privately owned road and we want the publicly owned road, both serving the people.
A few years ago there was very little criticism regarding the Canadian National. I want to put on record something that the Prime Minister said in regard to the Canadian National back in August, 1926. Perhaps I did put this on record at one time, but I think it will bear repeating. The occasion was a political meeting in the city of Stratford at the time of the election of 1926. Mr. Bennett was not the Prime Minister then; I think he was Minister of Finance in the Meighen government. He was in Stratford addressing a large audience, most of them employees of the Canadian National, and he is reported in the Toronto Globe of August 16, 1926, in the Toronto Mail and Empire of the same date, the London Advertiser, the London Free Press and the Stratford Herald, all of August 16. The meeting was held on August 14, which was a Saturday night, consequently the report in the papers was two days later. This is what Mr. Bennett said:

Mr. Bennett denounced' in scathing terms the whispering campaign about the Canadian National Railways, saying that Mr. Meighen had always fought for the road, and had no intention of interfering with its management. In that connection he said that he personally had recommended to Mr. King that Sir Henry Thornton be hired to operate the road. This he had done as a result of information from Mr. Thomas in England, he said, and indicated' that he thought Sir Henry Thornton had been successful and that his work would certainly not be interfered with by Mr. Meighen.
I read this at the present time for this purpose; I do not think there is any man in this country who has more influence over Mr. Beatty than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should try some of this discipline stunt on Mr. Beatty. He uses it in politics. I do not want to be unkind to the Prime Minister, but I think he has it in his power to stop the propaganda that Mr. Beatty is spreading in regard to the Canadian National road. Apparently the Prime Minister has changed his mind to some extent in regard to the Canadian National. I would refer the committee to Hansard of March 9,1933, pages 2853 and 2854. The Prime Minister at that time was speaking on Bill No. 37, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific bill, and he is reported in Hansard as follows:
I am going to make a very short review of the situation, Mr. Speaker, and of the legislation now before the house, and I think I can convince hon. members opposite that they are approaching this question from, shall I say, the wrong angle. The position is not, as has been suggested so frequently in this house, that these are the properties of the people of Canada.
That from the Prime Minister! I will repeat it:
The position is not, as has been suggested so frequently in this house, that these are the properties of the people of Canada. These are now the properties of the people who loaned their money to build them, and under normal conditions they would take possession of them. It does seem to me that there are a few fundamental ideas which must be kept in mind in discussing these proposals. Let us look at them.
And then he goes on. I want to point this out to the committee, that the Prime Minister at that time, March 9, 1933, classed the Canadian National in the same category as the Canadian Pacific. He virtually said they were bankrupt. He virtually said they could not pay their debts. He virtually said that the Canadian taxpayer had not a dollar of equity in the Canadian National. Now that is not true; that is not correct. I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, that one of the greatest assets this country has is the publicly owned road, the Canadian National. Give it time and it will work out of its difficulties. I

Public Works Program
disagree entirely with the Prime Minister when he makes that statement of March 9, 1933, and I have very grave doubts whether he would repeat it to-day, that the Canadian National is bankrupt and that the people have no longer any equity in it. Such a statement as that from the Prime Minister at least does not enhance the Canadian National; it injures it. I do not for a moment say, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister made that statement of March 9, 1933, to injure the Canadian National Railway, but I say that it was a statement which as Prime Minister he should not have made, and to be as fair to him as possible I would say that it was bad judgment when he made that statement on the floor of the house on March 9, 1933. I have perhaps gone on longer than I should have, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to put myself on record in regard to this resolution.


Mr. PRICE:: You are killing time.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, I am killing it better than my hon. friend does, because he usually kills time by sleeping in the house.


Otto Baird Price: You are the people who want amalgamation.


Frederick George Sanderson: Don't point your
finger at me. Stand up if you have anything to say.
Mr. PRICE': You are the people who are talking amalgamation; no one else is talking it.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has nothing to say.


Frederick George Sanderson: No. Mr. Chairman, I urge again upon the minister in regard to this new equipment for the Canadian National Railway that not one dollar of this expenditure be handed out to private companies, but that work be given to Canadian National Railway employees and the work be done in the Canadian National Railway shops. That will help the situation of, the employees of the road tremendously. They have been in great difficulties in the last few years, have been under trial and stress, and if there is any relief about this bill, if its object is to provide relief, the work should go to the employees of the road.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up more than two or three moments but I wish to say a few words in reply to my hon. friend and some others. In the first place, there has been and is now no coercion so far as the Canadian National
is concerned. Secondly, there has been no haste because as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, and as I have already told him, the matter has been under consideration for many weeks, and indeed I think many months. Thirdly the amount that was discussed in the newspapers and to which reference was made by my hon. friend and others was $80,000,000, and of course that was a ridiculous figure.
In regard to repairs in the shops there was the question not only of the workmen in the railway shops, and no one has more sympathy with them than I have, but there was also the whole question of the advisability of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, if you will, going into the manufacture on a huge scale of rolling stock for the railways. I pointed out earlier that it is the intention of the government, and it has been made clear to both railways in connection with this proposal, which was really a proposal originally from them-or rather a proposal was originally made by them both although not exactly on these lines, that we would like if they accepted this proposal to use at least twenty per cent of the whole thing in repairs, which would mean an increase in the amount of work for the railway shop men throughout the country. It is true it would not give them full time, but it must not be forgotten that the shop men on the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific have been receiving a good deal of work, certainly not full time but still a good deal of work, whereas the employees of the various railway equipment manufacturing plants throughout the country, of which there are five, three car manufacturing plants and two locomotive plants, have been given practically no employment now for a period of five years or more. These railway equipment manufacturing plants having been originally opened up, I am informed, at the solicitation of both railways many years ago, their employees also deserve some consideration. Therefore it was the opinion of the government and is my own opinion at the moment that the employment which this will provide should be divided up somewhat along the lines I have suggested.
I have only one more remark to make because I do not wish to delay some of my hon. friends from speaking, but I felt that a few of the statements that have been made should be replied to forthwith. In regard to the statement of the Prime Minister which my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) quoted, I assume that what was in the right hon. gentleman's mind, and what was clear enough in most people's minds, was
Public Works Program

that if it were not for government guarantees and for the government supplying money the Canadian National would go into the hands of a receiver, which it undoubtedly would. If the Canadian government had not been giving to the Canadian National for many years huge sums of money to make up the deficit on their bonds, undoubtedly the Canadian National would have gone into the hands of a receiver. I think it is clear enough that that is what was in the Prime Minister's mind; I do not think that is any reflection upon the Canadian National, and it is certainly no perversion of the facts. If it were not the practice of the government of Canada to-day, and if it had not been the practice for many years, to pay the deficits on the interest to the bondholders of the Canadian National, undoubtedly the bondholders would have been able to put the Canadian National into a receivership. Just as to-day, if the Canadian Pacific were unable to pay the interest on its bonds, the Canadian Pacific would be placed in the hands of a receiver. That is what the Prime Minister meant, and I do not think his words could be twisted into any implication of hostility on the part of the Prime Minister to the Canadian National. I do not think that they should be twisted in that way. I am not reflecting upon the hon. member, but I do not believe the Prime Minister meant anything other than what I have just said he meant.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps some hon. members will be disappointed when I say I have no intention whatsoever of discussing the amalgamation of railways. It has been so definitely stated on many occasions by the minister that the government will adhere to its resolution, "amalgamation never, competition ever," and as it has also been stated as a policy of the Liberal party that they will endeavour to continue the Canadian National Railways as a separate organization, I am not at all disposed to quarrel with either party or to enter into any controversy at this time.
May I say this, however; in his first radio speech the Prime Minister said that the solution of the railway problem is precedent to the return of prosperity. In other words, we cannot have prosperity until the railways question, whatever that question may be, has been settled. Now, the Prime Minister has promised prosperity, and if he was sincere in bis promise then it certainly becomes his duty to enunciate some policy looking to the settlement of the railway problem. Yet in addressing the board of trade of the city of Toronto, after discussing for ten or fifteen minutes the difficulties in which the Canadian

National Railways found themselves, he is reported to have said, "But this is not Bennett's problem; it is your problem. What are you going to do about it?" I wish merely to point out the inconsistency of bringing in reform policies which are to have the effect of bringing back prosperity, and yet doing nothing to settle a question which the Prime Minister himself has said must be settled before we can have prosperity. The hon. member for South Perth in his very eloquent plea-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: I sympathize with him. The hon. member made reference to statements made by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway company which, he said, reflect upon the Canadian National Railways. With that statement I have a good deal of sympathy. May I suggest that the object which the hon. member for South Perth seeks to attain, that of preventing this gentleman from the Canadian Pacific Railway from making derogatory statements about the Canadian National Railways, might be attained if the Minister of Railways gently conveyed to that gentleman the suggestion that unless he stops he will not receive any more guarantees of $60,000,000.
In connection with the suggestion made that Mr. Fullerton, chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways, should not enter into a controversy with Mr. Beatty respecting amalgamation-


Robert James Manion: It was Mr. Fullerton's own
suggestion.


William Daum Euler: The minister made the statement, or I believe the inference was, that I congratulated Mr. Fullerton on his statement as to the inadvisability of debating with Mr. Beatty the question of amalgamation. In order to keep the record straight I should like to say that Mr. Fullerton made quite a long statement, covering five or six pages of the report of the committee, in which he dealt with many questions in addition to that of amalgamation,


Robert James Manion: That is quite correct.


William Daum Euler: I congratulated him upon
the general tenor of his statement, and I finished with this, which I think will remove any misconception there may be in the minds of hon. members of the committee to the effect that I supported the statement that the chairman of the board should have nothing to say whatsoever in connection with any wrongful statement by the press, the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other body.

Public Works Program,
At that time I said the following:
I would like to add that while I agree with the chairman that he need not get into any public controversy with the other railway, nevertheless whenever anything does issue from that other railway, if it does, which seriously prejudices in the minds of the public the interests of the Canadian National Railways, then, in my mind it becomes the duty of the chairman of the board to combat and contradict such statement.
Mr. MANiLON:	I agree entirely with
that.


William Daum Euler: I make the quotation merely to remove any misconception which may have 'been created by what was said by the minister.
Now, a word with regard to the proposed vote of S15,000,000 towards purchasing equipment for the two railway companies, $8,000,000 of which is to go to the Canadian National Railways and $7,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway. 'Certainly I would not be heard advocating anything which would interfere with the giving of employment or relief to unemployed people. If it is really necessary to construct equipment in our own shops I hope the hon. member from Stratford will receive a good deal of the business, or in other words that a large part of it may go to that city. I rose to say that if the equipment is required I have nothing to say with regard to the assistance which might be given to the Canadian National Railways, although at the moment I am not speaking with regard to the privately owned road. I think there is a decided difference between helping ourselves and helping somebody else. At the moment however I shall not discuss that point.
Just five days ago-I believe it was last Wednesday-the president of the Canadian National Railways appeared in committee and said, "We do not need any equipment; we have sufficient equipment for all our traffic requirements." That was the very definite and unqualified statement he made. He did say however that although they had plenty of cars and plenty of equipment for all general purposes there were periods of peak loads when the equipment was not Sufficient. "Then," h.e said, "We do as other railways do; we follow the very logical course of borrowing from the other roads. We exchange; we get cars from other roads when we need them, and they do the same when they find themselves in a similar position." My point is this:	If the Canadian
National Railways do not need this equipment it ought not to be purchased.


Robert James Manion: They do not have to take it if they do not wish to.


William Daum Euler: May I refer to what the minister has just now said:	If there is one
thing for which the late government was criticized day in and d'ay out by the Minister of Railways and Canals and his colleagues- more particularly by the minister-it was the statement that the late government had spent millions of dollars in what they described as unnecessary expenditures on the Canadian National Railways. That was the criticism which was heard on many occasions. In view of that fact it does not lie in the mouth of the Minister of Railways and Canals or any member of the government to say that we ought to buy, or even to suggest that we should spend $8,000,000 for equipment which is not needed and which will only add to the burden which the Canadian National Railways already have to bear. That is the point I wish to make. They do not ask for it.


Mr. MAMON:: That is not so. They
did propose buying it if we would give them one-third, and we made this proposal. So that they did ask for it, in a sense.


William Daum Euler: I shall not question the
minister's words, but it is difficult to reconcile that statement with the statement made in committee that equipment is not needed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) in connection with the financial history of the Intercolonial railway both before and after its inclusion in the Canadian National Railway system'. I think this statement is well worthy of being recorded in the journals of this house. I was also interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I always enjoy the hon. gentleman's speeches, whether they be in earnest or otherwise, but in my judgment the speech he made to-day was purely partisan propaganda and rather unworthy of him. Both the hon. member for Quebec South and the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) took full advantage of the lack of relative responsibility which attaches to hon. members of the opposition. I would direct the attention of both hon. members to the statement which appeared this morning in the press with regard to the quantity of rolling stock, originally costing about $27,587,106, most of which will never again be put in
Public Works Program

service. This statement is attributed to the general manager of the Canadian National Railways. It is stated that from Sydney to Vancouver there are distributed some
16,000	to 20,000 cars which will never again see service. There are- a number of derelict locomotives which are useless and should be scrapped. Many of the locomotives in service to-day are expensive to operate because of the low boiler pressure under which they work.
While I do not claim that all the equipment referred to should be replaced at once, much of it must foe renewed if the Canadian National system is to maintain the service which it is exacted to give. The hon. member for South Perth was quite within his rights in acting as champion of the shop employees of the Canadian National Railways, but I would point out that none of these shops are in a position or ever were in a position to build locomotives or rolling stock in competition with the private shops. These shops are located in Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario, and with their private initiative they are able to produce rolling stock at a lower cost than can the ill equipped shops of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. This has been proven time and time again. It is my well considered opinion that tihe equipment program now being presented by the minister is entirely inadequate. In the interests of the country I think it should be doubled, because this is the time to bore with a really big auger.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to say a word or two on behalf of the citizens of the town of Transcona. When the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental railways were built a location some six miles from Winnipeg was chosen as the nucleus of their operations and the site of their shops. The largest and the most up to date railroad shops in the Dominion of Canada were built at this location. When running at full capacity these shops employ some 7,000 men but to-day only some 1,700 are employed. Many hundreds of men came to Transcona, bought property and built homes for themselves. As the hon, member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) indicated this afternoon, only a very small percentage of shop employees are employed at the present time, and these men are working only three days a week. I understand that the government intends to spend some $8,000,000 for replacements of one kind and another for the Canadian National Railways. I have been told that I can say without hesitation that there is not an item

of rolling stock which the shops at Transcona cannot produce. These shops have turned out pullman cars and have assembled engines, while it is the regular everyday task to build a freight car. In the early days of the history of the Canadian National Railways many men were prompted to go to Transcona. They built homes and cast in their lot with that town, but many of them have lost everything they had. I take this opportunity of appealing to the minister to ask that as large a proportion as possible of this money be spent upon equipment to be built at Transcona. I am not asking that these shops foe given priority over any other Canadian National shops, but I do ask that in the expenditure of this money these employees who have lost their all should receive serious consideration.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Mr. Chairman, it is not
my intention to deal with matters connected with the Canadian National Railways, as these have already been dealt with in detail, but I should like to refer to the resolution itself. If this resolution contemplates a bill along the lines of the public works construction bill of last year, it will meet with strenuous objection on the part of members of this house. I do not know whether the minister would feel like giving us any information as to whether the bill will be drafted along the lines of the bill of last year. If he does, I should like to have some information in connection with the lump sum feature, then with regard to the power to put in other new buildings, and the inviting of tenders instead of having tenders by public advertisement.. These are some of the features in regard to which the minister might give me some information, which might have the effect of curtailing the remarks I desire to make. Is it intended to follow last year's action in these respects?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thought I intimated in my address when opening the discussion on this resolution that in a general way the terms of the bill were similar to those of the Public Works Construction Act of last year. The total amount involved is approximately $18,000,000 outside of the amount which would be provided for the railway guarantees and which would probably be $1,050,000-


John Campbell Elliott: I have the amounts.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and, in addition, the $30,000,000 which we propose to spend under the former act, which would make a total of about $50,000,000 this year. The bill itself will disclose its provisions, and

Public Works Program
possibly when my hon. friend reads it he will find that his alarm may not be warranted, I am not prepared to discuss in detail the provisions of the bill until it is brought down, but again I assure my hon. friend that it is substantially the same as last year's, with a much shorter schedule.


John Campbell Elliott: If it is substantially the same as last year's, I must say that it will not be very satisfactory in many respects. First of all, the amount is a large one. The minister has said -that it is practically $50,000,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not in this bill. What is unexpended under the act of last year, together with this one, representing $18,000,000, gives that total.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; add the $18,000,000 to the portion, practically $32,000,000, unexpended on March 31, and you get practically $50,000,000, which is a large expenditure at any time, and especially large at the present time. I am not quarrelling so .much with the amount as with the manner in which it has been expended in different ways. One of -the things to which I want to call the attention of the minister and to which I object-and I know that other members of the committee object most strenuously to it-is the clause which was inserted last year after the bill had been drawn, which made a variation from the bill as it was introduced into the house. I refer to the clause which is appended to item 135. Item 135 is the item dealing with public works generally, improvements, additions, fittings, painting, renewals, repairs to floors, roofs., plumbing, electrical installations, improvement on sidewalks and roadways, and incidental expenditures in connection therewith. Just before it got through its second reading there was added, "and construction of new buildings." Under that my hon. friend built several new buildings which should have oome in under the ordinary items under the Public Works Act. That is not fair. It is not fair to this committee. There has been a practice for years, ever since this department was established, that where a public building was erected the amount was placed in the estimates and passed on by the committee so that before the committee rose everyone had an opportunity of ascertaining what buildings were to be erected. And the same with regard to wharves. I see here under item 75 a lump sum for wharves. A number of large wharves were built. In the spirit of the Public Works Act these should have appeared in the special item. I am disappointed that the minister has not given us the assurance at once- because he must have encountered a good
deal of difficulty by reason of his having the power to put in those items, being unable to withstand the urgings of his friends for them 

that he intends to change that method this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If it will help my hon. friend I will assure him that the provision with regard to new buildings does not appear in the bill this year.


John Campbell Elliott: I am very glad to have that assurance because it will save some time. I intended to devote considerable time to protesting against that, because I know that my hon. friend must have found in that respect that everyone could come to him and say, "Mr. Minister, you have power to give me a building. True, it has not gone through the committee, but under item 135 you have that power." In my opinion that clause should never have been included. I know it was not contemplated in the original drafting of the bill last year, and I commend the minister and the government for having introduced their bill at a reasonable time of the year this year instead of introducing it, as they did last year, just as the house was arranging to close, so that there was no reasonable opportunity of discussing the various items in the bill and the various phases of it. The insertion of that harmless looking little clause, though it did not escape the attention of the committee last year, has caused a great deal of trouble for the minister, I know, and a great deal of dissatisfaction to the people throughout the country. I hope that as I proceed with these various objections I shall hear from the minister that some of those I intend to voice have also been anticipated and dispensed with in the bill which he is going to introduce after this resolution is adopted.
Next to that iniquity is the creating of five new departments of public works. What has been the effect of all that? Under the head of expenditures for Indians we have had expenditures being made, architects engaged and new staffs being set up; under Immigration the previous staff has been greatly increased; and under National Defence a large number of new employees were put in, as far as I know, without any of them coming before the civil service commission.
When the Minister of National Defence was before the committee he stated, I believe, that all the expenditures that had been made, all the buildings that had been erected, including buildihgs running into large sums of money, had been by invited tender and none by tenders after public advertisement,
Public Works Program

with the possible exception of a building in Kingston. Now I say that that is not a fair way to spend the money of the people of this country. The inviting of tenders for buildings running as high as the barracks building at Calgary, amounting to $183,546; mess building at Calgary, $147,250; fixing of landing field, $128,756; water system and sewer system, $110,000; reconstruction of Royal Canadian Air Force station at Dartmouth, $15,000; reconstruction of armoury at Dun-das, $45,000. To erect buildings of that kind without advertising for tenders is nothing short of a public scandal. You cannot possibly get satisfaction. I have before me an extract giving a few of the buildings that have been constructed, and I want to refer to the fact that the freight shed at Oshawa, costing $4,869, was let after public advertisement. Then as to the customs warehouse at Trout River, costing $4,000, the extension to the warehouse at Sydney, Nova Scotia, costing $8,572, and many other similar buildings -these works were done after public advertisement, while we have the extension to the Deer Lodge hospital at Winnipeg, costing $114,000; the construction of the school dormitories at Fredericton, New Brunswick, costing $49,988; a public building at Boissevain, costing $17,500 and a large list including many military buildings, for instance one at Calgary costing $163,546; another, costing $147,250; another costing $35,169 and various other large expenditures of that kind running into millions of dollars, all without public advertisements. How in the world can anybody justify going to the expense of publicly advertising these little buildings costing $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000, and then asking a few of one's friends to tender for numerous buildings costing over $100,000 each? That is not the proper way to expend public money. The minister knows and every minister of every department knows you cannot get value for your money by doing business in that way.
The other evening we had an exhibition from the Minister of Marine (Mir. Duranleau) who said that he invited tenders for all the contracts for works that he let under the Public Works Construction Act. The reason he gave was that as the provincial government at Quebec long ago adapted the practice of keeping its contracts for a certain number of contractors, it was only fair that contractors from Quebec who bad always been neglected should receive a little encouragement. That is nothing short of scandalous. The lamentable exhibition that was made in this house the other evening when the minister was attempting to explain why he had done the public

business in that way is something that I think has not been witnessed before in this chamber in a long time. I hope the minister will tell me now that I need not go further with regard to the system of letting these large contracts running into large amounts of money, because tenders are now to be called by public advertisement; I hope he is in a position to do that. He does not seem to respond quite as readily as he did before, and I regret that exceedingly. I want to say to him now that he cannot justify before the people of this country continuing to do business in the way he has been doing.
It is not my desire to delay the committee, but I want to protest also against these large amounts of money, particularly items 75, 78 and 135 that were put under the Public Works Construction Act. Under item 78 there is $2,000,000 to the Interior department. So far as I have heard I do not know of any of the contracts under that being let by public tender. I hope the minister will be in a position to correct me and to tell me that most have been let in that way, but that is not my understanding. Then we have am item of $2,000,000 for public buildings generally. That is the worst kind of patronage that any government can resort to. What was the policy of the government when last year they were asking us for $40,000,000 for public works construction largely to relieve unemployment? We find that of that amount just about $7,295,000 was spent prior to February 28 and around $9,000,000 by March 31, so that they had under that act still unspent about $30,000,000 by March 31. Therefore with the $18,000,000 they are getting now, they will have a sum amounting to about $48,000,000 to be expended within the present year. Under those conditions the money Should be spent in accordance with the practice that has obtained since these various departments were formed.


Robert James Manion: How many tens of millions of dollars did my hon. friend and his predecessor in the Liberal government as ministers of public works spend on the Welland ship canal without any tenders at all after the first contract had been let?


John Campbell Elliott: The same figures.


Robert James Manion: At the same figures and without calling for tenders at all.


John Campbell Elliott: I will say to my hon. friend what I thought he would have known, namely, that I am not as familiar as he is with what happened with regard to letting contracts for the building of canals.

Public Works Program


Robert James Manion: Yes; that was by the Minister of Railways.


John Campbell Elliott: That was by the Minister of Railways. But I think he will agree with me that if those contracts were let originally by puhlic tender, there could not have been very much fault in following along by letting subsequent amounts at the rate that obtained after public advertisement in the first place.


Robert James Manion: I am not quarrelling with the method, except that I do not think there is a very big difference between that and letting to a group of contractors even if they are limited to one section of the country.


John Campbell Elliott: I am surprised to hear the Minister of Railways and Canals make such a contention. It is just about the thinnest contention I have ever heard from a man who has been charged with the expenditure of money in a large spending department. Let us clearly understand what his view is. You let by tender after public advertisement a large contract at unit prices, and as was the case during the years to which my hon. friend refers prices of labour and materials were rising annually.


Robert James Manion: But not all the time.


John Campbell Elliott: All of that time, the time of which he complains. Then you continue letting at the unit price further amounts of identically the same kind of work.


Robert James Manion: Years later.


John Campbell Elliott: I say that is good business, if the cost of material and labour is rising, as it was during that time.


Robert James Manion: That is a matter of opinion.


John Campbell Elliott: Buit of course, as with most of my hon. friend's interruptions, it has no bearing on my argument. I say this letting of contracts for buildings-and it applies also to harbour improvements and dredging-


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: And to the purchase of land?


John Campbell Elliott: In the purchase of land of course you would have to rely upon valuations by the proper authorities. But as far as buildings are concerned, and dredging, there can be no justification whatever for that course of action. I say to the minister now that if he expects to get that bill put through without opposition, instead of this system; of inviting tenders for the larger contracts he should go back to the old rule as established under the Public Works Act. I cannot see how he can justify doing otherwise.
So far as the suggestion of my hon. friend is concerned, this work was planned originally as unemployment relief. And we were told by hon. gentlemen opposite with a great show of virtue that it was to be non-political. But I have it from various sources that everyone who was asked to tender was not merely a supporter of the Conservative party but a militant supporter in the section from which he comes.


Mr. LOUOES:: That did not apply in connection with the bridge at Outlook.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have listened
with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my hon. friend. He is almost righteously indignant about some things which' he says have happened under the provisions of the act of last year. I want to assure him at the outset that there is no cause for indignation, no cause for anxiety. There has been no loss to the treasury, and everything has been conducted in a straightforward, clean and capable manner.	.
I do not propose to go into details in discussing the matter at this stage, because it seems to me that the details are scarcely relevant to the resolution which is now before the committee. We were discussing this same matter on the estimates of the Public Works department, and we are prepared to continue that discussion and go into every item which my hon. friends may desire to discuss.
My hon. friend's objections, as I gather them, may be put under two heads. He says it was wasteful to divide this work and allot it to three or four different departments; in fact I think he said that four or five new departments had been set up. Well, that is not accurate. No new departments have been set up. Under my hon. friend's administration and that of his friends, the Department of the Interior were carrying on construction through the Department of Indian Affairs. They had their architect; they had their staff. True, it is not as large as that of the Public Works department. Then the Department of National Defence has a competent staff of engineers, as my hon. friend knows, and the works which were assigned to that department were those which it was peculiarly qualified to handle. There has been no loss or detriment to the public interest in that respect. With regard to the dredging and the other work done by the Department of Marine and by harbour commissions, similar work was carried on during all the years, that my hon. friend was Minister of Public Works. The very same policy has been followed with respect to the carrying on of those works as was followed during those years, as I understand. The Minister of Marine will be able to explain that more in detail.
With regard to the inviting of tenders we had a pretty full discussion when this bill was up a year ago, and it was distinctly provided that works up to a certain amount should be under the control of the minister, and that for works beyond that amount tenders should be secured. The word "public" was with the approval of this house deliberately omitted from the provisions of that bill, so that in not inviting public tenders in certain instances we complied strictly with the pro-

visions of the act. I submit that the object of inviting public tenders is to secure competition. The only object to be served in any course that is pursued is to secure reasonable competition. There are two or three methods by which that competition can be secured. It may be secured by public tender, and I think my hon. friend will admit that not always in the case of public tender has an honest and fair competition been secured in the past. It may be secured also by asking tenders from a selected list, and it does not make any difference whether they are invited publicly or invited from a list; so long as reasonable competition is secured the public interest is protected. I invite my hon. friend to read Hansard of last session where he will find that members on both sides of this house advocated that a course should be taken to prevent a few large contracting firms from securing all the contracts because they 'had peculiar advantages, superior equipment, and so forth, and as this was a relief measure members on both sides advocated that tenders should be invited locally. That has been done, and I want to tell my hon. friends that when the estimates of the Puiblc Works department come up he can have a list of those from whom tenders were invited on each occasion, and he will find that not only was the list large enough to secure good, clean competition but in every case the competition was keen, and if in one or two cases the tenders were not satisfactory the contracts were not awarded on those tenders, and public tenders were then invited. That is the course that was adopted with respect to these tenders. We always have the protection of the architect's estimate, and if in any given case the tenders do not compare favourably with the architect's estimate there is no obligation to accept them.
All I have to say is this, that as far as I know the public interest has been protected in every case, whether public tenders were invited or whether tenders were invited locally with the object of giving the work locally and in the province in which the project was to be carried on, as was the declared intention of the act.
The new act as I have said, will follow in the main the lines of the old act, and if the same precautions are taken as have been taken in the past I am sure with regard to these tenders that the public interest will not suffer. I am just as anxious .to protect the public interest as my hon. friend is, and I want to say to him that these are peculiar times, times when it is not difficult to get competition. These are times when people come knocking at the door asking for an opportunity to

Public Works Program
tender; you do not have to have public advertising in order to get competition. If anything the competition has been unduly keen; if any complaint can be urged I would say that the competition has been too keen and contracts have been awarded barely at cost- in some cases the contractors say at even less than a reasonable cost. I am sure that a candid review of the situation, a careful examination of every case, will disclose that the public interest has been protected and that reasonable competition has been secured, and I am sure that that is all any member of this house ought to ask for-reasonable competition. That course will also be adapted in connection with the new act.
With regard to the two items for considerable amounts which my hon. friend suggests have been used in a manner that was not intended, let me say that the item with regard to public buildings, as my hon. friend knows, was for the purpose of putting all the public buildings in a good state of repair. During the last three or four years and possibly for a longer time than that, considerable maintenance had been deferred, and the first thing we did was to go over all these buildings and put them in fairly good repair. The work has not been completed, but the list of expenditures filed by the Minister of Finance will indicate that there was a great number of items of expenditure in this connection. That was the object and the purpose of the vote, and lit was not too large for the purpose. The number of buildings that were constructed out of the appropriation was very small indeed, and consisted of small amounts. I shall be prepared when the estimates are up to give my hon. friend a list of all these buildings.
Again I assure my hon. friend that the public interest has been safeguarded in every case. There is no hundred per cent efficiency in any method of tender. Public tenders are not one hundred per cent sound or efficient in every case, and local tenders may give just as good results as public tenders. Under the conditions of the times, and with the keen competition that has prevailed, there has been no difficulty in securing reasonable prices, and low prices, in the course that has been adopted.
My hon. friend says that in every case friends of the government were selected. He is mistaken. People have written in asking for the privilege of tendering, and that has been accorded. I know that in many cases-


John Campbell Elliott: Would my hon. friend
permit a question? Do I understand him to say that in every case wihere somebody has written in asking for the privilege of tendering it has been accorded?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not say
in every case, but I say in many eases they have done so and in many cases their request has been granted. I have had it represented to me that many Liberals are getting these contracts and wondering why the Conservatives could not get them.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) belittled the suggestion I made that the Department of Railways under the previous government had let contracts, not calling upon a selected list of contractors to tender on them, but without a selected list of any kind. I looked in my desk and I happened to find here a list of twenty-one items between 1924, and May 28, 1930, in which the Department of Railways and Canals under the late government let contracts to different companies without any tender at all. It is true that they had tenders originally. For example, the last one they let was on May 28, 1930, just two months to a day before the last election. They let one for S300,000 to a company which had been given a contract six years before, and without any tender of any kind whatsoever. I have twenty-one items here running into huge figures

$119,000,	$115,000,	$113,000,


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend
approve of that method?
Mr. MAlSflO'N:	As a matter of fact I do
not find any particular fault with it, and I am not particularly criticizing the late government. But when my hon. friend takes such a righteous attitude, a sort of holier-than-thou attitude, and suggests that we were committing a crime in calling for tenders from a group of contractors and not from everybody in Canada, I do not quite see where my hon. friends opposite were so much holier than we. So far as the hon. gentleman himself is concerned, when he was Minister of Public Works I well remember the vain effort I made over and over again to get my post office painted or to get anything done. The post office in my constituency was built in 1909, when the papulation stood at between 8,000 and 9,000 people; it is now trebled. During the time my hon. friend was Minister of Public Works I do not know how many times I appealed to him on the floor of the house. I called upon him and applied to him in every way to get some little repairs made to the post office, but I was never successful, not even to the extent of a coat of paint; not one dollar was spent on it. The place was falling down and people were writing to me and telling me about the disgraceful condition in which the
Public Works Program

post office stood. I would report those conditions to the minister, but not one cent would be spent. That had nothing to do with politics; oh, no, politics was not in that.
I have risen merely to point out that I hold in my hand this list of contracts. I must say that I have no particular criticism against my hon. friends opposite, but I do say the bon. member for West Middlesex, an hon. member who as a former minister of public works knows a good deal about the work of that department and of the Department of Railways and Canals, should be a little more hesitant when he seeks to criticize the present Minister of Public Works, who, according to my understanding, has called for tenders in connection with practically all of these jobs.


John Campbell Elliott: I wish to say in answer
to the Minister of Railways and 'Canals-


Frank Roland MacMillan: Tell us about the gaol farm at Regina.


John Campbell Elliott: I will discuss the matter
with the hon. member at any time he suggests.
The Minister of Railways and Canals has said that in nine years twenty-one jobs were let without public advertisement.


Robert James Manion: In one department.


John Campbell Elliott: And they were extensions of previous contracts. The minister has said he does not object to that procedure, but I cannot take a similar position. I do object to letting large contracts by invited tenders.
The Minister of Public Works has stated that he has followed the practice adopted by the former administration. He has stated of course that a change was made in the act passed last year, and he advances the argument that the department acted as it did because of a desire to have the work done by local labour. The work could be done by local labour just as well if the contract were let by public advertisement as if invited tenders were accepted. All one would have to do would be to insert a clause in a contract stating that local labour must be employed. There would be no difficulty about that, and of that fact the minister is undoubtedly aware. Inviting tenders rather than advertising for them does not ensure getting the work done by local labour. There is no defence for the system of letting contracts aggregating many millions of dollars in one year by invited tender. There is no excuse for it. If there is an excuse, then what has been the necessity of insisting upon public advertisements since the days of confederation?

I know something about the Department of Public Works, and I think it is fair to observe that that department may have followed the old rule a little more closely than some other departments. I do urge however that the system of invited tenders, except in exceptional cases, should be abandoned in connection with a great program of public works for relief purposes, to relieve unemployment to improve the conditions now obtaining. The system of inviting tenders should be abolished and one of public advertisement take its place.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As the hon. member is no doubt aware, to a very great extent contracts in the Department of Public Works were awarded by public tender. That is true of all the larger undertakings. For purposes of illustration may I state" what happened in one case when a contract was awarded to an outside contractor. At a certain point a building was to be erected, for which, work an outside contractor was awarded the contract. He landed in the little town bringing with him all supplies which had been purchased in the city, and also had the services of a complete staff. The hon. member will understand that in these peculiar times, when in most localities unemployment exists, the citizens will bring pressure to bear to see that any work done is given to the people in the respective localities. He will realize just how strong would be the protest if a contractor from Toronto landed in London or the village of 'Glencoe for the purpose of erecting a tower or placing a clock on the public building, and brought with him his own help and supplies. The strongest possible representations have been made from every direction urging that so far as possible the works should be awarded to local contractors and supplies purchased locally. In specifications we have inserted a clause providing that the contractor must employ a reasonable quota of local labour and of returned soldiers. In these difficult days we are doing our best to meet existing conditions, to distribute the work among all contractors, to see that the larger contractors do not get it all and that the local contractors get their share. We are attempting to deal with the matter sympathetically from the point of view of local conditions and in such a manner that plants may be kept operating and1 in a position to employ the largest possible amount of local labour.


John Campbell Elliott: Has there been any difficulty in any of the cases in which it has been prescribed in the advertisement for tender that local labour must be employed?

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, yes. I have had many protests to the effect that contractors from the outside have not fully respected the clause in their contract and specifications, and that local people have not received t'heiir fair share of employment. Sometimes I have felt the representations were justified, and I have had to appeal to the contractor with a view to having him employ a larger percentage of people in the immediate vicinity.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: The resolution before the house is as follows:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada, and to authorize the government to guarantee equipment securities of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the amount of $15,000,000.
I take it for granted that in the ordinary course of events the bill founded upon the resolution will become law. I am most concerned however in the question how the moneys will 'be divided. Hon. members are aware that in the western section of Montreal we have a large plant known as the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited. When that plant was operating at full capacity about
3,000	people were employed, but for the past three years the number of employees has averaged only about 100, and at times only 50. Formerly in the manufacture of railway cars, diners and freight cars the plant gave employment to tool makers, carpenters, varnish-ers, painters, and workmen engaged in other trades. To-day these operations are greatly limited. The birds have built their nests in the chimneys and we do not see the smoke or hear the whistles which tell that men are working. All these men are anxious to go back to work. When the $15,000,000 is divided up I hope that the eastern and western parts of Montreal will get their share. The Angus shops and the Canadian Car and Foundry Company should be considered in the distribution of this money so that as many workers as possible may be given employment. This foundry has always built the cars for the Canadian National Railways and I contend they should get a fair share of the money to be spent. If 2,000 people at present unemployed were able to go back to work, a considerable load would be lifted from the shoulders of the relief commission. All these men are sincere in their desire to go back to work and they should be given work not only in their own interest but in the interest of Canada as a whole.


Mr. BURY:: Mr. Chairman, I have neither the intention nor the desire to. follow the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) in his wanderings beyond the ambit of the resolution, but I should like to refer to one point raised by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). When the public works program bill was being considered last year I believe I was the first member of the house to plead that when contracts under a certain figure were considered, tenders should be confined to local contractors in cities of such size as to create genuine competition. This plea was listened to with a great deal of sympathy and received general support from both sides of the house. I think this was rightly so when we realize that the express purpose of the bill was to provide relief rather than simply to erect certain structures or buildings. It was intended to give as much work as possible to the different communities of Canada. I argued, and I believe my argument was listened to with sympathy, that the purposes of the legislation would not be effective unless some limitation were placed upon the principle of tendering. A large contractor is able to carry his overhead at a comparatively small percentage of his turnover; such a contractor might be successful in obtaining a contract in a nearby city and could come into that city and underbid for a certain job. A considerable amount was allotted to Calgary for a building in connection with the Department of National Defence. A contractor fortunate enough to obtain a large proporton of this contract could go into Edmonton and underbid for work in that city. In this way the purpose of the bill would be defeated. It is of no use to say that when you call for tenders for the erection of a building in Edmonton and a contractor in Calgary, Winnipeg or Montreal obtains the contract, it can be provided in the specifications that local labour must be employed. It is only natural that some local labour will be used, because a contractor is not going to put himself to the expense of transporting the labour from the city to which he belongs. But he will bring his key men and members of his staff, and perhaps considerable of the needed material. The best part of the money spent on the contract will not remain in the locality. Any profit there may be on the contract will be carried back to the contractor's home city. The money earned by his key men and his staff also will be taken away. For these reasons it was logically and properly urged that this principle be adopted, and it was looked upon favourably by the house.
Public tenders were called for in Edmonton, and although it was not stipulated that the
Public Works Program

tenderers must be local men, we were fortunate in having a local man put in the lowest tender. I understand that he is likely to get the contract. A principle which might be perfectly sound when the only purpose of a construction program is merely to provide buildings or structures for the use of the government may not be applicable when the purpose of a program is to provide work in as large a measure as possible under the circumstances. Therefore I think the policy adopted by the Department of Public Works was not only entirely justified but was in accordance with the views and wishes of the majority of hon. members of this house.
I should like to refer briefly to that part of the resolution providing for $15,009,000 as a guarantee, for the purchase of railway equipment. I ask that as much of this work as possible be done locally. In the Canadian National shops in Edmonton we have had 94 men laid off in the car and coach department. A census taken of 63 of these men shows that 54 of them are on relief, some of them having been from ten to seventeen years in the Canadian National service!, and they are now in danger of losing their pension rights and their homes. That is a very serious matter for them, and when we look back at the conditions out of which this situation arose we have to recognize that the men themselves are not to blame for it. Years ago this country, under the influence of a too optimistic conception and estimate of its railway requirements, branched out in every direction in an inflated program' of railway construction. Our program was too optimistic; our actual railway development was too optimistic; but these men entered the service of the railway with the natural assurance that they were entering into what was practically steady and regular employment. They did so on the strength of the wisdom and the decision and action of this parliament, and after working there for from ten to seventeen years they are now out of employment largely as the result of over-optimism in those years. Surely it is the duty of this country to do everything within reason, when work is going, to see that it is spread among the railway men as far as possible. I do not say that all the money can necessarily be used in this way, but I am pleading that to the very limit of possibility the moneys granted in this way be used in repairs in order to take back men in the railway repair shops for the construction of new rolling stock and in equipment, where such equipment is made. I therefore join with the other members of the committee -on both sides of the house who have urged this upon the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to follow what my hon. friend (Mr. Bury) has said with regard to the general principle which he said was advocated last year in the house and generally accepted, and I desire to direct the attention of the committee to the manner in which that has been carried out, at least in one or two instances that have been brought to my notice. I realize that the minister is under some handicap because he lays down to a certain extent general principles and the reports of his officers indicate to him that things are being done in such and such a direction. The only way to test these things is by finding out whether in concrete instances the general principle is carried out as suggested by my hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Bury). The hon. gentleman laid down a principle which he said he advocated last year, that in connection with jobs, in the smaller communities at any rate, tenders be called for from all local contractors and that there be genuine competition; and he stressed the fact that the sort of competition he meant should be genuine and real. That general principle perhaps is not to be objected to at all, but I would point out to the hon. gentleman that that is not what most of us are really concerned with. We are not concerned with outside contractors coming in. It is all very well to discuss that, but after all that is not the cause of most of the waste of public money which is going on in the country. The waste of public money is going on because they are not merely limiting the call for tenders to people in the place but they are limiting them to one or two Conservatives in the place, and there is no competition whatever. 'I will give my hon. friend an example or two. I am surprised at it myself and I am sure the minister does not know about it; but it is only by having concrete examples that we can understand what is going on.
I am looking at a paper, the Eastern Chronicle, which published a report with regard to some repairs made in the town of Pictou involving $9,000. That is not a large amount, but it would provide work for quite a number of people and give the necessaries of life to quite a number of women and children. How was the money spent? There were several jobs to be done, and this is the genuine competition, the real competition, to use my hon. friend's expression, which was adopted in that instance. There were general repairs to be done and tenders were asked from a gentleman by the name of McKay and a gentleman named Adamson. There was cementing on the driveway to be done and tenders were

Public Works Program
called for from a gentleman named McCuish and a gentleman named Adamson. And there were general repairs in the customs house and tenders were called for from a gentleman by the name of McKay and a gentleman by the name of Adamson. Adamson was a competing tenderer in all three jobs, and strange to say he just missed getting the job by a hair in each instance. I may tell the committee that Adamson is not a contractor; he is connected with a company that runs a planing mill and he is a prominent Conservative worker. In view of this fact I am not so sure that the genuine competition, the real competition which my hon. friend has spoken about, took place in connection with that work. What was the result? The result was that Mr. McKay tendered $2240 for general repairs and Adamson just missed getting the job; he tendered $10 higher and McKay got the job. In connection with the cement work on the driveway MdCuish tendered $750, and this competitor, who was supplying the real, genuine competition, tendered $780, with the result that McCuish got the job. For the general repairs in the customs house McKay tendered S3,400 and Adamson, the same gentleman, who was not a carpenter nor a contractor, tendered $3,520, in order to furnish the real, genuine competition we have been hearing about. The result was that McKay got all three jobs. Three times Adamson just missed getting it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Purposely.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know; no one would suggest that. I do suggest however that the competition was not as genuine as we are led to believe, nor was the call for tenders as widespread as the boundaries of the town of Pictou, because there are no fewer than six carpenter contractors in that town, and the only men who were asked for tenders were McKay and Adamson. And, as I say, Adamson just tendered high enough to allow McKay to get in under the wire. To add a little more to this real competition, Mr. McKay was given the job, without tendering at all, of fixing up the janitor's quarters at $900. So that we have Mr. McKay getting three jobs amounting to $6,540. There were two more jobs in connection with painting, and here we see some, of the real, the genuine competition. Tenders were asked for from two men, Mr. Veniot and Mr. Munsie. This was in connection with exterior and interior painting in the post office building. Mr. Veniot tendered $900 and Mr. Munsie $985, and of course Mr. Veniot got the job. But he did not get the job in connection with the customs house 92582-175
because here we find that Munsie tendered $1,500 against Mr. Veniot's $1,590. In the first job, the post office, Munsie was $85 above Veniot and on the customs building Veniot was $90 above Munsie, so they called it a day and did the work together on both buildings. I understand one man hired his son and the other man hired another man. That was the amount of spread that was made in regard to the work that was to be done for the needy in connection with those painting jobs. That is the situation that prevailed in the town of Pictou. I call that to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, and also the hon. member for East Edmonton, who has laid down a principle which appeals to us of its being desirable to spread the work around. But is it spreading it around when one contractor tenders just high enough to let the other man in, or, as in the case of the painting jobs, when tenders are called for from two men, one of them gets one job and the other gets the other, and they do the two jobs together? That is an example which shows where money is not being properly expended. The .minister may call for tenders from local contractors, but in that case let him have some competition between them. That is one point.
The other point is referred to by the hon. member for East Edmonton, who suggested that this work should be spread around among the needy; that it was not a job for partisans at all. I have consistently said in this house-and I do not take it back now-* I understand perfectly the system by which not unnaturally the friends of those who happen to be in power get positions in connection with ordinary public works' estimates, but I have .contended, and I stick to this, that in connection with relief matters that system should not prevail. The money is voted for the same purpose as the dole, to keep body and soul together; therefore it should reach the people for whom it is intended-the needy, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, black or white. In that regard I have brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works on a number of occasions, not big cases, not cases where large general principles can be laid down, but cases in which when the work is being done, the foreman put there is discriminating against the needy in the locality, leaving off people with large families and taking on single men simply because they happen to be of the same politics as he is.
I have brought to the minister's attention a couple of cases of that kind which were brought to my notice only the other day.

Public Works Program

One in Halifax was brought to my attention by the local member there. He wired me in connection with the work at Sambro where eleven single men without dependents were working on the wharf-they were all Conservatives-while about eight or ten families in that community were in want. They were Liberals and did not get a job. I brought that to the attention of the minister and he said that he would investigate. The regretted death occurred of the district engineer down there and I do not know whether the minister has had a report, but I bring to his notice that under the system which prevails in his department and under the system of administration of relief in this country, the report is .made too late; the horse is stolen by the time you get to the stable. The work is done; the money is spent; party heelers have their share of it, and the needy are once more on the bread line and looking to the municipality for help. There ought to be a quicker method of getting a report or a more efficient way of enforcing the rule which the minister says prevails. It may prevail in the department up here, but it does not prevail among the foremen who are giving out these jobs. That rule ought to be put into force on the work rather than in the Public Works department here.
The other case is one about which I wrote him some three weeks ago, on March 20, I believe. It was a case in Clarke's Harbour on Cape Sable island where the report as it came to me was that single men were working on the job while men with large families and in need were being kept off it. I do not know what answer my hon. friend has to make, but that is the situation as it was presented to me. Accepting all the principles which the hon. member for East Edmonton has laid down, I gave the minister some cases where those principles are not being carried out. We may have our big relief problem and we may legislate and vote money, but .if that money does not get to the public who need the food and clothing and whose children are hungry and cold, we are not doing very much in the way of carrying out a real relief system, and we might as well shut up shop. We are voting this money for the purpose of getting it to the people; you cannot feed the people on fine principles or regulations. I therefore point out to the minister, first, that this system of calling for local tenders is a waste of money unless there is general competition. Second, I bring to his attention the cases of needy people who are not being looked after.


Mr. QUINN:: May I say a word at this point, since the hon. member for Shelbume-

Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) has mentioned a case in Halifax? He referred to the Sambro work. That contract was given out by tender and the contractor who was awarded the job is a Liberal. I have had several complaints from the people who live right in the district in which the work is going on, that this contractor gave all the work to Liberal friends from outside while men in the district of Sambro and the adjoining district of Camper-down were idle.


James Layton Ralston: It is remarkable that the minister did not report that to me; he has had my letter for two months.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I do not know what the minister reported. I am reporting myself. The local member for West Halifax, who is a good friend of the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth, is also a good friend of mine. He reported the case to me and I replied, telling him that I had no authority over the matter; that the contractors could employ whomever they saw fit; that the government had no control.


James Layton Ralston: I just want to finish that up. I do not care whether it is a Liberal or a Conservative or who it is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Layton Ralston: -who has the contract, but I repeat that the relief system in this country should be so administered that employment is afforded to the needy. If these contracts are not given so that the minister has control over them, it is pretty nearly time we stopped voting money for that purpose. If my hon. friend means that the government can let a contract and then simply fold its arms and say to the contractor, "you can employ whom you like," that is not carrying out the proper policy. Nobody until this minute has suggested in the first place that there was a contract or in the second that the contractor was a Liberal, or in the third place that there was any excuse for the situation that existed at Sambro. There can be no excuse as long as the fund is being handled by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Labour which is administering relief in this country.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth conveyed the impression, whether intentionally or not, I cannot say, that this work was being done at Sambro and only Conservatives who were brought in from outside were being employed. I may say further that a contract was awarded only last year at Camp Hill and the local Liberal member for Halifax was awarded it. There was no politics in that case.. I had complaints

Public Works Program
about that very same matter, but I have no jurisdiction over it nor could I do anything in regard to it. The contract was let by public tender and this man was the lowest tenderer. They were all Liberals who were employed on the job.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth has spoken about some contracts awarded at Pictou. Those are contracts under $5,000, for small repairs and alterations. Under the provisions of the Public Works Act those contracts are let and awarded by the minister and his departs ment; there is no provision for calling for tenders on any such contracts, and the practice of the department has not been in any past year to call for public tenders in connection with works of this kind. The very same practice that was followed by my predecessors with respect to such contracts has been followed in my department.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, mo.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I say yes. I know quite well what I am talking about. I want to say to my hon. friend that wherever he has made a complaint we have investigated it. In some cases my reports show that the complaint was not at all justified, and in many cases I find that single men employed have dependents. It often happens that unmarried men have dependent parents.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend tell me about this case?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know about that particular case, and I do not know that my hon. friend knows about it personally. He 'has certain information, but often information supplied to him or to me is not accurate.


James Layton Ralston: I can assure my hon. friend that I believe the information, and I challenge him to deny it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Very often hearsay information is found on investigation not to be accurate. I want to tell my hon. friend that political allegiance is not the basis upon which these contracts are awarded. Our local architect or 'local engineer is asked to secure reasonable competition, and also we always have the estimate of the architect as to what a particular piece' of work is worth. If the tenders exceed that amount, the work is not done, the contract is not awarded, and the public interest is protected at every turn.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend tell me about the Samforo case and the Clarke's Harbour case?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot tell my hon. friend from recollection, but if my hon. friend asked that it be investigated it was investigated. I do not know that my hon. friend has personal knowledge-


James Layton Ralston: I gave my hon. friend very frankly the source of my information. It was not simply a report made by someone interested or someone wanting employment; it was a report from George E. Hagen, the local member. On February 18, almost two months ago, I sent my hon. friend a copy of the telegram. It does seem to me, in view of the fact that the minister assured me that it would be investigated and a report hastened, that I might 'have had the report by this time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work is completed, isn't it?


James Layton Ralston: That is just my complaint; the work is completed and nothing is done.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Now that the proper form for calling for tenders seems to be settled, may I be permitted to ask the minister if he has received from the chamber of commerce of Rimouski and other bodies of lumber merchants on the lower St. Lawrence a request for the enlargement of the wharf and harbour capacity 'of Rimouski? The chamber of commerce wrote the minister and have been courteous enough to send me a copy of their letter. Part of the letter reads as follows:
The rapid developments of the St. Lawrence north shore have caused various navigation companies to be organized to take care of the present and future trade and contribute to the development of the lower St. Lawrence districts, but they feel that, unless new accommodation be given at the Rimouski harbour, they will be forced to abandon indefinitely, projects of future increase.
The inter-imperial commerce has been a subject of deep thought for the Chambre de Commerce de Rimouski. The districts adjacent to Rimouski county, including the Matapedia valley, are great producers of agricultural, fishery or forestry products. (To Great Britain only, we have shipped 66,000,099 feet of lumber last summer.) These districts are seriously handicapped by their difficulty to reach adequate markets, unless they can d'o it by water. They hence look forward to an empire trade for their prosperity; but this empire trade can be obtained only by maritime routes; owing to this, they conclude to the urgent necessity of multiplying the actual capacity of the Rimouski wharf.
The attached statistics will show you that in the years 1933 and 1934, there has been a considerable increase of traffic at the Rimouski harbour. If better accommodation had existed, this traffic would have been more considerable, for, owing to many freighters having to wait for space at this wharf, the shipping companies were not disposed to calling at Rimouski.
Public Works Program

The prospects of industrial, fishing and agricultural developments in sight by the navigation companies in our territory show that during the next ten years the Rimouski harbour requirements will have to be multiplied many times. The right policy to follow in this case, is to improve the harbour to cause these prospects to materialize without any drawbacks in the shipping facilities. To wait for years after the shipping needs have imposed themselves on the shipping companies would be a prejudice translating itself into millions of dollars of losses for the Rimouski districts, and the country in general.
The most urgent need at present, is a new flooring on the wharf. The service track has become very dangerous for locomotives, although so far, only small No. 30 locomotives have been used. The C.N.R. may refuse any time to allow their locomotives to enter the wharf. A new track on piling has become an urgent and immediate necessity.
The other improvement called by the actual new needs and those in sight, is a duplication of the present wharf area and water space for ten or twelve berths, with a depth of twenty-five feet. With these repairs and developments the traffic is bound to increase with a rapid step and our north and south territories to come to prosperity, with our program of empire and local trade.
They have sent to me also a memorandum showing the traffic on the Rimouski wharf during the season of 1934 in order to prove not only that their request is reasonable but that the work asked for is practically speaking an absolute necessity. I may say that during the year 1934, 61,000,000 board feet of lumber were sent overseas from Rimouski; 18,000 cords of pulpwood, 25,000 lineal feet of hardwood, 100,000 shingles, 1,643 spruce poles, 1,117 freight cars of merchandise and farm and industrial produce Were unloaded on the wharf for shipment; 728 trips were made by the switching locomotives of the Canadian National Railways; 111 boats and schooners of from 7 to 4,400 tons made 920 calls at the wharf. They also call attention to the fact that many of the companies operating in the valley of the Matapedia as well as the Matane valley, and all the lumber manufacturing companies such as Price Brothers and Finlayson Brothers and all those companies operating in the lower St. Lawrence district, were handicapped last year in the use of the present facilities of the wharf, owing to the fact that boats had to wait outside the harbour up to three and four days, paying demurrage, it being impossible for them to come near the wharf to load. A great deal of traffic has thus been lost. I should like also to call the attention of the minister to the fact that the local company, called the Rimouski Navigation Company, was established about five or six years ago; they operate at the

present time three ships, and another is being built in England and will be operated next year. Last summer they transported the traffic shown in the following table:
Ship	a Q IB	| " a o | u o	gll	-2U 3 ?P4 Si	P* EH	13 H	S P5Manicouagan.	. 2,107	790	87	2,191Pere Arnaud.	. 5,771	1,610	173	1,472Marco Polo.	. 5,229	1,274	623	4,857Total. . .	. 13,107	3,674	883	8,520
I may say further that the establishment of this local company, with the subsidy that the government have generously given to them, has enabled our local farmers to sell their products on the north rfiore of the St. Lawrence. The company, instead of applying its subsidy solely with a view to its own profits, has allowed a discount on transport rates, equal to the difference in freight between Montreal and Rimouski by rail and water and a discount of six per cent on the Montreal price has been given by the company to the farmers, which I think is an example that has been followed by very few companies which have received subsidies from any government.
I should like to ask the minister if he has received from' his local engineer plans, specifications and prices for the development of the harbour of Rimouski. I support to the utmost the request not only of the, board of trade but of the whole local population, not only of the county of Rimouski but of the whole of the lower St. Lawrence. These developments are an absolute necessity. In view of the fact that we have had in the past very little work as relief for our local population, I hope the minister will give us due consideration and try to meet the wishes of our population.
Attached to this request of the board of trade is a report from the superintendent of the 'Canadian National Railways in which he says that the pavement of the wharf and the substructure are not strong enough to enable ordinary locomotives to be operated on the siding going from the station to the wharf, and they have to use a special class of engine therq. They ask that the first work to be undertaken Should be the repavement of the present wharf, and the strengthening of its supports. I hope the minister will give due consideration to their request.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not wish to enter into a discussion of a particular item or anything of that nature on this resolu-

Public Works Program
tion. I am anxious to get the resolution passed and get the bill before the committee as soon as possible. (But I may say to my hon. friend that I received the petition to which he refers, after he had himself made representations verbally and by correspondence to the department as to the necessity of this undertaking. As I recall, it involves an expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of $400,000, a rather tidy sum, which of course we could not take out of any general vote, and which under the argument which has been submitted would properly be the subject of an estimate in the house. Provision has not been made in the main estimates for this work, but I promise my hon. friend that in view of his representations it will be considered for the supplementary estimates.
May I hope now, Mr. Chairman, that as we have had a pretty full discussion, and as the resolution is more a matter of policy than of detail, we may be able to get on with it and get the bill before the house. I know many hon. members are anxious to see it.


Mr. ROSS:: I was very much pleased to
hear the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) say that some of this money would be expended on work to be done by private companies. I was also pleased to hear the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) suggest that single men should not be employed on these jobs, and when I take up a case with the minister to-morrow morning 1 hope now that there will be no objection from the other side. Also I am in sympathy with my hon. friend opposite who wanted some of this work given to the Canada Car Company of Montreal. I would remind him that if he and I want to get together and see that the companies in our cities get a share of this work, he had better take to task his colleague the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Shnderson), who apparently is opposed to the policy of giving private companies any part of it. The hon. member for South Perth is a whip of the Liberal party and no doubt closely in touch with the policy of the opposition, so that what he says must surely be taken for the opposition policy. I want to quote, to my hon. friend from St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) and to others the exact words used by the hon. member for South Perth this afternoon. We do not want to hog this thing, Mr. Chairman. We simply want the work to be divided up, and I think my hon. friend from St. Henri will agree with me that we do not want everything for the private companies.
On the other hand we do not want to follow the policy of the hon. member for South Perth. I want my hon. friend from St. Henri to listen to what the hon. member for South Perth stated this afternoon. I took his statement down and it was this: " Mr. Chairman, I urge upon the minister in regard to this new equipment for the Canadian National that not one dollar of this expenditure be handed out to private companies." These are the words of one of the whips on the other side of the house, and undoubtedly he is pretty closely in touch with the policy of his party. If the hon. member for South Perth has the ear of the opposition, the hon. member for St. Henri and I will be in a bad position, because he doesn't want one dollar of this expenditure given to the private companies. I am pleased that the Minister of Railways has taken a different position and wants this work divided up.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will my hon. friend permit a question.


Arthur Edward Ross: Wasn't that the statement of the hon. gentleman this afternoon? I took it down.


Frederick George Sanderson: I said that this afternoon, and I have no apologies to make for it. The hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) is speaking on behalf of some private company in the city of Kingston. I was speaking on behalf of the employees of the Canadian National Railways.


Arthur Edward Ross: The hon. member for St. Henri and I are agreed that we want a share of this expenditure for the private companies, but my hon. friend from South Perth does not want /them to get one dollar. If that is the policy of his confreres, I cannot agree with it, and I trust my hon. friend from St. Henri will back me up and say that he does not agree with that policy.


Paul Mercier: I should be much surprised if my hon. friend from Kingston City did not agree with me in wanting some of this work given to the private companies, to the Hamilton Car Company of Ontario, for instance.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am absolutely with you. These companies came in here to build equipment which the companies themselves could not build; and they have been without work now for four years. The men in these shops have been doing a national work and have been unemployed for years, and they should have a share of this work. That is what I am
Public Works Program

pleading for, and when my hon. friend from South Perth says that the private companies should not get one dollar of this expenditure, I say that that is unfair. The men who work in these shops are helping to pay the debt of this country, helping to pay the deficits and helping to maintain the roads, and they should be considered. I was pleased indeed to hear the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works say that they are going to get a share of this expenditure.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, while I am quite interested in both halves of this duplex resolution I am naturally more concerned with the latter half since receiving this telegram addressed to myself from the mayor of Melville quite recently:
Melville, Sask., April 12. 1935.
Have wired Hon. Manion asking share of railway rolling stock repairs be allotted to Melville, and would urge you to support the request as an effort to reduce unemployment here.
Phil Walters,
Mayor.
I gathered from the Minister of Railways in the discussion here this afternoon that the rumour regarding this work being allocated to private concerns had no foundation and that the work would be given to the railways to be done in their own shops. But now that the question has been again raised by my hon. friend from Kingston City I am wondering whether I understood the minister aright, and whether this work is to be given to the railways or to private concerns or to both.


Robert James Manion: I also received a telegram from Melville, and my hon. friend rang me up about it this morning. I tried to explain to my hon. friend this morning, and I thought I had made it clear to the committee this afternoon that the intention was that twenty per cent of this S15.000.000 should go for repairs to the two railways, to be done in their own shops. In regard to Melville itself of course I cannot speak positively. I can only say that if the railways agree to our proposition and decide to go on with this work, the railway shops throughout Canada, both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, will receive some repair work. The twenty per cent for repairs would be in the neighbourhood of $2,500,000 or $3,000,000 between the two companies. As to work in Melville itself, that will have to be decided by the management, but I would hope, and I will suggest it to them at the time, that they will spread their repair work throughout the country as much as possible.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what I would anticipate, but I became rather alarmed when I heard the remarks of my hon. friend from Kingston City, again opening up the question of some of this work being given to private concerns.


Robert James Manion: None of the repair work, but the manufacture of cars and engines would of course go to the private companies.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not so much concerned with that, althought I don't see why private equipment companies should get any of this work. I am more concerned, naturally, with work going to the repair shops at Melville, which have carried, less than a skeleton staff for the last four years, very much to the inconvenience and loss of the workmen, who in the meantime have become scattered around in other cities with larger concerns. The result is that privation and hardship prevail in that otherwise very enterprising town of Melville, and so I hope that the minister and the government, seeing that they are going to guarantee these equipment securities, will exercise their undoubted authority to say where the work shall be allocated. I would think that that would lie at their door, rather than with the railway company. If this were strictly a business proposition and not one deliberately designed to create employment, I would say that the big concerns could turn out cheaper work on the principle of mass production, but that is not the purpose of this legislation, as I understand it. It is deliberately and avowedly designed for the purpose of creating employment, and when you add to that the fact that the Melville shops are quite modem, having been constructed in 1929, well designed, commodious, and well equipped for the purpose for which they were constructed, I would urge upon the minister that he exercise the authority that usually goes with the guarantor and see that some of this work is allocated not only to Melville but to practically all the railway shops that are as well equipped as Melville is.


Robert James Manion: That is our hope.


Edward Joseph Garland: My very high regard for the minister has not in any degree been lessened this evening, nor indeed this whole afternoon. I have noticed his patience, his courtesy and especially his large fund of information. Comparisons of course are always odious, but I might be permitted to suggest that there is no more capable minister in the government at the present time-


An hon. MEMBER:: Which one?

Public Works Program


Edward Joseph Garland: The Minister of Public Works.
M.r. MANION:	No Irishman ever talks
that way about another.


Edward Joseph Garland: Only those not. of my race would assume that it was at ail necessary for anybody to pay compliments to an Irishman. That is the reason I did not include the Minister of Railways and Canals; he does not need them. However my high regard for the minister makes all the more profound my regret in his having to move the resolution. So that we may have the resolution clearly before us I shall read it again:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada-
That principle is very clear, and I think a proper one. I do object to the method of financing, a very stupid one which adds constantly to the public debt and fixed interest charges. However, that is the method which has been selected. Then, we have the following added:
-and to authorize the government to guarantee equipment securities of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the amount of $15,000,000.
Although this provision is in the same resolution, we find it .separated from the term " create employment." It is true that the whole appears in one measure and may be interpreted as a measure creating employment, but I wish I were guileless enough to believe that the purpose of this guarantee is the creation of employment.-I am not. This whole principle of guaranteeing bonds, equipment securities or other types of securities for private profit-seeking companies is entirely wrong and should never have been commenced, as it was commenced in this very House of Commons eighty-six years ago. During the session of 1849 there was introduced in the legislature of Canada a bill which in its preamble stated the principle that in a new and thinly settled country where capital was scarce the assistance of governments could safely be afforded to railway lines. I quote from the preamble:
That such assistance is best given by extending to companies constructing railways under charter the benefit of the guarantee of the government for loans.
No sooner was that principle, established than there was a crowd seeking charter privileges. The scandalous railway era developed, out of which arose the vilest type of corruption, the most appalling lobbying
system, the most wretched extension of graft both in municipalities and in governments. The history of those days is still one of the blots on Canadian historical records. To-day in this resolution we are simply pursuing the same principle. Surely there are better ways of giving employment to people, if indeed that is the purpose; surely there are better ways than that of guaranteeing equipment bonds of private companies. I tell the minister that the justification in the present instance cannot be established.
Only this afternoon the Minister of Railways quoted Mr. Hungerford as having said that the Canadian National Railways had a surplus of equipment in rolling stock for all normal purposes, .that peak loads could be handled in the customary way, and that no danger was anticipated in that regard. Why then are we being asked to guarantee loans of, in the one instance, $8,000,000 to supply equipment which in the opinion of the management is not necessary? It is not a question of saying that this or that is economically possible or that this or that may 'be economically spent. It is a question of considering two factors, first the employment of labour and second the proper expenditure of money. The present proposal contemplates neither the proper expenditure of money nor the most effective way of giving employment. I direct the attention of the minister to .the fact that when the depression struck the railways, and particularly since the general crash, the Canadian Pacific Railway, driven by the very exigencies of its shareholders, at once drastically reduced its ratio of expenditures on maintenance of way and equipment and maintenance of structures. The Canadian National Railways did not follow that .procedure but in both instances very properly maintained a sound ratio. The Canadian Pacific Railway cut its maintenance of way and structures as soon as the depression came, to such an extent that had' it been paralleled by the Canadian National Railways it would have meant a saving to the Canadian National system of $23,000,000. With respect to the maintenance of equipment, with which we are now particularly concerned, in 1929 the expenditure on both lines was almost parallel. In 1930 the Canadian Pacific Railway cut its maintenance ratio by more than two .points, but the Canadian National advanced its ratio of expenditures by two points;, making a spread of a little more than four points. In 193)1 there was a divergence of 8-82, a divergence which in 1933 rested at 6 points. So it would appear that while Canadian National earnings exceeded Canadian Pacific earnings in 1031 by $43,000,000, or 29
Public Works Program

per cent, the expenditures of the Canadian National for maintenance and equipment exceeded those of the Canadian Pacific by almost $28,000,000, or 110 per cent.
The fact of the matter is this, as I see it, .that in order to protect the interests of its shareholders the Canadian Pacific Railway deliberately curtailed expenditures on maintenance of way and equipment to a point which has now become dangerous. The Canadian National did not fallow that procedure, but very properly maintained its ratio of expenditures. Then the pressure commenced and was again brought .to bear upon this government to guarantee fox a private profit-seeking railway company the resources of this country, and the government, as have other governments in the past, acquiesced. But there had to be some smoke screen behind Which the transaction could 'be carried on, and in order to avoid a general public clamour the Canadian National Railways is included, although they do not need the equipment. And so we have the national railways included so that tire public may be further fooled.
This is not right. It is time a halt was called to this sort of .chicanery. I have no interest in the quarrel which has proceeded during the afternoon between .the two major parties. Since I have been in the house I have found that when the Liberals are in office the Conservatives accuse them of all sorts of wrongdoing in connection with the letting of tenders without competition, and when the Conservatives are in office the Liberals make similar accusations. It is the old story of one party accusing the other. This matter, however, is much bigger than that. It means more than the letting of a contract for a thousand dollars down in Halifax or at some other point. The matter is of .the utmost importance, and I hope the minister will justify to a greater extent than he has done this afternoon the guaranteeing of the expenditure of $15,000,000 for equipment. There is no doubt at all that the Canadian Pacific Railway needs it, and needs it badly, and will need further expenditures for the maintenance of way, but why should the public be called upon to subsidize a private profitseeking concern? Surely there are better ways than the one now proposed of spending money to give employment. I protest against it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Before we are called upon to proceed with the bill based upon the resolution, would the minister be good enough to 
table the correspondence passing between the government and the two railway companies in connection with the guarantee for equipment, and the type of equipment covered?


Robert James Manion: If there is any correspondence I shall be pleased to table it, but so far as my memory goes-and I speak subject to correction-there has been no correspondence. I shall have it looked up, and if any is found I shall table it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I ask the question because if I understood the minister correctly this afternoon1 he said that the Canadian National had1 made requests, stipulating certain conditions which appeared to them most advantageous, namely that the government supply one-third of the funds as a grant, the railways paying the remaining two-thirds. In other words, in view of the exceptionally advantageous bargain they would proceed with the work. The minister certainly left the impression with the house, as I gathered it, that this had come as a voluntary request from the management of the road. In view of the statements which have been made concerning equipment it seems to me there must have been some prior correspondence or discussion between the government and the railway companies.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend interpreted -my words quite correctly; I did say that the Canadian National had stated that if we would pay one-third of the cost of the equipment and charge them with the other two-thirds, they would consider it a good economic investment. They believed they could use the equipment very advantageously. This was a verbal statement and I do not believe there has been any correspondence. The whole situation has been canvassed verbally for a period of about six months or more. Since the opening of the session the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) has asked a number of questions about this equipment. Statements have appeared in the press, where from I do not know, but I sometimes imagine they came from the equipment companies. The fact is that for a period of about six months the equipment companies, the railways and the government have discussed this matter on various occasions.


William Daum Euler: Who took the initiative?


Robert James Manion: If I remember correctly-* I am trying to be as frank as I can-it was the equipment companies, although I am not sure. These companies had not had any work for four years except a small order obtained by the Eastern Car Company about- two years ago for gondola cars. I rather think it was

Public Works Program
the equipment companies that started it. In spite of what the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has said, both companies had deferred the maintenance not only to tracks but of equipment. Contrary to the statement of my hon. friend, which I know was made in good faith, this is undoubtedly true. It has been claimed that the Canadian National has deferred to a greater extent than the Canadian Pacific, but both my deputy and myself have made inquiries and the officers of the Canadian National claim that they have not deferred to any greater extent than the Canadian Pacific. However, if I remember correctly, the Canadian National officers do not claim that they have kept up their equipment or track any better than the Canadian Pacific. I think it is quite obvious to all hon. members of the committee that due to the financial pressure of the depression all the railroads on this continent have deferred maintenance of all kinds.
The railway equipment companies discussed1 this matter with the railways, but I do not know who was the original promoter o(f the idea. Some months ago I discussed with Mr. Fullerton the question of the trustees' desire for equipment, and Mr. Fullerton was quite clear in his statement that if we would pay one-third of the cost, they would gladly take it because they figure it would be a good investment. The matter remained at this stage until quite recently, although in the meantime one of the principal officers of one of the equipment companies told me that a scheme similar to the one proposed here would prove acceptable to both the railway companies. I have no quarrel with the reference which has been made to the definite statement made the other day in the committee. Mr. Hungerford did not say that they have sufficient equipment at peaks; he said that at the peaks they borrow the needed equipment. One of the railways has stated that this borrowing of equipment costs the railways more than the scheme here proposed. This matter was discussed by the government and it was decided that the best we could do for the companies was to pay the interest for two years and to arrange to guarantee the equipment trust notes on a three and a half per cent basis, which would lower their interest charges. I made inquiry and I find that the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific have been paying four and a half to four and three-quarters per cent interest on their equipment trust notes and they estimate they would still have to pay this rate if the notes were not guaranteed by the government. We think we could save them at least one per cent or perhaps
a little more, and we would carry the interest for two years. I assure the hon. member for Bow River that there is no chicanery in this matter, and there is no intention of forcing the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific to take this equipment. The real reason for the whole proposition is that we have concluded that, in contrast to the manufacturers of consumption goods, the capital industries, such as the equipment companies, the steel companies and heavy industry in general, would be given a fillip towards better business. The country generally would be assisted and employment would be increased and1 everybody would be-


Charles Gavan Power: Happy.


Robert James Manion: Happy, if you like-given benefits if this proposal were carried through. I repeat that if either the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific desire not to have this equipment there is no intention of going on with it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Has the Canadian Pacific accepted this proposal?
Mr. MAN-ION: No, the Canadian Pacific has n-ot accepted the proposal.


Ross Wilfred Gray: We can take it that the
Canadian National has not accepted the proposal, that the Canadian Pacific has not accepted the proposal, but that the government at the request of the equipment manufacturers have taken the initiative wholly upon their own shoulders to introduce not only a resolution but a -bill to be founded upon the resolution.


Robert James Manion: Oh, no; we are not doing it wholly on the suggestion of the equipment companies. As I said a moment ago, we are doing it on the suggestion of the railway companies and the equipment companies after the matter had been discussed for many months. So far as I am concerned I think it is a splendid idea, and I say that without a reservation of any kind whatsoever. I think it is one of the best ways of providing employment in this country. Over a period of two years we will be giving in interest a total of $1,050,000 and in return we will have work done in the shops and the equipment plants to the value of $15,000,000. I think that is even cheaper than relief so far as this government is concerned.


William Daum Euler: You are adding to the capital debt of the Canadian National.


Robert James Manion: They can stand a little more. They have so -much now a little more will not matter.
Public Works Program


Ross Wilfred Gray: The minister will bring down any correspondence there may be?


Robert James Manion: Gladly, if there is any.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would not like that statement of the minister to remain just as it is. Of course, generally speaking, it may be correct to say that for an expenditure in interest of 81,050,000 we are going to get 815,000,000 worth of work but we must not forget the 88,000,000 for the Canadian National. This afternoon the minister stated that in all probability the government would have to carry this amount, so we will really be paying 89,050,000 for S15,000,,000 worth of work.


Robert James Manion: May I reply to that? It is quite true that if financial and business conditions do not improve within the period of fifteen years, the government will have to carry this amount for the people of Canada. However, the fact remains that we would receive immediately 815,000,000 worth of work for an expenditure of 81,050,000. The claim is also made by better authorities than I-I am not an authority on railway matters-that both railways would save more by the use of the new equipment than they would ordinarily have to pay out during fifteen years to cover expenses of renting and so forth. I imagine most hon. members have seen the statement in the Ottawa Journal of to-day. This was a statement by Mr. Hungerford and I should like to quote two paragraphs, as follows:
In addition to normal retirements for 1934 amounting to $4,343,749, the company will charge to profit and loss a total of $23,238,857. This represents equipment rendered obsolete for a number of reasons. . . .
He informed the board that as at January 1, 1935, the "all-wooden car" is now regarded so obsolete that it is refused interchange privileges with other railways. Next year this prohibition will be extended to the wooden car with "metal arms."
The point was made-the hon. member for Bow River made it-that Mr. Hungerford's opinion was that the companies in peak times can borrow equipment when they have not got it. But they cannot lend obsolete equipment. I am informed that wooden cars cannot enter the United States at all; they will not permit an interchange, to allow wooden cars to move on American tracks. The result is-I speak subject to correction- that there are tens of thousands of wooden cars which are obsolete and are not permitted to go into the United States. The interstate commerce commission will not allow it, because, as every hon. member realizes, a wooden car in the midst of a steel train makes for dangerous conditions.


William Daum Euler: With reduced traffic they do not need so many cars.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but we all hope that the traffic will pick up. It picked up last year on the Canadian National to the extent of nearly 820,000,000.


William Daum Euler: Let us get them when they are needed.


Robert James Manion: They are not bound to get them if they do not need them; there is nothing in this to force anything on the Canadian National Railways. I have given my hon. friend that assurance not once but a dozen times. If they think it is not a good investment they will not get them.


Edward Joseph Garland: I know that the minister does not mean to be unfair, but it is hardly fair to talk about obsolescence and to quote Mr. Hungerford's statement, because I am satisfied that he himself is quite aware of the fact that almost the entire present equipment of our railways is obsolete or obsolescent. Even the present type of train is becoming obsolete, and if we are to keep up with the Joneses in the transportation game, then within less than ten years there will be an entire revolution in train construction, and all this new equipment which the minister speaks about will be obsolete before that time. As a matter of fact, the height of wisdom to-day would suggest the most niggardly expenditure on equipment because of the rapidity with which all equipment is becoming obsolete. That however was not the point I wanted to discuss. What I wanted to discuss was the question of the relative expenditure on maintenance and equipment of the two lines. It is correct, as the minister has said, that both companies reduced when the depression came and the necessity for expenditure on equipment maintenance fell off. But the Canadian National Railways did not reduce its ratio to the same extent as the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert James Manion: Whom is the hon. gentleman quoting?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am speaking from figures I have had analyzed myself. Had the Canadian National Railways reduced expenditures to the same extent that the Canadian Pacific Railway did, in the same period from 1930 to 1933, the Canadian National Railways would have made a saving of 845,000,000. The minister cannot get over the statement made by Mr. Hungerford, which I take to be correct, that there is no need for this equipment at this time, that he has surplus equipment for all normal

Public Works Program
requirements, and that in times of peak requirements he anticipates no difficulty whatever in meeting the situation in the customary way in which all railway lines on this continent meet peak requirements. I am still at a loss to understand this item.


Otto Baird Price: Some of my good friends opposite have been talking for months and I want the privilege of saying a word or two in connection with the Canadian National Railways and their attitude, including the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) whose figures are not always borne out by the facts. I would say a few words with regard to rates quoted by him between Portland and Saint John concerning western points, and in this connection I say that the Canadian National Railways should have the support of the people of Canada generally at the present time. What is the government doing to-day? The government is trying to relieve the unemployment situation and we find gentlemen on the opposite side doing-what? I say this to hon. gentlemen: You are criticizing every government expenditure, everything the government is doing to relieve the depression. That is what you are doing; that is your game. I had an interruption this afternoon from the hon. member for Perth-


Frederick George Sanderson: No; I had the interruption from you. You got your wires crossed.


Otto Baird Price: It was very pretty and I appreciate the hon. gentleman's beautiful remarks. But I say to him: If you have done as much for your constituency as it will be found in the course of a few months that I have done for mine, I do not think anyone will suggest that you have been found sleeping. Where does your record lie anyway in connection with Canadian National Railways? In 1923 Sir Henry Thornton was brought to this country, and what did he do to the eastern provinces? What did he have to say? Why, he removed an audit office with upwards of 200 employees-there were over 123 families-to the city of Montreal, as a first solution, and it was he who was responsible for patronizing Portland as an out-port for our Canadian products instead of Saint John and Halifax. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite: Where do you fit in with the Canadian people at the present time? You are criticizing, and you are suggesting that the Conservative party of Canada is supporting amalgamation of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific-an old bogy, possibly motheaten now by some of the
members on the opposition side. But let me say this to the ex-Minister of Justice. He came into my constituency in 1930 and I invite him to come again and see what he can prove to the people.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Don't ask me too many times.


Otto Baird Price: What a wonderful exhibition he will make of himself. I say to my hon. friends opposite that the Canadian people are averse to the lackadaisical program which the Liberal party are trying to bring forward and to press upon the country. Where are you getting with it? We have in Canada to-day a Prime Minister who is carrying out certain policies which you failed to carry out. What did you do in the nine years you were in power, from 1921 to 1930? You did absolutely nothing; you preached policies, your leader preached policies and put them in a book, but did you put them into practice? Where did they get you, and where are you getting to-day by holding up the business of the country?
I have listened with a great deal of disgust to the discussion in the last few months and the criticism of this administration. I come from a constituency in New Brunswick of which I am very proud. It includes Moncton, which employs probably as many railway men as are employed in the constituency of my hon. friend from South Perth or whatever Perth it is-I do not know and it matters not. But he knows the whole thing, and if I knew as much about some things as my hon. friend knows about everything, I would not be very wise.
Let me suggest to my good friends from Quebec, from St. Malo, from Riviere du Loup and other places in Quebec, from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, that the program which is outlined by this administration means much to the people of Canada as a whole. I believe some of you realize the present situation; I believe you know this administration is formulating a policy to relieve the unemployment situation in Canada; but what do you do? What is your policy? Your policy is to knock everything this administration brings up in the way of a relief program, something that would unravel the whole present trouble. That is your policy, your only policy. Your policies are productive of nothing. You had nine years in which to prove to this country that you had some policy; that you had something that was really beneficial to the dominion. But you fell down and you were batted out of the box; you fell short and that is where you stand to-day. What a wonderful combina-
Public Works Program

tion standing up against a prime minister who has displayed brains, tact, intelligence, financial genius, a man who has done for this country financial things that neither you nor your leader could do. You fell down; you are not standing up, and you will not be able to stand up in the next election with any degree of success simply because the Canadian people have no confidence in the propaganda that you are trying to put over an intelligent public.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to ask the
Minister of Railways a question in order to clarify the situation in regard to the expenditure of this $15,000,000. I take it from his remarks this afternoon that $8,000,000 is to go to the Canadian National and $7,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific. Can he tell the committee approximately-I do not suppose he can do so accurately-the number of employees in both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific shops, and how much this $3,000,000 that goes to the two railways, leaving a balance of $12,000,000, will relieve the situation of the employees of those railways? I take it from his remarks this afternoon that .only $3,000,000 out of the $15,000,000 is to go for possible repairs in the different railway shops. I submit to the minister in all seriousness that that is only a bagatelle so far as relieving the situation that exists among the employees of both railways is concerned.


Robert James Manion: I am informed that it
will give some increase in the number of days per month-


Frederick George Sanderson: How many?


Robert James Manion: I do not know the exact
number, but it will give an increase of a number of days per month to the employees in the shops of both railways. So far as the amount of $3,000,000 for repairs is concerned, my understanding is that .that amount or even $2,500,000 is all that the railways could use for repairs. May I add just one other sentence? This is not legislation to force money on the railway companies; it is enabling legislation for the government, and if either the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific do not accept, nothing need be done at all.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister I presume goes on the assumption that in the shops of both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific they have neither the facilities nor the equipment to build cars or locomotives. If so, I take issue with him.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that. I
did not say that they could not build either locomotives or cars in those shops, but without doubt in many, in fact in most of the shops a large amount of capital investment in machinery would be required to carry on those jobs. I said earlier in my remarks that so far as my understanding goes, both railways have in the years that are gone encouraged the coming to Canada of the equipment manufacturing industry and they consider it as not fair to drive that industry completely to the wall as it has been pretty nearly driven in the past four or five years without any work whatever, and to start a new branch of industry in the shops of the two railways. I know my hon. friend will point out to me that a certain amount of equipment building has gone on in some of those shops, and I admit that, but it is relatively a very small amount. When the railways require equipment they go to the car or locomotive manufacturers, and only a very small part of the work is done in their own shops.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the minister
think $3,000,000 out of the $15,000,000 is a fair proportion to allot to the car shops of the two roads, having regard to the employment situation among the railway employees? Surely he will agree with me that that is a very small proportion of the $15,000,000.


Robert James Manion: It is all that the railways tell me they could use for repairs. That is the reason that sum was thought of. It is not exactly being allotted in that way; the amount may be changed. But that was what they thought they could use in repairs, leaving the manufacturing to the equipment manufacturers.


Frederick George Sanderson: How many railroad
shops are there in Canada?


Robert James Manion: I am sorry I connot give that information. There is a large number.


Charles Gavan Power: How many Canadian National shops ?


Robert James Manion: I cannot say offhand.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: This very legislation will help not only the car shops but other equipment companies that furnish such things as malleable castings. We have in Brantford a firm that employs between 400 and 500 hands working altogether on heavy equipment for car companies, and I know this legislation will greatly please them and will put to work men who have been laid off for a considerable time.

Public Works Program


Robert James Manion: Lumber and steel are
involved.
Mr. MeINTOSH: Before the resolution under discussion is accepted, I desire to make a few remarks. My observations will be not from a national or comprehensive railway point of view, but rather from two points of view concerning the North Battleford electoral area. So far as the resolution is concerned, in my opinion it is very important that I make these remarks at the present time. The foundation for what I want to say will be found simply in the need, first, for branch line accommodation for northwestern Saskatchewan; and, second, for the construction of a bridge at a point called Ceepee over the north Saskatchewan river between North Battleford and Saskatoon. The more important project I believe-although the two are important- is the much needed branch line facilities for the upper end of northern Saskatchewan. I believe that if anything has been messed and- botched in the last five years this branch line construction has been. I am not putting the blame on the Minister of Railways or the railway department, but I say that the providing of these branch line facilities in that part of the province, has been about as badly botched and bedeviled as anything in the history of railroading in Canada.
The resolution is a double barrelled one; one part of it deals with public works and the other part with a railway project. I am not going into the resolution in a minute way, but a resolution of this kind piloted through the house by two ministers of the crown is almost unique; we do not often see it. I hope that the cooperation and consultation and amalgamation which we have seen this afternoon between two ministers in regard to this resolution will also be shown in dealing with the two questions that I have to bring before the committee.
The first part with which I am concerned is the bridge crossing the North Saskatchewan river. The Minister of Public Works will remember that I put a question to him on the orders of the day on February 14. I asked if he could tell the house and the country whether this important project will be included in any government public works program for this year. The minister was reticent. He answered that I would have to await legislation that may be brought down. The main estimates did not contain anything regarding it. Later, on March 12, I put another question to 'the Minister of Public Works. My question at that time was whether he could give the parliament and the country any information as to whether or not this
project would be undertaken, and he told me again that I would have to await legislation, that a bill would come later, and perhaps some information would be found in that bill. Now the bill is about to be brought down, and I would ask the Minister of Railways if he can give me any definite information as to whether this project will be included in that bill. Last year he brought down a public works program involving $40,000,000, and the only money spent in Saskatchewan under that program was qpent in two ridings represented in the house by two Conservatives. Can the minister give me any information on the question I have asked?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have been hoping for the last hour that I might be able to give to every hon. member of the house information as to every item in the schedule. I suggest to my hon. friend that it is not usual or proper to disclose item by item what is in the schedule of a bill to be introduced, I know that the Minister of Finance is anxious to get a pressing item of business through, and if we cannot make progress I think I shall have to move the committee up and ask leave to sit again. But I should like to get the bill in to-night, and then my hon. friend will have the information he is now seeking.
Mr. MeINTOSH: If the minister is bound to introduce the bill to-night I can conclude my remarks later.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the committee rises, I regret very much that the statement has been made that some private firms besides the railway companies will benefit under this legislation. The work for the railways should be done first by the railways themselves. For instance at Riviere du Loup there are fine shop's, but very few men are working there because not sufficient repairs are done by the railways themselves. This resolution relates to the guarantee of securities of both railway companies, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. With regard to the Canadian National, very often we have heard the government complain of the burden of the railway debt of this country and liabilities incurred on account of guarantees of railway securities. Very often we have heard the Prime Minister speak about that. I am suspicious about this resolution because it is neither in the name of the Minister of Railways nor in the name of the Minister of Public Works; it is in the name of the Prime Minister himself. Sir, there is a reason why I object to the terms of this resolution; it is that the Canadian Pacific
Public Works Program

Railway comes into tbs picture. How can we get information, about what is done with that money? It will be impossible. I remember very well when the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific bill came before the house a year ago one of the reasons given by the Minister of Railways for submitting the bill to the committee of the whole was the expense of paying witnesses if called before the select standing committee on railways and shipping. I put a question concerning that on the order paper, and it was struck out by Mr. Speaker as being out of order. Then I wrote to the Minister of Railways asking him for information, and he said he could not give it to me, that I should direct my question to someone in the senate. Then I wrote to the government leader in the senate and he suggested that I 'have an address voted by the house to get information about the cost of witnesses heard by the railway committee of the senate. Finally a senator was kind enough to ask the question for me in the senate, and the answer was that the cost of witnesses heard by the senate railway committee in regard to that legislation was nil.
If the Canadian Pacific Railway Company gets some guarantee from this government and it is impossible for us to trace it back and get any information about it from that company, I do not see why this country should guarantee any more loans to them. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is a very strange organization. They come here and beg, and the money they got from us under former guarantees or otherwise we cannot learn anything about. What we receive is the annual statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. We see these people in the corridor, they come here begging, and afterwards it is impossible to get information. Not only that, but while the country is subsidizing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company we get lectures from Mr. Beatty, their president, from coast to coast. Every member of the House of Commons should have the opportunity of asking questions of Mr. Beatty the same as questions are asked of Mr. Hunger-ford. These people give us lectures all the tirnq, but it is impossible to get information we want. It is time for a change. This, sir, is a humble suggestion that I have to offer to the Minister of Railways in order that he might submit officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway to examination as is done in the case of the1 Canadian National.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Leeds) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 63, to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to

authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed' consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 15'-Mr. Rhodes to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the house ready for the question? Mr. Rhodes moves:
That all the amendments proposed by the senate to Bill No. 15, an act to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act, be concurred in with the exception of amendments Nos. 13 and 14, in which amendments this house does not concur for the following reason;	_
That farm property being at the present time at its lowest value, a total advance of sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the appraised' value of a farm would secure a much smaller loan than would have been secured at fifty per cent valuation a few years ago.
.Mr. LAPOINTE: Are all the amendments printed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, I explained to the house on Friday that they are to be found in the votes and proceedings of April 11. They are also to be found in the reprinted bill which has been circulated.


Mr. CASGRALN:: It is an entirely new bill.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I assume this will be a matter of conference with the senate. One other question before the minister replies. Is it the intention only to protest against the two amendments which the minister mentioned on a former occasion?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are not in committee, but so long as no objection is taken I have no objection in answering. My motion is that we concur in all the amendments made by the senate except the amendment which provides for a lowering rather than an increasing of the appraised value of the land.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for the question?


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask whether if this motion carries we go into committee on these senate amendments for explanation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.
Mr. 'GARLAND (Bow River): With all due respect to the minister, he is not fair with the house. These things are too important. The minister comes in with an

Farm Loan Act
omnibus motion rejecting two of the senate amendments and accepting all the rest. I take grave exception to some of the amendments, and it seems to me that the minister is not justified in the course he is taking. I am opposed to the adoption of this motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is just too bad if the hon. member is opposed to the amendments. That would be a great pity, although of course he is quite entitled to his opinion. But I do take exception to his statement that the minister is not fair to the house. The minister is simply following the accepted procedure which has been followed in this house for the past fifty or sixty years.


Edward Joseph Garland: The procedure is very wrong then.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is sometimes wrong. Nevertheless it is the procedure laid down by this house.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then I
withdraw my previous remark and I say that the procedure is unfair to the house, most unfair. We should have an opportunity of fully considering each of these amendments before we are asked to vote on them, because some of them are extremely important.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I was just
going to make the same remark as my hon. friend did, but not perhaps in quite the same way. Usually there comes back from the senate to this house a bill with a slight amendment or two, and it is easy to accept or reject the amendment without this house going very deeply into the matter, but when a bill comes back so amended that it is practically a new piece of legislation, containing many important amendments, I do not think it is quite a good procedure merely to move the adoption of the amendments less two of them, without going into details as to the many changes made in the bill by the other house. I know that that is the usual procedure, and the minister is quite right in making that statement, but with regard to an important piece of legislation such as this, containing so many amendments, I think it is only fair to the house that each amendment should be considered separately.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The house, of course, is
the arbiter of its own procedure, and my hon. friend would be the first to admit that. I would not take exception to an alteration of the procedure if an alteration was deemed desirable, but I was confronted with this situation, that unless this bill is passed before the adjournment it will be a matter of at least five or six weeks before it can become law, and
in the meantime we shall have deprived three provinces of an opportunity to secure mortgage money at all. I thought it would be the part of wisdom to concur in the amendments as a whole with the exceptions of the ones I have noted, even though there might be others to which one might take exception, although as I indicated when I moved my motion in the first instance, while the amendments are numerous, most of them are of a minor character. There are two perhaps of a major character. One of them I think is undoubtedly designed to strengthen the bill. The one I have particularly in mind is the one to which I think my hon. friend from Bow River objects. He apparently assumed that the provision which tended to give the crown in the right of the dominion priority as against provincial enactments which would tend to detract from the security was a provision against the interests of the borrower. On the contrary, that provision was inserted in the bill in order to ensure that the crown in the right of the dominion could make its loans with safety in the province, and therefore could lend more freely. It would be a protection to the borrower, because if there was any danger of the security of the crown in the right of the dominion being impaired by provincial legislation you would find the dominion quite properly tightening up; it would not make loans, and the borrower, or intended borrower, would be the one who would suffer.
Coming back to the point I intended to make originally, may I say that the senate spent a long time in the consideration of this bill; whether or not they pursued their time profitably is a matter of opinion. I do not take exception to the time they took. The fact of the matter is that after giving the bill careful consideration they made a number of amendments. If we were now to insist upon the measure as we sent it from this chamber, and were to refuse to concur in certain amendments made by the senate, we would run the grave risk of not having the bill passed before the adjournment. My view is that it would be much better for us to accept the amendments which, in the main, are of a minor character and not fatal to the measure. I pointed out one that I thought was quite important, and another upon which there may be divided opinion, namely as to whether or not the amount to be lent to an individual farmer should be made greater than it was in the bill as it left this chamber. I felt that inasmuch as the amendments to which we have taken exception were two major amendments we might effect a compromise by accepting all of them with the exception of the ones to which I took objection. We had hoped the
Farm Loan Act

senate would concur and in that way have the measure pass this house to-morrow. That is the manner in which I had approached it. Had it been open to us to take ample time I should have had no objection to the bill being referred to committee of the whole, although under our procedure that is not possible except by unanimous consent.


Charles A. Stewart: While in some respects I agree with what the Minister of Finance has said respecting the amendments, because I have gone over them carefully, I hardly agree-
Mr. 'SPEAKER:	May I interrupt the
hon. member? I think we might as well decide before the discussion is allowed to continue whether we are to proceed in the ordinary way as laid down by the rules of the house. There is a motion before the house upon which hon. members have the right to speak once-it should be well understood that we are not in committee. If it is the wish of the house to proceed in some other manner, hon. members need only intimate what they consider desirable in that regard and I shall endeavour to carry out their wishes. As it stands at the present time, however, I shall have to ask that we proceed in the ordinary manner.


Charles A. Stewart: I was going to ask whether my question of the Minister of Finance deprived me of the right to speak.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would say, no. I think it was quite well understood that the right of the hon. member to speak was not thereby exhausted.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite content to take my seat, if I am not in order, but what I was proceeding to say was that I am not very greatly concerned with the amendments submitted by the senate to the bilk In some respects however I may not agree with the minister. I do believe that the proposed amendment would make lending more difficult than was anticipated in the bill which passed this chamber and went to the senate. It is true they have provided in one respect that the mortgage having prior rights over any enactment by the legislature will prevail. I am not going to say whether or not that is wise. I do know that legislation passed by some of the western provinces has been held up as indicating how the securing of money on a mortgage or by borrowing is more difficult. But the general interference with the bill as sent to the senate to my mind makes some of the main clauses very doubtful. I fear that when we
	.
come to providing regulations for the lending of money we will find a great many difficulties which were not contemplated in the measure as it passed this chamber. I was hoping the minister might take exception to one or two further clauses, but I shall not go into that matter. He has decided that upon two only shall he. ask for a conference and ascertain whether or not the difficulties can be straightened out. I too agree that it is necessary to secure passage of the bill by the house in order that the machinery may be set in order for the purpose of lending. That must be done if it is to be of any value in the present year, and for that reason I shall offer no further objections.


Mr. REID:: I was going to suggest to the minister that perhaps the eleven o'clock rule could be extended. Undoubtedly there are other amendments of importance which should be considered. This legislation is practically new. There is the amendment to section 6, and the consideration of the words " provided that in arriving at such actual value, the value of the buildings shall be considered only to the extent to which the same add to the actual value " and so on. In British Columbia this will affect those who have buildings for their chickens. Then there is the clause under which the board may take certain action if a man sells his place. In view of the fact that this is practically a new bill I would ask that we be given further time for consideration. It is unfair to ask us to pass it now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would say it is not altogether fair to ministers who for months have been in their offices from early morning until late in the. evening. However I shall not insist upon my personal views, if the house desires to proceed a little longer.


James Layton Ralston: In view of the special circumstances I do suggest that we adopt a special procedure for this bill. As I understand it, in the ordinary course of events the minister moves the adoption of senate amendments. On this particular occasion he would necessarily have to make an extended explanation of all the sections. In order to facilitate discussion would it not be possible for the minister, with the unanimous consent of the house, to withdraw his motion, move the bouse into committee of the whole to consider the Senate amendments, and take the matter up as the first order of business for to-morrow?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it is the wish of the house to give unanimous consent I am content that we go into committee, but I would point out to my hon. friend that we are running this

Housing Policy-Final Report
danger: the ministry must assume the responsibility for motions made with respect to Senate amendments to a government bill. If the hon. member is suggesting for one moment that b>
going into committee we can pick and choose with respect to these amendments, and deal with them as though we were dealing with a bill of our own, ab initio, I think he will agree he has a mistaken viewpoint. That cannot be done, because the government must accept responsibility for any motions it may make with respect to amendments of its own bills. I am not standing upon the order of my going, speaking as a member of the government, but I do say that that is the fact so far as procedure is concerned. If in the meantime it is thought wise by unanimous consent to-morrow to go into committee, I shall be quite content.


James Layton Ralston: May I be permitted to say a word? My 'reason for making the suggestion was not necessarily that we should differ from the senate amendments, or that the ministry might be relieved of the responsibility which the minister has expressed, but in order to afford to hon. members an opportunity to inform themselves as to the amendments they are passing. At least we would preserve our self-respect and not appear to be acting simply as rubber stamps without having read the amendments.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will bear in mind that these amendments have been printed and available to hon. members since last Friday. The bill was held over so that hon. members might have an opportunity to study the amendments. However, it is now eleven o'clock. To-morrow we will bring this up as the first order of business, I take it, and if it is thought wise by unanimous consent to go into committee of the whole, I shall be quite content.


George Halsey Perley: So far as I am concerned I do not think we ought to alter the method by which we have dealt with senate amendments. Any proposed change of the rules of procedure in that regard is something we ought to debate at length and deal with very carefully. It seems to me that hon. members should be satisfied with the senate amendments. The Minister of Finance has gone into them carefully and made up his mind that with only two exceptions there is every reason why we should concur. The object we have in mind is to try to have the bill become law before adjournment in order that it may come into force.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the bill be ready for distribution?


George Halsey Perley: It will be ready for distribution.
On motion of Mr. Cahan the debate was adj ourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 16, 1935