1936-05-08

ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the special committee on elections and franchise.-Mr. Bothwell.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the name of Mr. Graydon he substituted for that of Mr. Plunkett on the special committee appointed to inquire into the operations of the Canadian Radio Commission and its administration of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 and amendments, and the regulations made under authority thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Petition from the Canadian Authors' Association with respect to Bill No. 55, to amend the Copyright Act Amendment, 1931.-Mr. Vien.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 60, to amend the criminal code (trial of young persons).
He said: The object of this bill is to provide, on the trial of youths up to nineteen years of age, that their parents, guardians, next
{Mr. Wilton.]
of kin or some friend shall be notified and that wherever possible they shall be represented by counsel. I appreciate all that the overworked judges and magistrates are now doing to help this work in the depression. I know too that some of the worst housebreakers we have are of this age. But this bill seeks to help youths of high school age who are not of the criminal class and who travel through the country seeking work. They are being sent down as vagrants, although they have never been in trouble before. Their only offence is that they cannot get a job. This bill will involve little expense, because in the large cities the Lions Club, the Big Brother and Big Sister movement and the various community clubs are doing a great work voluntarily. Here in Ottawa the Lions Club is especially active. The bill is a measure of law reform to help suffering youth who are in need of work and who get into trouble.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 59, respecting Thousand Islands Bridge Company.-Mr. Stewart.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Projects Already Undertaken Calgary, Alta.-Barracks for permanent force-
Officers' mess and single officers' quarters,
[Stage Direction]
Veterinary sick lines, $10,000.
Surfacing permanent roads, $40,000.
Grading, seeding and terracing, $10,000.
Interior fittings, including telephone system, $8 988	*
Mess building No. 6, $15,350.
Sewers, $55,005.
Grading landing field, $18,670.
Administration building No. 1, $35,712.
Garage and forage barn, $4,856.40.
Electric underground distribution system, $7,892.
Married officers' quarters, $4,640.
Salaries, wages, architects' fees and travelling, $40,712.
Miscellaneous, $14,941.74.
Mr. STIRLING:: Would the minister give the committee some information with regard to this scheme, also whether he is carrying out the scheme as laid down, or with alterations?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: This is just carrying out the policy which was laid down a year ago. Of the total sum of $376,000, $261,000 is for commitments and works which were undertaken before the end of the last financial year, and

Supply-National Defence-Relief Works
$115,000 is to carry out work such as grading and seeding which will be consequent upon the completion of the contracts involved in the former amount. If my 'hon. friend looks at the items under the Public Works department, he will find there another total of $175,000 to carry out other projects which were contemplated a year ago. The entire scheme as first devised in 1934 is not yet carried out. The amount voted in the first estimates was $1,250,000, supplemented by another vote of $400,000 a year afterwards. There are some items in the first scheme which would bring the amount to about $2,500,000 which are not carried out, even under the estimates of this year. It goes a long way towards making the project a composite barracks scheme.


Mr. WILTON:: I notice that the first item under "national defence" is $110,000 for barracks at Calgary, followed by various other items which total $376,767 for the city of Calgary. When the original estimates came down I asked the Minister of National Defence if some consideration could foe given to the city of Hamilton by providing for the rifle range there, and I was promised then that it would be included in the supplementary estimates which are now before us. I do not see that item in these estimates, and it strikes me as strange that Hamilton, a city more than twice the size of Calgary, cannot get an appropriation of ten or fifteen thousand dollars, when Calgary can get $376,000.


Mr. BENNETT:: That is only a small part af it.


Herbert Earl Wilton: It seems to me that if we are going to-


The CHAIRMAN:: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Wilton), but we are discussing a certain item, and discussion should be confined to that item.


Herbert Earl Wilton: May I suggest that I am only using this as an illustration, pointing out that $376,000 is being spent in a city half the size of Hamilton. If I am not in order, all right, but if I am, I should like to continue for just a few moments.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am quite sympathetic with the hon. member for Hamilton West in what he is advocating. I am well aware of the claims of Hamilton with reference to the rifle range, and I intend as soon as possible to comply with his desire in that regard.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Where are you going to get the money?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is an amendment to foe moved with respect to the architects; it applies to architects all over Canada. I will ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to move it.


Ernest Lapointe: I move
to amend this item "Salaries, wages, architects' fees and travelling, $40,712," by adding after the word "travelling" the following:
in connection with Calgary barracks and any other works and buildings included in the several votes in these estimates for national defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the purpose of
the amendment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The idea is that the amount for architects' fees is not all required at Calgary; it is required for general purposes all over Canada. A specific amount of a little over five thousand dollars is required in respect of Calgary, but this item includes additional amounts and is for general purposes in connection with the department's special supplementary estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not proposed to
change the architects who are doing the work?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not as
far as I know.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: When this amount for
the barracks at Calgary has been spent, what will have been the total amount expended?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Roughly speaking, the amount spent so far, according to a calculation I made the other day, is $1,400,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not including this?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, including this item.
. Item as amended agreed to.
Kingston, Ont.-Royal Military College-
South wing to Fort Frederick dormitory and connecting passage to new mess and recreation building, $150,000.
New mess and recreation building-equipment and fittings, $31,600.
Grading, turfing, sidewalks, roads and incidentals, including extras in connection with main contract, $14,039.55.
Miscellaneous, including general repairs to existing buildings and grounds, etc., $10,334.72.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much of this is
already spent?
2622	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence-Relief Works


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal, P.Q.-armoury for the 17th Duke of York Royal Canadian Hussars, $1,444.24.
Mr. STEWART:: Do you not pass the
whole of the item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is
a revote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why a third? Why do
we not pass the whole item?


Frederick George Sanderson: I understood that two-thirds was passed on supplementary estimates in interim supply. This is for one-third.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were some items
that made up two-thirds; is that so?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa, Ont.-new photographic building at the Royal Canadian Air Force station, $939.82.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is
also a revote.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has this building been
constructed and the money spent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All the
money has been expended except the amount in question here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Again the question arises why items such as this should not appear in the regular estimates, and the further point that already it has been voted, and we are therefore voting it twice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver, B.C.-armoury for Seaforth Highlanders, $19,433.25.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is in exactly the same category.


Mr. MacNEIL:: What is the total expenditure on this project?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total cost will be about $240,000.


Mr. STEVENS:: The building is finished,
is it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
building is finished and has been- unofficially opened; it will be officially opened this year.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I recognize that there
is no use in protesting against any of these items, but with regard to this one-and the

same applies to all-I think there are a lot of things that we as a nation need a great deal more .than we need this total vote. For instance, there is this armoury for the Seaforth Highlanders. I will admit that highlanders add to the beauty of the surroundings-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In kilts, I mean, but
as far as being effective in the wars of the future, if they are to be chemical wars and aerial wars, I think in the highland costume they would make excellent targets but would be rather ineffective in any kind of retaliation. This total amount for armouries is quite large. It has been said very often from this comer this session, but it will bear saying again: We could not afford to pension the blind at forty; we cannot find money with which to take care of people who are incapacitated; we cannot find money for a great many useful things, but we can find money for the construction of barracks. It is a very sizable sum of money, at that, and I just want to register my protest. I do think this is money wasted. If we have the money let us spend it sensibly, so that it will help the greatest number of people. Undoubtedly this amount will be voted, but certainly it will not pass with my approval and consent.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Did I understand the
minister to say that the work represented by this $19,433.25 has been completed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, the work has been completed. They are still doing some grading, I believe, around the armoury in Vancouver.


Angus MacInnis: The question has been
asked so often that I suppose there is not much use in asking it again, but why is there a vote in this year's unemployment program covering work already done? I think this is not only deceiving the house; it is deceiving the country as well. They expected the government to bring down an appropriation for the relief of unemployment; a very large sum of money has been mentioned, but now we find that a great deal of the work has been completed already. This was last year's appropriation, not this year's.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister indicate just what activities will be housed in this armoury and what justification there is for such an enormous expenditure in Vancouver at this time?

Supply-National Defence-Relief Works


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course that immediately raises a question of policy. This armoury was decided upon a year ago, and in my opinion is one of the most necessary in the Dominion, of Canada. I have not seen the armoury since it has been completed but I am informed that it is one of the most beautiful buildings in Canada, and the citizens of Vancouver are exceedingly proud of the building as such. Strictly speaking these armouries are not supposed to be used for ordinary purposes, but that rule is relaxed very frequently. Only the other day in the city of Vancouver we were able to have the armoury used for a tremendous motor show, which drew thousands upon thousands of the citizens of Vancouver for five or six days, thereby adding quite substantially to the communal pride of that city. I think these strict regulations could be relaxed very successfully in many cases, to make them available for communal purposes and so on.
In regard to the necessity for armouries, of course that is entirely a question of policy. But as long as we have defence forces in Canada; as long as we are concerned with the essential problem of national security, we must have armouries. My own judgment is that as far as possible we should endeavour to combine the essential purpose of armouries with communal enterprise and have these buildings used for other purposes to a certain extent.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Did I understand the minister to say that this armoury will be available for all community endeavours in addition to those he has mentioned? If my recollection serves me aright, when an armoury is requested for charitable purposes or for the use of service organizations of the city usually the association of officers commanding is very reluctant to give consent, complaining that the activities of the militia are interfered with. From my knowledge of the activities of the militia in Vancouver I do not think they are so great as to warrant any reluctance in giving consent in such cases.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is quite correct, that all this must be subject to the necessities of militia training, because the primary function of an armoury is to permit the militia to carry on their training, whatever it may be. As far as possible, however, with the consent of the district officer commanding, they might be used for other purposes, subject to certain conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just want to ask the minister what part of this $19,43325 is unexpended.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is all committed and I think by now it is practically all payable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then what are we voting it for? The payments have been made as the work has progressed, under the statute of last year. The auditor general cannot pay under this statute that has not been passed, but payments are being made from day to day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is the unpaid balance due and owing to the contractors, Smith Bros, and Wilson, on this particular armoury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But part of these payments have been made since these estimates were brought in, in one case at least. I do not know whether that is so in this case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not in this case.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I desire to ask the minister if he would indicate exactly what form of training is carried on in this armoury. Is it confined strictly to military training or is any attention given to the physical development of youth?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, I think not; I think the training is confined entirely to the militia training as laid down, combined with lectures by company officers and the ordinary processes of militia training.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Are any units of the permanent force to be housed in this armoury?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I should like to know from the minister how many armouries have been built by the Canadian government in the last five years, and the number in each province.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I have not those figures under my hand at the present moment. I shall be very glad to secure them and give my hon. friend the information later.


Vincent Dupuis: Although I am in sympathy with the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) in regard to the desirability of spending money for other purposes which are apparently of greater importance, I agree with the minister that it is necessary to build these armouries for national defence and to maintain national peace and order. I am against war, of course;, but may I say to the
2624	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence-Relief Works
hon. member for Grey-Bruce that as long as there are misunderstandings among ourselves, such as we noticed yesterday in the judgments rendered upon members of this house, giving rise to jealousy and envy; as long as human nature shows defects and inequalities, it will always be necessary to prepare for war. I say that having in mind that I requested the Minister of National Defence to see that an amount of money be appropriated for the construction of an armoury on the south shore in the district of Montreal. I know he is in sympathy with the project-


Grote Stirling: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is this more in order than a reference to the rifle range in Hamilton?


Frederick George Sanderson: No, the hon. member is out of order, just as was the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Wilton).


Vincent Dupuis: Well, I am glad to be out of order, because otherwise we would not be noticed. I shall try to abide by your decision, sir, and I hope that in the next estimate there will be an appropriate amount for the citizens of my district.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister I hope will bear with me in questioning this item. Request has been made frequently for funds to be appropriated for other purposes. The minister may take pride in the construction of this armoury, but he will agree that it is impossible to take pride in the housing conditions in the same area. In my opinion the money would be much better spent on the improvement of housing conditions. I do not see that the activities for which facilities are provided in this building justify the expenditure. I urge the minister for the benefit of hon. members of the committee, to make at this point a frank statement in regard to the policy of his department. A former minister of defence, under whose auspices the project was commenced, stated that these preparations were necessary not so much for national defence as to deal with the possibility of civil disturbance. Disquieting rumours in this regard have been spreading in Vancouver, and I would like some statement from the minister as to the preparations in regard to the possibility of civil disturbance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think that question could with more propriety be raised on the general estimates than on these special supplementaries. But I would say at once with reference to the question asked that the policy of the Department of National Defence is concerned with the national security of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. CHURCH:: The minister may expect the same criticism as was voiced in this house last year. Armouries are necessary in Canada. In the large cities the militia cannot much longer stand things as they are. Officers, non-commissioned officers and men get no pay; they provide funds out of their own pockets for equipment and so forth to operate their unit. They get very little of the money that they used to get under the Militia Act. Since I have been in the house the estimates of this department have come down from $24,000,000 to $13,000,000. This is a revote. The unit concerned is a splendid unit which had a fine record in the war. It was the armed strength of the barons that made magna oharta possible, and the same principle holds to-day; the disarmament of the free is the tyrant's opportunity, as we have seen in Ethiopia. We shall have a rude awakening in this country some day. We are dependent on the motherland, the permanent militia is run down, the militia in general run down, the camps are going to pieces, the cadet movement has been destroyed. We would not have been able to take the position we did in 1914 but for the cadet movement. Let me say to the hon. member who spoke before the hon. member for Vancouver North that no province owes more bo the protection of the British fleet than the province of Quebec. These armouries are necessary at the present time not only in Vancouver but in every province. Owing to the depression the department has not been able to support the militia. These men in the Seaforth battalion give their services for nothing; many of them are returned men, and they are just as fond of peace and security and just as much opposed to war as are the hon. gentlemen who are opposing this vote, for whom they fought on land and sea and in the air in the last war. They are opposed to war because they were overseas and know what war is, as those of us who stayed at home do not. Yesterday the minister was a hero; he was one of the few that could take it. Yesterdhy he was a thing of beauty and a joy forever, but to-day it is different; this is wash day.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. Shall the item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item and other items of the same kind, I should say to the hon. member for Vancouver North, were included in the public works bills of 1934 and 1936 for two reasons; first, because they were necessary works; second, because they were works that afforded a maximum of a certain type of employment. In all these the proportion of

Supply-National Defence-Relief Works
material and labour was very great. They were scattered over every part of the country.
As far as the Seaforth Highlanders are concerned, I have only this to say: that that armoury had to be built if the unit was to be maintained. The unit has a record of which this country has been justifiably proud. The officers who give their time to this and other units of the kind are spending their own money, whether they be honorary officers or otherwise, and finding themselves at the end of the year much poorer than at the beginning. It must not be forgotten that the foundation of our national effort in this country in 1914 was the militia. These men, these young citizen soldiers, if you call them that, are assuming, by the very terms of their enlistment, the possibility of losing their lives in the defence of law and order in this country. They may be called to do such police duties as are provided for by the act. Surely the country is not so lacking in gratitude to men who thus offer their services for the preservation of our institutions as not to provide them with decent quarters in which to train and make a home for their unit. But the primary object that brought into being these items was the necessity for providing employment, and while so doing completing useful and necessary structures. We spent I believe several weeks on the second branch of that discussion in the years 1934 and 1935, and I think it is only fair to say that the house by a very large majority, including many of those who sat to the left of the Speaker, were satisfied that these were works that afforded a substantial amount of direct employment and an expenditure for material that gave employment in factories and various other industrial undertakings throughout Canada and local work on a large scale. Hon. members were satisfied that these works were a present and urgent necessity if we are to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of our units of voluntary citizen soldiers that we call our militia. That is the story.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I think the minister was quite right when he intimated that matters of policy should be discussed on the main estimates rather than on these supple-mentaries. But since certain remarks have been made by various hon. members, those of us who are in a minority in this house in holding different views can hardly let those remarks pass without at least a word of comment.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just suggested that those whom he calls these young citizen soldiers who are willing to lay down their lives in police duty are the people who are defending and maintaining
the institutions of this country. I dissent decidedly from that point of view. The people who are maintaining the institutions of this country ane the ordinary people of the country who are carrying on, living decent lives and trying to provide for the maintenance of our community affairs. If the institutions of this country fail it will be because those in charge of them have failed in their duty of providing for the common people. I do not think there is any section of Canada that holds anarchistic ideas or that wants to tear down, but I do assert that there are limits beyond which no free people can be driven. As we have stated so often, when we have over a million people on relief and large numbers of people who continue to be unemployed year after year,, until they become almost desperate and occasionally break out in rioting, I say it is the people who are neglecting to provide work and opportunity who are responsible for any fracas that may occasionally break out.
If we are going to maintain our institutions we shall do so by carrying out the principles for which our institutions should stand. If we are going to depend upon the police to maintain our institutions, a rather popular doctrine to-day I am afraid, then we may as well abandon these institutions. We are a free people. Our forefathers adopted these institutions because through them they expressed their community and national life. In the old days they did not think it necessary to have a group of hirelings, a group of mercenaries to maintain our institutions. Each stood ready to defend our institutions in the very best- way, namely by using them to advantage. I regret exceedingly that we have lapsed so easily into the idea that our national institutions have to be defended by force.
I shall not discuss the matter in further detail, but shall make only one or two observations on the point mentioned by the leader of the opposition, that these operations were begun because it was considered they would supply a very considerable amount of work for the unemployed. At the time the suggestion was made, some of us protested against this type of project. In the first place, if we are to have public works, in the old sense in which the term is used, that is public buildings devoted to public service, there are other types that are needed more than barracks. We need places where the great masses of our people in our communities can come together for various community enterprises.
In this city of Ottawa there is one building that is denounced as a disgrace; I refer to
2626	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence-Relief Works
the supreme court building. I should fancy that a dignified home for the Supreme Court of Canada would be more desirable than a great number of barracks erected across the country. That is one suggestion, if we are to have public buildings.
But most of us would go farther than that and say that under conditions existing to-day we do not need public buildings as much as another type of building, namely homes for our people. In my home city of Winnipeg one of these huge public buildings has been erected. Well, it is a fine building; I do not object to it as a building, but I do know a great many owners of private office buildings were not very glad when the new federal building was erected. I know, further, that according to the housing report of the city of Winnipeg there are most abominable housing conditions almost within the shadow of that big federal building. The point I should like to emphasize is that the building of houses for the people would provide just as much work and probably more than would the erection of a building such as the one under discussion. I believe the building of homes would give more work, because a smaller amount of the work is done by machinery used so extensively by contractors on big structures. The building of homes would provide work and at the same time it would provide in large sections of our community a very real and vital need.
A difficulty arises because of the way in which we handle the estimates. They are brought forward and we are asked either to accept or to criticize them. We cannot reject them, but we can criticize them. But there is no way in which we can balance one kind of enterprise against another kind. I may be in favour of this particular kind of building; possibly I should not like to vote it down, in so far as it may provide a certain amount of work. But the only thing we can do is to criticize it as severely as we can, knowing that there are many other works much more vital to the welfare of the community which could be entered upon. The performance of those other works would accomplish the end of providing employment. That is one difficulty in this haphazard departmentalized way of introducing the government's program. We have not any general review of the whole situation.
I should not have made these remarks at this time but would have reserved them until later had it not been that I feel I must protest against the opinion so generally and freely expressed by some people that we must maintain a military establishment.

By the way, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred rather slightingly to some of us who remained at home during the last war. I am not a bit ashamed of having remained at home in the last war, although I like a great many others was not in the eligible class. I am not ashamed that I did not go to the front; that is one of the things of which I feel proud. But may I say that in his slighting remarks the hon. member for Broadview included the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil).


An hon. MEMBER:: No, he did not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought that was done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All I wish to say in passing is that if there is any virtue in having gone to war and having been among the most distinguished there, then my colleague from Vancouver North has that advantage. In the development of our country we have reached the stage where, whether we went to war or stayed at home, we ought surely to be able to express ourselves on matters of national defence without having any slurs cast upon us. Some of us feel that in opposing these military defence estimates we are just as patriotic as any hon. members who propose them. We look at things from a different angle, but as hon. members of the house we think we ought to be in a position frankly to state our position with regard to matters, without being subjected to slurs from any part of the house.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In questioning the expenditure I did not intend to cast any slur on the record of the Seaforth Highlanders. I know the record of that regiment, and would not wittingly east any reflection upon its record or glorious traditions. But may I point out that the men who to-day form the Seaforth Highlanders of Vancouver are not the men who gained glory and distinction for that regiment from 1914 to 1918. I cannot let the occasion pass without reminding hon. members that many of the former members of the Seaforth Highlanders, a regiment which gained glory and distinction on the field of battle, are to-day begging bread in and around the city of Vancouver. We should not overlook that fact.
I rather regret the suggestion that the regiment is now being maintained and housed in the manner suggested strictly for police duty. I cannot believe-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one said that.

Supply-National Defence-Relief Works


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, that has not been suggested.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I understood it was to maintain law and order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute covers the
matter.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am glad to hear that
correction. I shonld not like to have the suggestion go out that the regiment would be standing to, as it were, waiting for some civil disturbances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to make it clear
that I question our readiness to spend money in such large sums merely for the purpose of policing our country when those expenditures should be counterbalanced by even greater expenditures designed to remove the causes of discontent which may lead to disorder. The point I wish to make clear is that it is vastly more important to prevent disorder than to suppress it once an outbreak has occurred.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Barriefield, Ont.-Royal Canadian Corps of Signals depot
[Stage Direction]
Administration building $75,000.
Barrack block No. 2, $130,000.
Training building, $115,000.
Single officers' building, $100,000.
Sergeants' mess, $40,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How much of that has
been, spent ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only a
small amount under the unemployment relief Scheme. The work in the first item, provide ing for an expenditure of $75,000, is well advanced1. In connection with the second item only the basement has been completed. "Under the third item excavation has been done, while the fourth and fifth items are entirely new.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Contracts are outstanding for the first three?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are no contracts outstanding. In connection with the unemployment relief projects certain preliminary work was carried out, but there are no contracts for the main projects which are outlined in this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa, Ontario.-Royal Canadian Air Force station-latidplane hangar, $50,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Was this item covered in the last appropriation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only the steel framework has been erected to date; the main work is still to be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Valcartier, P.Q.-dominion arsenal buildings for filling and ammunition groups, $200,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is to provide further funds for the projects already undertaken with regard to the filling and ammunition groups at Valcartier.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much has been spent on this work?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Altogether $1,605,000 has been spent at Valcartier from relief funds.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was anything spent last year under the Relief Act and the Public Works Construction Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The expenditures already mentioned were made under the Relief Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much was spent last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will get that in a minute for my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister can give that later. We can go on to the next item.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Perhaps I could take
advantage of this item to ask the minister what progress has been made in oompiling the official Canadian history of the war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
would come under an item in the main estimates dealing with adjustment of war claims, -but I shall be glad to answer my hon. friend's question now. The first volume of this history will be completed by January 1, 1937. For some time there was some doubt as to which period in the war the first volume would refer to, but it has been decided that that volume will bring the history of the war up to the time of the formation of the Canadian corps as such. The remaining eight volumes cannot be completed more quickly than at the rate of one volume per year. The first volume will be completed- next year, and the eight subsequent volumes at the rate of one per year.


Angus MacInnis: The minister stated that this work at Valcartier involved expenditures amounting to over a million dollars. Were there any contracts let in connection with this work?
2628	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence-Relief Works


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the possible exception of some steel framework it has been done under the unemployment relief project and other special undertakings.


Angus MacInnis: What wages were paid for labour on that work?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with the unemployment relief projects the usual sustenance allowance was paid. Naturally, higher allowances were paid to the supervisory personnel, and wages at regular rates in cases where skilled work was carried out.


Angus MacInnis: Am I to understand that most of this work was carried out on a sustenance basis?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Apart
from the special work, that is correct.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know that there is very much I can say about this except to draw attention to the fact that this country has reached a very inglorious position when its defences have to be carried out on a sustenance basis of food, clothing, shelter and twenty cents per day to the labour employed. Is it any wonder that we have to have an armed force to maintain peace, order and good government? Is there any incentive to people to be interested in good government under ;onditions of this kind?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
policy will be changed after June 30.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only fair to say that the steel and other technical work was done by men who were paid regular wages. There was a camp there and work had to be provided for the men, if only for exercise purposes. If any of the men in the camp could get a job, they were free to take it. In the meantime they were supplied with food, clothing and shelter. Many of these men came from Montreal and other parts of the province of Quebec; this camp was not in any sense a local camp. The supervisory staff was composed of men well qualified for that purpose, who were paid regular wages. The technical work in connection with the erection of the steel frames was done by men who had a working knowledge of those particular trades. There was no difference between this camp and any other; they were all in the same position.


Angus MacInnis: I think there was a considerable difference between the work done here and the work done in other parts of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The projects in all the camps were carried on under the Relief Act and by the payment of wages to special labour.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Apparently the
supervisors were paid good wages, as well as the skilled men who had trade unions behind them. These men were able to maintain their wage rates. But why should the unskilled labour be given only sustenance? A few minutes ago we were told that we should recognize the very worthy work being done by certain officers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said officers and men. I do not want any misunderstanding as to that.
Mr, WOODSWORTH: It was said that these men had paid their expenses out of their own pockets, but they were already in receipt of pay, or pensions or other allowances. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) told us the other day, the depression was caused largely by the war, so why should we load the dead weight of this burden upon the shoulders of the poor unskilled labourers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec, P.Q.-rebuilding city walls, $100,000.
Grote Stirling: Will the minister tell us just what sections of the city walls are to be rebuilt under this vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These
are the old fortification walls of Quebec, not the citadel walls.


Grote Stirling: What sections are to be rebuilt?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The walls have been inspected and they have more or less to be reinforced as there are many weak spots.	*


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this a national
defence project or is it the preservation of an historical site?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Basically it is to provide employment, but it will also provide much needed protection against accidents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the citadel
wall?

Supply-National Defence-Relief Works


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, the city walls.	*


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are these parts of the
walls enclosing the citadel which have been turned over to Quebec? On whose property are they located? It looks like a municipal work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Strictly
speaking, it is a combination of relief with a very necessary work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a purely municipal
work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Practically so. The walls have always been looked after by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This really constitutes
a grant to a city.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was it authorized under
the Public Works Construction Act? Where was the authority for it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
partly under the unemployment relief project of last year. We devoted $25,000 to it and this is a supplementary vote of $100,000. There are dangerous spots in the walls of the city and for the purpose of preserving life and limb the work is necessary. Moreover it is a good way of giving direct employment to people who are on relief in the city of Quebec.


Grote Stirling: The reason I asked the
question I did was that a previous piece of work of this sort was a wall which might be called a piece of the citadel wall and a piece of the city wall at the same time. It was in a desperately dangerous condition and an extremely clever bit of work was done by the men in the unemployment relief camp in the taking down of that piece of wall and rebuilding it lest it should fall on the street. I merely wanted to know whether this was intended to carry that same piece of work along towards the harbour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a
continuation of the same process. '


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Winnipeg-Fort Osborne barracks

erection of garage, $15,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the total cost?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total is $22,970.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assume the difference
between the amount voted here and the
S22.000	has already been spent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Committed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has any more than that been spent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, that is the total.


Mr. MUTCH:: Has the minister been informed that the living quarters of officers and the married quarters in the barracks have been condemned on more than one occasion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has been brought to my attention and is receiving consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings generally [DOT]- improvements, additions and maintenance, $3,126.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this the remnant of
a larger vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
made up of these items: Painting exterior and interior of Ooaticook, Quebec, armoury, $207; Edmonton, Alberta, interior painting, decorating and repairs to Prince of Wales armoury, $590; military buildings generally, repairs and renovations, including amount required to cover closing out of the Public Works Construction Act vote, $2,329, making a total of $3,126, all being a revote of public works construction votes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses in connection with the continuance of unemployment relief projects now organized and conducted for the relief of single homeless men, $2,770,687.
James Shaver Woodsworth: This evidently
contemplates maintenance to a very considerable extent of the relief camps. Will the minister indicate the kind and the location of these projects?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does
the hon. member want the complete list?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we had
better have it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
following is a list of the unemployment relief projects which will be proceeded with as from April 1, 1936:
Nova Scotia:
1	Halifax, N.S.
153 Dartmouth, N.S.
New Brunswick:
2	Cambridge, N.B.
4	Upper Broekway, N.B.
29 Saint John, N.B.
41 Havelock, N.B.
123	Colter's Siding, N.B.
152 Gr. HQ., Saint John, N.B.
2630	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence-Relief Works
Quebec:
5	Megantic, P.Q.
6	Bishopton, P.Q.
7	Quebec, P.Q.
39	Valcartier, P.Q.
53 St. Johns, P.Q.
Ontario:
8	Diver, Ont.
9	Gillies, Ont.
11	Pagwa, Ont.
12	Nakina, Ont.
13	Kowkash, Ont.
15	Wagaming, Ont.
16	Sioux Lookout, Ont.
17	Amesdale, Ont.
18	Vermilion Bay, Ont.
27	Ottawa Air Station.
28	Trenton, Ont.
30 Camp Borden, Ont.
33 Long Branch, Ont.
35 Gr. HQ., Nakina, Ont.
37 R.M.C., Kingston, Ont.
40	Petawawa, Ont.
42 Barriefield, Ont.
45 Reay, Ont.
47	Gr. HQ., North Bay, Ont.
50	Kapuskasing, Ont.
51	Lac Seul, Ont.
59 N.D.H.Q., Ottawa, Ont.
81 Cranbrook, Ont.
91	Round Lake, Ont.
92	Ramore, Ont.
106	Allanwater, Ont.
109	Kenora, Ont.
112	Savant Lake, Ont.
113	Sunstrum, Ont.
138 Hearst, Ont.
141 Grant, Ont.
144 Lake of Two Rivers, Ont.
146 Killaloe, Ont.
150	Gr. HQ., Killaloe, Ont.
160 Pendleton, Ont.
Manitoba:
19	Whitemouth, Man.
21	Winnipeg, Man.
103	Duck Mountain, Man.
104	HQ. M.D. 10, Winnipeg, Man.
107	Gaddy Lake, Man.
110	Shilo, Man.
151	Vivian, Man.
Saskatchewan:
44 Dundurn, Sask.
Alberta:
49 HQ., M.D. 13, Calgary, Alta. 58 Coleman, Alta.
119	Sarcee Camp, Alta.
120	Banif-Calgary, Alta.
121	Edmonton-Jasper, Alta.
122	Frank, Alta.
155	Kananaskis, Alta.
156	Cooking Lake, Alta.
162 Summit, Alta.
British Columbia:
22	Yahk, B.C.
23	Kitchener, B.C.
48	HQ. M.D. 11, Victoria, B.C.
55	Hope-Princeton, B.C.
56	Princeton-Hope, B.C.
57	West Coast Road, B.C.
61 Crow's Nest-Michel, B.C.
63	Long Beach, B.C.
64	Goatfell, B.C.
65	Nelway, B.C.
67	Shoreacres, B.C.
68	Rock Creek-Tadnac, B.C.
70	Gr. HQ., Yahk, B.C.
71	Gr. HQ., Nelson, B.C.
{Mr. I. Mackenzie.]
73	Hope-Rosedale, B.C.
74	Agassiz-Harrison, B.C.
75	Esquimalt, B.C.
76	Hope-Boston Bar, B.C.
77	Gr. HQ., Hope, B.C.
78	Gr. HQ., Princeton, B.C.
79	Gr. HQ., Sooke, B.C.
86 Gr, HQ., Spence's Bridge.
95 Gr. HQ., Salmon Arm, B.C.
97	Salmon Arm-S-G., B.C.
98	Roosville, Cutoff, B.C.
102 Revelstoke-Sicamous, B.C.
105	Point Grey, B.C.
108	Boston Bar, B.C.
Ill	Gr. HQ., Point Grey, B.C.
114	White Rock, B.C.
116 Pender Harbour, B.C.
124	Taghum, B.C.
125	Aldridge, B.C.
128 Dead Man Creek, B.C.
131 Nahun, B.C.
134 North Vancouver, B.C.
149 Rock Creek, B.C.
154 Canal Flats, B.C.
159 Midway, B.C.
157	Oliver, B.C.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are all these
camps to remain open? These are projects; are there camps connected with them all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The men are being gradually taken from these camps for railway purposes, as outlined in the house the other day. My information is that to date 14,276 men are still in the camps, and I believe that about 3250 are in process of being transferred to railway work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many men
will this vote take care of?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
estimate for the vote was prepared on a basis which was computed some time ago by the financial advisers of the departments concerned when we actually had in these camps over 20,000 men. That would leave at least
10,000	men in the camps after the railway labour was all absorbed, and it is purely a matter of estimating what will be necessary to take care of all those who may be left in the camps until June 30 of this year. The estimate may be slightly more than will be required; I cannot say as to that; but it was an estimate made about two months ago, having reference to the number of men then actually in the camps, and allowing for the gradual absorption of about ten thousand of them into railway labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In his last sentence the
minister made a statement which, I think, covers and controls the whole thing. In any event, on July 1 they will all be out?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.

Supply-National Defence-Relief Works


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are no longer to
receive the fifty cents a day and food and board and shelter, but the responsibility for them [DOT]will have to be discharged in some other way than through the relief camps?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to draw attention to one feature of this and preceding votes in this section of the special supplementary estimates. This is the last item of a vote aggregating 84,343,000. Having listened to the explanations given by the minister- and I must say he gave them very frankly and courteously

I am impressed by the thought that a very substantial portion of this money has already been spent, and I imagine that April, the first month of this fiscal year, has increased the amount that has been spent, and that the balance, or most of it, will be absorbed within the next two or three months. The largest item of all will definitely end on June 30. So that it is a fair statement, I think, to say that of this sum of approximately four and a half millions, very little can be said to be a contribution to the solution of our national unemployment problem. We have a total vote of 858,000,000, plus $26,000,000 in grants in aid, or about 884,000,000, which, it is stated, is for the purpose of solving the problem of unemployment. This particular group of items is only an illustration, because the same argument applies in about the same ratio to the other groups of estimates that we have already dealt with. We may therefore be justified in saying that, of this sum of 830,000,000 which is described as "projects already undertaken," a very substantial portion has been spent or will be spent before the end of June in cleaning up projects already entered upon. It follows that the amount provided to meet this overwhelming problem of unemployment is not $80,000,000, as indicated, but a sum very much less than that. I believe that the government must take cognizance of that fact. I am one of those who feel, and I am pretty certain that the minister whose estimates happen to be before us shares in a measure this view, that the problem of unemployment is not going to be solved by these more or less temporary measures. Many of the projects which are indicated in these estimates should be undertaken on a much larger, more definite, and nation-wide scale in order adequately to meet the problem of unemployment. As I have said on other occasions, I pin my faith much more to projects wherein the expenditure can be largely shared by private funds, 12739-168
particularly the one of housing referred to here to-day and so often before. I feel it a duty to direct the attention of the committee, and particularly the attention of the government, to the fact that while the people imagine that some eighty million dollars are being voted, a substantial portion of that sum is either already exhausted, or in the immediate future, before any project of a substantial character can be undertaken, will have been expended.


Mr. EMMBRSON:: The camp at Havelock, New Brunswick, has been opened up recently. I understood that the government were not going to open up any further camps.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite correct. But some camps in various parts of the country had to be closed down on account of winter conditions and have reopened recently. So far as possible the men employed in those camps were not freshly taken on; they were brought from other camps or other projects. I may say frankly that that fact occasioned in some localities a certain amount of dissatisfaction, where local men were unemployed and could not be taken on, and men were taken from other projects.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Other Projects
Extension of Existing Facilities Trenton, Ont.

Royal Canadian Air Force station-
Single officers building, $160,000.
Married airmen's quarters, $160,000.
Married officers quarters, $110,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is to complete that unit, I suppose?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. It is just an extension of what has already been done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa, Ont.-Rockcliffe Air Station, Royal Canadian Air Force-men's barrack building, $160,000.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are all these projects that have already been begun?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not
exactly. These projects we are dealing with now are the extension or development in certain specified localities of work done in the last three years. In other words, these are the inevitable developments or extensions of projects already undertaken, although this is, actually and strictly speaking, new work.

2632	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence-Relief Works


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is no portion of this a revote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is, it is not unfinished work that is being completed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In a way it is. It is an unfinished project being extended, not an unfinished project being completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is putting it a little strongly. It is not necessary to do this in order that other work may be completed; these are completely new undertakings-for instance, at Rockcliffe and at Trenton, but they are necessary if you are going to make completed projects.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In order that the work may be properly completed, these are necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For instance, there is the work on the armoury at Fredericton, the reconstruction of the roof.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The two ends of the building are in good condition, but it is necessary to reconstruct the central portion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not say anything while the estimates on the uncompleted works were being discussed, because there would be no value in leaving work uncompleted. But these are new works, although they are following out old undertakings. I do not care to enter into a discussion as to whether they are necessary, but it seems to me the matter is one affecting our sense of values, whether these works are more necessary than others upon which an equal amount of money might be spent. A certain limited amount of money has been taken from the people in bhe form of taxes, and we as the parliament of Canada must decide whether or not one project is more necessary than others. When it comes to voting money for these purposes I desire to register a protest, not because I think these things are unnecessary, but because I think there are other things that are more necessary. All across Canada there are isolated areas, municipalities and small towns, with, for instance, no hospitals, which would be very glad to build by means of federal assistance small ten or twenty bed hospitals and pay back the government over a period of years. Projects of this sort would be of much more value to the community than

those we are discussing. For illustration, the city of Ottawa has not a decent auditorium where a large public meeting can be held. It seems to me that this is a challenge not so much to a policy as to our sense of values; whether we consider a vote for a barracks more important than a vote for a hospital, whether we want something that is to be used exclusively for military purposes or on the other hand something that will be of public service. In view of the fact that we are talking now about new work I should like to register my protest against voting money for this, not because it is unnecessary but because in my opinion there are so many other things that are more urgently needed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Johns, P.Q.-
Garage at permanent force barracks, $22,000.
Administration building, $100,000.
Vincent Dupuis: Is'this an additional amount to complete work started last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is an extension of the project; it is in exactly the same category as the last vote. This is aditional money to be expended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not an extension of a new project; it is making good the old buildings that are worn out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fredericton, N.B.-armoury-reconstruction, $40,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There was an item in the estimates of the Public Works department providing for part of this work; in fact the contract was almost let, but, as the minister says, I think it was found that the building was in worse condition than was anticipated. I believe this is to make possible complete renovation and complete reconstruction of the building. Is that right?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Esquimalt, B.C.-joint service magazine, $125,000.
Grote Stirling: What is this and where is it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is at Esquimalt. For a number of years past the service magazine there has been con-

demned by the authorities as being very dangerous to the community. It was condemned in 1905, to be precise, by the admiralty experts. It is now located at a place called Cole island, near Esquimalt. It is intended to construct a new joint service magazine to accommodate not only the naval and militia forces but also the air force, so that we shall have a joint service magazine for all three services. Probably my hon. friend saw an item of 375,000 in the main estimates, which is intended for the purchase of land on the mainland in connection with which expropriation proceedings have been commenced. This money is for the preliminary work after the purchase of the land has been completed. The total cost will be in excess of this figure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Esquimalt, B.C.- H.M.C. dockyard

extension of jetty, $20,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is to extend the jetty from three hundred feet to five hundred feet, to provide better accommodation for ships at Esquimalt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recall this matter very clearly. Is it regarded as essential that this work should be done? I remember considering the proposals that came before us, and the question was whether it was absolutely essential in the public interest that there should be such an extension of that jetty as is indicated. If the public interest necessitates it I have nothing further to say, but I remember the circumstances connected with it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The advice I get from the technical officers, who are responsible, is that this is absolutely necessary and essential work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Rupert, B.C.-increased accommodation at the R.C.N.V.R. headquarters, $7,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the particulars?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a very effective and efficient unit of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve at Prince Rupert, which is very inadequately housed. This modest sum is to give them proper training quarters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has nothing to do with unemployment, I take it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, it will help.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
12739-168}
Supply-Railways-C.N .R.

[Stage Direction]
Deficit of Canadian National Railway Company
Amount not exceeding $39,900,000 to be paid from time to time, under such conditions as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called "the national company") and to be applied by the national company in payment of the net income deficits arising in the calendar year 1936, including such supplementary contribution to The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways employees' provident fund as may be necessary to provide for payment in full of monthly allowances under the provisions of The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section four of the said act. and including such supplementary contribution to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada superannuation and provident fund as may be necessary to enable payment to be made of monthly allowances under the rules and regulations of the fund, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section thirteen of chapter sixty-five of the statutes of Canada 1874, and including profit and loss but not including non-cash items and interest on dominion government advances, of the National Company or of any other or others of the companies comprised in the Canadian National Railways (as defined in chap. 10 of the statutes of Canada, 1929) or any company controlled by stock ownership or otherwise by any company comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the National Company in respect of any of the Canadian Government Railways entrusted to the national company, $39,900,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be recalled, Mr. Chairman, that the other evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) introduced a resolution dealing with a proposed measure anticipating the prospective deficit for 1937. Apparently this is a supplementary estimate which covers that situation.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The resolution introduced by the Minister of Finance was to cover the estimated capital requirements of the railway. This is to cover the requirements for the operating deficit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the anticipated deficit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I may say that last year they were both included in the one item; that is, the bill introduced by the Minister of Finance provided for accountable advances to be made, and then at the end of the year a supplementary estimate was passed allowing those advances to be charged to the consolidated revenue fund. This year we propose to follow the usual practice and vote the money in advance, just as we do for any other project.
Supply-Railways-C.N Jl *


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we contemplate a deficit of 839,900,000, as set out in this estimate, and there will be no legislation with respect to this contemplated deficit. This is the estimated cash deficit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In previous years that was done in the same way ; I have looked into the matter since. I think on one or two occasions, owing to the time at which parliament met and for reasons of that kind provision was made for an anticipated deficit before the year was actually ended. Four months of this year have elapsed; we are now in the fifth month, and this is to take care of the estimated cash deficit for the whole twelve months. That is the idea?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, for the calendar year 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill to be introduced by the Minister of Finance deals only with capital expenditures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I think that is quite correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other evening I suggested that we should wait until this estimate came up for consideration. At that time we were considering order No. 30 on the order paper, as follows:
The house again in committee on the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railways, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1936, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
That has nothing to do with this at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, that covers only the refunding of capital obligations of 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then what we are doing is slightly changing the order of things by introducing into our supplementary estimates in advance a provision to pay $39,000,000, although the Minister of Finance has on the order paper a resolution providing for meeting the expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1936. I gather from what is said that it is the opinion of the government that it is advisable to anticipate a deficit of $39,000,000 and to vote it although it has not been incurred. It is an admission that there will be a deficit of at least $39,000,000, according to the opinion of the officers of the railway?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The discussions that took place as recorded in the minutes with respect to this involved the committee approving of the item, and it was to be sent to the house. To adopt the item now means passing it before the report of the committee has come to the house, although the committee had the matter referred to it.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: No; when I submitted the second report I moved concurrence. The sum of $9,600,000 had become due Friday of last week and I explained then that it was in accordance with the wish expressed by the leader of the opposition when the resolution was brought down by the finance minister that this should be submitted to the committee for concurrence by the committee and reported to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But did the report cover the whole $39,000,000?


Eugène Fiset: Yes, it covered the whole thing. The second report covered the estimate for 1935-36, 1936-37 and the capital commitment of $9,600,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then this item covers
both capital and the contemplated deficit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the bill of the Minister of Finance covers the estimated capital expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For 1936?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For 1936, which I believe is some $9,000,000, and this covers the operating deficit. This amount we are voting is for the advance to the railway of sums required to meet operating deficit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a question always of what the government of the day think is the better course to pursue, particularly the minister-whether or not it is better to contemplate a deficit and provide for it before the time has run-out. That is not the usual method employed by corporations in dealing with matters of the kind, because they are not usually free .to admit that a deficit is inevitable. But as in this case a deficit must be inevitable I suppose it is just as well to meet it now. The only point I make is whether it is desirable .to endeavour to anticipate the exact amount of the deficit. Is it an encouragement to economy and efficiency, or may it possibly result in the theory so long advanced in connection for instance with the purchase of three steamships, "The money is there, we might as well

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
use it?" May it have that effect? If the minister thinks this is the better and more satisfactory way, obviously he should be given the opportunity to carry his views into effect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We think it necessary to
authorize the advance of moneys to a certain point as was done last year in a finance bill. It is the policy of the government this year, as hon. gentlemen will have noted, ito put in the estimates every item that will be expended this year, so that the people may know in advance what may be expected in the way of expenditures. In taking this from the bill and putting it in the estimates, the only purpose is that the people of the country may know what the situation is as affecting the railway.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it not a fact that the bill last year disclosed what was expected in that connection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I thought I made that
clear; it did that. There is no difference in that regard except that this year we are putting it in the estimates, so that if anyone cares to total up the estimates for the fiscal year he will have the whole story.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You are putting it in
an estimate which ultimately becomes a bill, whereas last year it was put in a bill by itself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister having been on the railway committee, which has not yet finished its work, recalls that it is probable that this will not be sufficient, in view of the fact that some extraordinary expenditures have been incurred in connection with the removal of snow and flood damage, which I think leaves them about $2,000,000 down on the estimates. Does the minister think that ought to be taken into consideration in this item? At the same time I assume this will be advanced by order in council from time to time as required, as was done last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct. While it
is true, as developed in the committee, that due to abnormal weather conditions of one sort or another the railway is about $2,000,000 behind the budget at the moment, yet such factors as the size of the wheat harvest next fall will have a great influence on the railway earnings. So that while we are a little down I do not think we should be discouraged at this time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not wish to suggest that I am not entirely favourable to the position of the Canadian National Railways. What I was thinking was that possibly the
minister is hampering himself in the amount he is providing. I think it is desirable that the Canadian National Railways should be provided for in these items. If this amount restricts the minister unduly, perhaps we ought to consider increasing it to what now appears to be inevitable. The size of the crop of course depends on circumstances. The minister i3 optimistic in that respect; we all are, but again it depends on how much moves out of the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The railway officers feel that this sum will be sufficient. If disaster comes and more is required it will have to be voted next session as a supplementary for the year 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last year by chapter 17 of the statutes of 1935 we dealt with it in this way:
4. The Minister of Finance with the approval of the governor in council may make from time to time during the fiscal year 1935-36, accountable advances not exceeding in the aggregate $44,000,000 to the national company out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada to be applied by the national company on account of the net income deficits,...
That was short by several millions, and we faced a supplementary estimate. The only point is that there does not seem to be any difference in the result.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was done by a separate statute on previous occasions; now it is being put in the estimates. I should like to correct the minister when he says the estimates will show the total expenditures. There is one item of tremendous importance to this country, involving a very large sum and which is a charge against the consolidated revenue fund without an estimate at all, and it was enacted by a previous Liberal government; I refer to the old age pensions. I would like that to get into the mind of the minister and the mind of his Prime Minister, because the province of Quebec now says it1 is going to adopt old age pensions, and that will immediately change the whole scheme of the Minister of Finance's estimates as he gave them the other day. It is a glaring instance of a charge being made against the consolidated revenue fund without any limitation, or any knowledge being brought home to the minds of the people, to use the language of the minister, that they are liable for that sum of money. In the same way we had the difficulty that arose out of the guarantee of the bonds of the harbour bridge. There was no limitation placed upon the
Supply-Railuia ys-C .N.R.

amount of the bonds of the Montreal 'harbour bridge that had been guaranteed by the government, and I myself was fiercely attacked the other day because I had not taken action to arrest someone who sold bonds, on the ground that he was alleged to have exceeded parliamentary power by selling guaranteed bonds for $19,000,000 when it was alleged the amount should have been only S6,000,000. As a matter of fact it is an illustration of exactly the same thing. I mention this only because the minister suggested that the people should know about all possible expenditures. He will find that there is one -which will amount to several millions about which there is no intimation. Whether or not the method proposed by the minister.is better than the method heretofore followed, it has this disadvantage, that whereas it was an accountable advance that was to be made, now it is stated in practically the language of the statute. It is practically a summary of the statute, and of course as my colleague has said it will constitute one of the supply bills and therefore be a statute itself. But whether or not to limit the amount to $39,900,000, in view of the evidence given before the committee that at the end of three months the difference between income and outgo, regardless of all payments for rental for cars or joint terminals, was $76,000. is a matter which will have to be determined between the minister and, I suppose, his new directors of five, who may be able to work that miracle which the trustees, three in number, could not do.


Mr. GREEN:: What is the approximate cost of completing the Canadian National hotel in Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not appropriating anything at this time, but I believe it will cost about $3,000,000 completely to furnish it.


Howard Charles Green: WThat length of time will be . required to put it into operation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand it will be two years.


Howard Charles Green: What is the plan with regard to the hotel? I believe it is the only one of the system which is standing idle at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that there is no plan at this time. We would like very much to open it, but we do not wish to open it until we are quite sure that it will not add to the losses of the system any more than it does at this time. As soon as we can be sure of that, steps will be taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Bennett.l
To provide for commitments incurred under the authority of section 9, Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935, and that the governor in council may authorize the Minister of Finance to sell or lease the railway equipment so acquired to either or both the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company under agreements whereby the railway company or railway companies shall reimburse His Majesty the full amount of the cost of the said equipment with interest except in respect of the first and second years covered by the agreement at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council and that such agreements shall provide that security be furnished to secure and indemnify His Majesty in respect of the debt to His Majesty, $5,303,000.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This was the item under discussion on the last occasion the estimates were considered. It is the balance required of an appropriation of $15,000,000 made under the Public Works Construction Act of 19'35 for the purchase -of equipment for the railways. The thought was that the government was to purchase this equipment and turn it over to the railways on a rental-purchase basis. This is the balance to complete all payments under the item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What are the total commitments under these arrangements?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The total?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the total was $15,000,000, and of that $9,697,293 was paid to the end of the fiscal year 1935-36. This appropriation oovers the balance of the payments, all of which will be made in the fiscal year 1936-37.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it should be made clear that for lower interest purposes this legislation is merely to enable the country to take the place of the purchasers of equipment securities which were not saleable owing to market conditions abroad. We have always sold Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway securities in New York at a very low rate of interest, but under present conditions and having regard to the requirements of the securities act of the United States it was almost impossible for us to contemplate that at this time. The country is merely assuming the position of the purchasers of these securities, in the same way as purchasers previously in New York were buying what are known as equipment trust securities. The equipment which is purchased under the provisions will be properly marked in the same way as all purchases of equipment have been marked in times past, whether for the Pennsylvania, the New1 York Central or other roads. That is the position. So far as we are concerned, we are paid back our money

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
with interest at a rate we fixed, in instalments that are provided for. The whole story is that owing to economic conditions the nation has taken the place of security purchasers heretofore in the market for equipment trust certificates. We reserved the right to sell them-at least, that is my memory-if opportunity arose. If there was the usual demand abroad for these securities that there has been in times past we could sell them in the markets in which they have usually been sold, certainly not at a loss and possibly at a profit, having regard to the low rate of interest which prevailed with respect to such investments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, except that
the interest does not start for two years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the rate of interest to be charged on this loan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my right hon. friend
remember?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to make a statement, because my memory alternates between two figures. I should like to be accurate about it. I remember a discussion which took place, and I am not sure what the final rate was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is four per cent for the
balance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the rate of interest on equipment bonds of the Canadian National Railways now outstanding?
Mr. HOWE.:	I think at present we are
borrowing on a lower rate; it is about three and a half per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, that is the rate on
your borrowings at the present time. What is the rate of interest on equipment bonds outstanding?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister would
look up a New York paper for the day before yesterday he would find the quotations. They vary, depending upon the rate. Some of them are selling as high as a four and a half per cent basis, and some are selling on a five per cent basis.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe I can get the information in a moment or two.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact the interest rate was fixed slightly higher than it otherwise would have been, having regard to the fact that for the first two years they paid no interest. Perhaps the minister recalls the situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My colleague points out
that on page 28 of the annual report the rates payable are mentioned. The Grand Trunk Western has some 6's; Canadian Northern has some 7's; The Grand Trunk Railway, some 6i's; The Canadian National some 4i's; again, the Canadian National with 4i's; Canadian National 5's; Grand Trunk Western 5's; Central Vermont 5's; Canadian National 4J's.
Other issues are mentioned in the list on page 28, the lowest there being 3i per cent first mortgage guaranteed debenture bonds. But that is part of the funded debt, and not the equipment trust issue. The equipment trust issues are as I have indicated. Apparently they comprise in all $44,000,000 outstanding, upon which the interest in 1935 was about $2,000,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a few later issues.
I notice .there is one equipment loan at three per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the amount of
that?	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That expires in 1950, and the amount is $609,000. There is one tiwo per cent three-year bond, $187,000. There is a three per cent three-year bond, $698,000, and a two year bond which expires this year, $114,000. This type of borrowing carries a fairly low rate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid the minister
is scarcely fair to the committee in that respect. The reason I asked the question was that the statement 'had been made that these bonds carried very low rates of interest. I have been over this thing and I know perfectly well that many of these bonds are outstanding at five, six and seven per cent. The figures just quoted show there are some $44,000,000 running from five, six and seven per cent, only a small portion being at four per cent. What is the term of this equipment trust bond?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fully repayable in instalments by 1950.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister stated a
moment ago that these bonds carried very low rates of interest because the rate was only four per cent and there were two years without interest. It is fourteen years to 1950, and two years without interest would not make very much of a reduction. This is a fine class of security. I was curious to know what these six and seven per cent bonds were selling at on the market. I do not think they are quoted in the Montreal Gazette, but I do see Canadian National Railway 5's, 1954,
263S
Supply-Railways-C .N.R.

quoted at 115 and 116. These quotations indicate the value of this class of security. The 4J's are quoted at 11/1 and 113. The minister referred a moment ago to rates of 24 per cent and 3 per cent, and I think it is only fair to point out that these are short term loans. They are similar to government securities and should be obtained at the very lowest rate of interest. Two and a half or three per cent is too high a rate for that class of security. Do any of the $40,000,000 outstanding equipment bonds contain a provision for repayment before maturity?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are serial bonds issued
under the Philadelphia plan, and my understanding is that they are not callable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no question about that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it would pay the government to make every possible effort to secure the retirement of these outstanding equipment bonds. There may be some difficulty in doing it, but it is certainly worth the effort. It is the payment of high rates of interest on this class of security that contributes so largely to the deficits of the Canadian National Railways, to which attention is so often drawn. It is my view that the rates of interest charged on these bonds should be just as low as the rates paid by the government itself when it borrows money. I do not think the government should seek to make any money out of these bonds. It strikes me it would be possible to get this money at less than four per cent. It may be said that a fraction of one per cent or one per cent on $5,000,000 would not amount to much, but it is by watching this sort of thing that we are going to reduce the deficit. If accommodation of this kind can be extended to the railway at three per cent, I think it should be done. A definite attempt should be made to buy up the bonds which bear these ridiculously high rates of interest. I do not believe these bonds are guaranteed directly by the government, but the fact that Canadian National Railway bonds are outstanding and carrying rates of interest of six and seven per cent is a challenge to the government to make every conceivable effort to bring about their retirement. All these issues should be examined to see whether it is possible to buy them up.
I have not been a member of the railways and shipping committee for same years, but when I was I believe there was a provision in the equipment trust bonds for retirement before maturity. Apparently I am mistaken in that, but the minister does not seem to be
IMr. Stevens.]
quite certain himself. He has not the information before him, and as the matter is so important I urge that these issues be carefully examined with	a view to ascertaining
whether or not it is possible to retire some of those which bear the higher rates. An attempt should be made to bring them within the range of present day rates, and they should bear the best rate the government itself can secure, possibly around three per cent. In regard to the year and a half or two year issues, these in my opinion might weLl be carried by the government in the form of treasury bills. Two and a half or three per cent is a pretty high rate to pay to-day for a two year term paper.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If the minister will look at page 28, I think we can give the hon. member for Kootenay East some of the information he seeks. The 6 per cent series, Grand Trunk Western, was issued on January 15, 1920, and apparently matured on January 15, 1935. That would be included in last year's statement. As regards the 7 per cent Canadian Northern, the date of issue is May 1, 1920, and it matures on May 1, 1935. I suppose these were paid on time, because in the adjoining column, under principal outstanding at December 1, 1935, there is a 'blank. The 64 per cent Grand Trunk, issued on February 1, 1921, matures on February 1, 1936, so that would be retired this year. From that time on there are 41 per cent. 44 per cent and then 5 per cent Canadian National series issued May 1, 1929, due May 1, 1944; another 5 per cent Grand Trunk Western, issued December 14, 1929, due in 1944; 5 per cent Central Vermont, issued December 14, 1929, due in 1944; and 44 per cent-the	last	issue-Canadian	National,
issued June 1, 1930, due in 1945. That is as I read the statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is, of course, no comparison between the funded debt of a company and its securities, issued under the Philadelphia plan or otherwise. Page 28 of the Canadian National Railways report for 1935 makes that quite clear. Issues that sell at 112 are the funded debt of the corporation. Its equipment trust certificates, which are serials, are dealt with, not on the basis of a yield or payment of so much interest but on the basis of how much per $100 they will realize. They do it the converse way. We say interest at 44 per cent, so and so; they say it is to yield such and such a rate, and it is the rate yield which they pay and on which the certificates are bought and sold on

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
the market. So far as 4J per cent and other rates charged are concerned, these were the rates negotiated by the companies themselves without reference to the government, because the security for the loan was the equipment. The government does not guarantee. The security is the equipment itself, and on each piece of equipment there is a metal strip indicating that the particular piece of equipment is the property of the trust company, that is to say, the trustee under the arrangement under -which the equipment is bought. So far as the 4 per cent rate is concerned, it is a lower rate than the railway negotiated for any of its securities prior to 1930. In 1930 the last negotiation for equipment made by the Canadian National was the L series, 4J per cent, the date of issue being June 1, 1930, and date of maturity June 1, 1945, and the principal outstanding December 31, 1935, was $10,500,000, the interest being $492,187.50. The lessening of the interest for two years meant, of course, two years' interest on the entire $15,000,000, because the serials did not begin to be paid until the transaction was completed. Then they would have free interest for two years; and that, of course, reduced the rate below 4 per cent, a lower rate than they could secure on their own if they went on the market. Neither of our railways was able to sell equipment trust securities. The Canadian Pacific Railway is registered under the Securities Act, but the Canadian National is not, or was not until recently, although before the late government went out of office the dominion government did register under the provisions of that act. Efforts were -made to register the Canadian National, but I do not think this has yet been done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; we sold some bonds a short time ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The requirements were onerous. The information which was required involved a vast amount of detail. When the dominion government secured its authority to go on to the American market it had to supply information going back to very early days and brought down to date, and in the ease of the Canadian National a considerable amount of information was called for. At the time we made this arrangement with the railways it was the only method which was available at the moment to enable them to get the equipment. They were not so anxious about getting the equipment as we were to afford employment, which was the primary purpose for which this action was taken. The primary purpose behind this effort was to
give employment to a class of men who were and had been idle for years, except for such work as they had obtained in consequence of government orders in Hamilton, in Montreal, in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and possibly in some other town, as well as in the shops at Point St. Charles and one of the western shops and the shops at Angus, Montreal. That was the purpose of this arrangement and it is limited to $15,000,000. So far as the arrangement can possibly be said to be a governmental one, it is based upon negotiations which the railways themselves made and which were regarded as exceedingly reasonable, because it is not limited to the Canadian National. The Canadian Pacific received-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Seven million dollars.
- Mr. BENNETT: And the Canadian National eight million dollars. The arrangement was made after a good deal of negotiation and the rate fixed, having regard to the period of time for which no interest was paid, was regarded as very fair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should not like to leave the impression that I am criticizing the item. I am entirely in favour of the action taken, of making a loan of $15,000,000; I think it is perfectly sound. I still press this point, however, that where we are making loans to railways or anywhere else it is desirable to get the interest rates down to the lowest possible level, because this will have an influence on the general rate of interest. I know there are two schools of thought on the question of lowering interest rates, but I am deeply impressed with the effect of the burden of debt, whether public or corporate or private. So great is it that we must take every possible means and seize every opportunity to reduce that burden, and the best way in which we can do so if we desire to escape some form of repudiation is to reduce the rate of interest. I have never at any time, in my arguments on financial matters, given countenance to the suggestion of repudiation, but I cannot escape the conviction that we must not overlook any opportunity of beating down the rates of interest on any of these new issues. In regard to these matters, in connection with the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, if we loan them money we should try to secure the lowest rate possible, in the hope that this will have an influence on the general rate of interest for commerce and industry throughout the country as a whole.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2640	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings

[Stage Direction]
Projects Already Undertaken'-Public Buildings Nova Scotia
Amherst-new public building, $26,500.
Halifax-new public building, $901,000.
Mahone Bay-public building, $2,000.
Shelburne public building - repairs and improvements, $4,000.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: This item covers expenditures in
Nova Scotia, on projects already undertaken in that province.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These items, four in
number, will all be found in the schedule to the Public Works Construction Act of 1934 or, possibly, some supplementary contributions in the act of 1935. That brings up again the same point, as to why we are here voting money which we have already voted and appropriated to a particular purpose, respecting items already allocated and gone over in detail. I wonder whether the minister can throw any additional light on that unusual and confusing situation. So far I have not been able to get much light.
Mr. 'CARDIN:	I cannot say much more
than was said on the subject when it was previously discussed. Of course the only justification would be to give a little more detail as to the expenditure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The details were given
in the first instance in respect to each building. I assume these items are amounts still to be expended; is that right?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick
Centreville-customs building on boundary, $12,160.
Fredericton - entomological laboratories,
[Stage Direction]
Moncton-public building, $44,500.
St. Stephen-building for customs and immigration purposes, $137,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is for New Brunswick, and the same explanation applies. It covers projects already undertaken, already under way, and authorized under the Public Works Construction Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Am I right in supposing
that the sums here appropriated are to cover the balance which is required to complete the work, the balance of the original items which had net been expended prior to the time that this estimate was made up?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Exactly.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister be
without money required if this were not passed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, unless we took advantage of the Public Works Construction Acts of 1934 and 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is under the Public
Works Construction Act that all payments have been approved by the auditor general.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec
Brownsburg-public building, $12,000.
Cantic - building for immigration and customs purposes, $16,500.
Coatieook public building - addition and improvements, $8,500.
Farnham-public building, $68,000.
Montreal-public building, addition and alterations, $540,000.
Montreal-postal terminal building, $430,000.
Quebec West-public building, $11,500.
Rouyn-public building, $10,000.
Valois

public building, $5,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same explanation
applies to this item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As we go on, would
the minister be good enough, if the circumstances are different from, those he has explained, to call the fact to the attention of the committee? I am not in a very good position to oppose these items, having put them through the house, and this being the balance required to complete the work on buildings which were authorized under the Public Works Construction Act. If that is true all the way through I have not much to say about them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Blackwell-onion warehouse, $14,250.
Bradford-public building, $11,500.
Cobalt-public building, $54,000.
Cochrane-public building. $54,000.
Fort William-public building, $4,000.
Galt-public building, $40,000.
Guelph-new public building. $23,000.
Guelph-public building, $30,000.
Hamilton-public building, $715,000.
London-public building, $445,000.
New Toronto-oublic building, $8,000.
Ottawa-central experimental farm-administration building, $33,000.
Ottawa-central experimental farm-storage building (cereal division), $1,500.
Ottawa - National Research buildings - improvements, $57,500.
Ottawa-postal terminal building, $410,000.
Ottawa-record storage building. $450,000.
Ottawa-Justice building, $525,000.
Ottawa-Royal Canadian Mint, $83,000.
St. Catharines.- public building - additions and alterations, $13,000.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
Thorold-public building, $3,500.
Toronto-new postal station " D," $29,000.
Toronto-customs building, $75,000.
Trenton - public building - alterations and
additions, $4,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is always pleasing to have hon. gentlemen opposite supporting what they so vehemently opposed a year ago.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We live and learn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia
Huntingdon-building for immigration and customs purposes, $4,500.
Pacific highway-building for customs and immigration purposes, $29,000.
Vancouver-public building, $960,000.
Vernon - public building - alterations and improvements, $3,500-Total, $997,000.
Mr. BARBER:: I understand that this building at Huntingdon, British Columbia, was completed some time ago. Does that mean that this amount is still due by way of payment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $4,500 is to provide for the fittings in the building.


Harry James Barber: What is the total cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The probable total cost is $19,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
HABBOUBS AND BIVEBS Nova Scotia
Avonport-repairs to roadway and wharf. $2,500.
Barrington passage-wharf repairs, $600.
Big Island (Merigamish)-wharf, $800.
Boulardarie Centre-repairs to wharf and road approach, $600.
Brooklyn-breakwater extension, $40,000.
Brule-wharf repairs, $2,600.
Burke's Head (north Ingonish) - wharf repairs, $7,000.
Carr's Brook-wharf repairs, $4,500.
Chester Ironbound-breakwater, $6,100.
Chetieamp-dredging, $40,000.
Church Point-groynes, $1,600.
Dingwall-dredging, $2,000.
East River-dredging, $30,200.
Finlay Point-dredging, $600.
Five islands-wharf and vessel bed repairs, $3,000.
Flat Mud island-breakwater, $2,300.
Framboise-breakwater, $800.
Iona-wharf repairs, $800.
Jordan ferry-breakwater, $900.
Little Harbour-roadway	with cribwork
retaining wall, $1,000.
Lockeport-breakwater, $22,000.
Long Pond-dredging, $1,000.
Lower Jordan bay-hand dredging, $700.
Malagash-wharf extension, $6,100.
Neil's Harbour-breakwater repairs, $7,500.
North Ingonish, McLeod's cove-breakwater repairs, $3,400.
Pictou island-dredging. $2,700.
Port Hood-closing northern entrance, $2,200.
Port Medway-breakwater extension, $2,000.
Port Mouton-dredging. $10,500.
Pugwash - wharf extension and repairs, $26,500.
Scotch cove-breakwater repairs, $19,000.
Swin's Point-wharf repairs, $1,000.
Trout cove-breakwater repairs, $1,400.
Wadden's cove-hoisting equipment, $700.
West Advocate - breakwater improvements, $3,000.
Wreck cove-pier, $1,700.
Yarmouth harbour - sweeping, to complete, $1,000.
Purchase of creosoted materials for district No. 1, Halifax, $5,000.
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500, $10,000.
Grote Stirling: Is that in the same position?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same explanation
applies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Edward Island
Annandale-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Georgetown-repairs to warehouse flooring, $5,000.
Lower Montague-wharf repairs, $600.
Montague river-dredging, $7,700.
St. Mary's bay-dredging, $25,900.
Rocky point-breakwater repairs, $4,300.
Tignish-beach protection, $800.
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500, $1,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same is true of this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick
Cape Bald-dredging, $5,000.
Escuminac-breakwater extension, $23,100.
Indian island-wharf, $2,700.
St. Thomas (Cocagne bar)-bridge reconstruction, $1,500.
Shippigan-dredging-repairs to dredge No. 4, $1,900.
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500, $3,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The explanation is the same


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec
Anse St. Jean-wharf repairs, $7,600. Berthierville-dredging, $12,000.
Bonaventure-wharf repairs, $1,500. Bromptonville - protection work repairs, $1,400.
Cap aux Meules, M.I.-wharf reconstruction and improvements. $81,300.
Cap aux Os (The Gulch)-landing. $3,300. Chambly basin-protection wall, $21,000. Chateauguay river-concrete dam, $9,100. Dundee-dredging. $7,400.
Ferme Neuve-protection work. $2,500. Grande Riviere-rebuilding wharf, $25,400.
2642	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours
Grand Ruisseau-completion of approach,
[Stage Direction]
He du Pads-wharf, $800.
Laeolle river-survey and dredging, $7,300.
Laval sur le Lac-dredging, $5,200.
Norton creek-improvements, $3,000.
Petite Riviere au Renard-extension of south jetty, $10,300.
Petite Riviere Est-construction of fishing harbour, $42,000.
Pointe au Pic (Murray Bay)-wharf extension, $1,400.
Portage du Cap-dredging and repairs to sand pump, $1,600.
Richmond-protection wall, $6,500.
Riviere Ouelle-wharf reconstruction, $23,500.
Riviere St. Francois-dredging. $39,000.
Ruisseau LeBlanc-dredging, $24,000.
St. Bartlielemi-dredging, $1,400.
Ste. Anne du Lae-wharf, $2,200.
Ste. Genevieve-dredging, $4,700.
St. Romuald-protection wall, $3,700.
Sorel-dredging, $41,000.
Sorel-repairs to wharf, $11,500.
Tobin-wharf, $12,000.
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500, $3,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same explanation
applies. They are all covered by the Public Works Construction Act, 1934 and 1935.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Byng inlet-dredging, $43,400.
Gananoque-dredging, Clarence street wharf, $3,680.
Green island-dredging, $1,400.
Hudson-construction of scow for aeroplane landing, $710.
Keewatin-wharf reconstruction, $5,660.
Michipicoten river-wharf extension, $2,000.
Parry Sound (two, five and seven mile narrows)-dredging, $12,800.
Penetanguishene-wharf extension, $7,850.
Port Elgin-dredging, $15,000.
Port McDiarmid-breakwater, $13,050.
Rondeau-east pier reconstruction, $4,400.
Sault Ste. Marie-dredging, $6,800.
South Bay mouth-property acquisition and legal services, $980.
Tiffin (Midland)-dredging, $16,000.
Toronto-completion of ship channel walls, $144,000.
Toronto-new	dock at marginal way,
[Stage Direction]
Toronto-tunnel, $127,800.
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500, $3,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same is true of this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manitoba
Dredge Winnipegosis - transferring machinery, $800.
Selkirk-bridge over Red river, $146,000.
Wanipigow river-operation and repairs to dredge " 202," $1,900.
(Mr. Cardia.]
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500, $1,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan
Bridge at Ceepee, $240,000.
Outlook - bridge across the south Saskatchewan river, $186,600.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta
Lac la Biehe-breakwater, $3,900.
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500, $1,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northwest Territories
Fort Resolution-breakwater wharf extension and repairs, $45,000.
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500, $1,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: "To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one work not to exceed $500." That is the new item, is it not, or is it part of the old one? It is carried anyway.
British Columbia
Columbia river narrows - dredge Arrow Lakes-maintenance and operation, $800.
Courtenay river-protection work replacement, $5,700.
Esquimalt dry dock-completion of fill behind wharf, $1,100.
Fraser river-improvements, $211,700.
George harbour-float and approach, $2,500.
Gowland harbour-float and approach, $4,200.
Kelowna-breakwater, $4,000.
Kingcome inlet-float and freight shed,

Nanaimo assembly wharf-travelling crane, $27,500.
Naramata-breakwater, $2,500.
New Westminster-fisheries station, $11,500.
Okanagan lake-survey, $1,000.
Port Alberni assembly wharf-improvements, $5,300.
Shalalth-floating landing, $5,200.
Prince Rupert-improvements, $18,400.
Sidney-float extension, $1,000.
Sidney-breakwater repairs, $7,200.
Taku river-improvements, $1,000.
Tachi river-improvement of Grand and Austin rapids, $600.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
To provide for completion of works already undertaken, the amount allocated to any one
work not to exceed $500, $1,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Projects already undertaken; that is the same.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Has that travelling crane been already supplied to the Nanaimo wharf?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract has been
awarded, but the work is not done yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generally
Harbours and rivers generally-surveys and inspections in connection with above mentioned works, $31,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-additional staff, $75,000.
To provide for balance required to complete any of the above projects, no new works to be undertaken, $200,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a special item, is it not, this $75,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may say that the staff we had under the Public Works Construction Acts of 1934 and 1935 were discharged on March 31, and this item provides for the staff that will be necessary to carry on these undertakings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under what item was the staff paid the year before?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was paid from the general items, Nos. 9 and 10.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What were the amounts of those items?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They amounted to $2,400,000 and $4,000,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Those were comprehensive items, not just for the staff.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that they were general items, including the staff, and that they covered both harbours and rivers and public buildings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is the item intended for harbours and rivers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount covers the
expense of an additional staff for public buildings, as well as harbours and rivers. It applies to all projects already undertaken.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It seems to me that the staff should not be large in view of the fact that most of these works have been completed. I do not know exactly what would
be the advantage in discharging the whole staff and engaging a new one, but possibly the minister can explain that. I should imagine the old staff would be familiar with the work being carried on, and the new stafi would not.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is not exactly correct to say that most of the work has been completed. We still have to expend, on projects already undertaken, a total of about $9,000,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But the plans must be all prepared and the work under way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it might be well if the minister would take the committee into his confidence and say that he just got rid of all the employees as of March 31 in order that he might employ those of his own political faith and thereby find it possible to give some realization to the insistent demands of his supporters that provision should be made for them. I had occasion the other day to give the minister some evidence in that connection. Notices were sent out, but on inquiry it would seem that the pressure was too insistent, and the notice had to be made effective at an earlier date than was expected; the poor unfortunates had to leave employment in order that those who had voted right in October last might find employment. If the minister makes that frank statement to the committee I am sure it will be appreciated, because it happens to be in accordance with the facts.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid my right hon. friend exaggerates my ability to see things so far in advance. That was not the idea. The idea was to get rid of the staff as of March 31 because we did not want to continue in effect the Public Works Construction Acts of 1934 and 1935; we wanted to have all the items listed in the estimates. I assure my right hon. friend that any request or representation he might make will receive my most careful consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any representations I
make to the Minister of Public Works are always received with the courtesy which is characteristic of him. He always gives them his best consideration, and the suavity with which he expresses his opinion is equalled only by his ability to forget that consideration does not necessarily mean to-day or to-morrow. It may mean some time in the long, long future. It is amazing how this consideration seems to get lost on the road, but there .is always the most courteous reply, always the greatest possible assurance of consideration. Alas, consideration is so long
2644	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours
delayed that very often the unfortunate person concerned becomes the subject of the funeral sermon of the minister, the parson or the clergyman, and serious consideration becomes a matter of post mortem instead of an interest in the welfare of an individual.
Seriously, however, what happened was that the department gave notice to those who were employed under the Public Works Construction Acts of 1934 and 1935 that inasmuch as probably there would be no money after March 31 their services would be dispensed with at that time. But, alas and alack, some of them had to go at the end of December, 1935. I recall some with two letters, one from their chief giving them notice that their services would not be required after the end of March. They were making their arrangements accordingly, but along about Christmas, as a reminder of the season and of the bounties of providence intended for others, they were told that they would have to leave at the end of the year. When I pressed the minister for the reason he was good enough to explain frankly that their employment by the crown was during pleasure, as I well realized. He said, of course I would know that, and he was quite right; I did. Later on, not in connection with this item but when the main estimates are under consideration, I am going to deal with the matter far more seriously, because I realize that the .minister has to yield to the pressure of those who are insistent that their friends should find employment. I have seen enough of public life to know that this is one of the evils or virtues of public life, that those who are able to secure sufficient assistance from their friends very often find themselves in positions which otherwise would not be given them. But when a member of parliament signs his name to a document saying that of his own personal knowledge he knows that a man has been guilty of partisanship, when he did not know the man at all, and the minister to whom that letter was sent dismissed the man, I think we shall have to have a much more serious discussion of the subject than this pleasant little interlude between the minister and myself. I have seen enough to know that the hardships of life are not much considered when it comes down to a question of yielding to the demands that are made by members of parliament upon their ministers.
I have a few instances which at the appropriate time I propose to give the house. Sometimes the son has suffered for the political sins of the father; sometimes the father has suffered for the sins of the son. The case I have in mind affects a far more

serious principle, one which was discussed in this house some years ago by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and which involved one minister giving effect to a recommendation made by another minister. The Minister of Trade and Commerce of that time felt that he was in duty bound to give effect to the recommendation of his then colleague in the government. This is not the case of a colleague; this is the case of a member of parliament writing a letter-the return has been brought down-in which he pledges his word, which, of course, means a matter of honour, that this man was a partisan. As a matter of fact he is not even acquainted with the man. The person in question has pledged his oath that he has never taken any part in politics. He was appointed in 1915, and he is a man of family. Now he is thrown out on the street, without having an opportunity to be heard or to say a word in his own defence, because a member of parliament has pledged his honour-for that is what is involved-that this man was a partisan. Later on we shall have to discuss that matter, with the names and all details, but I think it would be unfair to discuss it on this item.
I desire, however, to point out that it would foe much better if the minister would say frankly: This sum for salaries is the pork barrel provided for our friends who will take the places of your friends, and we trust there will be an extended program and a greater demand for services and more people employed than at present, and we hope that this summer this $200,000 odd will be sufficient to recompense them for their toil and the services they render to the state in their new status.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was profoundly touched and very much pleased by the kind words of the leader of the opposition in the first part of his observations, but he has been spoiling my pleasure and satisfaction in the latter part. I would not like to ask the right hon. gentleman for any details-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will get them.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: but as far as I am concerned in regard to the projected accusation that he has just mentioned I can plead not guilty. As far as giving some consideration to the claims which are being put up to me by friends of mine or of my party, well, I have been long enough in politics and I know enough of humanity, I think, to say that, if this is a fault, to a certain extent I am guilty, but I am not alone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We all try to do the best that we can. Speaking personally, I think that if my humble record were searched no injustice would be found to have been perpetrated on account of my political partisanship. In my own locality I am known-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And highly respected.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: -and I receive the very opposite criticism from that which has just been made by the leader of the opposition. I am criticized for not being severe enough to those who may have offended the feelings and sentiments of my partisans. At all events I repeat that if there is any case which my right hon. friend can make against me for any injustice I stand ready to correct it, because I understand the sufferings of poor people and I have always done all I can to help anybody, whatever his party spirit. But I plead guilty that, like all other politicians on both sides of the house, I am a little more sympathetic, when the law permits it, to those who have been working for my party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement made by the minister is an eminently fair one. He says that he is doing the best he can for everyone but he cannot overlook the claims of his partisans. That is a fair statement and one which I suggest he might have made at the very start, as to what is really covered by this item. That is the real truth about it; it is a pork barrel item and has to be taken care of. I will say this, that the hon. gentleman has a most sympathetic heart and his feelings find expression in the writing of the most courteous and kindly letters it would be possible for anyone to write, and that the action which is sometimes harsh and the subject of criticism is taken never by himself but by others. It would be impossible for him; his feelings would be so harassed and upset by such a thing that he could not contemplate it without emotion.


Mr. MacLENNAN:: In regard to the nice words spoken by the leader of the opposition of the Minister of Public Works, I read in the paper yesterday that the leader of the opposition was the most distinguished looking man in the house. I must say that this is the first time I have seen him smile continuously for a minute or two, but seeing him smile it seems to me that he is not only the most distinguished but the most handsome man.
It is a serious matter for a member of parliament to say that to his personal knowledge an officer has been guilty of political partisanship. My constituency is over three hundred miles long. I know that some of the office holders there were active in politics;
I am sure of it, but I cannot say it of my own personal knowledge. While I do not wish to say anything here to discredit my predecessor, I may tell the committee that on one sheet of paper he placed the names of twenty-seven office holders who, he declared, were guilty of political partisanship, and they were beheaded forthwith. I do not want to follow that up at all, but the party on my immediate left really ought to practise what they now preach. I am not a bit averse to the Minister of Public Works starting now to scrutinize very carefully the representations of members of parliament who say that they know of their personal knowledge that dozens and dozens of office holders are active partisans. I assure him and this committee that when I say that an office holder has been active in politics when he should not be, I shall be very sure of my ground and I shall not submit any names to him except those that I am sure of from personal knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Other Projects-Public Buildings Nova Scotia
Guysboro public building - alterations and improvements, $2,500.
Halifax customs building

repairs and improvements, $7,700.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the minister ought to give the committee information in connection with these items, because they are new. The observation that I wish to make about the items which follow is this: They would appear to be of a class which should appear in the regular estimates. I see no reason why they should be in special supplementary estimates. With equal propriety they might have been included in the main estimates of the department or the supplementary estimates.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As regards the first item, for Guysboro public building, this amount is required for alterations and improvements to the postal facilities in the public building there, requested by Mr. Underwood, chief superintendent of post office services.
The second item is for repairs and improvements in the Halifax customs building, asked by the commissioner of customs. Whether these items should have been in the main estimates or in these supplementary estimates is a matter of opinion, but I suppose that on a number of the - items designated "other projects" the information was not complete in the department when the main estimates were prepared. There is no doubt
2646	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
that a certain number of items which we shall find on going through the list could very properly have been included in the main estimates, but at the time we had not all the details necessary.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the minister tell the committee the amount of the main estimates for public works this year, and the amount in the main and supplementary estimates of last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The main estimates amount to $13,411,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is for this current
year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What about last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Last year it was $14,530,320 in the main estimates, and in the supplementary estimates for the year 1935-36 the amount was $2,906,150. This gives a total of $17,436,470, outside the Public Works Construction Act. Under that act the amount was $7,892,243.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I take it that would
make the $24,000,000 provided last year in the main and supplementary estimates and the Public Works Construction Act.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For work .to be undertaken by the Department of Public Works?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I must correct a statement I made a moment ago. The amount of about $7,000,000 is for expenditures under the Public Works Construction Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister tell
the committee in round figures the amount of the vote under the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1936, that was allocated to the Department of Public Works? I am trying to get tihe total amount of expenditures through the Department of Public Works last year. In the main and supplementary estimates I take it that .the amount was about $17,000,000, and under the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act a certain amount was assigned to that department; I have forgotten how much.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that it
was $15,000,000 in 1936 and $26,000,000 in 1934.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister refer
to the total of all?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; I am informed that
the total was $26,000,000 in 1934 and $15,000,000 in 1935.
IMr. Cardin.]


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That $26,000,000 does
not include the amount under the Public Works Construction Act, 1934?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount must refer
to expenditures.
Mr. CARDIN,- No, that is the Public Works Construction Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It must be expenditures.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that this
is the share received by the Department of Public Works under the Public Works Construction Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister give
me the total for 1934? I do not want details. I should like the figure to include everything, main and supplementary estimates, and the Public Works Construction Act.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1934 the total ordinary
appropriation for the Department of Public Works amounted to $10,240,080. In the same year the amount allotted to the department under the Public Works Construction Act was $26,476,444.96. In 1935, out of the amount voted the amount allotted to the Department of Public Works was $7,892,243. So the total amount allotted to the department was $34,368,688.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is the information
I wanted. Could the minister supplement it by giving the committee the total amount that goes to the Department of Public Works this year? He has said that the main estimates amount to $13,411,000. Would he tell the committee what amount of new work is included in the estimates he has submitted? Possibly we could have the corresponding total for the current year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Under projects already
undertaken, which we have just passed, the amount is $9,615,930, and those which we are considering presently amount to 85340,655. We have the main estimates of about $13,411,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I take it that for the
current year provision is being made for expenditures on new projects, through the Department of Public Works, of about $19,000,000, $13,000,000 of which is in the main estimates and the remaining sum in the new projects now before us. In 1935 the amount placed at the disposal of the department, through the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, was $34,000,000, and in 1934 it was $36,000,000. Therefore, notwithstanding the demand in the current year for relief of

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
unemployment through expenditures on public works, the amount of new money [DOT] or new appropriations is substantially less than it was in the last two years. We have to deduct the appropriation made in prior years under the Public Works Construction Act of 1934 and the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act of 1935.
That brings me to the same position I have taken several times in committee, namely that the summary at the back indicates that in these estimates there is provision for an expenditure of 8124,748,743.42. If we take the 830,418,341.66 shown in the summary for projects already undertaken, and the deficit of the Canadian National Railways, which has never before appeared in the estimates, the result will be to reduce substantially what appears to be the appropriation of the government this year for the relief of unemployment by means of public works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-Cap de la Madeleine-public building, $49,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was there not some provision for this building in the estimates prior to this?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If it was provided for previously under the act, why is it inserted in these special supplementaries as another project, as if it were a new undertaking?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They want to spend twice as much money.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The money was provided for but the building was not proceeded with. That is why the amount is repeated here. There was some difficulty with the tenders as the lowest tenderer did not send his *certified cheque as required by the regulations of the department. He was asked to have his cheque accepted by the bank but he never came through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He must have been a Conservative.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister will clear up this matter if he will just tell the committee whether this item was in the main or supplementary estimates of last year or under the Public Works Construction Act. I think it was in the estimates and, if so, it would lapse and would be properly in these 12739-169
items. If it had appeared in the main estimates there would be a revote. It should appear as a revote instead of as a new project.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is practically a revote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason why it should not be in the supplementary estimates.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There was an appropriation for this building in the estimates of 1935-36.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggest that the proper place for this is in the main or supplementary estimates of this year. It should not be placed in the special supplementary estimates for the relief of unemployment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Belleville-building for entomological branch, $5,000.
Burlington-public building, $23,000.
Kingsville-public building, $11,500.
Mildmay-public building, $10,000.
Ottawa Connaught building - alterations, $16,600.
Ottawa East block-improvements and reconstruction, $250,000.
Ottawa forest products laboratory-improvements, $15,000.
Ottawa parliament building, $15,000.
Ottawa Victoria Memorial Museum-improvements, $17,000.
Ottawa West block-improvements, $23,500.
Toronto post office-fittings and alterations, $13,000.
Toronto-postal station "K", $172,000.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister explain what he proposes to do to the East block upon which there is to be an expenditure of $250,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will tell the committee quite frankly that we are not in a position to state exactly what work will be undertaken. I do not know if other hon. members of the committee are aware of the condition of this building-I know I was not until informed by the officers of the department-but the fact is that the roof, being constructed of wood, is a bad fire hazard. The employees of the Department of Finance are working in inadequate quarters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the Department of External Affairs.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A fire would probably
destroy that part of the building and endanger the lives of the employees. The building is to be surveyed by the engineers of the department, and it is hard to estimate



Supply-Public Works

Buildings
in advance just what reconstruction will have to take place. The idea is to make the roof as fire-proof as possible. It would be very expensive to make the whole building absolutely fire-proof, but I am advised that the roof and certain other portions of the building occupied by the Department of Finance and the Department of External Affairs can be made fire-proof.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an important
building as it contains the vaults of the Department of Finance which, until recently, contained, and, I dare say, at the present time, contains the gold of the country. I think that part of the building may be said to be safe, but the upper storey is not. The roof is constructed of consumable material and I think the danger is very great. My own observations, coupled with what I was told, have led me to believe that it might be possible to make the building fairly fireproof. It will be recalled that a floor was put in some years ago and that the government of 191il-17 put in a sprinkler system. The battleship linoleum laid on the floor makes that part of the building fairly safe, but the wooden partitions are dangerous. It might be possible to put in a steel frame as was done in Westminster Hall, to relieve the present partitions of any strain, but it might not be possible to do that without practically tearing down the whole building. I think something should be done to make the building safe. I believe the employees could escape in case of fire as the building is not too high, but some of the records in the building are invaluable. I understand the Department of Justice is to vacate the building for another one, and it might be possible gradually to substitute steel girders for the wooden partitions which now exist. I know this would be an expensive process, but I know the minister well enough to realize that he would enjoy having to carry on a more expensive pro,gram. In that way more people could be employed and greater relief given to unemployment. I believe that would be entirely satisfactory to him.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Is that a compliment or
a criticism?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Provided always the
members from Ottawa were able to give the necessary recommendations.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Birdie Louise Coleman Wilson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Solomon Hyman, otherwise known as Saul or Sam Hyman.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Lewis Gould. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Hyman Stot-land.-Mr. Hanson.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reid for the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: When this bill was last before the
house I was trying to explain, when the hour for private bills expired, the purpose of the act and the reasons for the regulations complained of by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). That purpose is to prohibit by statutory enactment fishing with seine boats in a certain area at the mouth of the Fraser river in the bay of Georgia. Under the Fisheries Act the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries, may approve regulations permitting such fishing in that area. This bill is to prevent such permission being given either by order in council or by the Minister of Fisheries.
The regulation authorizing this mode of fishing came into force in 1933, the year following the adoption by order in council of regulations with regard to the inspection of canned salmon on the British Columbia coast. It has been alleged that these regulations for the sanctioning by order in council of this mode of fishing were passed for the purpose of favouring a particular class, namely, the canners. As I have already said, I cannot judge the motives which inspired those who were responsible for the legislation, but I said and I repeat now that I cannot believe they were actuated by such motives. It seems that the regulation permitting this manner of fishing in the area in question was passed solely for the purpose of assisting a class of fishermen who otherwise would not have derived any great benefit from the catch of the late run of salmon in these

Fisheries Act-Mr. Michaud
waters towards the end of September and in October every odd year. That is the late run of sockeye salmon in the fall.
It is admitted by some, at least, that during the late summer, the end of August and the early fall in every odd year, there is a class of fish which come up the Fraser river for the purpose of spawning along the upper regions of that river, and before they reach the mouth of the river, while they are still in sea water, they are in such a condition that they can be caught and properly packed, provided they are properly graded later. The Americans, who are permitted to fish with seines and seine boats up to the imaginary boundary line in the gulf of Georgia, derive great profits from that mode of fishing, and if it were thought advisable to allow our Canadian fishermen to derive the same benefit, obvious advantages would result. A certain area has been mapped out and is well known to those familiar with conditions on the coast, and since 1933, on two occasions, as I am informed, fishermen of that region derived monetary benefits from large hauls of that fish, which, when caught with seines in the cold salt water, were packed, graded mostly to standard, and put on the market, to the profit of both fishermen and canners. I could give figures as to the quantities caught, but my hon. friend the member for New Westminster put on the record the other evening certain figures which are correct and which show the value to these people of being allowed to catch that fish at that time of the year.
As I said before, this regulation was passed and made it possible, in view of previous regulations of the year 1932, to inspect the fish when packed, and it was possible to detect in some degree whether the fish caught in the fall was then in marketable condition.
The privileges set forth in this regulation can be availed of only in every other year. This year, I understand, there will be no fall run of pink or sockeye, so the regulation will have no application in 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a fact, is it?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is what is reported by the officers of the department. In making that statement I rely on their report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I believe that all the salmon caught either with seine or with gill nets at that period of the year is Canada first grade or extra good quality. From information available to the department it seems that it is only the fish caught in cold, 12739-160i
salt or sea water that comes up to grade 1 or grade A or Canada first, as it may be called, and can go on the market as such. The 'house will readily understand that it is of great benefit to the fishermen to obtain the fish in that condition, because if they do not catch it with seines it gets into warmer water, where it can be caught with gill nets, but it is not as firm, as hard, or as good as when caught right in the sea. Further, under those circumstances our fishermen are not on the same footing or enjoying the same advantages as are the American fishermen, who are privileged to catch the fish while it is in colder and salter water.
It is possible that the area over which these people are permitted to fish with seines is too large, and that over part of it the gill netters could catch the same quantity of fish. If it is found that this regulation is detrimental tc the interests of some class of people on the coast there is no question but that it will be. revised. But before doing so, I submit, the department will need a more careful investigation of local conditions. It is possible that for the year 1937 the extent of the area to be reduced could be limited only to that part of the water at the mouth of the Fraser river and in the gulf of Georgia which extends between the boundary line across the gulf and, say to Lulu island on one side, and to Galiano or to Valdes island on the other. In this way we could reduce by about fifty per cent the area, limiting it only to that area which is covered by clear, cold, salt sea water, limiting it to the area close to the boundary line where our competitors can avail themselves of a privilege which we are trying to deny to our British Columbia fishermen. If the house think that they should enjoin the minister or the governor in council to prohibit by law this mode of fishing, I submit that, from all the information which is before us, we do not think this would be in the best interests of the fishermen themselves. It might enable them to catch the same quantity of fish in the fall, but it would certainly not enable them to catch the fish in as good a condition as they can do by means of seines further down in the gulf, and so would deprive them of the privilege of competing with American fishermen just across the line.
I can assure the house that these regulations are not continued or enforced with a view of hurting any class or unduly benefiting any other class of persons interested in the fisheries of British Columbia. As far as the department is concerned the fishermen have to be protected. I believe that the interests of the canners are just as much the interests of the gill net fishermen as of the seine net fishermen.
Fisheries Act-Mr. Michaud

After all, if the fish is not good and in first class condition the canners will not pay the highest price for it; they may not can it, or if they do it will be classified, on inspection, as grade 2 salmon, of a lower quality. Thus, I believe, the interests of those whom we are trying to protect by this legislation would be injuriously affected.
I submit to my hon. friend that before revoking the power which has been given and before prohibiting this mode of fishing, we should give some consideration to the effect this would have on our trade, as well as to the effect on the fishermen themselves. It may be that if they were not allowed to catch that special class of salmon with gill nets, we would have either to prohibit the late fishing of salmon, as was the case years ago, or to make more stringent regulations regarding inspection, and brand as inferior salmon caught at the mouth of the Fraser river. I submit that either of these alternatives would be more injurious to those fishermen than to regulate their mode of fishing, even though some of them are not privileged to catch as much as are the others. Therefore I submit that my hon. friend should wait another year before seeking to repeal this regulation. In the meantime the department will 1-ook into the matter; we will make a special study of conditions, and if we find that for the protection of the industry it is necessary to do away with this regulation we certainly will repeal it without hesitation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I must say to my hon. friend sponsoring this bill (Mr. Reid) that I do not see my way clear to support the measure at this time. Knowing as I do how earnest he is in his views on this matter, this adds to my regret, and I may say if I felt that his apprehensions with regard to the injury to the gill net fishermen were well founded I certainly would support him. However I think he is perhaps unduly alarmed in that respect and their interests will not be affected nearly as seriously as he apprehends. Indeed, I question if they will be affected at all, if the seining operations are kept at a reasonable distance away from the mouth of the river.
Let me indicate why I believe that to be true. It is of course known to all, and it should be remembered, that at one time the Fraser river was one of the most marvellous salmon rivers in the world. I can recall that when I first went to British Columbia, now forty-two years ago, the run of salmon up the Fraser was such that if one were to tell what one had seen he would be branded as

the champion liar of the fishing season. So I shall not risk my reputation by indicating what I have actually seen, not only at the mouth of the Fraser river but hundreds of miles up in the interior, on the tributaries of that great river. It will be recalled also, however, that one of the most severe blows to fishing on the Fraser river was occasioned by the construction of the Canadian Northern railway, as it was then called. While this work was proceeding down the Fraser canyon the side of a mountain was blasted out, and a huge quantity of rock fell into the river, literally blocking the gorge in such a manner that salmon were very seriously impeded; in fact it threatened the extinction of salmon fishing on the Fraser river. Then, at considerable cost-I think almost wholly to the government, though part of it may have been borne by the railway-steps were taken, in order to give the fish freer passage, to remove this slide or to minimize the damage that had been done. Since then, fishing on the Fraser river has substantially improved, though of course it is still pitifully low in comparison with what it used to be.
Another point to be borne in mind is this: The salmon runs that come up the Fraser very largely enter

I am not going to be dogmatic about this-through the strait of Juan de Fuca,' come up through the gulf of Georgia and strike the mainland coast below the boundary, on the Washington side. Then they come up the coast and go up the Skagit and other smaller rivers emptying into the gulf, and into the mouth of the Fraser, and of course some of them go further up. Along through that area there are quite extensive shallows, and the fish like to hover round th-ose shallows for a few days before proceeding up the river. That, I think, is the habit of the salmon as far as that is concerned.
For many years the Americans have allowed fishing out in the gulf with those great purse seines described by the hon. member for New Westminster the other evening. These very numerous vessels of United States registry would go into the gulf and, as indicated the other night, sight the schools of fish coming in and catch very large quantities of them. On the Canadian side we did not allow seining. For many years this question has been before each succeeding government, but seining was not allowed until very recently, within the last couple of years; I have forgotten the exact date. I see no reason at all why we should not permit purse seine fishing on the Canadian side providing it is kept at a considerable distance from the mouth of the Fraser river.

Fisheries Act-Mr. Stevens
I hope the minister will uccept what I have to say in a kindly way if I differ with him on one or two minor points, because it is not reasonable to expect him to be completely familiar with all the details, and particularly with the geography of the country. The minister mentioned that if the area were restricted by a line drawn from Lulu island across to Galiano island, and so on, it would keep purse seines far enough back. I submit, however, that this would not be the case, because Lulu island is the delta of the Fraser river. One arm of the river runs out to the north and the other main arm runs to the south. Certainly I believe purse seine fishing should be kept beyond some point very much further out than that. I would suggest that the line should be drawn three, four or possibly five miles out, because the flats or shallows run out for a considerable distance, and no purse seine fishing should be allowed there.
My hon. friend in his bill has indicated a certain area, running I think directly west from Point Grey-he will correct me if I am not describing this correctly-to the northern end of Galiano island and thence southwesterly, I suppose, to the international boundary, the outer range light, which, I assume, is the one on the westerly side of the gulf of Georgia where it intersects the international boundary on the westerly side of the gulf, thence back to the point of commencement. The area so described means taking in the whole of the gulf between the islands on the west and the mainland south of that line. So, instead of that, I suggest -that if purse seine fishing were prohibited within a certain distance, say five miles, of the mainland and the Lulu island shore line at the mouth of the Fraser, and permitted out in the gulf beyond that, I do not think any injury would be done to the gill net fishermen. The gill net fishermen fish largely in and off the mouth of the Fraser, over the sand shallows along the coast and up the river. I do not think there is much gill net fishing far out in the gulf, so that I see no particular damage to be done to the gill net fishermen if purse seine fishing were limited in that way.
I regret the frequent attacks which are made upon the officers of the Department of Fisheries. We may differ in opinion regarding the policy followed by the department; I see ample room for that, but it is unfortunate that officers of the department should be in a sense held responsible for the policies adopted. It is true that these officials advise the minister, but I would remind hon. members who are prone to be bitterly critical of them, that we members of parliament have ample opportunity to present any views we
may hold which conflict with those advanced by officers of the department. It is a mistake publicly to denounce these officials, because during the twenty-five years that I have been in parliament-and I think some of them have been in the department during almost that whole period-I have always found them extremely careful men who used their best judgment. I have heard it stated that they are unduly influenced by the canning interests, but I do not think that is the case. I cannot recall in my memory of the record of the department that these officials have been unduly influenced by the canners. I know that the canners have frequently advanced views which were peculiarly in their own interests and which conflicted with those of the fishermen. That, of course, is to be expected, but I believe that the department generally, speaking through its permanent officials, has been reasonably impartial in that respect. I know there are hon. members who will differ perhaps sharply from this statement, but that is my view based upon considerable experience with the department. So I believe, not that the officials are infallible, but that their advice might very well be followed in this matter, particularly in view of the fact that the fishing is of a kind which will not seriously compete with or affect the gill net fishermen.
There is another point, which again I think is a question of fact. It has been stated positively that fish caught in the purse seines are damaged; I think some claim that they become smothered in the mass that naturally is drawn together when the seine is pursed and ready for lifting. I do not profess to have expert knowledge, but I have some familiarity with the matter and my impression is just the contrary. There might occasionally be an unusually heavy purse and some fish damaged; I think that is without doubt, but on the whole I believe that the fish caught in the purse seines would be in just as good or better condition than those caught in the gill nets, particularly if the latter were caught any distance up the river.
At this point I would like to differ in a very kindly way with the minister in his reference to the condition of fish as they are caught in the gill nets and in the purse seines. He said that there was a very great advantage in having the fish caught in clear water. There is a measure of truth in that, but I think the minister over-emphasized the point, because when the salmon come into the brackish waters, the fresh waters flowing out of the mouth of the Fraser, which by the way turn largely down the coasf^-you can easily see the line of demarcation some miles
Fisheries Act-Mr. Barber

out from the shore-the water, changed somewhat by the tide, turns southward and the salmon hover in that area. I do not think a particle of damage is done to the salmon while they are there. In fact some hold the view that the salmon improve in condition while in that area, not if they remain there long, but I believe it is not their habit to remain there very long. So I do not attach much weight to the suggestion that the fish caught in the gill nets in the mouth of the Fraser are in any sense deteriorated by their stay in that area.
Then there is the question of inspection. Here, again, I know that certain hon. members will differ sharply in opinion with me, and I respect the sincerity of their views; yet I am bound to say that careful consideration has convinced me that the system of inspection has been definitely and distinctly beneficial to Canadian interests. I had some experience in connection with exports from Canada and external trade matters, and an opportunity of discussing the subject from many angles with disinterested persons, and I am convinced that inspection is desirable and the need of it imperative. I am not saying that the present scheme of inspection is perfect, but I say that it is a very good one and I certainly do not agree with the denunciation of it that I have heard. When a certain part of a pack is discovered to be not No. 1 but grade No. 2, or some other grade, the department placed in its regulations an order that a second lid should be put on, which second lid would be stamped with the second grade mark, so as clearly to indicate it.
Then it was charged that certain exporters or those who were handling the export business, would remove that second lid and leave the can in its original condition, namely showing the No. 1 mark. Of course that is most reprehensible, and any one found to have done this should certainly be punished. It is fraud of the rankest bind, and should not be allowed under any circumstances. The minister and his department should and, I believe, could devise some method which would overcome the difficulty. I have no doubt that the question has been already considered and I hope measures have been provided to deal with it.
I wish to register definite approval of the general system of inspection, which I hope will be continued and maintained. If it can be improved or strengthened I certainly would approve any such action. Perhaps I had better put it in this way: I would urge the minister not to give way in any sense

by removing or abandoning the system of inspection or, I will put it in this way, "a" system of inspection, because I believe that inspection such as was inaugurated a few years ago is decidedly to the benefit of the export business in salmon. We must remember that a great deal of this is export business, and it is most desirable that the high standard of our salmon should be maintained.
Perhaps I might as well say, in passing, that there are many varieties of salmon packed for export and for sale, and it may well be that the department could take into consideration a clearer distinction between the different grades or types of salmon placed on the market. Sometimes there is a tendency to use a name which would indicate that the article was British Columbia salmon. While the label might not indicate that it was sockeye, it would convey the impression that it was No. 1 salmon when, as a matter of fact, it might be a very poor pink, a humpback, a cohoe or some other distinctly inferior brand. That part of the business should be carefully guarded. The high standard of British Columbia sockeye should be maintained in its integrity, at all costs.
I believe I have nothing further to say. I say to the hon. member most earnestly that I do not see my way clear to support his bill. I believe he would be well advised to accept the suggestion of the minister, let it rest for another year and give it still further consideration and study. I want him to know I am sympathetic towards the interests of his constituents, the fishermen, because they, along with other fishermen in other parts of the country, have certainly had a hard enough time. However I do not think this bill would be of any distinct advantage or help to them. It is for these reasons that I cannot support the hon. member's bill.


Harry James Barber: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) upon the moderation with which as a layman he presented his case. It was admirably presented in every way, and had he not devoted his life to acquiring skill with the bagpipes he certainly would have been an admirable legal practitioner.
I rise for only one purpose. If the statements made by the hon. member regarding the frauds practised by those who can salmon are accurate, then immediate action should be taken. That a double can should be prepared and that the methods indicated by the hon. member should be followed is a sad reflection upon this country. I stress the hope that the minister will take immediate steps to see to it that there will be no repetition of the frauds practised upon the purchasing public if-and
I put the word "if" in large letters-the facts as stated by the hon. member are correct. I am sure he stated them as he believed them, but it is difficult to think that reputable manufacturers would resort to the methods indicated for the purpose of selling their product fraudulently.
So far as the general question is concerned it is, of course, competent for the minister to recommend that the order in council be rescinded. That would end the matter, without any bill. All you have to do is stay as you were. It is satisfactory to note that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), who at the time the order in council was passed was a representative from British Columbia in the goverenment, is still of opinion that the order in council was properly passed; because as regards the passing of that order in council we relied more or less on local knowledge. The terms in which it was enacted indicate clearly the purpose which was to be accomplished. If there are any substantial reasons why the action was not warranted, then it is always open to the government, as it was to that government, to rescind1 or to repeal the order in council. But the bill proposes to accomplish something more than that. It does not propose entirely to cancel the effect of the order in council, but to some extent to modify the field of its operation.
I have no personal views with respect to the matter and I only desire to make it perfectly clear that if the facts are as stated we should not hesitate for a minute to take every possible action to prevent the continuation of such frauds upon the purchasing public.
With respect to the other matter it is always open for the government of my right hon. friend with its vast majority, to which my hon. friend sometimes refers, to accomplish his purpose without having any reference whatever to a bill in parliament, presumably like General Parkinson's reference to Disraeli, who had a resolution in his pocket but would proceed by bill if advisable. It is competent to rescind the order in council by order in council, rather than proceed by a bill.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the few minutes left before nine o'clock will not allow me to deal with all the arguments that have been advanced this evening. At the outset let me say that I appreciate very much the kind words of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett),, and I can assure him in regard to his remarks about me that if I were as good a lawyer as I am a player, I would be some lawyer.
Fisheries Act-Mr. Reid

I also appreciate the fact that the minister who is in charge of the Fisheries department (Mr. Michaud) does not know the district in question as those of us from British Columbia do, but I am pleased that he is going to go out there to look over the situation for himself, and I was glad to hear his statement that if it is found that a wrong has been done to the gill net fishermen, the regulations will be changed. I realize that close to the international boundary there is clear water, but the greater part of the area has been fished by gill net fishermen since confederation.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) referred to my attack on the officials of the department. It is true that in the House of Commons I personally have criticized the officials, but I have done so only after coming to the conclusion that their attitude was against the fishermen; at least, that is my belief. I shall give only one instance, and that is in connection with the embargo which had existed from confederation against the export of sockeye salmon from the Fraser river to the United States. When we urged in this house, and were supported by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that the embargo should be lifted and the fishermen allowed to sell their fish in the highest market, the officials said: If that happens, Gabriel might as well blow his trumpet, for all is over with the fishermen. Every time we advocated this they said that it should not be done, and that it would be just too bad for the fishing industry if it were done. Well, it was done last year and nothing serious has happened. The fisherman is still there and will be for a long time. The cannery men are still operating there even though the fishermen are allowed to ship their fish, and nothing that was predicted by the officials of the department has happened. That is why I am pleading with the minister and with this house to-night. The officials had not one good word to say on behalf of the gill net fishermen on the Fraser river when we discussed this matter in committee last year.
I might have asked the minister to accomplish by order in council the object sought by this bill, but realizing the stone wall of officialdom that we are up against, I felt that this was the proper place and this was the proper manner of proceeding in order to bring the matter forcibly before the new members of the House of Commons, and to get the matter remedied.
As I have pointed out, I have not the time this evening to refer to every argument

that has been made by the minister and by the hon. member for Kootenay East. The minister said that I had introduced four or five different subjects, but I would point out that most of them are related to the bilf under discussion. The treaty which Canada has signed but which has not yet been signed by the United States is related to sockeye salmon entering the Fraser river.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Signed but not ratified
by the senate.


Thomas Reid: Exactly. Now in regard to
quality, I notice that the director of fisheries in British Columbia stated publicly last year that the reason seines were allowed to fish there was in order that the fishermen might catch the fish in larger numbers. We know that to be the truth. We know that the seine boats had mobile traps and that they moved from one district to another, and they were largely owned by the canners, but that was not the reason given as in 1933. This was the last area precluded to them. The gill net fishermen had been fishing there ever since confederation, but after the seine fishing started there, the gill net fishermen were driven out, and not only that but other varieties of fish in those waters have been diminishing, for the seine boats catch almost everything within the school of fish.
I do not want to press this bill to a vote because, as stated, it does not affect the fishermen this year as the seines will not become operative in the area this year, but I think it is only right that the seine fishing industry should be given notice now that next year seine fishing will not be allowed in this area. I know that some seine fishing is necessary in open, clear water, but the district dealt with by this bill is the brackish water of the Fraser river. Under the circumstances, and looking for good results, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the bill at this time, in the hope and expectation that the minister will really look over the district for himself and not take too seriously what his officials tell him about the matter, and that seine fishing, if allowed in there at all, will be in very small proportion and confined as closely as possible to the international boundary. Believing that the minister will do something, under the circumstances, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission to withdraw the bill.
Bill withdrawn.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings



SUPPLY' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
['Perhaps the minister will give this item a little thought between now and next time. I have nothing more to say about it. It is opposed not because of the amount, but because of what is involved in the way of future expenditure.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
Frederick George Sanderson: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering item No. 399, public buildings in Ontario.
Ontario
Belleville-building for entomological branch, $5,000.	.	.
Burlington-public building, $23,000.
Kingsville-public building, $11,500.
Mildmay-public building. $10,000.
Ottawa Connaught	building - alterations,


Grote Stirling: I see there is an item of $15,000 for this parliament building. Would the minister explain what work is to be done here?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is to provide for carving, as requested by the chief architect of the department in a memorandum dated a few weeks ago. As the hon. gentleman and other hon. members know, there is still a large amount of carving to be done round this building. It is being done a little at a time each year, a small amount of money being placed in the estimates each year for this purpose. This will by no means complete the work, but a small amount will be undertaken this year.


Grote Stirling: For relief?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It may be for relief because the stonecutters are in very difficult circumstances.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What relation has the item of $11,500 for a public building at Kingsville to the item of $14,500 in the main estimates for a public building at Kingsville? Is this for the same building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a supplementary amount to complete the building.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has something been
added to the original plans?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would occur to me, then, that this item should properly appear under the heading of "Projects already undertaken." It is not a new project at all; it is not another project but just an amount to complete a building for which provision had been made.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that this
item was in the ordinary estimates of the department and not under the Public Works Construction Act. What comes under the title "projects already undertaken" refers to the Public Works Construction Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That leads me to the
conclusion that this ought to appear in the regular estimates or in the supplementaries instead of in a program of special supplementary estimates which are described as having been prepared for the purpose of indicating the amount that the government was making available for relief in an emergent situation. Clearty this item is out of place in a schedule such as this. As regards carving, that does not appear to be work of an emergent character or one which will greatly relieve unemployment. In years gone by we had the matter under consideration at different times and it was thought that a similar amount spent in other ways would give a larger volume of employment, though it is undoubtedly true that stonecutters, those doing work of that kind, are out of work. But what I have indicated was^ the reason no provision was made for the item earlier in the estimates. Will the minister be good enough to break up this item and indicate which are new projects and which are revotes. The Belleville public building was in the estimates last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: While the minister is
looking up the information he might answer another question. In connection with these items for Ottawa I see there are six. Will it be necessary for those who secure work on these different projects in this city to do, as the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Ahearn) indicated shortly after his election, secure a card from the Ottawa Liberal Association. It is interesting to know whether that is the system under this relief measure.


Vincent Dupuis: They are all Liberal anyway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those on relief in
Ottawa? Oh, no.


Vincent Dupuis: I have never met a Conservative in Ottawa outside this house.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In this vote the new expenditures are, first, Mildmay, in the constituency of Grey-Bruce; the East block in Ottawa, improvements and reconstruction

Supply-P ub lie Works-Buildings


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Connaught building too.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; these are alterations.
Then we have the parliament building; that is a new vote, and the Victoria Memorial Museum, improvements. That is evidently a new vote. Then there as the West block, Ottawa, improvements. These items have no connection with those under the title "projects already undertaken." With regard to the question asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) in all probability-in fact-the recommendations of the hon. members for Ottawa will be considered. There is nothing unusual about that; it is a practice that has prevailed for years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in connection with
relief.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Other representations also
will receive proper consideration in due time.


Mr. SPENCE:: I suggest that the minister should withdraw this item of $15,000. Of course, it is not worth while talking about $15,000 here, for every item ranges from $200,000 to $1,000,000, and so on. I submit, however, that $15,000 could be saved in connection with carving in this house. Go into the lobby and look at the carving; it is spoiling good stone and is a waste of money.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I might be inclined to
agree with the hon. gentleman, but then my taste may not be good. I do not know much about the arts.


James Houston Spence: There is nothing artistic
about it. It is spoiling good stone.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Are the new projects mentioned all in Ontario or are there similar new projects elsewhere in the dominion?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are new projects in
other sections. As far as Ontario is concerned, there are also projects covered by harbour and river developments. As regards buildings, these are the new items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Outside the main estimates.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to ask a further question in connection with the Kingsville building. In the estimates submitted some time ago an amount of $14,500 was indicated for that building. When the original vote was introduced a year ago the amount asked for was $25,000. I assumed at the time that was to be the total cost of the Kingsville building. If you subtract the revote of $5,500 from the item of $14,500 in the main

estimates, it leaves a net amount of $9,000; and then in the estimates before us there is another $11,500, or an additional $20,500 altogether. I cannot understand how a building that was to cost $25,000 in the first place will cost now, according to my figures, $45,500. Either the building must have been doubled in size or a more expensive property must have been purchased. There must be some explanation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract price for that building was $26,690. This amount of $11,500 is in addition to the amount which is included in the main estimates. The explanatory note that was given to me is that last December, at the time when the main estimates were being prepared it was anticipated that the contractor would perform work to the extent of $18,000 in the year 1935-36. Instead of that, work to the extent of $10,000 was done, leaving $8,000 to be provided. In addition to that, a clock and gable are to be installed at a cost of $1,250. The cost of fittings is increased from $3,000 to $4,500, and contingencies are increased $250, from $1,810 to $2,060.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What will be the total cost *when it is completed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It will be $40,000. Of course, the original contract of $26,000 did not in-include the interior fittings of the building


Charles Grant MacNeil: I should like to have a clear understanding of the statement made by the minister a moment or so ago. I was astounded to learn of the procedure followed in permitting men to work in the city of Ottawa. It seems to me a very vicious principle of discrimination that men who are competent to work and desire work are not granted it unless their political beliefs are favoured by the part}' in power.


Vincent Dupuis: The minister did not say that at all.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I understood that a man must have a card from the Ottawa Liberal Association. However I should be glad to hear what-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not the case.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I understood from the words of the minister that that was the usual practice.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, that is not the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will tell us what he proposes to do with the forest products building. It is a testing laboratory which, in my judgment, should be under the control of the National Research bureau. The late government declined to spend any money other than to keep up the building; I refer

Supply-P ub lie Wo rks-B uildings
to the building at Montreal. We have now no public domain on which we have forests to sell, except in the northwest territories, and we cannot sell them there. Now, that we have handed over the railway belt to British Columbia, and the natural resources to the western provinces, the provinces have complete control of all the timber in the country, but we maintain the laboratory at Montreal. It seemed to me that this was very improper, because it could be worked out with the National Research bureau, and steps were taken looking to the accomplishment of that end. To put more money into this laboratory would be, I think, wholly improper; we should have the work carried on by the institutions set up for that purpose. We are testing the tensile strength and other qualities of woods; just why, I do not know; I never was able to understand why. In view of the fact that we parted with our resources and turned them back to the provinces, and parted with the railway belt lands, we no longer have any areas of timber over which we could exercise any effective control.
The same thing comes up in connection with planting trees. The provinces now have complete control of the situation. There was a time when we had control of the whole of the northwest territories and the western provinces, but that day has long since passed. I think the minister might give some consideration as to why we are now spending money on this laboratory.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This laboratory, as my right hon. friend said, is in Montreal on the grounds of McGill university.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And if my information is
correct, the companies interested in our forests are contributing a certain amount of money towards the maintenance of that laboratory. At all events the Department, of Public Works, in making this grant, is only acting for another department. I, of course, have no control over this laboratory; if I am not mistaken, it is under the Department of the Interior.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am taking care of it only as I take care of all the public buildings for all the other departments. It is not for me to speak as to the policy involved in transferring this organization to the provincial authorities. This amount of money is for improvements only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that. But the
place is about through.


Angus MacInnis: Could the minister tell
the committee how these works, having particular reference to the Ottawa projects, are to be done? Will tenders be called for the various projects, with the exception of the one for the Ottawa parliament buildings? I assume that no tender will be called for that. Will tenders be called for the other items on the list having reference to Ottawa?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it is proposed to ask for tenders on all these works, when it is possible. Of course there are certain works that can be done by the ordinary employees of the departments, but, generally speaking, we shall follow' the rule and ask for tenders.


Angus MacInnis: Touching on the point
which was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) and was again the subject of a question by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), I understood the minister to say that in engaging employees for these works the usual procedure would be followed, and that to get work a person would have to have a card from a city member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Angus MacInnis: If the minister did not
make that statement I wish he would make clear to the committee just what he did say, because I do not want to go away from here with a wrong impression as to w'hat he said.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What I said was this:
Nobody will complain, I suppose, if I give consideration to the representations being made by the members for Ottawa. They have the right, as 'has anybody else, to make recommendations with the view of providing work for certain people who are in need of work. That these persons may be friends of the members is no objection; members should not be prevented from recommending persons to be employed on public works because they are their friends. They have the right, like anybody else, to make recommendations. I said that we would, no doubt, take into consideration such recommendations. That has been the practice followed for years, ever since confederation, by, I suppose, all politicians. I added that as far as possible, where circumstances permitted or justified such action, any other recommendation would also be considered and the requests granted.


Angus MacInnis: To me that does not
sound very convincing. I understand that this is a vote of the public moneys of Canada. Irrespective of party, the people of Canada will be taxed to raise this money, and the unemployed are not confined to supporters
2658	COMMONS
Supply-Public IVorks-Buildings
of any one party. Regardless of what the practice may have been in the past, I cannot see why we should continue a practice unless it is a good one, and I doubt whether there is anybody in this house who will say that it is a good practice. They may say so when they are in office, but not when they are out of office. I believe that many of the people who voted for the Liberal party expected it to adopt new ideals, to adopt new measures, new principles and new policies, and not to follow the old practices even if they 'have been followed since confederation. See where such policies have landed us. In this city of Ottawa I have spoken to a great many unemployed, and the impression among them is that they cannot get jobs on government works unless they receive recommendations from the sitting member or someone else who is influential in the Liberal party. Whether that has been the practice or not, it seems to me that the more such a practice has prevailed, the stronger the reason why it should be abolished and we should get down to a proper basis, whereby we shall not take away the independence of our people by making it a condition that if they are to get work they must vote for a certain party.


Vincent Dupuis: May I be allowed to answer the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Coming events cast their shadows before.


Vincent Dupuis: I just want to cite my own experience, and what I am going to say I can corroborate. My experience as a member of parliament, whether the party in power was Liberal or Conservative, was that whenever work was required and undertaken for the purpose of providing employment, generally speaking the local member recommended not only those of his own party but anyone unemployed, whatever might have been his political allegiance, provided he was the head of a family and in need of work. Since the Liberal party has been in power I am sure that we have always given recommendations to those who deserved work, irrespective of their party allegiance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has entirely misstated the case. What he has said might be applicable to normal conditions, but it cannot possibly be applicable to the abnormal conditions under which these expenditures are being made. The contractors who secure the contract for the construction of a building are told-it is part of their contract in many instances, though I do not know whether or

not that is the case now-that they must give-employment to those who are really in necessitous circumstances. I will put it as broadly as that. Whenever there is an attempt to-interfere with the contractor, in connection with relief undertakings I think the minister should be adamant in preventing that being, done. It is a terrible thing; I say it is terrible because I saw evidences of it in one case. It is distressing-I will put it as mildly as that- to think that a man whose children are suffering from lack of food, except such as may be obtained from relief, cannot be permitted to work for a contractor unless he is endorsed and recommended by some member of parliament in this capital city, on work which is being carried on with the money of all Canada, not of one part only, and which is being maintained by the people generally.
I knew the problems of the Minister of Public Works of the recent government in that connection. I had knowledge of what perhaps hon. gentlemen have read in the newspapers, in connection with the contractor who was building the addition to the mint here. He brought to this city men from the west, and when I say the west I mean as far away as Sudbury. One of those young men came to see me, and I took the matter up with the Department of Labour. On investigation that department found that this contractor was taking ten cents an hour off the pay of this poor unfortunate. That man got his money back from the contractor, but of course that ended any possible chance he might have had of being employed there any longer, so now he is out of a job. It is unfair to say that necessitous persons must be vouched for, in connection with relief undertakings, by a political organization. As far as it was possible every effort was made by the former government to eliminate that sort of thing in the last few years.
In Quebec, I am sorry to say, in provincial undertakings in connection with roads they went so far as to put in writting a perfectly clear statement that in the particular district the vote usually had been in the proportion of, we shall say, eight to four, and they thought that those who might be recommended by the opposition to the Taschereau administration might have one-third and the other two-thirds should be recommended by the representatives of the government that was in power. And, mark you, we were contributing to that work. When the Minister of Labour raised a question about the matter, as he did, he had a good deal of difficulty. We were told that this was a

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
recognized custom, and that it had the sanction of authority and long usage behind it.
We have never had such relief conditions in this country as we have experienced in the last few years; we have never had to meet exactly the same situation. The minister is not lacking in courage nor in, shall I say, a most earnest desire to appreciate sympathetically the wants of those in necessitous circumstances. I should like to hear the hon. gentleman say that so far as contractors are concerned they will be told that as far as possible they are to give employment to those requiring work, as indicated by the Minister of Labour, and that they should proceed accordingly. I well recall my first experience of anything to the contrary, when a contractor who was about to tender for a job was asked if he would have a free hand in the employment of his staff. I said, "I have no reason to think to the contrary." That was many long years ago; I was much more innocent then than I am now, and he replied, "That has not been my experience." He was a very old and experienced contractor. If we interfere with the contractor, except as determined by the provisions of his contract, we lay a foundation for a claim for extras, and we have trouble at once. On the other hand, if we say in the contract, as we have been endeavouring to do, that the fair wage scale shall prevail; that local men shall be employed up to a certain number; that returned men shall be employed up to a certain number and that necessitous tradesmen or artisans, skilled or otherwise, shall find employment, I think that is as far as we can go in connection with relief.
As far as ordinary expenditures are concerned I am not prepared to differ seriously from what was said by the minister of the hon. member for-


Vincent Dupuis: Chambly-Rouville, The
name was changed by the last government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, apparently not to
its advantage. At any rate I suggest that the minister should make it abundantly clear that in dealing with relief matters we are not going to have the Dominion of Canada placed in that humiliating and embarrassing position, and if he takes a firm stand I am satisfied that he will be supported by public opinion in every part of this country. To me it has been distressing that any opposite attitude should be taken. I am not discussing the general political situation; I have seen too much of it to endeavour to suggest that we should be hypocrites enough to say that while in opposition we should condemn
the other man for doing the same thing we did when in office. It is all bad, but there it is. But this is relief, and it must be placed upon another basis.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: What points?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I would have said that
there is another side to the picture he has been giving, but I do not want to go into that now; no good is to be derived from doing so. However I assure my right hon. friend and the other hon. members that I have not interfered and do not propose to interfere with the contractors when they are doing the works provided for in these estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman prevent them from being interfered with?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I take it from the statement of the minister that these works will be carried on under the provisions of the Public Works acts which provide that for any works costing more than S5,000 public tenders shall be invited. The act contains a further provision that in cases of emergency, or where the officers of the department certify that in their opinion the work can better be done by the officers and servants of the department, tenders need not be invited. Obviously that is the case with respect to some items; repairs and overhauling of a building I know from experience

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
you cannot always prepare specifications for, and if they are to be done economically and if the party who does the work is to have a fair chance they should be done, by day's work. Am I right in assuming that these works will be carried on under the provisions of the Public Works Act I have outlined?
The otheT matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the minister is a clause that appeared in the Public Works Construction Act of 1935, chapter 34, section 2:
The governor in council may authorize the execution and completion of the several works and undertakings mentioned in schedule A to this act, and for such purposes may authorize the performance of such acts and the execution of such contracts as may be deemed necessary and expedient: provided, however, that in the execution of such works, as far as practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy, first consideration shall be given to the employment of those who if available and competent are most in need in the locality in which the works are to be performed, without any discrimination whatsoever; preference being shown to unemployed ex-service men and unemployed married and single men with dependents; and that the minister of the department responsible for the execution of such works may take such action as he may deem necessary and proper to enforce compliance [DOT]with the foregoing provisions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
was moved by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, that is not exactly his wording; we really improved on the wording suggested by the hon. member for Lamb-ton West. However it goes back to the other side of the house, so I am sure my hon. friend will see that the recommendation of his fellow member is carried out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We propose to move it to the bill anyhow.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A clause similar to this is found in a bill that has passed the house in regard to works under the unemployment relief act. In pursuance of that provision, that clause, as I recall, was embodied in the contracts of the Public Works department last year for works set out in the schedule. I suggest that if the minister wishes to follow that precedent it should be embodied in the specifications of the contracts this year. I know it is a difficult matter for the contractor, and the only way is to put the provision in the specifications so that he knows beforehand what is expected; then there is no interference with him when he is asked to carry out the provisions of the contract.
With regard to work done by the department by the day, they are free to employ whomever they choose, but it seems to me

that this provision might well be followed as far as practicable in carrying out such work. I know the officials of the department gave serious consideration to that in the program of 1935, and I suggest that the minister follow the precedent so set.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no hesitation in stating that I am in complete accord with the spirit of what my hon. friend has just said. I agree with his views.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is one other question, that is with respect to this postal station "K" at Toronto. That is an item which appeared in the estimates of last year, I believe, and for which tenders were invited. I am not sure that they were received prior to the change of government; at any rate the contract was not awarded. I think the tenders were not due until shortly before or shortly after the election. Is it the intention of the department to award the contract on the basis of those tenders?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The contract has been awarded on the tenders.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manitoba - dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $15,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not want to raise this question too often, but here again is a small item which should appear in the regular estimates. It is not special in any way. In the general estimates of eveiy year there has, I think, been something of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, always.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite admit that there
will be found in these supplementary estimates a number of items which usually go in the ordinary main estimates and supplementary estimates of the department. But in preparing these estimates with a view to helping to relieve unemployment we included some items which usually would go in the ordinary main and supplementary estimates. As I said before six o'clock, in many cases we had not the necessary information to cover all the items when the main estimates were prepared. The main estimates were prepared in December last, and since December the department has been receiving reports from the resident engineers of the department all over the country suggesting repairs to be made to public buildings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But this is a blanket item which is usually put in to cover contingencies, apart from any special report. I venture to think this is not in any special report. That suggests to me that as far as these items .are

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
concerned the word "special" should be removed. They are ordinary supplementary estimates. I ask the minister: Is it likely that his department will bring down another special supplementary estimate, or does he think he has included everything here to cover the whole program for the rest of the year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, I hope I have included everything. There is always the possibility of something else being brought to the house a little later.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, are we to have these special supplementaries and then further supplementaries? When are we going to get to the end?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As my hon. friend knows, the reports and requests come in regularly to the department even after the estimates have been tabled, and we have to consider requests coming in from all over the country. There is no stop. Requests and petitions keep coming in all the time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggest that if the minister announce that he has closed the chapter for this year he might save himself a lot of trouble.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I would not undertake to do that. I might even hear from my hon. friend; there might be some reports coming from his constituency for works which are justified, so I want to keep the opportunity open of giving something to him.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think things are in fairly good shape in the county of Leeds.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No doubt.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was one item I wrote the minister about, a little bit of dredging which I thought would have been done out of the general fund, and I so suggested. But he was kind enough to give it the publicity of appearing in the regular estimates.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I welcome any suggestion to reduce the length of the estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member would prefer a blank cheque, I am sure. May I put it in this way; in fact, may I put it exactly as it was put by one who used to occupy this seat? Is this not an effort, and a very clear one, to lessen the apparent capital expenditures of the country in the main estimates, and to pad these as relief, thereby escaping, what everybody knows now, the swollen estimates of 1936-37?
There have not been presented to this parliament, I suppose for half a generation, main
estimates that did not contain a general provision for dominion public buildings, improvements and repairs, in the western provinces. That provision is found in all the estimates. Where it should have been was in the main estimates, or in the supplementary estimates which come at the end of the session. What is happening is that this is so arranged as to make it appear that for relief purposes we are voting this money, when in reality it is not a vote for relief at all. The main estimates are swollen accordingly; we all know that. I wonder that you thought we were so foolish for so long. The minister makes the situation quite clear; this estimate should not be here, but it looks well to put it here rather than put it into the main estimates and make those estimates look larger than they should.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are provisions in the main estimates for dominion public buildings in every province. This is supplementary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then you simply double the amount; that is all. The amount was not sufficient. Now you say: Look how we are practising economy; look how we cut down on the estimates. And now in these special supplementaries we are asked for another al5,000 for Manitoba, another vote for British Columbia and another for Alberta. The Minister of National Defence knows that is a very simple way to do it-put it into the main estimates, but do not put in enough and say: Behold the economy practised by thy servant. Then turn the other way and say: Look at what we have done for unemployment. No wonder the Minister of the Interior laughs. Even has sense of humour-and that is saying a good deal-is appealed to. And anyone will admit that if this appeals to the sense of humour of the Minister of the Interior it must be very clear indeed, so I will leave it at that.


Mr. CRERAR:: I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that no one more frequently appeals to my sense of humour than does the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; I thought the hon. member would be able to say that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan-dominion public buildings- improvements and repairs, $15,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
Alberta
Calgary - barracks -[DOT] guard room, meter building and airplane hangar, $175,000.
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $15,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is part of the air policy of the government, and I am bound to say that I was not consulted with respect to it, pleased as I am to see it here. If they could get it anywhere else they would not put it here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $15,000.
Vancouver-addition and alterations to R.C.N.V.R. building, $9,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What about the additions to the Vancouver 'building?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is for the naval
cadets.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to what I consider to be a serious omission. Some time ago I brought to his attention the necessity for the erection of a public building at Powell River, and he assured me that this matter would receive consideration in the preparation of the supplementary estimates. Perhaps I am not familiar with the practice followed in allocating expenditures to various areas, but it strikes me that there is the need for a public building in the town of Powell River as great as that existing at many of the points for which provision has been made in the supplementary estimates.
May I remind the minister that in 1914 a sum was voted for the erection of a public building at Powell River, but the construction of that building was not proceeded with because of the intervention of the war. It is now important to note the remarkable development of this important industrial community, and the fact that it has wholly inadequate facilities for the transaction of post office, customs and excise business. The buildings now in use are so inadequate that during the busy hours serious congestion occurs.
Powell River has a population of 5,400. a pay-roll now in excess of $1,125,000 annually. Goods are produced each year to the value of $7,000,000 and exported each year to the value of $4,490,000. These figures will give an idea of the amount of business transacted in the community. The registered tonnage of sea-going ships entered annually stands at 472.000 tons. I know the minister has on file a photograph of the present post office building, and I may tell him that when the men

are off shift and call for their mail the congestion and delay are serious. I made a personal inspection of the premises, and on the testimony of the local officials I may say that it is impossible efficiently to transact the business of this rapidly growing community.
The customs business is carried on in a converted bunk house which is also quite inadequate for the accommodation of the customs' officers. I understand the Powell River Pulp and Paper Company has agreed to provide a site for the erection of a public building in Powell River and has made representations to the department setting forth the necessity for the erection of a building at that point at an early date. In view of the justification given for other appropriations which have been made, may I say that the need is as great in Powell River as at any other point in Canada. Considering the matter strictly from the standpoint of good business, I had reason to hope something might be done this session. I am grievously disappointed that the minister has not seen fit to introduce in his supplementary estimates an appropriation for this building.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: May I say to the hon.
member that the project he mentioned is like many others on the list. It has been considered by the department, but at the last moment it was decided as much as possible to reduce the number of public buildings for which provision would be made in the estimates. However I assure the hon. member that the representations he has made will receive proper consideration, and judging from the importance of the locality, in view of what he has just said he may be sure I shall do the best I can to meet his request when another opportunity offers.


Mr. NEILL:: Will the minister-I was
going to say "peddle," but I won't-give the same line of talk with regard to a public building at Tofino, which building he practically promised me?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers Nova Scotia
Big Bras d'Or-wharf extension, $6,000.
Broad Cove Marsh - breakwater extension, $7,100.
B rooklyn-d redging-re vote, $20,000.
Caribou Harbour-breakwater, $10,000.
Crescent Beach-protection work, $2,800.
Digby-harbour improvements, $45,000.
Dingwall (Aspy bay)-harbour improvements, $10,000.
Drum Head-dredging, $15,700.
East River locks-removal of walls, $36,100.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
Freeport (North East cove) - breakwater, $9,500.
Gabarus-dredging, $10,000.
Iona-wharf extension, $13,500.
Liverpool-dredging, $20,000.
Moose Harbour-improvements, $3,000.
Pictou Landing 

 wharf improvements,
[Stage Direction]
Port Hood - closing northern entrance,
[Stage Direction]
Seal Island-breakwater, $12,300.
Sydney-wharf extension and warehouse, $75,000.
Yarmouth harbour - dredging, $143,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: There are three items
in this vote about which I should' like to ask.


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: Before the item carries I should like to ask the minister a question concerning projects intended especially for relief. As I understood from the discusison this afternoon, some of these projects are not specifically for relief purposes. On what basis 'are those intended for Telief selected by the department? I have in mind the item of labour, for instance.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is very difficult to draw the line, and to answer the hon. member's question directly. In dealing with estimates for the Department of Public Works we have kept in our mind the desirability of undertaking certain works which might relieve unemployment in a locality. It is a matter of judgment as to whether one project would provide more work than another, and would relieve unemployment in a locality to a greater extent.
These estimates are not what could really be called relief estimates. The relief assistance given by the government is given by the Department of Labour. In each case we decide more generously than is the custom to undertake a work with a view to providing employment in a locality and to a certain extent relieve unemployment, although we execute a work which one day or another would have to be undertaken by the government. The main object of these estimates is not to relieve unemployment but to undertake now, in view of the large amount of unemployment, certain works that might otherwise be postponed. By making these expenditures now, instead of next year or the year after, we are not only doing work that is necessary but helping to relieve the difficult unemployment situation by providing work in different localities where it is needed. To draw the line between what is strictly relief work and what is not would be very difficult, and we do not start from that 12739-170
basis because relief, of course, is primarily a matter for the Labour department. We are advancing the program of the Public Works department a littLe bit in order to relieve unemployment. I do not know whether with my incomplete knowledge of English I have made myself clear to my hon. friend.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: The
minister has made it perfectly clear so far as I am concerned, and I am going to take that one statement of his, that on occasions public works are advanced a little bit where it would serve the double purpose of providing a useful public work and helping to relieve unemployment. Taking that as a basis, with which I thoroughly agree, I desire to direct the minister's attention to a small undertaking which I sought to have carried out in the harbour of North Sydney. This work was intended as a shelter for fishermen at that port. Some work was undertaken in that regard by the former government, and a considerable amount of dredging was done last fall at a place popularly known as Ballast Ground at North Sydney. The object of that work was to provide a shelter for fishermen engaged in what is commonly called inshore fishing. Ballast Ground itself formed a fairly good shelter for the boats, but it was felt that it was not sufficient, and the late government sent a dredge down there last fall and opened up a small shelter for the boats inside Ballast Ground. But the work stopped there, with the result that the shelter which the boats had is now taken away from them, and the shelter intended to be prepared is not completed. Since last December I have pressed this on the officers of the department both as a necessary public work and as a matter of relief, and in view of the groundwork laid by the minister here this evening, that the rule of the department is to "advance" a public work where it would furnish relief, I cannot understand why this work is postponed. I say that particularly because there is not a single bit of accommodation for these fishermen at North Sydney. The department has placed in the estimates a vote of 875,000 for an extension to a wharf five miles up the harbour at Sydney, where there is some accommodation, not sufficient, I admit, but still some accommodation, and I have been unable, speaking on behalf of the fishermen of North Sydney, to obtain any accommodation for them at all There is some dredging required to complete the work, and I am informed that it has been postponed until late in the fall as the only dredge available has been sent to another portion of the riding to carry on work there.

2664	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours
I was glad to hear the minister say that he has not completely shut the door on a necesr sary public expenditure, and I sincerely hope that his departmental officials will yet see the reasonableness of the request made by the fishermen of North Sydney. I understand that a petition largely signed has been sent in to the department within the last few days. Perhaps the minister has not received it yet, but I understand it is on the way, andi I hope before parliament prorogues this matter will be given consideration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would ask the minister
why the votes for Dingwall, Iona and Port Hood were not included with votes for the same purpose on page eight of these special supplementaries.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The information I have here with reference to Dingwall is that this further amount is required in addition to the amount of $6,600 provided in the main estimates, to complete the reinforcement of the breakwater under contract with Mr. Walter L. Ball of Cheticamp, Nova Scotia. The amount of the contract is $45,927. The district engineer reported that the reinforcement work is necessary due to severe action of the teredo and storms.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the last item $143,000, dredging of Yarmouth harbour, new work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Just where is the work to be done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is for dredging in the channel in Yarmouth harbour.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thought we had made provision for pretty well taking care of that in the estimates of the previous year. A large sum was provided to give the necessary accommodation for two large steamers that came up from Boston and New York.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The work we are proposing to undertake is in the channel.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was some work required in the basin, close to the wharf; and also near Bug light.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The work in the basin has been completed, this work is in the channel.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At what point in the channel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to do away with a very difficult curve which the vessels have to navigate.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister think this will complete the dredging of the channel to make it satisfactory for these vessels?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; I am informed that this is not going to complete the work. It will require a larger amount of money to complete it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the minister the estimate of the total amount required to put the channel into good shape?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick
Barachois-wharf extension, $7,000.
Bathurst-dredging, $22,700.
Black's Harbour-improvements, $3,500.
Campbellton-wharf improvements, $20,000.
Durham-wharf extension, $25,000.
Port Dufferin

breastwork repairs, $33,000.
Harvey Bank-wharf extension, $24,000.
Ingall's Head-breakwater extension, $60,000.
Little Cape-breakwater extension, $5,000.
Little Chockfish-breastworks and breakwaters, $5,000.
Little Lameque-wharf repairs, $13,000.
Portage Island-breastworks, $10,000.
St. John (Negro point)-repairs to harbour works, $50,000.
Tracadie harbour-dredging, $40,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are these new works?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a large sum for dredging at Tracadie, for a small port on the north shore as compared with other places.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec
Amos-wharf extension, $3,325.
Anse a Beaufils-repairs to harbour works,
[Stage Direction]
Anse a Brillant-fishing harbour, $45,000.
Belmil-protection work, $7,700.
Black River-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $4,000.
Bonaventure-protection work, $9,000.
Cap Chat-protection work. $7,700.
Chandler-wharf repairs. $7,000.
Cross Point-dredging, $12,000.
Etang du Nord, M.I.-harbour improvements, $25,000.
Granby-protection work, $6,000.
Gros Cap, M.I.-landing pier, $3,100.
Havre Aux Maisons, M.I.-wharf, $6,500.
Lac Duparquet-wharf. $2,600.
Lac Rouyn (Mercier)-wharf, $2,300.
Lanoraie-extension to protection wall, $2,800.
Laprairie-icebreakers, $4,200.
Laprairie-repairs to dyke, $28,000.
Lavaltrie - extension to protection wall, $3,100.
Levis-wharf, $50,000.
Malbaie-small landing pier, $1,780.
Matane - extension to east breakwater, $60,000. „
Mont Louis-protection work, $5,600.
Moffette-wharf, $3,500.	.
Moisie - protection wall extension and repairs, $2,500.
New Richmond-protection work, $7,000.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
Notre Dame de Pierreville-protection wall, $16,000.
Notre Dame de Pierreville (Chenal Tardif) -icebreaker, $3,200.
Notre Dame du Portage - wharf repairs,
[Stage Direction]
Paspebiac-wharf extension, $46,000,
Peninsula-wharf extension, $2,600.
Petite Riviere St. Francois-wharf extension, $15,000.
Petite Vallee-wharf extension Pointe Claire - completion $2,000
, $27,000. of approach,
Pointe du Lac-protection work, $10,000. Pointe Jaune - improvements to fishing harbour, $27,000.
Pointe St. Pierre - wharf reconstruction.
<51 O RAO
Richelieu river-improvement of river and Chambly canal system, $500,000.
Rimouski-harbour improvements, $150,000.
Riviere aux Rats-wharf, $4,900.
Riviere Beaudette-protection work, $2,000.
Riviere Blondelle-protection work, $5,200.
Riviere des Hurons - contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province, $75,000.
Ruisseau Pariseau - contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province, $15,000.
Ste Anne des Monts (river)-extension of training pier, $8,000.
St. Antoine de Tilly-wharf reconstruction, $17,000.
St. Etienne de Malbaie (Casgrain wharf)- fill spans. $5,000.
St. Godfroy (Riviere Nouvelle)-protection work, $16,650.
St. Griigoire de Montmorency-repairs and completion of protection wall, $5,000.
St. Maurice river-dredging. $18,000.
St. Michel des Saints-extension to protection works, $1,800.
St. Omer-raising protection work, $4,400.
Ste. Rose-protection wall, $4,900.
St. Simeon de Bonaventure-protection work,
Saguenay river-dredging, $200,000.
Sorel-harbour improvements, $85,000.
Tadoussac (Anse Tadoussac)-wharf improvements, $15,000.
Yal Barette-protection work, $3,000.
Varennes-protection wall, $15,000.
Yercheres-protection wall, $10,000.
Victoriaville-protection work, $5,000.
To provide for payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the investigation in Canada of the improvement of the waterway from Montreal through lake Champlain to the Hudson river, $20,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are these all new items?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one item with respect to which there will have to be an extensive explanation, namely, $500,000 in connection with the Richelieu river. It will be observed that there is also $200,000 for dredging on the Saguenay river and $20,000 to provide for payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the investigation in Canada of the improvement of the waterway from Montreal through lake Champlain to the Hudson river. This is a matter of first importance.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Perhaps I should say a few words on these items, for I realize their importance.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice in the main estimates in connection with Richelieu river improvements, an item of $122,000. Perhaps the minister would discuss that in connection with the item before us, showing the relation, if any, between the two.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a revote of a contract which was awarded last year for the deepening of the Richelieu river from St. Ours to the Chambly canal.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is one item a continuation of the other?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. It is a project for developing the Richelieu river, deepening it and improving the channel. It is not a new undertaking, having been before the department for a number of years, going back as-far as 1902. In 1907 also, proposals were placed before the department for the development of the Richelieu river and the improvement of the channel for navigation in that river; and if my memory serves me, the information I obtained was that as far back as 1913 the department was practically ready to ask for tenders for the construction of a regulating dam which was to be built between the city of St. Johns and Chambly, in order to regulate the flow of the Richelieu river and at the same time to protect the low-lying lands above St. Johns, between St. Johns and the boundary line near lake Champlain. This project was not gone on with owing to the war, which broke out in 1914. The question has been before the department for a considerable time. The Richelieu river has been dredged from the St. Lawrence up to St. Ours, and the lock at St. Ours was rebuilt a number of years ago, with the same depth and the same dimensions as the locks and canals in the American territory, from lake Champlain to the Hudson river.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the depth?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Twelve feet. That is the depth of the New York state barge canal which runs from lake Champlain to the Hudson river. The St. Ours lock was rebuilt by the Department of Railways a few years ago at the same depth and with the same dimensions as the New York state barge canal, and in 1934 or 1935-I believe it was 1935- a contract was awarded for the deepening of the Richelieu river from St. Ours, which is being carried out to a depth of twelve feet up to Chambly, making it twelve feet from the St. Lawrence up to Chambly. What I
2666	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours
propose here is the building of the dam which was proposed many years ago to regulate the flow of the Richelieu river for the purpose of protecting the low-lying lands above St. Johns and at the same time to shorten the length of the Chambly canal by half. If that regulating dam between St. Johns and Chambly is built, the distance being twelve miles, it will reduce the length of the canal by six miles.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Using the river instead of the canal.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, on that section. This project for the development of the Richelieu river is one which the United States have had in mind. One project which the authorities there referred to the International Joint Commission is a canal starting from lake Champlain and passing through American territory to St. Francis lake outside Montreal. What they contemplate is a canal of twenty-five or twenty-seven feet and approximately of the same depth as the proposed St. Lawrence development. That is one of their projects, and another is to 'have a similar canal started from St. Johns; that is, twenty-two miles in Canada from the boundary and running from there to somewhere near Laprairie. This would be entirely an inland canal and would be of the same depth as the first project, running through lake Champlain to lake St. Francis. The third is a project which would include the reconstruction of the Chambly canal, starting from the Chambly basin at the foot of the Chambly canal. The canal would be dug from that place up to a point near Montreal-Longueuil or Laprairie or St. Lambert. Those are the three main suggestions which the United States authorities have referred to the International Joint Commission. The fourth one is a purely Canadian project, having for its object the development of a purely Canadian watercourse.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, No. 4 has been in use for years but was allowed to go into disuse.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Chambly canal was built a long time ago, but it is not used to-day as it should be, because the depth is only five and a half or six feet. When I was a boy I used to see the Richelieu river at and above Sorel practically full of canal boats carrying all sorts of goods and materials from Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and even Ottawa. Many of these canal boats would start from Ottawa and go to Montreal and as far as Sorel, going through the Richelieu river and on to the United States.

To-day, however, as we know, these small boats are no longer in operation; they cannot be run to advantage. The size of the boats has been increased materially and it is impossible to take advantage of this natural and important waterway, which is second to the St. Lawrence. Advantage cannot be taken of it owing to the size of the boats operated at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a matter not of widening but of deepening.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And widening to a certain extent as well, because the canal is very narrow. But even in its present condition that water route is extensively used, and increasingly so every year, by the paper manufacturing companies of the province of Quebec and even by shippers in Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And by pleasure boats.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And pleasure boats as well. It is a natural route, and in .my opinion it is advisable to revive this whole proposal and try to develop this purely Canadian route. There is no danger that we shall suffer in any way from this development. The depth that we contemplate is between 12 and 15 feet. That would be sufficient, according to the reports which we have from the companies, for navigating much larger boats than they are using at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be no good to make it 15 feet if the American canals are only 12 feet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. The proposal is to make it twelve feet at the present time. I do not want to hide anything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that. What is meant by the item that is connected with it on the other side?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of $20,000?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is to meet the expenditures of the survey parties working at the present time with the American engineers on the proposals to be placed before the International Joint Commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is on lake St.
Francis, is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, on three projects, lake Champlain to lake St. Francis; St. John to Laprairie; Chambly to Laprairie, and the fourth, the Richelieu river. The American engineers have estimated that the project through the Richelieu river is worthy of being studied and considered. This sum of $20,000

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
is to cover the expenses of the survey, to inform the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission in their discussion with the Americans regarding the project. Of course I am incapable of going into the technical details that the engineers have given in their report of the project for the development of the Richelieu river, but I feel that generally speaking it is a good policy for Canada to undertake the development of so interesting a natural watercourse as the Richelieu River. Since the opening up of Canada that river has been used for transporting goods; even in the first days of the colony it was so used.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three hundred years ago.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; and later on the governments of Canada attempted improvements of that river and the canalization, because they built that old Chambly canal a long time ago. We are developing that water route only in order to bring it to the present needs of our trade and commerce. Besides this large aspect of the problem, the development of the Richelieu river is going to prove very important for all the localities situate along its banks. It affects the counties of Richelieu.. Vercheres, St. Hyacinthe, Iberville, St. John, Missisquoi, Chambly, Rouville, and also Huntingdon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have got them all now, so it won't make much difference.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think I can add anything to the general statement I have made. I ask the committee to consent to the item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Assuming that one of
the three first projects which the minister outlined as having been suggested by the American government should be undertaken at some later date, what would be the effect upon this work if one of these other projects was completed? Would it be to render this of practically no value?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, because, as I said, this development of the Richelieu river is undertaken as a purely Canadian enterprise; it will provide a channel only twelve feet deep; and it is going to be useful to the residents of the counties that I have just enumerated. It will also be a natural link between the St. Lawrence and lake Champlain. Even if the other projects were carried on we still must consider the development of our own proper channels and the dredging of our own1 rivers, which can render useful service even though the other projects are undertaken. Suppose, for example, that the first
proposal of the Americans is accepted; that is, the building of a canal from lake Champlain to lake St. Francis, traffic coming from above Montreal would go right through to lake Champlain, the Hudson river, Albany and New York.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would cut out
the harbour of Montreal, using the Richelieu river entirely.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Exactly. So we would still
have to consider the desirability of developing the river Richelieu to a depth of twelve or fifteen feet for our Canadian use, if I may so phrase it. It would help materially the traffic of the east, and this development is of importance to Three Rivers and even to Quebec and Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think we should spend any money, either on surveys or otherwise, for the purpose of cutting a canal from lake St. Francis to lake Champlain? The effect of it, obviously, would be to create business for the port of Albany. There is no question about that; we might as well face it frankly: it would certainly divert traffic entirely into the Hudson river and the new port of Albany. In my opinion we should think a long time before we spend a dollar either for surveys or for expenditures on that project. Let us assume for the sake of the argument that it is possible and feasible: what we should be doing would be spending our money just for the purpose of destroying our own ports. The little study I was able to give the matter some time ago convinced me that this is one of the projects to which we are not warranted in giving any consideration.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite see the point
made by the right hon. gentleman. However, conceding my ignorance of the terms of the treaty between England and the United States establishing the International Joint Commission, I think we could not refuse to study the problem which the Americans have submitted to the International Joint Commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see the minister's point.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This study is to inform
our representatives as to the conditions. At the same time the survey that is to be made will be helpful for the development of the Richelieu river, because the four projects are going to be studied at the same time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but this was on
an entirely different basis.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I admit that.
2668	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no relation of one to the other. I have been fearful from the time I first saw the announcement in the paper; and I think most Canadians are. The Richelieu river project is one that needs no support from any quarter; it is merely for the purpose of surveying what it always has been, a drainage river running south from the main St. Lawrence. It has been utilized for two or three centuries-two and a half centuries, anyway-for going down to that country; it could never become a serious menace to our own ports with respect to transatlantic shipments. I think that is reasonably clear, because I assume we should not go beyond the twelve foot depth provided for by the Americans in their canals. But when you get to discussing the question of a canal from lake St. Francis to lake Champlain you are dealing with an entirely different matter, because it means the diversion of traffic coming down the St. Lawrence river, at lake St. Francis, into a canal that carries it to lake Champlain, and from there to Albany and the Hudson river, and that means going out of New York harbour to the open sea. The money that has been spent on Albany and the facilities of that port are perhaps little known to Canadians who have not given much study to the matter. The Hudson river from Albany to New York, or to the mouth of the river, is now available for very large seagoing ships carrying a larger quantity of grain than is carried by the tramp ships out of Montreal during the grain season. From
250,000	to 275,000 bushels would be a fair cargo for the average run of tramp ships that ply between Montreal and the continent of Europe. I must say that when I saw that this matter had been referred to the commission, I felt that it was one for which, if we could avoid it, we should not undertake any responsibility, for the reason I have indicated. I ask the minister whether or not he thinks, in view of the present financial conditions to which the Minister of Finance directed attention the other day, we are warranted in making this appropriation at this time. That is what it means. We may as well face it frankly. I use that word with great precision in this case. Here we have over $1,600,000, which the minister says is not calculated for relief alone, and more than $800,000 for Ontario in the following item. These two together make a total of more than $2,500,000, of which $200,000 is fox dredging in the Saguenay river; $85,000 for Sorel harbour improvements, in view of the elevator that is to be constructed there, east of the port of Montreal, and a further expenditure of $150,000 in Rimouski for harbour improvements. Is this country in a (Mr. Cardi** 1
financial position to stand that sort of thing at this time, in view of what was said to us by the Minister of Finance the other day? I quite understand the main estimates; I quite understand a reasonable amount of supplementary estimates the year following an election, but when I look at these appropriations, knowing what I have learned as to just what they involve, I wonder whether or not we are in a financial position to stand that sort of thing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to ask if
this appropriation of $500,000 will complete the work in the Richelieu river.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, no.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will it make the canal
useful?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will it just complete
one section of it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, that is my information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will do one section?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That will not be of much use unless tihe other section is completed, will it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can the minister tell
us how much he thinks will be required to complete the remaining section, which will make this expenditure useful?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is very hard for me
to state what amount will be required to complete this work, because the plans for the reconstruction of the channel have not been prepared as yet and no survey has been made to ascertain what it would cost or what would be the requirements for the reconstruction of the canal. Some time or another, however, that canal will have to be repaired and reconstructed, or it will have to be abandoned. It is a very old structure and in the course of a short time it is going to be useless unless something is done, so at some time or another, now or later, we shall be forced to either do something to the Chambly canal or to abandon it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Apparently this expenditure will commit the Dominion of Canada irrevocably to the expenditure of a very large amount of money, just how large the minister is not able to give even an estimate to the committee.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No definite estimate.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I submit that this is not a very sound policy.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At one time I made an
estimate, but it was a risk; it was a mere guess, but since that time it has been taken as a definite statement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the minister will
agree that it is a sound policy that parliament ought not to be asked to make an expenditure of this kind without knowing in a fairly accurate way what will be the ultimate commitment. I am sure that is a policy which the minister will agree is sound.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have a rough estimate;
there is nothing definite about it, and I want that very clearly understood, but I am told that when the whole project is completed it may cost in the vicinity of $8,000,000. That is only a rough guess because, as I have said, the engineers have not had an opportunity to make the necessary surveys in order to ascertain what the reconstruction of the canal is going to cost. Let me repeat, however, that some time or another we axe going to be faced with the necessity of either doing something with that canal or abandoning it. It is a very old structure; before long it is going to cost a great deal for repairs, so why not start now? The project is not going to be completed this year, next year or even within two years; I am told that it will take four years and possibly longer before it is really completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last appropriation, I should think, would be just before the next election.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It may be even after
another election.


Grote Stirling: What will be the chief freight carried on this canal eventually?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All kinds. It may be coal; it may be pulp and paper. A great deal of pulp and paper is being shipped out that way now. and there will be the great variety of freight which is transported in that section of Canada. The farmers and merchants of that region may also take advantage of navigation on that river.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How far east of Montreal is the mouth of the Richelieu river?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Fifty miles.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This seems to me to be a case where the work to be undertaken does not meet either of the fundamentally sound propositions laid down by the minister in connection with work of this kind. They were: first, that the work should be useful
and, second, that it should afford employment for those out of work. I take it that the expenditure of this amount of money is not going to result in anything useful, except doing an instalment on a work that must be done some time. We all know that .dredging does not afford a very large measure of employment.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Dredging is a small part of the undertaking.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister say that the amount to be expended on dredging under this item will be small?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, relatively small.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What will be the other work, the reconstruction of the canal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the reconstruction of the dam and of the canal, which is all cement work, of course, which is a kind of work that will provide much employment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I revise my statement with respect to that; I thought a large part of the money was to be spent on dredging which, as the minister knows, does not afford a large measure of work for those out of employment because it is all done by machinery. It does seem to me, however, that the other objection is sound, that this is not really a useful work at the present time. This expenditure of money is not going to advance us any further; it will not bring about any results, and it seems to me that the minister should hesitate to ask parliament at this time to make an expenditure of half a million dollars which, as I say, will commit the country to a further expenditure of an unknown sum which the minister says may be $6,000,000 or $8,000,000, and which may run to $10,000,000 or $12,000,000. I really think it is a very serious matter in view of the financial situation of Canada at the present time and the comparative uselessness of the work to be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why should we spend $200,000 at this time for dredging in the Saguenay? That is a pretty large item.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that there are certain sections of the river in which the depth of water is not sufficient, and this dredging will connect the harbour with the deeper sections of the river.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister mean the harbour of Chicoutimi?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
2670	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is to afford access to Chicoutimi harbour?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: To improve the channel to Chicoutimi?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What length of channel is involved in this improvement?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are seven miles.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Seven miles of channel which will be improved?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will this expenditure
complete the work in that channel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it will take, if I remember aright, another $100,000. I asked the whole amount, but I am sure my hon. friend as Minister of Public Works has gone through the same experience; we prepare estimates and when we place them before the treasury board we are forced, in order to help t'he Minister of Finance to come nearer to balancing his budget, to make certain reductions. In the list I submitted I provided an amount which would practically complete the work but I was forced to reduce it, because this amount is all that could be spent during the season.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will this afford any real relief without the further expenditure that the minister mentions as being ultimately needed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, it means certain assistance. Even if it is true that dredging does not employ large numbers of men directly, yet that machinery which is being used for dredging is built and maintained and repaired by other men, who get employment that they would not otherwise get. I admit it is not as productive from the point of view of employment as the building of a dam, but this is to permit taking advantage as much as possible of the facilities which have been established in the port of Chicoutimi for vessels navigating the Saguenay river, permitting them to reach the port without having to wait for the change of level by the tide.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps I did not make my question clear. What I wanted to know is whether the expenditure of this money will enable any vessel to get to the wharves at Chicoutimi that cannot now get up?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Or whether there will have to be further expenditure?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Vessels cannot now go
every hour of the day to the wharves at Chicoutimi; they have to wait until the water rises as a result of the tide, but when that dredging is completed the vessels will be able to go there every hour of the day.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand that, when it is all completed, but with the expenditure this year will they be able to reach the wharves?
Mr. CARDiN: With the expenditure this year the work will not be completed, so they will not be in a position to take full advantage of it, but it is a start towards completing the channel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are not these the facts: that the Chicoutimi harbour commission was created in 1925-26 for the purpose of building a harbour at Chicoutimi; that the harbour never should have been put there; that the only place that there should be a harbour is at Ha! Ha! bay which is across from there; that now that the harbour has been built, unless dredging goes on, there will be no practical use for those wharves or that harbour for steamers of a draft of, I think, eighteen feet-I forget the exact figure; leave that out for the moment, but for steamers of substantial tonnage-and that this proposal to spend $200,000 will have the effect only of accentuating the value of the harbour at Ha! Ha! bay and indicating how absolutely useless this Chicoutimi harbour is because it will fill in again with the currents as they have been all these ages. It is a sandy bottom, I am told, and silt and sand will fill the very channel that you dredge. That is my information, that there is no justification for it, never has been. The minister of transport to be has been dealing with the harbour; we know exactly the money that has been spent and the money that is to be spent; we know the circumstances under which the harbour came into being, and we know that the harbour across the way is the one which is being used by large ships that load paper from the big mill which sends its product down to that harbour. Under these circumstances can we justify in these days the expenditure of this money for that purpose?


Mr. DUBUC:: May I be allowed to correct the statement of the leader of the opposition. The harbour of Chicoutimi when the channel is straightened out will be able to accom-

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
modate steamers of any draft up to thirty feet, and if the coal and paper have to pass by Ha! Ha! bay it means an extra charge of $1.50 to $2 a ton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because there is no wharf there. The wharf is at Chicoutimi.


Julien-Édouard-Alfred Dubuc: There are three thousand
feet of docks at Chicoutimi with thirty feet at low water and all the facilities to load-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And none at Ha! Ha! bay.


Julien-Édouard-Alfred Dubuc: -for the pulp or paper and the coal required to -maintain that industry, which is at the end of navigation on the Saguenay river.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is an item, Rimou-ski, harbour improvements, $150,000. Would the minister outline what is required there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide additional wharfage facilities in the port of Rimouski. During the last season and the previous one very great quantities of wood have been shipped from Rimouski. It is the centre of distribution for all the supplies that are needed on the north shore of the St. Lawrence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much money has
been spent there during the last few years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the vicinity of $100,000, I am informed. There is only a small wharf there which at certain periods is crowded, and vessels have to wait even several days before getting their turn at that wharf. I am satisfied from the figures which have been placed before me that the traffic justifies the development of that harbour. I am not sure whether it is 35,000,000 feet of wood or more that have been sent to England from that port. It is not only for coasting vessels; ocean vessels are loading planks and boards there for shipment to England.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not load at
the wharf; they anchor out in the road, do they not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, they load at the wharf


Richard Bedford Bennett: Large ocean ships?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but there is a limited section of wharf at which they can load. There is ample justification for the development of Rimouski; there is no doubt the traffic is there, and the present facilities are quite inadequate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What length of wharf
will this construct, and how far out into the road? To what extent will this add wharfage facilities?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The idea is to develop
the inside section of the harbour, about one thousand feet, to give berthing facilities to three or four ships.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does this involve dredging?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A certain amount of dredging.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would there be some
revenue from the traffic over this wharf?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I know that revenue is
collected not by the minister's department, but by the Department of Marine.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the minister any
information as to the amount of revenue? .


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, I cannot say. The
revenues of this harbour, as well as those of Sorel harbour, and others, are collected by the Department of Marine, according to a schedule of fixed rates for wharfage dues in the harbour. There is a schedule which applies to all harbours that are not governed or directed by the harbour commissioners.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: What
would be the annual traffic over the Chambly canal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot say what the
traffic would be over that canal, when it is completed. I am informed that when the St. Lawrence canals had no greater depth than the Chambly canal the traffic on the Chambly canal was greater than that on the St. Lawrence canals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the Chambly canal
is only six or seven feet, is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At present it is six, but
most of the time during the summer season it is only five and a half feet. At one time the St. Lawrence canals had the same depth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At one time there was
no canal there at all.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But when the depths were the same the traffic was greater on the Chambly canal than on the St. Lawrence canals. Of course the St. Lawrence canals have been deepened on several occasions and there is no comparison now as to the traffic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to ask the minister this: Does he not think he should reconsider this item? I put the situation to him fairly, and then I am through. First of all he asks for $60,000 for a breakwater at
2672	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours
Matane, and he will bell me, no doubt, that that is another north shore harbour which has to be looked after and, I suppose, is very important. Then we come to the next one, a vote of S46.000 for Paspebiac wharf, and then a vote of half a million dollars for improvements in the Richelieu river, just an earnest for $8,000,000. Does it not look like the Montreal harbour bridge? There are 88,000,000 in sight, and that means $10,000,000. To use the language so familiar to some of my hon. friends the ante is a half a million, that is all. Is that quite fair to Canada at this time?
Then, the next one is a vote of $150,000 for harbour improvements at Rimouski. All along the coast of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in years gone by ships used to lie in the roads and loaded with deals from scows.
. They did not expect to have a wharf at every door. Rimouski has had $100,000 spent on it during the last two years for purposes of providing it with wharf accommodation facilities for schooners and smaller vessels, and if ooean-going steamers come to take deals there is no reason why they should not do what is done, for instance, at Ha! Ha! bay, namely load from scows or barges where there is not sufficient wharfage accommodation.
Coming to the next item we find an expenditure of $75,000 for a contribution towards dredging at Riviere dies Hurons, the balance of the cost to be borne by the province. If the dominion is getting half in this case, why is it not getting half on a dyke being put up at Laprairie? That work stands in the same position. Having regard to the claims made so successfully by the province with respect to waters, as distinguished from navigation-property in the waters-why should we have half paid by the province in this item, when we have not in other cases?
Then we turn to dredging in the St. Maurice river. I can understand that dredging must be done there, because Three Rivers is an important port connected with the shipment of paper to various countries of the world. But we come next to a vote of $200,000 for dredging in the Saguenay river, which serves no purpose unless a still larger sum is expended. That is, the expenditure of $200,000 must be followed by another expenditure perhaps as large, or perhaps much larger, because, as a report of engineers indicates, the silt and sand will fill in during a winter to the extent it has been taken out in the preceding summer. It is one of the finest dredging contracts in the world.
The next item is an expenditure of $85,000 for Sorel harbour improvements. I have

every sympathy with the minister's love of his native community. Sorel is a port at the mouth of the Richelieu river, is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
M,r. BENNETT: That is another Richelieu expenditure. There is already an item in the main estimates, which the minister tells me is not to be regarded as being too closely connected with this one. But is it not desirable to consider whether or not we should move at this time in connection with projects involving large expenditures? You see $10,000,000 is involved in these expenditures, and $10,000,000 becomes a matter of great importance to the Minister of Finance and to the people of Canada at this time. Can we afford to do it? I suppose most hon. members are familiar with the statement not long since of a very famous American. He said, "We must make up our minds there are many things that we want that under the present system we cannot have, unless we are prepared to destroy the system." Then we would not have it. I put these facts to the minister, and I do not wish to urge the matter further. I do suggest, however, that he should give the matter the most careful consideration and should consider whether or not the item could be revised.
This item does call for careful consideration, and without anticipating something which is not yet before the committee could he not consider whether the government is warranted in spending the large sum of $180,000 at the port of Port Arthur for harbour improvements? On one occasion I went over that work with great care, to satisfy myself about it, and I shall make special reference to it when the item is under discussion. However, I do ask the minister to give careful consideration to that phase of the matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think it is universally
agreed in Canada that the best method of combating unemployment is to make expenditures which are considered justifiable. It is believed to be much better to make those expenditures for useful purposes, although all the benefits may not be derived in the first year, than to give money for direct relief or for the maintenance of relief camps. We have spent on these relief proposals-they were necessary; I do not dispute it-millions upon millions which have been profitless. We have not received any returns, and we eanot get any. Although in certain cases the justification for the expenditures indicated in these estimates -may be disputed, there can be no doubt that they are works which from a certain point of view can be considered justifiable.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
The development of our railways, our highways and our waterways have the same object in view, namely the development of Canadian trade. It is with that object in, view that we have felt it desirable to place these amounts in the estimates. Although it may be said, "Well, now, let us wait another year," we must remember that those who are in need of the opportunity to earn money cannot wait another year. It is better to provide works so that they may earn their daily bread than to hand them the dole in its most offensive form.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I admit that these estimates may be considered a little large at the present time, but they have been submitted to the Minister of Finance, and he felt that even with these expenditures he was capable of preserving the financial condition of our country. These are useful works. As I said a few moments ago, some of them, the Chambly canal for instance, have to be undertaken one day or another. Something has to be done at some time or another. I really believe we are justified in asking for these expenditures, and as I said before, the large amount of $8,000,000 for the development of the Richelieu river will be spread over a period of four or five years. It represents a very small amount as compared with other expenditures that have been made in the past, and I think the main object, the developing of our transportation facilities, deserves to be favourably received and accepted by the committee. Like the right hon. gentleman, I apprehend the difficulties through which our country is passing and the responsibilities of those charged with administering the affairs of this country, but I think in view of the experience we have gained we are justified in developing our transportation facilities in the province of Quebec as well as in other sections of Canada.


Mr. WALSH:: To what depth is it proposed to dredge the Chambly-St. Johns canal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To twelve feet.


William Allen Walsh: That will involve almost the building of a new canal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It certainly involves the building of a new canal.


William Allen Walsh: And the amount here is only a very small initial payment towards the ultimate cost of developing that system?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Quite so.


William Allen Walsh: Does the minister think the amount of traffic which can be carried over that system to lake Champlain would justify the ultimate expenditure? This amount of $500,000 is only a bagatelle compared with the
ultimate expenditure. Does the minister honestly think there will be enough traffic over that system to justify its development?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I certainly do; otherwise
I would not propose this expenditure.


William Allen Walsh: What possible large traffic could we have over a system of that kind down to lake Champlain when lake Champlain itself is bottled at the far end?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have already explained what I think are the justifications for this expenditure. At present, even with the limited depth of water in the Chambly canal, there is a substantial traffic passing through the canal, consisting mainly of pulp and paper shipped by the mills of the province of Quebec, and these people are very anxious that the canal be deepened in order that they may be in a position to carry further quantities of their goods through the canal.


William Allen Walsh: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish to return to the large item for the Chambly canal. As the minister says, it is not a new item. It has been up for consideration over a period of years, and the reasons the minister has given to-night for the undertaking of this work were just as strong in the years that are past as they are now. But even in times of prosperity, when revenues were buoyant and expenditures were made more freely when they were justified, conditions never seemed to warrant undertaking this work in past years. I know it has received consideration in the last three or four years, but the reasons why it should not be undertaken were so overwhelming that it was not considered at all. I say that the conditions have not changed, but that on the contrary the reasons why it should not be undertaken at this time are stronger than ever they have been in the last fifteen or twenty years. I really think the minister ought to give this further consideration. It is a large amount and we do not seem likely to get any immediate return for this expenditure. It also means a very heavy future commitment. I do not think we ought to be asked to pass this item until the minister is able to give more definite information as to what the ultimate cost will be. I know that one of the reasons why there was hesitation in the past in submitting such a vote to parliament was that we did not know what it ultimately meant, but we did know It meant such an amount that the finances of the country in days like these did not warrant even the commencement of the work. I say that the conditions which delayed this work and rendered it inadvisable to undertake it in years past are even stronger to-night than they were before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will give this item a little thought between now and next time. I have nothing more to say about it. It is opposed not because of the amount, but because of what is involved in the way of future expenditure.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 11, 1936