1937-01-26

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That a special committee be appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and amendments thereto and the Franchise Act, 1934, and amendments thereto, and to suggest to the house such amendments to the said acts as they deem advisable, and, furthermore, such committee shall study and make a report on the following subjects:
(a)	The proportional representation system;
(b)	The alternative vote in single-member constituencies;
(c)	Compulsory registration of voters;
(d)	Compulsory voting;
and that the said special committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and report from time to time.
That the committee shall consist of thirty members; that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto; and that the following be appointed members of the said committee: Messrs. Bothwell, Cameron (Cape Breton North-Victoria), Clark (York-Sunbury), Dussault, Factor, Fair, Girouard, Glen, Heaps, Jean, MacNicol. McCuaig, McIntosh, Parent (Quebec West and South), Perley (Qu'Appelle), Power, Purdy, Rickard, Robichaud, St-Pere, Sinclair, Slaght, Stevens, Stewart, Stirling, Taylor (Norfolk), Turgeon, Turner, Wermenlinger, and Wood.
And, furthermore, that the minutes of the evidence and the report of the special committee appointed in the last session of parliament to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and the Franchise Act, 1934, be referred to the committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is to reappoint the committee which sat during the last session and considered the various matters mentioned in the motion, and, in general, any desirable amendments to the Dominion Elections Act. The members of the committee are the same as those who served last session, and the work to be done is exactly the same. I remember that the committee tabled a preliminary report and asked that the committee should be reappointed this session to continue its work.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me that possibly the minister might feel it would be better to provide in the final paragraph of the motion that the evidence and report submitted last session shall constitute part of the record of the committee. It was their request not that the evidence and report
should be referred to them, but that what was done last year should constitute part of the records of this house. I only suggest that.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); I have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only question is whether, if someone raises a technical point, a mere reference to the committee would make the evidence and report a part of its record. But if the minister thinks it is ample I am satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, at the last session of parliament, during the discussion of a bill respecting the National Harbours Board, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) gave assurance on behalf of the government that before the next session his department would prepare a bill to enact general legislation amending the law respecting petitions of right and providing for suits in tort against the crown. I would ask the minister, has the bill been prepared and will it be introduced during the present session?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary work has been done, and in point of fact a draft of the bill has been prepared and is ready to be submitted to the members of the government for approval, as is usually done before a bill is brought down. As far as I am concerned my intention is that the bill will be brought down this session.



TRADE WITH GERMANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar); I wish to direct a question to the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Reports emanating from Berlin yesterday indicate that Germany is anxious to obtain Canadian wheat in exchange for manufactured goods, including machinery. Has the government devised any plan for effecting such direct exchanges with Germany or with any other country?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce): The lion, member for Rosetown was kind enough to advise me yesterday of his intention to put this question to-day. In answer to that question I have obtained the following information:
Reliej Camps
[Stage Direction]
The payment agreement between Canada and Germany, signed on October 22 and effective on November 15, 1936, provides that the German government " shall make available for the purchase of Canadian goods the foreign exchange accruing from German exports to Canada."
This fund of dollar exchange derived by Germany from the sale of German goods in Canada is indefinite in amount. Whatever the amount may be, 35 per cent of the total will be devoted by Germany to the purchase of Canadian wheat. For example, if Germany receives $10,000,000 during the year following November 15 from the sale of goods to Canada, the amount of dollar exchange available for the purchase of Canadian wheat should be approximately $3,500,000.
The agreement provides in addition that:
The German government during the first six months this agreement is in force may permit compensation transactions for the exchange of articles, produced or manufactured in Canada, provided that such compensation transactions shall not conflict in any manner with the basis of allocation set forth in article VI and the schedule to this agreement.
We have no knowledge of any barter transactions under this provision involving the exchange of Canadian wheat for German machinery or other German products.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: I should like to make a short statement regarding my participation in the debate on Thursday last. The hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Mallette) kindly brought this matter to my attention. On page 147 of Hansard I referred to the political liberty we in Canada enjoy. In my effort to point out that we wished to preserve all that is good in our institutions and to remove all that is bad, and in referring to the benefits we had obtained from reforms in the past, I inadvertently mentioned that the great province of Quebec had not yet seen fit to give the vote to women.


Mr. POULIOT:: What is good and what is bad?


William Hayhurst: If my worthy questioner would study the Reform Act he would find that there are many things in it that are good. I fully recognize the part that Quebec has played in the history of this country, and I have the greatest respect for its history and its people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Hayhurst: What I wished to say was that I may have been ungracious to the women of Quebec. I meant to imply that the finest people in this Canada of ours have not yet been given the privilege of voting.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have not asked for it.


William Hayhurst: But that, I suppose, is a matter for the citizens of Quebec to decide.


Jean-François Pouliot: Amen.



BRITISH COLUMBIA RELIEF CAMPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) with reference to reports appearing in the Vancouver newspapers alleging serious discontent among men now engaged in forestry projects. Has the minister received information regarding these difficulties, and if so, have suitable steps been taken to investigate the causes?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. The Department of Labour is aware of the matter referred to by him, but has received no official notification of any trouble that has occurred. The works plan as it affects the single unemployed in British Columbia is being administered by the provincial government, which appears to be dealing adequately with the situation as described by my hon. friend. I expect that we shall be advised of any further developments.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: May I ask the minister a supplementary question on the same matter? In press reports from British Columbia it is stated that the minister of labour of the province has said that he will not deal with the representatives of the men affected. As the minister was very successful in negotiating an agreement during his visit to the coast last fall, would he use his good influence to arrange a discussion between the authorities there and the organization representing the men?


Mr. ROGERS:: I can only say that I shall be very glad indeed to look into the matter.



STAFF AT PORT OF CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) will recall

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Bennett
that last year I had a question on the order paper asking how many men were employed in seasonal and temporary employment at the port of Churchill. The minister was unable during the session to furnish the information. On the second last day of the session I asked him with respect to it and he promised to furnish the information during the recess. I have not yet been able to get it. Would the minister now inform me as to how many men were employed, between June 1 and December 31, 1935, on the seasonal and temporary staff at the port of Churchill; what were their names and their home addresses, and on whose recommendations they were appointed? I know the minister cannot give me this information offhand, but the question stood on the order paper most of last session and I trust he will take this as notice and let me have the information as soon as possible.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: My hon. friend will recall that he asked for the information in the form of an order for return, and I know that we furnished the information required of us. If he would put his motion on the order paper once more I assume the information could be furnished very promptly.



TEXTILE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): May I ask the government, first, when the Turgeon report on the textile industry will be ready, and second, when it is, will every member receive a copy of it?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): My information is that the final hearings have not yet been conducted by Mr. Justice Turgeon. I believe they are to occur in the very near future. Until the report is received by the government nothing further can be said about the matter.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
["They range from S3,660 to $2,880. That of the senior steamship inspector is $3,660: steamship inspector, general, $2,820 to $3,360; inspector of boilers and machinery, $2,520 to $2,880; inspector of hull equipment, $2,520 to $2,880; inspector of ships' tackle, $1,260 to $1,440.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported."]
Richard Bedford Bennett: On more than one occasion both in and without this house I have pointed out that there are certain Canadian problems which in my opinion can be solved only by the united efforts of the various parliamentary and legislative bodies that are set up in our
dominion. I have been much impressed of late with what I have read in the newspapers as to the present condition of unrest and- shall I say-evidences of something stronger than that in some sections of Canada, and I venture to-day to bring to the house a suggestion which I have thought over very carefully and which may or may not be of some value.
No one can fail to realize, for instance, that there is a sharp conflict at the present moment between legislatures and the parliament of Canada. We find some of our provinces suggesting the possession of a sovereignty which is entirely out of keeping with the general principles which have governed us heretofore. That in itself is not very serious. But the terms in which references have been made in some articles in the press are so nearly allied to references taken from the press of 1860 in the United States as to sovereign rights of the states that it makes one apprehensive as to where this may lead. This suggested exercise of sovereignty by the provinces goes further than I have ever seen it go before.
The second point to which attention might be directed is the ever-present conflict between legislatures and this parliament in the exercise of their constitutional jurisdiction. In other words, the interpretation of our constitution has become somewhat more difficult, and the exclusive powers exercised by legislatures of the provinces on the one hand and by this parliament on the other have come in conflict so frequently and so sharply with respect to national questions that I think it is time some remedy should be applied. One has only to look about and read the daily press to realize the character of the conflict. Vested with powers, plenary within their ambit, as the privy council has pointed out, the provinces have incurred obligations that are such as to have made some of them at least bankrupt. This parliament has no power of supervision, nor yet has it the right of effective criticism. I think that must be granted; for under the constitution, I repeat, the provinces in the exercise of their legislative powers have the same plenary right as this parliament has within the ambit of its jurisdiction.
Note the character of the conflicts. They have been going on, but we have never seriously endeavoured to deal with them during the seventy years of our confederation. For instance, we have the debt problem. We have a far more serious problem, that which arises out of the breach of contracts by provincial legislatures. I do not intend to indulge in
268	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Bennett
party discussion of these matters. I only point out that what Lord Grey, when he was governor general of this country, pointed out as to the lack in our constitution of any effective powers to prevent the legislatures from making contracts, was a matter for the most serious consideration; and he did suggest that the provinces might consent to an amendment to the British North America Act which would embody within the provisions of our constitution one similar to that which prevails in the United States of America. Hon. members who are of the legal profession will recall the judgment of Chief Justice Marshall when dealing with that question in connection with the grant of lands in the state of Georgia and what a profound effect it had upon the life of the United States.
Take another question, the administration of justice. I have had occasion to examine the problem connected with the administration of justice in others of our self-governing dominions. Here, the parliament of Canada makes the criminal law but the administration rests with the provinces, and the result of course has not always been entirely satisfactory. With respect to the question of the administration of civil justice, it will be recalled that the provinces determine the number of judges that are to be appointed and this parliament has to provide for their appointment on the one hand and their salaries on the other; and it is a matter well known of course to all that in some of our provinces the judiciary are notoriously without work. That is the result of the operation of our present constitution.
Then there is one other power that has fallen into disuse but which was looked upon at one time as a bulwark to ensure the safety of what you might call the contractual obligations and responsibilities of those who had bargained with provincial governments. I refer to the power of disallowance. Early in our history Mr. Blake set up the theory that instead of the exercise of that power it would be preferable for the courts to determine whether or not legislation fell within the jurisdiction of the legislature or of federal power, and if it were intra vires of the legislature then it should be left to its operation. That principle was not the principle under which the power of disallowance was inserted in our constitution.
There are other matters to wrhich attention might be directed, but I do desire to point out that there has come about an ever-insistent and increasing demand upon the federal treasury to provide money for provincial legislatures by increased subsidies and

grants in order that they might expend it without any limitation or control being imposed upon that expenditure by the power that granted it to them. We have set up commissions with respect to matters affecting eastern Canada, central Canada and western Canada; and it is because on Monday last I saw the suggestion that it was thought desirable to set up a commission to deal with certain fundamental problems that affect our whole constitutional position that I venture to make the observations that I now make.
What I say is predicated upon the assumption that all the provinces are desirous of maintaining the confederation. Every now and then you read an article suggesting that the provinces would like to go back to the days of the crown colony. You sometimes read, from what I consider-not speaking in any sense disrespectfully-irresponsible sources, the suggestion that a free republic should be established in some parts of Canada. I dismiss these suggestions and I conclude that all Canadian provinces are desirous of maintaining the confederation. Once we concede that premise, the only problem that has to be considered is the nature and character of the instrument under which the various provinces carry on their legislative powers and their administrative functions and this parliament carries out its obligations as a national parliament. That instrument, of course, at the present moment is a document known as the British North America Act, a statute passed at Westminster in 1867, and which has been frequently amended. Under that act there was a distribution of legislative powers between the provinces and the dominion. It has been contended-and I do not propose to enter into that discussion to-day-that this was a contract between four provinces and that there must be unanimity between them before there can be any great modification of that instrument. I am not discussing that for the moment.
It is well known that Sir John Macdonald preferred a legislative union; you will find that in one of his letters in which he sets it out at length. For purely political reasons it was impossible to give effect to that conviction and we therefore enacted a statute that does not provide for a purely federal union, as was pointed out by Lord Haldane in connection with the famous Australian case; because in Australia they have a federal union embodying the principles of the American constitution. Only a few days ago the privy council held that the marketing act of Australia was illegal and invalid; that there was no power either in the legislature

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Bennett
of any state or in the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to enact that measure; that there was a legislative area unoccupied by either the parliament at Canberra or the legislatures of the various states. The result is that an amendment to the constitution is being submitted to the people for their consideration, to authorize the jurisdiction being exercised by the federal parliament.
All this I state merely by way of introduction to the suggestion which I have to make. The British North America Act came into operation as a result of the final adoption at Quebec of certain resolutions. To the extent that there may be variation between the resolutions and the statute another question arises which it is not my purpose to discuss. But the resolutions at Quebec were arrived at after a conference, a convention, representing all shades of political thought. There met together representatives of every one of the four provinces, and they were selected not from the party in office at the moment but from the legislatures as a whole, in order that the whole question of the constitution might be raised from the level of pure partisan discussion to a broader outlook and a wider field. The result was that the Quebec resolutions could not in any sense be said to be resolutions arrived at by a party. They embodied the convictions of the responsible representatives of the four provinces.


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I ask the right hon.
gentleman a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. Their constitution is the result of the deliberations of these great representatives of the four provinces, the Cape, Natal, the Transvaal and the Free State, just as our constitution was assumed to be prepared on the basis of the resolutions which were arrived at after much discussion and consultation between the representatives of the provinces.
May I refer now to my own experience in connection with these matters? When the provinces are represented by their premiers and some of their ministers there is always
a tendency, whether you like it or not, to consider political questions from the narrow rather than the broad angle. Every interprovincial conference which has met in this country has been a political conference; therefore to talk about amendments to this rigid written document, the British North America Act, by the action of a body of men who for the moment represent merely a majority- or sometimes not that-of the electors, is in my judgment an entirely erroneous view, and cannot possibly lead to any adequate solution of the difficulties before us. Therefore I suggest that we have a constitutional convention: a conference at which the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, would be represented not merely by their premiers but by all who constitute the legislatures of the provinces-not all in number, but such as may be representative of all phases of thought within those legislatures; and the same with respect to Quebec; the same with respect to Ontario and the west. There are in western Canada many schools of political thought; would it be right or fair that there should be a determination of constitutional rights and a limitation of constitutional powers of the provinces if some of those schools of thought found no representation at the conference or convention which modified our constitution?
Then I come to this parliament. In any constitutional convention or conference there should be provision for representation of the various schools of thought represented here; the Prime Minister, his government, the opposition, gentlemen who sit to my left representing other schools of thought. We should then have a constitutional convention or conference in accordance with the general principles which governed the conference that brought into being the British North America Act, the constitution of this country. In other words, we cannot hope to succeed in the modification of our constitution by appealing merely to the partisans in the provinces or in the dominion; for that is what it means if we limit the representatives to the governments of the day. If we are to succeed we must have representatives of the whole of the legislature or parliament, in order that there may be full, free and frank discussion, and that the conclusions arrived at in the form of resolutions may be such as embody the modifications that our experience teaches should be made.
I wonder if there is any hon. member of this house who has any doubt as to the desirability of amendment of the British North America Act. I know of none. I have never talked privately to a member of this house
270	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Bennett
who has not agreed that there should be some modification, some amendment. It is for that reason that I make this suggestion.
I have deliberately left out from what I have said any reference to the method to be adopted to accomplish the amendment of the of the constitution. I am not unaware of xne methods followed in Australia and South Africa; they were in sharp variance with our own. That is a matter which may well be discussed, if thought desirable, at such a conference1. But for the purpose that I have in mind at the moment, namely, the preservation of our institutions, I do submit that in this suggestion we have a broad basis of discussion, representation not on a narrow party basis but by all those who axe leaders of- you may call them not parties, but groups, small though they may be; and that the discussion be on such a broad basis as may ensure a successful constitutional conference or convention to effect the measures of reform which in my judgment are essential to the preservation of democracy in Canada- I go just that far. For unless democracy can be as efficient as a dictatorship, it cannot survive. And it cannot be efficient in this country with these sharp conflicts between provincial jurisdiction on the one hand and federal on the other, and the many other matters to which I have referred and to which I could refer at greater length. Our desire to ensure and maintain the success of democracy on the northern part of this continent can in my judgment be made effective only by the government of the day arranging a conference which will ensure such conclusions being arrived at., after consultation and discussion, giving in here and advancing there, as will place our modern political thought, shall I say, on a constitutional basis. For certainly the tendency is everywhere to efficiency in government, and the general view is that efficiency cannot be maintained if you have in nine different areas nine different sets of laws dealing with problems that are national in their scope.
The Minister of Labour desired to ask me a question. I shall be glad now to answer if I can.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I did not propose to take issue with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) but simply to correct what I assume was an inadvertence on his part when he referred to the Quebec resolutions as having actually been the basis of the British North America Act. In some provinces, as he is well aware, considerable importance is attached to the fact that the Quebec resolutions were followed by the resolutions of
TMr. Bennett.]
the Westminster conference of 1866, which actually I think are set out in Pope's Confederation Documents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I am thoroughly familiar with that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Are they not the basis of the British North America Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in my
judgment the Minister of Labour has not accurately expressed the situation. The conference at Quebec was different from the conference at Westminster. The conference at Westminster was limited in its numbers as compared with the conference at Quebec. The conference at Westminster was a conference of give and take in the final discussions that were held between the members who went there to represent Canada and the government at Westminster, just as in " Lord de Villiers and His Times " it is pointed out that he went to England after the resolutions had been arrived at in connection with the Union of South Africa, and modifications were made. Lord Crewe made modifications and changes because he thought the draftsmanship was faulty and should be improved here and there. The resolutions were finally adopted, and the Westminster conclusions were the conclusions arrived at in the hotel as from day to day the members of the delegation from Canada discussed their problems with the British government which had to put the bill through the House of Commons and the House of Lords.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The difficulty was to give legal expression to the resolutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. The draftsmanship, I believe, is said to be that of the late Lord Thring, and it has always been the subject matter of discussion. Sometimes when I read the sections I marvel at the prescience and power of that great draftsman who, out of the resolutions which were before him, created the act we now know as the British North America Act. No one would say that the men who met together at Westminster were the men who were primarily responsible for the adoption of the constitution.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not suggesting that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was done at Charlottetown and Quebec, and it will be recalled that after the Quebec resolutions were drawn up those who were responsible for them visited Upper Canada, Lower Canada and the lower provinces, and made addresses in various places. Those from the maritime provinces came up here, and you will recall many of their speeches which are contained in the
JANUARV 26, 1937	271
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Pouliot
records of one of the Prince Edward Island representatives, Mr. Whelan. He records their visits to Upper Canada and to Lower Canada, as it was then called, and the discussions that took place at that time.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I was rejoicing in the fact that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was back in this country, but after listening to what I have just heard I am not sure whether he has not made a broadcast from Cape Town or Canberra, whether he has not been speaking from South Africa or Australia, or perhaps from New Zealand.
Five or six years ago, sir, when I was sitting in the corner to your left and when the Liberal party was in opposition, I denounced the policy of the then government when the prime minister acted as a sort of Santa Claus, saying to the provinces and the municipalities, " Come to me and I will give you anything." What did he do? He imposed heavy charges on the provinces and municipalities. After the speeches delivered by the right hon. gentleman during the election of 1930 people were under the impression that the government of Canada was a kind of Santa Claus, that the Bennett government would give plenty of money to every citizen, and that no Canadian would have to work after the election. He promised to take care of every unemployed person, saying. " Come unto me and I will give relief to the unemployed," who were not then unemployed but who wore buttons paid for by the Conservative organization, and who made trouble at meetings addressed by the leader of the Liberal party.
That was the story at that time, sir. Then the right hon. gentleman was creating a false impression throughout the country, leading people to believe that there were many unemployed when there were none. More than that, sir, the Indians who had been on relief for years were considered as unemployed, though the government knew very well that they could do no work. They were unemployable unemployed, but their number was added in order to give a false impression to the country. Afterwards what happened? After the right hon. gentleman had said to the country that he alone could take care of the unemployed and end the unemployment problem, he said to the provinces, " You will pay so much " and to the municipalities, " You will pay so much " and to the railways, " You will pay so much." Thus he imposed on the railways, on the municipalities and on the provinces a heavy burden of responsibility
which he shared to only a small extent. As a result many provinces and municipalities are bankrupt.
I am very glad, sir, to have seen the right hon. gentleman rise in his seat this afternoon and denounce a condition which he created by his own policies from 1930 to 1935. He sees the evil now which we forecast when we were on the other side of the house. We knew what would happen, and now this government has to look after the result of the wrongdoings and shortcomings of the right hon. gentleman, in order to try to make this a country in which Canadians can live happily. That is pretty hard after the five years through which we have passed, from July 1930 to October 1935.
But, sir, I fully agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition when he says there should be an adjustment of taxation. For long enough this government has been considered a kind of Santa Claus. The municipalities go to the provincial governments; then the provincial governments come here and ask the federal government to give them money that comes from ffederal taxation. There is a question appearing on the order paper now which I hope will be answered in Hansard, requesting information, first, as to the revenue derived from each tax during the last five years, and second, how this money has been spent, in order to show the people that the federal government is no Santa Claus, as the right hon. leader of the Conservative party preached during the election of 1930, and as he tried to make the country believe during the years he was in power.
We must come to this, Mr. Speaker: Every Canadian citizen should know what amount he pays in municipal taxation, what amount he pays in provincial taxation and what amount he pays in federal taxation, and every municipality, every province and the federal government should spend only the money received from their own taxation. I am sure this will meet with the approval of the Canadian people. Why do we tax our people in order to give the money to the provinces, who in turn give it to the municipalities?
What is the income of the municipalities? The main part of their income is what they obtain by taxing those who own immovable property. The burden of taxation falls on those people, who are left with no purchasing power after they pay that taxation. The official gazette of each province is full of lists of immovables which are to be sold for taxes. People have no means with which to pay their taxes and their properties are sold. This creates a very acute problem, and it is

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Pouliot
time for an adjustment of taxation. My right hon. friend the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett) sees that now. Why, when he was leader of the government, did he not appoint a committee of the house to study this question of taxation, a matter of the greatest importance to every one of us? It was not done. Before coming to any agreement with a province the first thing to do would be to examine the field of taxation, to see whether or not the taxpayer can be relieved to a certain extent. Then, the next duty would be to see that the municipalities have sufficient sources of income so that they may not have to lean too much on the provinces for subsidies, and that in turn the provinces may have great enough revenues, so that to make both ends meet within their own borders they will not have to lean on the federal exchequer for further subsidies.
This is very simple, in theory, but it may be more difficult to bring about the necessary adjustments. However, as a Canadian citizen I urge upon the house and country the necessity of a careful study of every field of taxation. Who shall be called to that conference? If we call every sitting member of every legislative assembly to meet to discuss the matter, where shall they meet? I say they will meet in the Tower of Babel. That is where they will meet; there would be no understanding.
I believe in the rule of the majority, although some different opinions have been expressed in this chamber; and I fully realize the importance of a modification of the British North America Act. My right hon. friend the hon. member for Calgary West has said that the British North America Act has often been amended since its original passage. That is not exact, and he knows it. The amendments are very few, and are contained in only a few pages of the annex to the statute. Every member knows that, and the right hon. gentleman opposite knows it better than anyone, because he is well posted in the law. He knows it. The amendments to the British North America Act have been only slight and minor.
If we are to study amendments regarding taxation I suggest such study should first be made by a committee of this house, such committee having been given authority to go to the bottom of the matter. There are intelligent members in every party in this chamber, and many hon. members are well qualified to make a thorough study of the matter from the federal point of view. Then, when such committee has reached a conclu-

sion, that conclusion should be sent to every legislature in Canada, because the matter affects the provinces as well as the dominion. The report of the committee of this chamber should be sent to every province, and after having been discussed by each province it should be sent back to Ottawa. After the returns have been received, it would be proper to have a meeting of members of the House of Commons and the Senate, and duly accredited representatives of every province.
We must have order. As a boy at school I remember writing in our copy books "ordo ducit ad Deum"-order leads to God. There is no order now in the way subsidies are granted to the provinces. As soon as the right hon. the leader of the Tory party took office every province came here, as they would have come to Santa Claus, saying "We have a deficit; you Ottawa people must fill it. We cannot make both ends meet; you of the federal government must give us money to fill the gap." That is what happened, and the right hon. gentleman opposite knows it better than anybody else. I am sorry to see him smile; he should cry, because that is his own work. He knows, and every man of ' good faith in this chamber knows, that what I have said is true, and only since the right hon. gentleman was prime minister has there been such disorder in the finances of Canada.
It is time to have order, and such order can be achieved through the good will, experience, intelligence, devotion and earnestness of hon. members who are ready to make a careful study of this most important problem and draw the right conclusions.
After the remarks of the right hon. gentleman opposite I submit the government should first appoint a committee of this house to study through and through the matter of taxation, because the federal government is more interested than provincial, municipal or school authorities. We are more affected because of the grants or subsidies asked when finances are in a bad way either in the provinces or in the municipalities. Competent members of this chamber-and I am sure all are

should be chosen to form a committee to make a close study of the problem, and to report to the provinces and ask their views in the matter. Following that we might have a conference where representatives of provinces might be selected by the legislative bodies. We would have a final and practical report on the matter. Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say for the time being.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, of course we were

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Lapointe
unaware that my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) would discuss this matter to-day. I realize it is a most important one, and my remarks must necessarily be general.
I agree with the right hon. gentleman that occasionally there are queer happenings in certain parts of the dominion, and the instance he mentioned of a province claiming sovereignty is certainly one of them. I suggest however that that must not be taken too seriously. I know of happenings in another province which some of our friends in other provinces, and even elsewhere, are perhaps taking too seriously. A few days ago I was amazed to read in a review published in London references to certain speeches which have been made recently in my own province, and making unjustified comments thereon. May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the House of Commons, that those who have indulged in such speeches do not represent the views and the mentality of the people of my province. We are attached to confederation, as are the other provinces, and certainly are opposed to having nine nations in Canada. We have one nation, the Canadian nation, of which we are proud, and we will see to it, all of us, that Canada is kept and maintained on the road to progress and prosperity.
There is no doubt that changes are required and should be made in our constitution so far as the jurisdictions of the central government and of the provinces are concerned. The fathers of confederation did a great work in 1867, but they worked in the light of conditions as they were seventy years ago. Times have changed; the problems are different; conditions to-day are not what they were seventy years ago. Changes have to be made, and the statesmen of to-day have to harmonize the constitution of Canada in its relation to the jurisdiction of the provinces so that it will conform to the conditions of to-day rather than to the conditions of 1867. But this should be done harmoniously. It is not being disloyal or unfaithful to the memory of Macdonald, Brown, Cartier and the others if we make the necessary changes that will ensure the permanency and continuance of the great work which they have done.
My right hon. friend has mentioned some of the anomalies which exist and some of the difficulties which governments have to meet almost every day in the administration of affairs both in the dominion and in the provincial jurisdiction. The great difficulty-and this has engaged the attention of the courts ever since confederation, and is still engaging it because there are references now before the
31111-is
privy council on certain social legislation of this parliament-the great difficulty is the harmonizing of that power in the constitution which gives to the provinces jurisdiction over property and civil rights with that other power which belongs exclusively to the federal parliament with regard to trade and commerce. Most things which concern trade and commerce apply also to property and civil rights, and it is most difficult to determine in which jurisdiction certain specific matters lie. Take the administration of justice. My right hon. friend is right in pointing to the anomalies there. The provinces enact the legislation, create tribunals, fix the number of judges who shall administer justice within their limits, and then the federal government appoints the judges, and this parliament provides for their salaries. There are other matters. Take the prison system. A prisoner is sentenced to twenty-three months in gaol; he goes to a provincial gaol. If he is sentenced to two years, he goes to a federal penitentiary. Of course all this was arbitrarily determined, and certainly some of the difficulties that have arisen are as a result of this arbitrary division of powers and jurisdiction. All these things may be revised if the constitution comes before a conference of the kind suggested by my right hon. friend.
He also mentioned the power of disallowance. This is another very difficult thing. The power of disallowance which is in the constitution has in practice become practically obsolete. The power of disallowance which existed at Westminster with regard to the legislation of this dominion exists no longer because there has been a constitutional convention which has done away with that power. There has been no such convention with regard to the power of disallowance by this dominion of provincial legislation, but in practice the provinces claim full and complete sovereignty within the limits of their legislative sphere, and it is rather difficult to exercise that power of disallowance. There are cases-I will not affirm that they exist at the present time-where it would almost seem that a province would desire that its legislation be disallowed in order to create conflict between the province and the dominion parliament and the dominion government. This renders the power of disallowance almost illusory, you may say.
With regard to financial difficulties, there are some at the present time, and they are engaging the attention of this government to a considerable extent. I can assure my right hon. friend that they have been discussed by this government almost continuously.

274	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Lapointe


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that they had not, you know.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I quite realize that. These financial difficulties are so urgent and so pressing that I am afraid their solution could not await any constitutional conference, because some step must be taken in order to prevent what might be rather a danger to the whole of Canada.
As far as amendments to the British North America Act are concerned, I agree with my right hon. friend, and on various occasions in this house, wherever I happened to be sitting,
I have stated that amendments to the British North America Act are necessary and should be made. I also claimed, and I have not changed my view about it, that Canada, as a self-governing dominion, should have the power which other self-governing dominions have to amend its own constitution, subject to the necessary safeguards of certain rights which cannot be ignored. I have already discussed in this parliament the question of a constitutional conference. The first public man to my knowledge who advocated a constitutional conference of the kind suggested by my right hon. friend was Sir Clifford Sifton, who very often claimed that we should have a constitution for the Dominion of Canada, and that it should be the work of a conference representing the dominion and the provinces, with the delegates chosen by the dominion and by the provinces and representing, as my right hon. friend has suggested, the various parties in the dominion and in the provinces as well. No doubt much might be said in favour of such a scheme, and the idea expressed by the leader of the opposition to-day ought to be discussed and considered not only by the members of the house but by all who are interested in these questions, and another occasion should be provided for the purpose of discussing it more fully. In a general way the matter engages the attention of public men, and more particularly of members of this house; for if you consult the order paper you will observe not less than three resolutions affecting the subject we are discussing. There is resolution No. 2 of my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who suggests that a committee of the house be set up for the purpose of recommending amendments to the British North America Act. There is the resolution of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who also asks for a committee of the house which would consider all the matters that have been referred to this afternoon. There is one by my hon. friend the member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) which 
asks the appointment of a commission to investigate problems with special regard to western Canada. Of course all this cannot be done this session, but enough has been stated to demonstrate to the house and the country that there is nothing irreverent in talking about amending the British North America Act; that although it is a fine piece of work and has served Canada well, it is not an ark of the covenant which nobody can touch without being punished as a criminal; it is a human device which may be improved, and particularly so because of the changes that have taken place in seventy years. I have no doubt that the disruptive elements to which my right hon. friend alluded will not prevail in the Dominion of Canada, but that we shall continue to be a united country which will in the future, as it has in the past, set an example to the other dominions and the rest of the world.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: While I naturally endorse and welcome the eulogy contained in the closing remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as applied to the Dominion of Canada, I think it would be unfortunate if a matter of this tremendous import should be dismissed even with words so eloquent as those he has just uttered. This subject appeals to me not so much from the legal or constitutional standpoint as from that of the welfare of a vast proportion of the people of Canada. It would be folly for us to blind our eyes to the very serious problems with which this country is confronted. Perhaps I am putting it too strongly, but I will venture the thought that underlying all this trouble is the constant wrangle over the question of jurisdiction; at least that is seized upon continually as an excuse for inaction. People appeal to their provincial legislatures for redress of wrongs which they conceive it to be within the powers of the legislature to right. The leaders of the legislative assemblies reply that it is a subject which comes under the powers of the dominion. If I may be permitted a colloquialism or slang phrase, what is known as " passing the buck " is an expression very closely applicable to what has been going on in this country for many years.
I believe the suggestion made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is one that should engage our most earnest consideration at this time. It should not be treated as a matter which might well be considered some day in the future when we have more time. I do not know of any subject which could more worthily command the concentrated attention of this house than that

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Stevens
which has just been proposed by the leader of the opposition, namely that there should be held a conference of the dominion parliament and the legislative assemblies of the various provinces, adding to that, as suggested by the Minister of Justice, outside interests that have given study to the subject, and that such conference be assembled at some time in the near future for the purpose of studying amendments to the British North America Act.
Perhaps it is fortunate for Canada that we have a written constitution. I know there are those who hold the view that a written constitution is very often a nuisance. Sometimes it is. But in times of stress and passion, when conditions are disrupted and feeling runs high, it is a fine thing to have a written constitution to hold us steadily on the track. Obviously, as the Minister of Justice has very properly admitted, the conditions of to-day are not the conditions of 1867, and there has to come a time when changes should be made. The question is, are those changes to be made sanely, after proper consideration and by properly constituted authorities, or are they to burst upon us out of the passions of the people? It is the latter that I fear. I do not think we properly apprehend the seriousness with which very many people in this country view present day conditions. Nor have we, in my opinion, a full appreciation of the utter hopelessness of the great mass of people in this country. There is a feeling of futility and hopelessness permeating the hearts and souls of hundreds of thousands. Since the last assembly of parliament I have talked to men whom I have known for years, whom I have looked upon as pretty thoughtful and sane, who have discarded hope or trust in parliaments-and they are not citizens whom we can lightly disregard. I have one hope in my heart for Canada, and that is that there may be a preservation of Canadian democracy. If we look at the world to-day, what do we see? Everywhere, in Asia and in Europe, in the two old centres of civilisation, we see an alignment in two directions: on the one hand we see government by force along communistic and socialistic lines, and on the other hand we see government by force along fascist lines. And that is becoming generally accepted and, to me, to an alarming degree; it is being accepted now that the test is between these two views, and democracy as we understand it is being pushed aside as scarcely worthy of consideration. Yet in my opinion, from my studies of history-the history of a thousand years; and if one had time one might summon the witnesses here from the pages of history-there is but one system that will
31111-18}
protect the interests of the individual and contribute most to the happiness, the comfort and security of peoples everywhere. And that is the system of democracy.
But we are bound to admit that inherent in democracy and peculiar to it are certain weaknesses owing to the fact that there are so many who have a part or say, to a certain degree, nominally at least, in what shall be the government. There is not one central dominating intellect that determines matters. Democracy is supposed to be the composite view of the masses of the people. But there is another weakness that afflicts us far more seriously than that, and it is this. We have developed certain institutions such as the party system, and we find that the party system lends itself to domination by a system of patronage or influence. This may not sound nice, but those of us who have been allied to parties over a period of years and have had experience of the influences that are brought to bear know perfectly well that one of the things which it is most difficult to resist is what I might term the effect of malign influences that are brought to bear upon parties. By that process we weaken governments and leadership in the democratic system through the party method of administration. But the fact that these weaknesses exist is no reason why we should not bend every effort to preserve to the country the great principles of democratic government.
At the risk of being charged perhaps with stepping into a realm I am not competent to discuss, I will cite the old British North America Act-and I do not join with those who treat this document lightly or with scorn. I think it is a magnificent document; and as I read it as a layman and seek to find in its majestic phraseology an expression of the views of the men and women of that day, I can see in it, even without any amendment and in the form in which it was intended to apply, the very salvation that we are looking for. Unfortunately, however, certain parts of the act have passed through the courts and certain interpretations have been given them, and these interpretations stand as the meaning of the act. I am not going to quarrel with that; it is one of the facts with which we are confronted; but I should like as a layman to direct the attention of the house to what I conceive to be some of the salient points and principles, not embalmed perhaps but included in this sacred document.
Take the very preamble. I called attention to this two years ago, but. I admit, with very little effect at the time. The very preamble declares that the four provinces of
276	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Stevens
that day had met together and decided to unite into a dominion. Under the act, as the preamble says, the [provinces of Canada-that is to say, Ontario and Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-expressed their desire to be federally united in one dominion under the crown. These words thrill my heart; they conjure up before me a gathering of men from the then provinces to which reference is made, expressing one to the other a desire to unite; and I believe that the first thing we need in Canada to-day is a reaffirmation of that doctrine, that we the people of Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the maritime provinces and the old and powerful provinces of Quebec and Ontario, are ready to say once again that we pledge ourselves one to another to unite in one dominion. But the sentiment that is abroad to-day-and in a moment or two I will refer to some of the causes, which I think can be removed-is not that we should unite; it is a far different sentiment and is far more widespread than many of us perhaps conceive. Some people are looking at the situation and saying, "Would it not be better for us if we were out of confederation?" I know that a strong case can be made for that conviction, I can point to at least three sections of the dominion where a strong case can be made for it, and I think it is a tragedy that that feeling should continue and should spread without a reaffirmation of the very basis of this document.
The preamble proceeds:
And whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces. . . .
I pause there, and I say that a union, a real and genuine union based upon the spirit of unity, will still conduce to the welfare of the provinces. And that sentiment is one which in my opinion needs reaffirmation at this time. The preamble goes on to declare that provision shall be made for the eventual admission of other parts, which, of course, was done, and these other parts were most happily brought into the union. A little further on, in the second section of the act, it is enacted that it shall be lawful for the queen to declare by proclamation that the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick:
. . . shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one dominion under that name accordingly.
I have read this in order to emphasize the spirit that underlay the organization of this great dominion, which has been so eloquently referred to and eulogized by the Minister of Justice.
[Mr. Ptevens.l
And now I turn to the famous sections 91 and 92. I ask my legal friends at once to acquit me of any charge of attempting a legal interpretation of this document, but there are certain practical matters referred to in these two sections which I believe express in very definite terms some of the chief problems with which we are confronted to-day. I am convinced that we ought to concentrate our attention upon these problems. There is a phrase in section 91 which because of party strife over comparatively trivial issues has been brought into disrepute, yet is of profound importance. I refer to the famous phrase, "peace, order, and good government." I ask hon. members for the moment to dismiss from their minds the partisan criticisms which have been bandied from one side to the other for many years,- and to consider the spirit and language of the section:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada . . .
That was the main underlying thought of those who framed this act; and the perpetuation, shall I say, or sustaining of the great thought of unity which was expressed in the preamble was the reason for their coming together. Obviously if you are to have unity there must be peace, order and good government. There must be some authority to determine the conditions that control the relations of individual citizens one to the other, and that great principle is the principle underlying the authority of this parliament. But to-day no man can say that this parliament is supreme in that regard. Technically, nominally, constitutionally, or whatever term you prefer, it is. An hon. member earlier this afternoon asked a responsible minister of the crown whether he knew of certain disturbing actions by individuals in one section of this country in relation to the relief problem. While the minister replied that he had some knowledge of it, the question of peace, order and good government, which is the prerogative of this parliament, did not seem at that moment to be present in his mind. He expressed- very properly; I am not complaining; I just cite it as an illustration of the point-confidence in the provincial authorities to maintain peace and order and take care of the situation.
Then tabulated below that clause in the act are certain exceptions. But before I refer to only a few of those which I think are pertinent let me quote further the language of the section:
. . . to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Stevens
matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
Those subjects will fee found set out in the next section, 92. Then we come to an enumeration of matters coming within the jurisdiction of parliament. I am going to refer to a few of them. There is the public debt-that is the dominion public debt-and property. The words " and property " are rather interesting. I am quite aware that there one immediately steps into a realm where constitutional sophists argue that you are impinging on property and civil rights.


Ernest Lapointe: That means public property.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, possibly. Then we go on to the next:
The regulation of trade and commerce.
And there is nothing more to qualify that. Yet during the last five or six years in particular there have been a dozen occasions when the right of regulation of trade and commerce in this country has been definitely challenged, the power and right of this parliament to legislate on it denied; and in some cases that denial has been successfully upheld in the courts. I go back, Mr. Speaker, to 1867, when this act was framed. In the minds of the framers of this act, or those who laid down the resolutions upon which it was based, the regulation of trade and commerce was intended to apply to all commerce common to the dominion. Because in section 121 of the act this phraseology is used:
All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces.
One of the problems of to-day is this: how the Dominion of Canada through this parliament is to control properly the movement of goods within Canada itself. I merely state the question, without arguing it.
Then we have the question of patents of invention and discovery. Nobody questions the right of this parliament to control patents, but I ask parliament: are we exercising that control to the extent that we should, or are we allowing certain great institutions in this country to secure control of patent rights and use them to interfere with the freedom of movement of trade within Canada?
I turn over the page and I find in section 92 what I conceive to be the cause of a great deal of our difficulty. I refer at once to subsection 10:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the followdng classes:-
And then it says:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
It is as clear as day that it was intended that this parliament should exercise an overriding right to declare works to be for the general benefit of Canada if it was clear that federal control of them was necessary to the happiness and well-being of the people of Canada as a whole. Here again we have what has become, in the terms applied by the minister to one of the other powers, a power which is practically obsolete, very seldom used. It was exercised constantly by this parliament when I first came here, in connection with railways. But it became more or less limited to railways, and since then has been largely abandoned.
I come now to the most important of all, that is the power or the right to incorporate companies with provincial objects. That is one of the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into an argument or discussion this afternoon-because I am not prepared to do so-on what was originally intended there. But I say, following the language of the Minister of Justice, that in the last seventy years vast changes have come about in our economic life, not only in Canada but throughout the world; and the power or right. to incorporate a company has become a vastly different thing from what it was in 1867. May I remind the minister of this- I think I am correct in saying it-that it was not until 1854 that the incorporation of companies included the provision for limited liability. In any case that provision has in a progressive way led to a complete change in our economic structure, a change which, viewed over a period of fifty years, is nothing short of startling. We are now confronted with the question whether the country is to be dominated and ruled and controlled by a democratic institution called parliament or legislature, or whether the welfare of its people is to be dominated by great corporations which, using Kipling's phrase, are "without the law." When I say without the law I do not mean without the Companies Act or their acts of incorporation, but who seem to be beyond the ordinary laws that control the lives, the activities and the consciences of individuals. A great jurist on one occasion, when trying one of these cases, said something to the effect that a corporation had no soul and no conscience. Neither it has. That is
278	: ' if I	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Stevens
not a reflection; these are not words of opprobrium I am using. I am simply stating a fact, something that is inescapable.
What does perturb and alarm me, Mr. Speaker, is that by the introduction of the power of incorporation, with the right of limited liability, we have introduced into Canada, as into all other countries of a similar type, a new economic principle which has gone on step by step until to-day we find that these companies are entrenched in a most extraordinarily powerful manner, affecting, as I say, the lives of countless thousands of people. So I say that the right of incorporation which was given to the provinces, and which of course is present in the dominion, raises a question that we must face, and one of the things this country needs above everything else is uniformity in company laws. If we had a conference on nothing else it would be worth while to have a conference with the provinces. By the way, the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan), when he held the portfolio of Secretary of State, I believe did undertake to bring about that happy condition, though I am afraid without any great success, not through any lack of effort on his part but because of the difficulties with which he was at once confronted. But it is of such profound importance that it ought to be taken under consideration forthwith.


Mr. DUNNING:: There was another conference just the other day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member may not know that all the provinces agreed to a uniform companies act. That was done when the hon. gentleman was a member of the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite aware of that; I remember the conference very well, because I was there. But I do say

and I do not think it can be successfully contradicted- that the net results of that verbal agreement have amounted to next to nothing.


Charles Avery Dunning: They were carried further at a conference held just the other week.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so, but when we say they were carried further, even in the fond anticipation of those who carried them further the results have not been attained, and we have not gone very far.


Charles Avery Dunning: You have to get men to agree, you know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. I am rather trying to support the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the opposition that we should

get together and try to agree. I think it was very well pointed out that whether conferences were held under the aegis of the preceding government or of this government, they were more or less political organizations. I am not saying that offensively; it is a statement of fact. The suggestion made today is that there should be a conference free from or apart from partisan prejudices. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance looks askance at that, but I think such a conference is possible. I believe the people of this country, if given an opportunity to express their view, would support such a conference, and I believe it could be brought about. But that does not alter what I am stating, that through the development of the incorporation of companies we have before us a problem of the first magnitude.
There are many other things to which I might refer, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not weary the house with them to-day. I wish first to support the suggestion that in this particular instance parliament might set aside any partisan prejudices that we may have-and I think we are all prone to have them-and take the necessary steps to bring about such a conference as has been proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition. The time, I think, is past due when such a conference should be held. I do urge upon the attention of the house the grave problems with which this country is confronted and the necessity of some step-and this seems to me to be a wise one-which would at least lead us towards a solution of the difficulty. And before I sit down I should like to reaffirm what I said in my opening remarks. The supreme task before the Dominion of Canada is the preservation of its democratic institutions, not in name only, not simply to be eulogized but so that they may operate as the dominating principles in our political as well as our economic life.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this all important subject has been brought up in just the manner in which it has. I am sure my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) had the best of intentions in bringing the subject before the house in the way in which he did, but I must express some surprise that he gave me no intimation whatever that it was his intention to introduce the subject to-day, and I imagine that no one else in the house had such an intimation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not usual when
it is not proposed to move an amendment, and I did not propose to do that.

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend gives as his explanation the fact that he did not propose to move an amendment, but I do not think that alters what I have said as to what is customary as between the leaders of parties when a great question is about to be discussed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not my experience.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says that was not his experience, but my recollection of my relations with him, when he was in the position which I now hold, is that whenever a question of importance was to be introduced or brought up by the opposition some notification was given in advance to the leader of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry to say it did not always reach me. That was the difficulty. It got lost on the way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall immediately drop any discussion between my right hon. friend and myself of an antagonistic nature, because my purpose in rising was rather to express, except as to the particular time chosen, appreciation of his having brought forward a most important suggestion which he hoped would be considered by all parties in the house.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members of the house clearly realize that there is no more important question confronting this parliament than that of the necessary amendment of the British North America Act. There might be a possible exception in the subject this house was discussing yesterday, namely, that of Canada's participation in war, but with that exception I cannot think of a question quite so important, from the considerations and consequences involved, as one concerning the amendment of the constitution of our country. On all sides there is agreement that amendments are necessary, but the question above all others which has to be considered at the very outset is the matter of procedure; how the necessary amendments can be best effected.
That question has not come up to-day for the first time, nor has the suggestion made by my right hon. friend to-day come up for the first time. The matter was very carefully considered by a select committee of this house appointed by my right hon. friend before he went out of office, and that committee made an extensive report to the house. It might be interesting to hon. members who
are here to-day but who were not in the house at that time to learn with regard to the procedure that should be adopted just what were the views of the committee which investigated the matter.
May I immediately draw attention to the fact that the suggestion my right hon. friend has just made was one that was considered by the committee. It was brought before the committee by no less a distinguished person than the clerk of this house. I have in my hand the report of the special committee on the British North America Act made in 1935; the report is dated June 19, of that year-less than two years ago. At page xii of the minutes of proceedings I find this:
Doctor Beauchesne, K.C.,	C.M.G., LL.D.,
Clerk of the House of Commons, would have a new constitution drafted by a constituent assembly composed of delegates representing the various provinces and the dominion, made up of all classes of people. The constitution so drafted would be thereafter adopted by the dominion and the provinces, approved by the king, and the present act thereupon repealed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is vastly different from my suggestion; it has not even a similarity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since my right hon. friend says it is not the same, I shall read it again. I think the first part is identical.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These are the words:
. . . would have a new constitution drafted by a constituent assembly composed of delegates representing the various provinces and the dominion, made up of all classes of people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was very careful to avoid constituent assemblies; I do not believe in them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A representative assembly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is vitally different.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At any rate it was a convention for the purpose of amending the constitution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not "amending" it-preparing a new one. That was my whole trouble.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my right hon. friend for making the correction,
because that is an essential point in Doctor Beauchesne's recommendation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was suggested that we have a new constitution drafted.
280	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
I must thank my right hon. friend for having drawn my attention to the fact that it was a question of the drafting of a new constitution by a constituent assembly or, as my right hon. friend suggests, by a constitutional convention. The two may be different in some particulars, but I believe the argument with respect to the merits of the suggestion would be the same.	.
The point I wish to bring out is that the suggestion has received the consideration of a special committee of this chamber appointed by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition while he was in office. Having that, among other suggestions, before them, the committee reported:
In view of the fact that the several provinces did not feel it advisable to give the committee the benefit of their views with respect to the method of procedure to be followed in amending the constitution, the committee is of the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter of the resolution is finally made, that the opinions of the provinces should be obtained otherwise if at all possible and for that reason recommends that a dominion-provincial conference be held as early as possible in the present year to study the subject matter of the resolution.
That brings to one's attention the importance of at least one consideration of which full account would have to be taken before any such method of procedure could be successfully adopted, and that is the attitude of the provinces towards such a suggestion.
My right hon. friend has pointed out that the provinces are becoming somewhat assertive of their sovereign powers, to use the expression which has been used previously, and I imagine they would be particularly sensitive with respect to the manner in which changes in the British North America Act might be made. Indeed one has but to look at the report to see the difficulty likely to be encountered the moment one seeks to get the approval of the provinces of any method of amending the constitution. In this connection it is interesting to note the replies made by the provinces to the committee's suggestion that they might submit statements setting forth their views as to how the constitution should be amended.
Prince Edward Island sent word that the-
... dominion government should formulate its plan and policy for the purposes intended and that this should be submitted to the provincial governments and after-wards discussed at a conference of representatives of the provinces and the dominion.
New Brunswick said that they would wire their views as soon as possible, but they never found it possible to wire them.

Nova Scotia replied that it was a most difficult matter, and that they felt it should be approached by a conference between representatives of the provinces and the dominion.
Quebec sent word that in a matter of such importance it was suggested a conference of the dominion and the provinces should be held.
Ontario replied:
Province of Ontario does not desire to make any representation before your committee re British North America Act amendment as no good purpose will be served by attempting to advise dominion government at this time.
Manitoba replied:
The government of Manitoba is of the opinion that the subject matter referred to in the resolution is one of such importance that no written submission, setting out our views in reference to it, should be made without a conference with the other provinces and the dominion government. We would be willing to attend such a conference at any time, with a view to arriving at a definite method of procedure for making amendments to the British North America Act.
Saskatchewan said:
The question of what if any provision is to be made for amendment of the Canadian constitution from time to time is a question which ultimately must be decided by conferences between the governments of the provinces and the government of Canada with the possibility of a previous preliminary interprovincial conference. In view of this fact it would appear to be unwise for the provinces to be giving their views before a committee of the House of Commons. With due deference

States the attorney general:
-might I be permitted to suggest that the proper procedure is for your committee to pursue its present inquiry and to make a report to the House of Commons which I presume will either be accepted or amended or merely received without binding the government to accept the proposals of the committee. . . .
Alberta said that they considered such vital questions should be approached through an exchange of views, by interprovincial conference.
Finally, British Columbia said:
... amendment of the constitution is too important a matter to be dealt with in manner suggested. It is not thought that satisfactory conclusions can be reached either federally or provincially until a conference of the provinces and the dominion is held when full discussion may be had and matters properly debated. . . .
In view of these opinions from the several provinces it is not surprising that the committee should have reported-and may I say unanimously, although composed of representatives of all parties in the house-that they expressly refrained from-
. . . recommending any form of procedure for amendment, so as to leave the proposed

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
conference entirely free in its study of the question, except that the committee is definitely of the opinion that minority rights agreed upon and granted under the provisions of the British North America Act should not be interfered with.
The dominion provincial conference was held, and I am afraid it did not help to disclose too obvious a method of amending the constitution. The conference was called immediately after the present administration came into office. In calling the conference we acted upon the report of the committee which had been appointed by my right hon. friend, while in office. In some matters we did succeed in securing agreement between the provinces and ourselves, but when it came to the all important question of amending the constitution, to say nothing of the creation of a new constitution, the dominion provincial conference was far from unanimous in deciding upon the best method of procedure.
The question raised by the leader of the opposition and which we are now considering is undoubtedly primarily one of procedure. There are different methods which have been considered at various times. One is the suggestion of my right hon. friend that the question should be considered by a constitutional conference composed, as he has suggested, of members of the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures, such membership to be representative of all shades of political thought. I believe that method might be described as the ideal one. Personally, along with many others, I have long held the view that such would be the right course to pursue, and at times have so expressed myself. There has always come to the fore the question as to just how far in actual practice it might be possible to get the different provinces into the frame of mind where they would all be prepared to join the dominion in such a constitutional convention. Unless there were to come into convention in a harmonious spirit and prepared to adopt an attitude of cooperation with one another and with the federal representatives, it would be unfortunate to have such a convention called.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My right hon. friend suggested that that harmonious spirit would be fully engendered by the return of his party to power at the last federal election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and I think my hon. friend will agree the spirit is a good deal better than it was when my right hon. friend was in office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It looks like it down in Ontario.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to be drawn away from the question I am discussing, of the steps which may best be taken to amend the constitution or to bring into being a new constitution. Possibly we might agree at once that in order to bring a new constitution into being something in the nature of a constituent assembly or constitutional convention alone would be the method to be adopted. As to amendments which are less comprehensive than a new constitution the question arises as to whether it would not be better to proceed in the first instance by having a representative commission consider possible amendments, with all parties in the provinces and in this parliament entitled to appear before the commission and give it the benefit of their views and opinions. That would be a commission having to do with the necessary revision of the constitution as a whole. That has been considered. I may say that since the present administration came into office its members have repeatedly discussed among themselves whether it would be advisable to propose such a step at this time. It has been felt each time that the matter has been discussed that with cases affecting jurisdiction as between the dominion and the provinces now before the judicial committee of privy council, any announcement of the intended appointment of such a commission would be premature if made before the decisions were given. It might be regarded as a prejudging of the probable decisions which would be made by the privy council.
There is a method which perhaps may commend itself even more to the judgment of hon. members than that of a commission to deal with the whole question of the relations between the dominion and the provinces, and that is special commissions to take up special phases of the question, or to consider special amendments-something less wide in its scope than a commission covering the field in general but perhaps more effective in the long run, in that attention would be concentrated more completely on questions that at the moment are the most urgent and the most pressing. In that connection there arises, for example, a consideration of financial relations as between the dominion and the provinces, the question of the relative spheres of taxation, the all-important question of social services as between the dominion and the provinces. Those interrelated questions are, I believe, as urgent as almost any that we have before us at the present time. That is where the shoe pinches as between the dominion and the provinces, and it may be that we shall find it advisable to have some
282	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
immediate action taken, in whole or in part, with respect to that more limited sphere. But there again it is important to consider how such a step is likely to be viewed by the provinces as well as by the dominion. In these matters, affecting the provinces and the dominion alike, it is all-important that there should be a complete understanding that the purpose is one which is intended to serve the mutual interests of the governments of the provinces and of the federal government, and that it has no other possible objective.
I might suggest still other methods of procedure. The one I referred to a moment ago of a select committee of this house is one that has already been adopted. It was not very successful.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was only on
procedure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that was on procedure, but if it was impossible to agree on procedure at the outset, I fail to see where there is much likelihood of agreement upon the actual questions which might be submitted for consideration. However, I mention these things not at all to disguise the importance of the question. I agree entirely with the right hon. leader of the opposition that we must find a way, or make it, to have the question of the revision of our constitution somehow considered. The constitutional relations of the dominions and the United Kingdom presented in itself a very large problem, the question whether or not in the course of time a new status had not been reached by the dominions. That question seemed the most difficult which it was possible for the British government and the governments of the dominions to face, but they were able to discuss these matters at imperial conferences, and out of their discussions was evolved a British statute which we have been quoting recently in this house, the Statute of Westminster, which to all intents and purposes, makes clear the relative powers of the dominion parliaments and of the parliament at Westminster, and lays down the formula with which we are all familiar, of equality of status obtaining between these respective bodies. With that great objective obtained in the manner in which it was by the governments of the British commonwealth of nations, I fail to see why we may not be able in this dominion to work out a solution of our own immediate problem as between the provinces and the dominion.
All I wish to make clear this afternoon is that the task is not as easy as by some,

it may be assumed to be. To effect the desired end, it may require a step here and a step there, proceeding little by little, one step at a time, rather than attempting something that may prove after all so considerable that it will fail to get the support that it should.
I wish to add just this further word in conclusion. I believe, as my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) does, that this question is one which should be discussed free from party considerations. I believe he, too, holds the view that I am about to express, namely, that the question is so large that its discussion should not be confined to parliament. I believe it is a question which ought to be considered by those who are interested in constitutional problems, whether they are in this House of Commons or in the Senate or outside of parliament altogether. I would hope that as a result of my right hon. friend having brought the subject to the fore as he has to-day, and it having received preliminary consideration this afternoon, we would find that those who are interested in constitutional questions in the several provinces would take up this matter in a serious way, giving it the further thought and study that they may find it possible to give, and that they would give to the country the benefit of their views by communications to or articles in the press or by addresses before legal, political science or other bodies which it might be appropriate for them to address. I am inclined to feel that if a discussion of the kind should take place, and I believe it will, it would go a long way towards formulating public opinion on this all-important question. If there is one problem above another which can only be satisfactorily settled as a result of a united public opinion it certainly is that of the alteration of our constitution or the creation of a new constitution to supplant that under which thus far this country has been governed.


Angus MacInnis: I and those who sit with me in this corner of the chamber feel that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has performed a distinct service by bringing this matter to the attention of the house at this time. Whether we could have had a better discussion if the various groups had been notified, I do not know; possibly a spontaneous discussion of questions of this kind may be better than a set debate, where a great deal of material may be gathered that does not contribute greatly to the light shed upon the question. Members who have sat in this house for a number of years know that we in this comer have been

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Maclnnis
insistent in season and out of season in drawing to the attention of parliament the matter of dominion and provincial relations. It was, I believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who moved the resolution that led up to the appointment of a committee in 1935. I believe that the discussion this afternoon has demonstrated that the people of Canada are in a better frame of mind than ever before to deal with this matter. For that reason the present government have an opportunity, such as no previous government ever had, of dealing effectively with the questions we are now discussing. They are in a much better position than the preceding government, because since 1930 tremendous changes have taken place in Canada. The preceding government and possibly the members of the present government did not realize a few years ago the import and the extent of social and economic changes which have taken place. We all realize now that we can never go back to where we were before 1930, that we are living in a new world, and that because of that fact we shall have to develop instruments of legislation and administration effectively to meet these new conditions.
What impelled me, however, to say a word now at this time was the statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) with regard to the danger of communist and socialist forces displacing our democratic institutions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And fascists.


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to speak for either communists or fascists. Their representatives here, if they have any, can speak for them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who are they?


Angus MacInnis: Possibly my hon. friend knows better than I. But I think I can speak for socialists, because I am a socialist, and by reason of that I am here. Not only that, but I had an opportunity last summer of visiting various countries that have governments which are socialist to a more or less degree, and I did not see in those countries any danger to democracy. As a matter of fact, the only safeguard of democracy is socialism, because you can have democracy only when it is based upon an economy of equality, and it is because economic systems are not based upon equality that communism and fascism have developed their ideas of government by force. Communism as we know it to-day had its development in Russia, and every one with a knowledge of history knows there was no other
means by which the working class of Russia could express itself than illegally and in such underground ways as it did express itself. That is the price which every nation must pay for repression and ignorance. I suggest to hon. members that if they want to maintain democracy they can maintain it only by allowing the people an opportunity to express ideas and by making available to them those educational institutions whereby they can secure an understanding of the fundamentals of human society and human relationships.
I visited Norway. There they have had a labour socialist government for the last year or so, working not wholly by itself but in conjunction with the farmer party. I saw there no danger to democratic institutions. I visited Denmark, where the social democratic party has been the government of the country with a clear majority in the lower house for a number of years, and this year got a majority of one in the upper house. I saw there no danger to democratic institutions. I visited Sweden, where they have had a social democratic government working in cooperation with the farmer group for the past three years, and I saw no danger there to democratic institutions. If ever I saw free peoples and democracy in operation it was in those countries. We have much to learn from them.
There came to my attention yesterday a short item in a British weekly, the New Statesman and Nation, referring to the socialist government in Sweden. It says:
The socialist government in Sweden gets much less attention in this country than its achievements deserve. In the king's speech, delivered this week in the Riksdag, it was able to announce a new program which bears eloquent testimony to the success of its measures for coping with the economic crisis. Unemployment in Sweden has been so far reduced as now to present no more than a problem of seasonal variation in the demand for labour. Estimated revenue is up by more than ten per cent without any increase in taxation. The period of borrowing for public works is definitely over, and the government has been for some time past repaying debts incurred during the crisis. With the best economic advice at its command-'for Sweden is emphatically a country where economists of advanced views have played an important part in the shaping of policy-the special crisis taxes are being maintained, and the proceeds applied to the repayment of debt. At the same time, the government is actively pursuing its program of social legislation. Its new measures include legislation dealing with child welfare and mother's pensions, as well as special grants for rural housing and an improved standard of salaries for elementary school teachers and other low paid government employees.
That is a government under a social democratic party.
284	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Maclnnis


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a unitary government.


Angus MacInnis: It is a government in cooperation with the farmer group.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it is unitary. There are no provinces.


Angus MacInnis: I admit that, and because of that it is easier to operate than the government in this country.


Mr. MASSEY:: Would the hon. member consider the definition of a socialist in Sweden the same as the definition of a socialist in Canada?


Angus MacInnis: Decidedly. I found no difference between my point of view and that of the socialists I met in Norway, or Denmark, or Sweden, or the British Isles, or France, or any of the other countries that I visited. There is no difference. A socialist is a person who believes in the social ownership of those things necessary for the production and distribution of the means by which we live, and their democratic operation. Briefly that is a definition of socialism.


Denton Massey: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him another question? Did he find that the trend of the social democratic party in Sweden was toward social ownership?


Angus MacInnis: I asked that question of a man who held a very prominent position in the socialist movement, and I have no hesitation in stating in this house his reply to me. I was very anxious to learn what their program of socialization for the next few years was, and he made this statement: At the present time we are not greatly concerned with the socialization of industry; as long as industry operates without undue exploitation of either workers or consumers we are not particularly concerned about who owns industry. But note this:	He stated
further: Our trade unions are , so strongly organized that they can prevent undue exploitation on the workers' side and our cooperative movement is so strong that it can take care of the consumers in the matter of exploitation; if at any time, however, we come to the point where the labour movement and the cooperative movement are not able to perform these functions we shall then deal with the question of the socialization of industry.


Denton Massey: That is not what the hon. member said the first time.


Angus MacInnis: That is what I said. It is merely a matter of proceeding in a particular way. Possibly my hon. friend thinks that certain ideas in which you may believe you can put into effect regardless of the circumstances and the environment in which you find yourself. No intelligent person, however, proceeds upon that assumption because that cannot possibly be done if you are to work and live within the framework of democracy.


Mr. GRANT:: Does the hon. gentleman
subscribe to the doctrine of socialism in Sweden, as his own doctrine of socialism?


Angus MacInnis: I have answered that
question. I do not hesitate to say that I certainly subscribe to it if I have never subscribed to anything else.
Another point was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East with which I agree. He emphasized-and it is well that it should be emphasized-the condition in which hundreds of thousands of people, as he said, in the various provinces find themselves at the present time. On going among these people this is what I find. They say: That cannot be done or this cannot be done under any provincial government because we have not the power. The people have lost hope entirely in parliament doing anything for them, and that hope can be restored only by parliament proving to them that something can and will be done.
I am in favour of maintaining the basis of confederation. I cannot see that a province can improve its, position in any way by leaving confederation, because for every restriction or evil it might get away from it would meet half a dozen others. For that reason I believe it is folly for any province, whether it be in the east or in the west, to talk of secession.
I do not wish to take up any more time, because the present discussion anticipates one that will take place within a few days in connection with a resolution which is on the order paper. I shall content myself with these remarks, simply pointing out to the Prime Minister tMr. Mackenzie King) that he and his government have an opportunity to do things that never before could have been done in Canada.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: In
rising to speak to the suggestion that has been made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), I do so merely to emphasize from my point of view the importance of it. As I listened to the Prime Minister

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Walsh
(Mr. Mackenzie King), one phrase in his remarks caught my attention; he said that he would find a way or make one. It gives me great encouragement to hear words of that sort, coming as they do from the Prime Minister, and I hope that statement presages a new policy under his leadership.
We have heard this afternoon a great deal in connection with the method of procedure. To me, as a layman, this matters very little so long as we accomplish the object we have in view. To-day we are not confronted with a problem any greater or more difficult to solve than that which faced the fathers of confederation during the years from 1860 to 1867. They found a way or they made one, and we in our day and generation can do something similar and bestow a like blessing on the generations that are to follow us in this dominion.
I do not wish to obtrude anything of a political nature into a debate of this kind, but I should like to make one reference to a suggestion which was made so frequently during the course of the election of October, 1935. I think it should be repeated in this house and in connection with the subject matter which is now before us for discussion. The Prime Minister and those associated with him will remember that they emphasized, not at one meeting, but continuously at all the meetings, the fact that most, if not all, of the provincial governments were of the Liberal persuasion and that it would be well for the electors of Canada to return a government of a similar complexion to hold the reins of office at Ottawa. That was emphasized, and, if we may judge by the results, to good effect. The Prime Minister always followed that statement with this suggestion, that the Conservative party could not possibly cooperate with those occupying the seats of government in the various provinces, their political complexion being what it was, whereas his party would be in a position to cooperate; that his first effort on becoming Prime Minister of Canada would be to call immediately a conference of those provinces, the governments of which were for the most part of the same political persuasion as his own party, and that out of that conference there would come a remedy for the evils and the distress brought about-so the present Prime Minister said on that occasion-by the government which had been in office during the five previous years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He hoped it
would come.


William Allen Walsh: He hoped he would find a way out? Well, I would remind him that his
government have been in power now for a year and a half. They have had the opportunity of many conferences with provincial representatives; yet we do not see emerging any solution of the problems with which we were confronted in 1935 and as we are confronted with in 1937. I also suggest that conditions existing in this country are not going to right themselves with a laissez faire attitude on our part. It is useless for the present government to sit back and hope that good times are going to provide a remedy for conditions which now prevail. Less than two weeks ago it was my privilege to listen to the chairman of the National Employment Commission, and on that occasion he gave utterance to a statement which has been made many times from this side of the house, that conditions which at present prevail in connection with unemployment will not be cured by good times, no matter how good they may be, in the immediate future. He felt that unemployment was a condition which would remain with us after we passed through the period of good times that now seems to be coming. We must find a solution for that problem. I have no doubt that most hon. members have had many communications from those who are in distress. I receive them especially from the younger element in this country, and in particular from my own province. If we can sit idly by and allow a pointed suggestion of this kind to be passed over lightly, in view of the conditions under which these young people are living it is time we had some radical change in our method of government and of procedure.
I emphasize this point in view of the discussion on the possibility of amendment of the British North America Act in order to make it more effective. That act was passed as a result of many conferences. It did not have its roots altogether in those conferences which immediately preceded the passing of the act. It had its roots away back in Canadian history, as far back as 1763. It had its roots in the Quebec Act of 1774, in the Constitutional Act of 1791, in the Act of Union of 1841. In all those acts, and in the British North America Act, certain guarantees were given to minorities in certain provinces of the dominion. I always voice the warning that if we contemplate any change in the British North America Act the proposal must be accompanied by the assertion that in no way will the fundamental principles underlying that act be changed.
We have in Canada nine provincial governments and a federal government. Last evening it was my privilege to speak before a gathering
286	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Walsh
of retail business men, men doing business in a small way in this country, men who have known days of adversity in the past and are just emerging from such phase now and looking forward hopefully to the future. Those men are considering the problems of the day, and one of the problems which I discussed with them was that of taxation. We reached the conclusion that there was not so much to be said against taxation as such but there was something very definite to be said about the overlapping which prevails in the field of taxation. We also spoke of overlapping in other fields, in jurisdiction and in the work of various departments of government. I want to emphasize what came out of that meeting. We are overtaxed in this country, but I believe that overtaxation can be remedied by the suggestion that we have before us to-day. The problem is not so much the burden of taxation as such; it is the burden of overlapping taxation. This is due to lack of understanding of the proper division of jurisdiction in connection with governmental work. Let me take one example: We have a federal sales tax. In the city of Montreal we have a municipal sales tax. Should there be a provincial sales tax, a municipal sales tax, as well as the federal tax, or should not some adjustment be made between the federal and municipal and provincial governments in order that the federal government shall have jurisdiction in connection with sales tax and the provincial and municipal governments shall have control over other forms of taxation? Is it not time that a genuine conference was called, in a real effort to alleviate distress in this country? And one way of alleviating that distress is by removing part of the burden of taxation. I cannot understand why men of good common sense can not agree on certain principles, particularly in the field of taxation. We know the provinces have to have revenue; we know the municipalities have to have revenue, and of course the federal government has to have revenue. Revenue can be derived from certain fields. Could those fields not be satisfactorily apportioned between the province and the dominion so that their jurisdictions will be clearly defined, and overlapping entirely done away with? If that were done the people would have a much smaller burden to bear. That is one point I desire to emphasize particularly.
In closing, let me say I was happy to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), and I was extremely happy when I heard the Prime Minister make such a bold statement, that

he was going to find a way or make one. May there be more of such assertions and more power to carry them into effect.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I desire to detain the house only a very few minutes. I have perhaps attended as many conferences between the dominion and the provinces as any other hon. member. I believe I have attended, on one side or the other, all that have taken place since about 1916, except those which occurred during the last five years, and I appreciate very much the tone of the discussion to-day, because it seems to me that it goes back in spirit to that which alone made confederation possible in the first place, such a concentrated desire on the part of the Canadian people to achieve unity that they were willing to drop political differences much more acute and much more violent in their manifestation than any which prevail to-day. We speak of procedure, but we must not ignore the importance of evoking again that spirit. I believe the question of procedure would be materially reduced in its importance if only the Canadian people could become as seized of the vital importance of adjusting these difficulties in our national life and our national constitution as were their forebears during the two or three decades which preceded 1867. I know it is difficult to expect the same degree of public interest which prevailed then. In spite of the lack of easy communication; in spite of the comparative lack of freely circulating mediums in any way comparable with those which are in existence to-day, I believe that public interest occupied a larger place in the life of the individual Canadian during the two decades prior to confederation than it does to-day. In those days public affairs were a more general topic of discussion in the home. These matters we have been discussing this afternoon were generally understood by a much larger proportion of the population than is the case with the much better educated population we have to-day. There were not the diversions; there were no movies; there was no radio; there were very few theatres. Men and women tended more to have their minds occupied with really vital matters than is the case to-day. An hon. member opposite shakes his head. I agree with him that very probably there is a larger aggregate number of students of these questions to-day. I am speaking more particularly of the degree of interest on the part of the whole population.

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Dunning
However, Mr. Speaker, what I rose to say was this, that to the extent that the addresses to which we have listened this afternoon can contribute toward a non-partisan discussion of this matter, to that extent they will tend to increase the possibility of success in any conference which may take place, call it what you will. What happens at every dominion-provincial conference? As I say, I have been at many of them. Every government, be it Liberal, or Tory, or United Farmers of Alberta, or anything else, provincial or dominion, which attends such a conference, is conscious all the time it is there that it has an opposition back home.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: That must be so; it
cannot be avoided. Also, if it is a provincial government, it knows perfectly well that if, as a provincial government, it makes at that conference any concession whatever or does anything which can be interpreted as a concession, the opposition party back home, no matter whether it be Liberal, or Tory, or Labour, or United Farmers of Alberta, or Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, will immediately raise the cry of provincial rights as against that particular provincial government.
These are the cold, hard facts with respect to every dominion-provincial conference which takes place, and I submit that these cold, hard facts are likely to continue to exist unless we can find an approach to the problem comparable with the approach which was created prior to and including the year 1867. Methods have been suggested to-day whereby that approach might be developed along lines which would prevent such considerations as oppositions back home being vital in their ability to prevent success being attained. I have no particular views as to whether such a gathering should be a constituent assembly or a constitutional conference. I should be very content to allow those who know the meaning of terms better than I do to determine the kind of gathering it should be. What I rose to speak of was the spirit which must animate this nation before any such gathering can possibly attain the objective we all have in mind.
During the past year, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has indicated, we had a dominion-provincial conference along the lines suggested by the House of Commons committee of 1935. I believe every man attending that conference really laboured conscientiously to the end that something
of value to Canada might result. All were subject to the limitations to which I have been referring. Some good did result, but the great core of the problem was not grappled with effectively. It was talked about, as we have talked about it for the last twenty or twenty-five years to my knowledge. It was not really grappled with.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the difficulties,
as the minister realizes, was that if the conference of last year were to succeed those attending it would have to take views exactly opposite to those they had taken for the previous five years.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not quite understand that, because the conference was composed of representatives of all governments, and I do not carry in my mind the degree to which changes in the political complexions of the provinces may have taken place within the last five years. But, however that may be, from the point of view from which I am attempting to deal with the question it would not make a bit of difference if the governments represented there were Liberal, or Conservative, or Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or Social Credit or anything else. In the very nature of things they would have to take into account the people back home, and more particularly the opposition back home. I know that no man in practical politics would dispute that suggestion.
Out of the meeting held last year arose the suggestion that for the first time in Canada's history we might at least attempt to set up a cooperative body which, without having any powers whatever, would study means of cooperating with respect to financial and taxation problems as between the dominion and the provinces. I am quite sure that the student of history will regard it as strange that in all the time since confederation, with the divided responsibilities, the divided powers and the divided fields of taxation which exist in Canada, until now no effort has been made to form a cooperative bod3T which would continuously study these matters and continuously endeavour to find a basis of cooperation among the different provinces themselves and between the provinces and the Dominion of Canada. An effort was made, as I say, to set up such a body.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the negation of
responsible government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely there could be a discussion and an examination by such a body of men without in any way creating, as my right hon. friend suggests, a negation
288	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Dunning
of responsible government. Surely it is possible for a body of ministers representing different sovereignties to gather together from year to year in order to see how they can effectively cooperate in a common sense way in connection with common problems; yet that has not been systematically done in the whole history of our confederation.
This is a day for frankness, and I shall be frank. Sometimes I wonder if I have not made more trouble for myself and for the government of Canada than the idea is worth in having sponsored the national finance council or committee idea. When the committee met it was quite obvious that a number of members regarded it as another dominion-provincial conference-which it was not at all-at which they were privileged to stand up, one after another, and simply ask the dominion for something. There was only one approach to problem after problem: "Will the dominion give the provinces this, that or the other in a financial way?" or, "Will the dominion yield up to the provinces this, that or the other source of revenue which it now enjoys?" I do not wish it to be understood that I am blaming the provinces. Goodness knows they are finding it difficult enough to carry on their work. I mention these facts merely to illustrate the difficulties of the problem we are discussing. Without breaking the agreed-upon confidence concerning details of discussion, I might state that as chairman I said on the last day to the assembly, "Well, gentlemen, we have accomplished something-not, I am sure, as much as any of us desired-in the interests of the people we represent. I am wondering, after listening to the discussions and to the development of this and that impossibility, if it is worth while to have a national finance committee for the voluntary discussion of these matters." Man after man got up and said, "No question about it; we must continue; we must continue to try." That gave me some encouragement, especially after three or four days of disagreement not merely between the provinces and the dominion, but disagreements emphasizing the widest possible diversity of views in many matters between province and province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: To me it was an encouragement. After that experience, difficult as it was, every provincial representative said, "By all means, we must continue to try." That, I believe, is the approach which we must all have to this problem. I do hope we are successful in recreating the spirit out oi which this nation was born-a greater 
interest on the part of the mass of the people, not in their own particular grievances as such, but in the supreme desirability of once more accomplishing unity in confederation, and through that unity attaining the power to deal with grievances which are all too real.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has brought to the attention of parliament and of Canada what I believe is at this time a very serious problem in this country, but as was pointed out by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon, there are on the order paper various resolutions under which this subject may be discussed at considerable length and perhaps with better preparation by all concerned. However, now that we are on the subject, it might be well to inquire why an attempt was made to bring it to the attention of the house to-day.
So far as the feeling of the people of Canada is concerned, I have no doubt that they desire-and they have so expressed themselves at various times-to bring about certain amendments to the British North America Act, but the leader of the opposition has, I believe, misconstrued their reasons for wanting this done. As was pointed out this afternoon by the Minister of Justice, provincial jurisdiction has never been questioned by the people of the various provinces; nearly always the question has been one of obtaining greater powers for the provincial governments.
Just a few days ago we heard in this house a good deal about the British Empire and its component parts, and also a great deal about the autonomy of its various units, each independent, but all allied under the one crown. It was pointed out with pride that these governments exercised great powers; that they were jealous of those powers, but that nevertheless harmony existed between them. A similar contention might be advanced so far as Canada and its provinces are concerned, for, after all, any changes sought in the British North America Act are the result of the agitation of the people in the various provinces. When we hear of such a proposal as that made to-day, and especially when the reason given in support of it is that it is for the preservation of certain institutions in view of the things that are happening in

Constitutional Conference-Mr. Pelletier
various provinces to-day, one wonders what institutions are demanding that such a conference should be held in this country at this time. That is a salient point, it appears to me, and I shall leave it at that because it is my intention to go into the matter more deeply when various other resolutions on the order paper come before the house.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, little or no headway will be made by any agreement between the provinces and the dominion until some definite attitude is taken on the principle whether more power should be granted to the provinces or whether their powers should be curtailed. Until we have adopted some principle on the question of either granting more power or curtailing the present powers of the provinces, it seems to me that it would be impossible, as was pointed out this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), for any such conference to come to an agreement. Before sitting down I would again ask why, in view of the resolutions on the order paper touching on this very subject, this matter should have been brought up in the house to-day.


Hon. J. EARL LAWSON (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the gravity of the subject matter under discussion impels me to express my views in respect thereto. It is regrettable that on a subject matter such as this we should have had a political partisan address such as was made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), in speaking to the question, pointed out that if we were to maintain this democracy, it must demonstrate its efficiency as compared with an autocracy or a dictatorship. I must confess, after listening to the speech made by the hon. member for Temiscouata, that I was somewhat doubtful of the efficiency of that part of a democracy which selected him to represent them in the House of Commons, but my faith was restored when I listened to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning).
The Minister of Justice did not tell us specifically what his views were with respect to the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition, and if he was speaking on behalf of the government he gave us no specific statement as to their attitude or policy with respect to the matter. But as I listened to his delicacy of word and his eloquence of diction in a language which was not his mother tongue, my faith in the efficiency of democracy was greatly restored.
The Minister of Finance made the statement that this discussion would, if nothing else, engender among the people of this country a unanimity of opinion which was essential to the enactment of amendments to the British North America Act. I wonder if the Minister of Finance has failed to appreciate that there is in Canada a tremendous consensus of opinion with respect to this subject matter. In the riding I represent I polled in the last election, something over
11,000	votes; the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate polled something over 8,000; the Liberal candidate, something over
7,000,	and the Reconstruction candidate, something over 4,000. But I venture to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you took a poll of all these voters who voted in the last election, irrespective of what party they may have supported, 90 per cent of them would support the amending of the British North America Act.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) said that there was a growing feeling of futility and hopelessness among the Canadian people with respect to their parliaments. I must confess that as a member of one of their parliaments I have had a growing feeling of futility and hopelessness with respect to securing those amendments to the British North America Act which are essential if we are going to carry out in this country those social measures, sometimes called by my friends to my left, measures of social justice, which are essential to maintain this democracy. Surely dominion and provincial conferences have proven conclusively, for the reasons so well stated by the Minister of Finance, if for no other, that you cannot through that channel get that unanimity of opinion which may be required. Even in respect of the matter of uniformity of laws in the provinces how many conferences have been held, how little headway has been made I It is all very well to say that they agreed upon a uniform companies act, may I ask which of the provinces have put into effect an act that is in terms of the act of the Dominion of Canada? If we have such difficulty in obtaining uniform laws in respect of one or two branches of our civil law in the provinces, how little chance we have of getting that unanimity of opinion and view which is required if we are going to obtain amendments to the British North America Act through the channel of provincial and dominion conferences.
I should have been very happy had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) either intimated an acceptance of the scheme proposed by my honoured leader or suggested

lQ	COMMONS
Constitutional Conference-Mr. Lawson____
some specific steps which the government contemplated taking toward obtaining the very-necessary amendments. It is all very well to say that a committee of this house made a report in 1935, but may I ask what action has been taken in respect of that report? None. I beg pardon; I should not have said "none." Let me put it in this way no effective action has been taken. The Prime Minister intimated this afternoon that a dominion-provincial conference was called.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was the sole recommendation.


James Earl Lawson: I quite agree, and the
Prime Minister quite frankly stated to the house that he could not say that as a result of that conference any real advancement toward the ultimate goal had been obtained. Now, sir, the Prime Minister emphasized by the statement and the reiteration of it that all parties in this house, and, I infer, all parties in the legislatures of the different provinces, were favourable to an amendment, but that it was the manner of procedure which created the difficulty and the obstacle. Then, if I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he finished by saying that the government had contemplated the appointment of a commission or committee to study the whole problem, but felt that to do so^ while the cases with respect to the jurisdiction of the dominion or the provinces were before the privy council would be taking precipitate action. May I point out that there is no problem before the judicial committee of the privy council with respect to the method of procedure of amending the British North America Act. What, is before the judicial committee of the privy council is the question whether this parliament had power to enact certain measures commonly called social or paternal legislation, such as unemployment insurance, maximum hours of labour, minimum rates of wages, and so forth. Surely, if our problem to-day of securing the amendment of the British North America Act is one of procedure only, the pending cases before the judicial committee of the privy council can in no measure constitute an obstacle in our path. No one realizes better than I the difficulties in the road of amending our constitution. No one will lend more sympathetic support than I to any really effective measure which may be taken by the government to bring about the very much desired end. But at the moment we have before this house a specific proposal from the hon. leader of the opposition, a specific proposal which, in my

opinion, is worthy not merely of consideration but of support. Surely, I suggest, with that specific proposal before this parliament, it is incumbent upon the present government, if they desire to obtain the amendments necessary to vest in this parliament nation-wide powers to deal with these social measures of legislation, to accept that specific proposal or, in the alternative, to propose some other specific measures which should be taken.
In conclusion-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


James Earl Lawson: With that applause from the hon. member for Temiscouata I might be tempted to continue. I wish to impress particularly upon the Minister of Finance, in view of the expressions which he gave so eloquently to this house immediately preceding the six o'clock recess, that there is in Canada a tremendous body of public opinion in favour of amending the British North America Act, especially for the purpose of enabling the enactment of national measures dealing with social legislation and national schemes for the reduction of taxation and the eradication of the duplication of governmental services between the provinces and the dominion. If there is that preponderance of opinion which I believe there is, then I ask, How can you bring about the expression of that opinion when the Prime Minister says the matter is merely one of procedure? I can hardly agree with that statement in its entirety. In my opinion what it lacks is this:	The public who have a crystallized
opinion in favour of this amendment do not know where to express their opinion by pressure. When they go to a member of the legislature he says: Oh, it is something that has to be done by the dominion parliament. When they go to their member who represents them in the House of Commons, he says: Oh, it is something we cannot do without the consent of the provinces. I suggest, sir, that a constitutional conference such as that proposed by my leader would give an opportunity for that crystallized public opinion which exists in this country to make itself felt upon the representatives to that conference, be they representatives of legislatures or of this parliament, in so unmistakable a way that there would soon be brought about the desired amendment to the British North America Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

Supply-Public Works



Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: Before the different items included in these estimates are called, I desire to state, just in a word, that these estimates are what may be described as necessary for carrying on the business of the different departments. They provide for the maintenance upkeep, repairs; heating and lighting of all the public buildings which the dominion government controls. No question of policy is involved in any of these items; they are those which are necessary for properly carrying on the business of the federal government. They are items that have come before the house regularly for a number of years and with very few exceptions they are all the same. The items that are not for maintenance of service or for taking care of public buildings are for necessary works or for the completion of contracts or works already started. The first vote is for a public building at Berwick, Nova Scotia. It is a revote.


Mr. STEWART:: I wish to thank the
minister for his opening explanation, which may facilitate the passage of some of these items. However, I would ask him for a further statement as to the policy of the government as suggested by these estimates. The estimates of last year included a number of items for which provision had been made in the Public Works Construction Acts of 1934 and 1935, items which had been in detail passed upon and approved by this parliament, and for which the necessary moneys had been appropriated following those acts. For a reason which was explained at the time these items which had already been provided for were gathered up and included in the estimates of last year.
. ^ hjit I wish to point out to the minister is this: ^ In the summary of appropriations for public works we find that in 1936 and 1937 the amount appropriated in the manner I have mentioned is $15,570,000 odd, and included in that there was a small sum of $544,000 authorized by statute. For the coming year, 1937-38, the total amount included in these estimates to be voted is $11,277,000 odd, showing a decrease of $3,754,000. I recall very well that in opposition the members of the present government strongly urged that the government should embark upon an extensive program of public works for ^ the relief of unemployment, and I am anxious to know whether the fact that the estimates of this year amount to the figure I have mentioned, or about $3,750,000 less than the estimates of last year, indicates a reversal of policy in that direction. Have
the government decided that it is advisable to reduce by this amount the appropriations for public works? Have they abandoned the contention that increased expenditures in this direction will stimulate employment, will help the construction industry and will be of general advantage? These are questions to which I think the committee would like to have some answers from the minister. Following that, possibly I may have one or two other questions to ask. In this connection, however, I would note that the estimates, as far as I have been able to observe, do not contain any items of expenditure under the head of capital; and generally we have had some items of capital expenditure in connection with .public works. Does that mean that the government have abandoned any program similar to that carried on by former governments in this respect? Do they contemplate the construction in Ottawa of any public buildings which under ordinary circumstances would be charged to capital account? These are items which occur to me at the moment.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no change in policy on the part of the party now in power. We have always been of opinion that it was much better to spend money on public works or public undertakings than to give it away in the form of relief, and we are in favour of that policy to-day just as we were when in opposition. The reason why numerous items for new constructions are not included in these estimates is that the government felt that in the main estimates we should disclose to the committee what is absolutely necessary for taking care of public buildings, looking after repairs, maintenance, lighting, heating and so on, and that we should not burden the main estimates with a new list of projects and undertakings, which though they might be necessary from a certain point of view, are not essential to the propeT administration of public affairs. It was with that idea in mind that we began last year by reducing to a large extent the amounts included in the main estimates apart from the necessary money to complete works already undertaken. This year we are again reducing to the very minimum the items that might be proposed to the committee for new undertakings. That is why the main estimates have been reduced to the extent indicated by my hon. friend. I am sure that he has in mind-it will probably be the next question he will ask-the question whether there are going to be any supplementary estimates. I hope there will; I hope to be dn a position to convince the Minister of Finance that we should have supplementary estimates.

Supply-Public Works
As regards buildings in Ottawa, generally enumerated under the head of capital expenditures, consideration was given last year to the proposal to build a supreme court house. Plans were prepared and a study was made of the site upon which such a building might be erected. I regret, however, to say that after the preliminary designs and the plans prepared in the department were gone over we were afraid that the site we had in mind would be too small to permit the erection of the heavy buildings contemplated last year and designed by the architects of the department. But the government still have in mind and are determined to build in Ottawa certainly one additional building, for housing the Supreme Court of Canada at least, and possibly the exchequer court. This question will be considered by the government when an opportunity is presented to discuss the possibility of supplementary estimates with the Minister of Finance.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thank the minister for his comprehensive explanation. I rather expected him to express the hope that there would be supplementary estimates. In my fairly long experience in this house I have never known a Minister of Public Works who did not have that hope. Possibly the hopes of some hon. members on his side of the chamber will be encouraged. I am sure, however, that their hopes will not all be fulfilled, unless conditions greatly differ from those the minister has outlined.
As to the capital expenditure at Ottawa, I rather expected that the item' would appear in these estimates, notwithstanding that there may be a difference of opinion as to the site. Often the site of a public building is determined after provision is voted for the construction of the building. I notice that in the rotunda at the entrance to the Commons chamber is placed a very interesting model of the suggested arrangement of some of these buildings. I assume the site to which the minister refers as being controversial is shown somewhere on that model. I know that in the past the same question has caused a good deal of difficulty. The minister has_ my sympathy in his efforts to reconcile conflicting opinions as to the location of this building. That controversy has existed for years and is one of the factors which has delayed the construction.
Can the minister tell the committee at this stage the amounts which have been expended, say, prior to the end of 1936, under the provisions of the Public Works Construction Act of 1934 and the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act of 1935? Also could he

without too much trouble, either now or at a subsequent sitting of the committee, give a list of the projects or items provided for thereby which have not yet been undertaken?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: According to the statement I have before me the expenditure under the Public Works Construction Acts was, for the fiscal year 1934-35, $5,916,559, and for the fiscal year 1935-36, $17,878,406.52.
As to the list of projects contemplated but not yet carried out,. I thank my hon. friend for giving me an opportunity of saying that I am not at the moment in a position to give him a statement, but I assure him that the projects which have been abandoned are not very numerous. Practically all of them have been carried on. I will, however, undertake to give the list.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assume that a number of those projects are still not completed, but to be completed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are practically all completed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister spoke of the policy of the government and its adherence to the belief that public moneys might well be expended for public works rather than in direct relief. Of course there is nothing new about that. During the term of office of the previous government public moneys were expended, in cooperation with the provinces, for public works having for their object the relief of unemployment. I notice that the present government are still continuing that policy, under the agreements made with the different provinces; that is, they are undertaking, in cooperation with the provinces, works for the relief of unemployment. But that leaves out of the program the direct expenditure of moneys on account of the dominion government for the relief of unemployment by the construction of buildings and the undertaking of public works. I do not want to press the matter too far at this stage, because I know the minister's estimates have been brought down fairly early, and the session is in its early stages. I hope the supplementary estimates will disclose something which in a measure will remedy this apparent oversight.
New Brunswick
Moncton-old post office building-improvements and repairs, $11,100.
Saint John quarantine station-Partridge island-improvements, alterations and repairs, $7,000.


Mr. BROOKS:: I notice there are some improvements to be made to the old post office building at Moncton. I may say that

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
they have a very fine new post office there, of which the citizens are proud. What use is to be made of the old post office building in that city?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The repairs to the old building are being made for the accommodation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should also like an explanation with reference to "appropriations not required for 1937-38." I note that there was $44,000 unexpended last year. I assume that is for public works started but not completed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. I admit I was not very clear myself as to the meaning of those words, which are found all through the estimates. This is not my responsibility. These words are added by the Department of Finance to all the estimates for a purpose which I confess I do not understand very well. In reality they mean this: They include in what is indicated in the estimates as appropriations not required for 1937-38 all the money voted for projects which have been completed. That is why I cannot understand it. All the projects undertaken under an item of the estimates, and completed during the year are put together; officials of the Department of Finance add the amounts up and at the end of our estimates say, "Appropriations not required for 1937-38." Probably the idea is that it is not going to be necessary to revote that money or to rebuild the building which has been completed. In all fairness, however, I am quite ready to admit that there may be good reason for this item from the point of view of accounting in the Department of Finance, but I confess my complete ignorance as to the reason for it. After having had that question put to me last year by both new and old members I tried to have some light thrown upon the matter, and this is the only explanation I have been able to secure. When I look up the list of projects completed during the past year, the total voted for those buildings which have been completed, as far as I can see, is the appropriation not required. That is the only explanation I can give. It may not be very convincing or very clear, but I believe it is a fact. As I have said, there may be very good reason for doing it in this way from the point of view of the Department of Finance, but I have no other explanation to offer than the one I have given.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wish to thank the minister for his very clear explanation. As I understand it, in New Brunswick we have $18,000 voted for buildings that are not completed and $44,000 for buildings that have been completed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; the $44,000 was voted in last year's estimates, and that money is not to be voted again this year. That has been spent on the projects which have been completed. The amount provided this year is $18,100, but that amount covers only two items, the Moncton post office building and the Saint John quarantine station. There may, of course, be something in the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really cannot help congratulating the minister upon his explanation of this item. It is different from the explanation I have always given, but I am not sure that it is not just as good or perhaps a little better. Somehow or another I thought that the money voted but not required to complete buildings, or something of that sort, was covered up in these items. However, there are many explanations, and after all it is a bookkeeping matter.
I see the amount voted for the Saint John quarantine station is $7,000, which was the amount voted last year. Under this expenditure does the minister contemplate any extension of or addition to the buildings, and would he care to say what is to be the policy of the government in connection with immigration, whether it will require any extension of the existing building, or whether this just covers repairs and maintenance?
Let me suggest also that in saying that the building at Moncton is to be made available for the purposes of the mounted police, it might be just as well to say that the building is to be devoted to the administration of justice.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount of $7,000 is required for small repairs to be undertaken to the buildings already in existence. We do not contemplate any extension of the present buildings, or any new construction. I can give the amounts estimated, if that is required.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not if it is only for ordinary repairs; I would not ask that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is just ordinary repairs.


Mr. RYAN:: Before the item carries I should like to say in connection with the quarantine station that some very valuable work was done there last season, such as facing the wharves and other necessary repairs, and that there is a good deal more work to be done this season. I should like to ask the minister
294	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
whether the department contemplates the construction of a new quarantine station at Saint John in the near future.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may say that so far the question has not been considered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maritime provinces generally-dominion public buildings-repairs and improvements. $50,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: In connection with this
item, I notice that one of the most important provinces in the Dominion of Canada is not represented here at all. I refer to Prince Edward Island, which is so well represented in this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I should like to ask if included in this item of $50,000 there are any public works to be carried out in Prince Edward Island, and the minister might also tell us how this amount is to be expended and what work is to be done in the maritime provinces.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The item under consideration provides for repairs, renewals and improvements to public buildings in the maritime provinces, including Prince Edward Island. I cannot tell my hon. friend how much money was spent in Prince Edward Island last year, but the amount we are asking the committee to vote now is just for repairs and improvements to all the public buildings in the maritime provinces. There are 104 of these buildings that will be kept up from this vote of $50,000.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the minister can give us the information, I should like to know just how much is being expended in each province.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We cannot state in advance exactly what amount is going to be spent in each province. It is an estimate; the expenditure will depend upon the necessities that arise in any province.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I should like to ask the minister if representations were made asking for some improvements to the public building at Summerside, Prince Edward Island. There the situation is that the customs offices are up two flights of stairs. At the moment I am sitting beside the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley); he might be able to collect a little more revenue if the offices could be reached more easily. This year we asked for some improvements to the building; the engineers were asked to make an estimate, and perhaps that estimate was sent in. It was requested that the building be enlarged and that the customs offices be
 moved to the ground floor. If that were done, the upper part of the building could be used by the mounted police, or for some other purpose. It would be a good move if the department could see its way clear to carry out that change, and I should like to know if the minister has received any representations along that line.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of course my hon. friend will understand that under this vote we cannot provide for the construction of any buildings. In these items, as I say, we are providing only for repairs and improvements to existing buildings. So far as the other question is concerned, at the moment I cannot say whether any representations have been received asking for the enlargement of the existing building, but knowing the activity of my hon. friend and how alive he is to all that concerns Prince Edward Island, I am quite sure that if the need has been suggested to him he has made representations, and I should not be surprised to find his letter in the records of the department.


Mr. FINN:: Before the item is carried
may I s:.y that there is no hon. member for whom I have greater respect than for the Minister o<f Public Works. Although we are discussing his estimates I should like to raise a point in connection with the department headed by the Minister of Mines and Resources. A new policy seems to have been embarked upon, which in my judgment and in that of my constituents-and after all they count-


Mr. SPENCE:: Count for you.


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes, and they have done so
for twenty-three years. In the immigration office at Halifax, where in former years a local caterer was employed we now have one sent from this part of the country. Local positions should be filled by local people. If everything is to be drawn from the centre and the extremities are to be forgotten, we might as well make up our minds that we are going to lose our feet; then we shall not be able to walk and shall have to go back to the cradle.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And your head, too.


Robert Emmett Finn: In all sincerity I hope the
Minister of Mines and Resources, in conjunction with the Minister of Public Works, will look into this matter, so that the policy may be changed and that we may go back to the good old days and do. the right thing by the right people. If we have not the right man in Halifax or in Nova Scotia, well and good; but if we have, we want to use him.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
I intend to discuss the matter with the Minister of Mines and Resources. I do not wish to take him unawares and therefore I speak at this time through the Minister of Public Works, who is always willing to bear on his shoulders some things which, at a later time, have to be passed to the shoulders of others.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec
Bedford-public building, $27,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $100,000.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-improvements, alterations and repairs, $6,000.
L'IsIet-public building, $12,500.
Montreal-postal terminal building, $300,000. [DOT] Quebec citadel-improvements and maintenance, $15,000.
Ste. Anne de Beaupre - public building,
[Stage Direction]
Ste. Martine-public building, $12,000.
William Allen Walsh: What building is to be
erected at Bedford?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A public building for postal purposes.


William Allen Walsh: Have they not a post office
there at the present time? Bedford is a small place.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They have a post office,
but no public building. I am informed that the postal service is being carried on in a rented building.


Mr. LENNARD:: What building is to be
erected at Ste. Anne de Beaupre?


Robert Emmett Finn: A shrine.


Frank Exton Lennard: I believe that has already been erected.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is another post office.


Robert Emmett Finn: It is not large enough.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the population
of Site. Anne de Beaupre?


Sir EUGENE FISET:: It depends on the time of the year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The population is 1,900.


Frank Exton Lennard: That seems a heavy expenditure for a post office in a village of only 1,900 people.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In that locality, due to
the thousands of visitors, the population increases during ithe summer.


James Houston Spence: That lasts only a couple
of months.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: More than that; it lasts
nearly all summer.


James Houston Spence: What is the population of
Bedford?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1934 it was 1,630.


James Houston Spence: You ought to be able to build five post offices there with 827,000.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This is a vote of $27,000 for a public building in a town in Quebec of only 1,630 people, while there is no vote at all for Prince Edward Island and only $18,000 for New Brunswick.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no discrimination at all in favour of Quebec. I have not under my hand any items by which I could make comparisons, but at another meeting of the committee I- could indicate that public buildings have been erected at points in the mari-times having less than 1,600 population. It depends upon the importance of the locality, the prospects of development and the amount of revenue derived from the postal or customs services. It depends, too, upon other services connected with the Post Office Department. Although a place may be small, because of these services it may require a public building.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that true with respect to Bedford?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that that is practically so. Bedford is an old, small town in the eastern townships of Quebec. I believe it is a county seat where court sittings are held, and two railways pass through it.


William Allen Walsh: Recently a new industry has been opened in Bedford, which will employ upwards of two hundred people in the next year. No doubt that will add considerably to the business done in the town.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Without wishing to criticize, may I say I am informed that the number of public buildings in Prince Edward Island is almost as great as the number in Quebec.


Mr. HEAPS:: The minister has said that the buildings are to be erected to give postal services to the communities affected. Have such buildings been requested by the Post Office Department.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In most cases the requests have come from that department.


James Houston Spence: I imagine you asked the Post Office Department to ask for it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister any record to show that these two buildings have been requested by the Post Office Department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For a long time the citizens of that locality have asked for a public building. As far back as September, 1914, a petition was signed by the residents of that locality asking for the construction of a public building there, and His Honour the
296	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
Speaker in 1924 also urged the construction of such a building. I could not say that in this case there has been a recommendation from the Post Office Department.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Evidently there has been no request from the Post Office Department for the erection of these two buildings.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is a request from the Post Office Department for the Bedford building.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But not for the other one. A principle is involved in this. I do not think the Department of Public Works should put up buildings for any other department unless the department concerned applies for it. Only one building under this item has been asked for by the Post Office Department, and while the amount is comparatively small, nevertheless this country seems to be dotted all over with buildings which evidently the Post Office Department is not very anxious to operate. I have in mind one building running into considerably more money than the amount involved here, which was put up by the Public Works Department for the Post Office Department, and when the building was completed the Post Office Department refused to operate it; they said they did not require the building. If we are going to operate a public utility like the post office, the buildings comprised within that utility should, I think, be entirely wtihin the jurisdiction of the Post Office Department itself. As a matter of principle, the Department of Public Works should not construct buildings for the Post Office Department unless that department has requested them. It is all right for the minister to inform the committee that away back in 1924 some hon. member requested the department to erect a public building there, and it may be all right for the minister to tell us that the citizens of a certain locality have requested his department to erect a building, but if the minister were to put up buildings simply on the request of citizens of different parts of this dominion I am afraid there would be a public building on every street corner. The time has come for this committee and parliament to deal with these matters in a logical way. I do not think the Department of Public Works is the right and proper department to erect public buildings for another department, particularly when that other department has not requested it to do so. Would the minister inform the committee what the postal revenue is in these two towns for which we are asked to erect new buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The revenue at Ste. Anne de Beaupre for 1934-35 was $8,687, and at Bedford for the same year, $5,093.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What will be the annual maintenance cost for the Bedford building after it is erected?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Frankly, I cannot tell.


James Houston Spence: How many caretakers are there in it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Just one.


James Houston Spence: There cannot be many people out of jobs there.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Have not these districts like Bedford and Ste. Anne de Beaupre rural mail delivery? It is only a matter of distribution from a centre, is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is rural mail in those sections of Quebec, but the mail has to be taken care of in the buildings at Ste. Anne de Beaupre and Bedford before it is distributed.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It is only the immediate residents who have to come to the post office for their mail.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: And the department is spending $27,000 to erect a building for a post office with a revenue of $5,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice that most of these items are revotes; this is true of the Bedford public building, for instance, and the same is true of the L'lslet public building, the Montreal postal terminal building and the Ste. Martine public building. Will the minister tell us whether contracts have been let and tenders invited for any of these buildings, and generally in what stage these undertakings are?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Plans are not completed for the Ste. Anne de Beaupre building, but tenders are in for the Bedford building. The vote for the Montreal postal terminal building is for completion of the building.


James Houston Spence: How much has the Montreal terminal building cost so far? It seems to me that a lot of money is spent on it every year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total contract is


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the site for the Ste. Martine public building been settled? There was a difference of opinion, I remember. If the question has been settled, which site has been selected?

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have decided to go back to what is known as the old site, which was bought as far back as the time when the late Mr. Robb was Minister of Finance.


William Allen Walsh: In connection with the Grosse Isle quarantine station, could the minister inform us as to the number of cases detained at Grosse Isle during this past season of navigation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not before me the information my hon. friend asks for. As he knows, these are services under the immigration branch and also the Department of National Health, and the amount of $6,000 we propose to spend for improvements and alterations is at the request of and on representations made to us by the deputy minister of National Health. It covers only repairs to the existing buildings. I thought I had some information as to the number of patients who have been treated there, but I regret to say that it has not been given to us by the Department of National Health.


William Allen Walsh: The reason I asked the question is that I understand there were no detentions at that station during this past season. I am also informed that Grosse Isle station is of very little real use at the present time owing to improved conditions of service at the city of Quebec and generally improved conditions in travel. I understand that the immigration branch has actually withdrawn the services of the Anglican priest who was regularly stationed at Grosse Isle during the navigation season, and other curtailments have been made in order to reduce expense. Yet each year we have an item going through for repairs and renovations in connection with that station. It seems to me that probably a good number of those buildings, not being in use, could be temporarily closed without doing any real harm to Grosse Isle as a possible station for detention of any cases that might arrive in the Saint Lawrence. Would the minister entertain the possibility of consulting with the immigration branch and the department of health and seeing if it might not be possible to work along those lines and save a little of the money that we usually spend there annually, not only on buildings but on the wharf and other projects in connection with that island? I am not for a moment advocating that the island be closed as a station, because I know it might be necessary some day when we run into trouble. At the same time a number of these buildings are kept open and a considerable number of people are maintained on the island from
public funds. I understand that the population of the island, all in the service of the government, amounts roughly to a hundred people.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I feel quite sure that the observations of the hon. member will be brought to the attention of the department of health.


Frank Exton Lennard: Referring again to the item of the public building for Ste. Anne de Beaupre, may I suggest to the minister that the present government are not consistent in their policy. I would refer the minister to the circumstances of the erection of the public building in the town of Burlington, Ontario. The late government appropriated $25,000 for a public building, a post office, in Burlington, but when the present government came into office they said it was too great an amount for that town, and it has been reduced to $15,000. I am quite sure that the postal revenue of the town of Burlington greatly exceeds that of Ste. Anne de Beaupre, and for that reason I protest the amount for Ste. Anne.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I confess that at the
moment I am not in a position ito make a fair comparison between the proposed public building for Ste. Anne de Beaupre and the one proposed for the town which my hon. friend has just mentioned. But I may say this is a point on which his party is in agreement with me and I am in agreement with them. The proposal for the erection of a public building at Ste. Anne de Beaupre originated with my hon. friends when they were on this side of the house, and I am quite willing to carry on their proposal. It is a very practical one. I assume they were justified in placing in the estimates the necessary amount for that public building at Ste. Anne de Beaupre. As far as Burlington is concerned I have not the facts before me; but would my hon. friend not give me the pleasure of getting credit for economizing to some extent for the public treasury by reducing the amount of the expenditure at Burlington?


Frank Exton Lennard: No; I do not think
that towns in Ontario should be penalized.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total contract is


William Allen Walsh: Before this item carries,
I wish to observe that I am sorry I did not know that the Minister of Public Works was going to be in such a genial frame of mind while preparing his estimates, or I would have made sure that there would be
298	COMMON'S
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
included an item for that post office which I have been after for Montreal West. It also made me very happy to hear him speak of supplementary estimates. In connection with the public building at Ste. Martine, I believe Ste. Martine is a small parish in the county of Chateauguay. Is that right?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The population is
nearly 1,500.


William Allen Walsh: This small town of Ste.
Martine, on the main highway from Montreal to Malone, seems to be in a rather flourishing condition as far as public buildings are concerned. It is getting more than its share. The provincial government erected a small agricultural college on the outskirts of the town, and now we see it coming into prominence with a public building at the expense of the dominion treasury. Personally f do not think Ste. Martine deserves such preferred treatment. It is a very small municipality and can be served to good advantage with a rural mail delivery rather than a regular post office. I do not think as much revenue will be derived from Ste. Martine as from the town of Bedford. I do not care to criticize the erection of public buildings in Quebec. I am very much in favour of the erection of public buildings, particularly near home and more particularly if they happen to be in my own constituency, and are needed; but this is one case where I am convinced that t'he building is not a necessity. I do not know whether it has been particularly requested or whether the previous government entertained the suggestion that it should be erected there. I only know Ste. Martine. There are no streets properly so called; there is just one long main road going through the place. The item hardly seems justified under the circumstances, particularly when I cannot get a post office erected at Montreal West, a place of
5,000	people, where the revenue would more than meet the expense of constructing a post office, and the building has been requested by the council. Possibly Ste. Martine had particular influence with the previous government; if so, it 'has continued that influence with the present government.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is another case in which the two parties were in agreement. The proposal started with the Liberal administration and was approved by the following Conservative government, and as a third party I am continuing the policy pursued by my two predecessors. As regards the importance of the locality and the justification for a public building there, I hope the committee will allow me to express a private sentiment that

has been very near to my heart for quite a number of years. From the standpoint of advantage to Canada as a whole we hear a good deal about the back-to-the-land policy and the advisability of inducing those who live in our cities to go back to the rural sections. It is only fair that we should give some little encouragement, in the way of small expenditures, to the people in these outlying districts so as to make life more interesting and agreeable to them. We are spending a good deal of money that does not help those living in the rural sections-farmers, small merchants, blacksmiths and those who are trying to make a living in the small localities throughout the country-and it is only reasonable for us to show these people some consideration and to help them as far as we can to live a happy and contented life. We ought to be a little generous to them even if it costs a little more than we might be justified in spending from a purely business point of view.


William Allen Walsh: I sympathize with the minister's remarks; I am in complete agreement with him. We are all in a generous frame of mind particularly during these trying times, and we are inclined to be generous; but I suggest that our generosity must be commensurate with our ability to pay. I suggest to the minister that if the previous government commenced this post office at Ste. Martine, the people of the county of Chateauguay did not approve because they defeated the Conservative member and returned a Liberal candidate, no doubt in protest against the spending of that money in such a small place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $125,000.
Fort Erie-public building, $48,500.
Ilaliburton-public building, $12,000.
Kenora public building-installation of fittings, $7,000.
Kitchener-public building. $300,000.
Ottawa departmental buildings-fittings, etc., $55,000.
Powassan-public building. $16,000.
Rainy River-public building, $21,000.
Toronto postal terminal "A"-improvements, $26,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to have some information in regard to the item, "Kitchener, public building, $300,000," for which $100,000 was voted last year. Does the amount in the estimates of this year represent the total cost of the building? Will this be sufficient or is it an instalment of the total estimated cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount will cover the building and complete the whole thing.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Abraham Albert Heaps: I observe that there are public buildings at Fort Erie, Haliburton, Kenora and one or two other places. Are these public buildings for post office purposes?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In how many of these cases has a request come from the Post Office Department for the erection of these buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As regards Fort Erie, Haliburton and Powassan, the recommendation has come from the Post Office Department.


Frank Exton Lennard: A great many of these items are for public buildings. Can the minister assure me that all the fittings indicated in the item are of Canadian manufacture?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: The gold fittings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan
Dominion public	buildings-improvements
and repairs, $40,(M)0.
Regina-instalment on purchase of armoury, $30,500.
Mr. COLDWELL:: 
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The agreement was entered into in August, 1928, and it was for twenty years.


Major James William Coldwell: Then this amount will appear for a number of years. I wondered whether in order to remedy the disability from which Saskatchewan suffers, some other place could be found for this particular sum.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may assure my hon. friend that there is nothing in connection with it to prevent reasonable and needful projects being undertaken in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: We shall remember
that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $32,000.
Olds public building - improvements and alterations, $6,000.
Peace River-public building, $38,000.
Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Frank Exton Lennard: What is the population of Peace River, Alberta, and what were the postal revenues for last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The population in 1934 was 1.200, and the postal revenue in 1934-35 was $7,374.


James Angus MacKinnon: The minister might well point out that the post office at Peace River serves a tremendous district.


Frank Exton Lennard: 
Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: I should like to inform the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that this government is reducing the cost of post offices in other parts of the country as well as in Ontario. In the riding which I represent a post office is at present being built for the town of Melita, and in the town in which I live, Boissevain, the former government erected a post office which cost about
S25,000	for a population of only 850 people, a cost just about twice what it should be.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
It is not the policy of this government, so far as the riding I represent indicates it, to put up post offices costing more than from $10,000 to $12,000 where there are only 700 or 800 people. So, if my hon. friend is insinuating that the riding he represents is not being treated fairly by this government, then I would inform him that in the riding I represent they are cutting the price of post offices in two. If this country is ever to get out of the hole we must do more of that kind of thing.


Frank Exton Lennard: I should like to inform the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that the town of Burlington, Ontario, is not in my riding.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is pretty close.


Frank Exton Lennard: I invite any hon. gentlemen in the vicinity of Burlington to view the building which has been erected there, and then I should like to know their opinion of the job.


Mr. HANSON:: I am not interested in Peace River or in Ontario, and I do not speak with reference to any specific riding, but I take it that this government is seeking to assist development in parts of Canada where settlers are coming in, and consequently I think this vote is quite proper. Peace River is a new country with great possibilities of development, and I compliment this government for giving those pioneers some assistance in the development of their country. Ontario as we know has been treated well in the past, and is no doubt well represented in this House of Commons, but the outlying districts, including Peace River, also require help, and I am very much in favour of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) that these pioneers should receive some assistance in developing a section which in the future will be one of Canada's most productive areas.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Might I ask the minister when the item for Peace River first appeared in the public works estimates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot give the exact date but it was under the previous regime, under my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was under the Public Works Construction Act. I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) must have overlooked that.


Olof Hanson: What is wrong with it? I am complimenting the government for assisting development in a part of the country which needs it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I just wanted to thank the hon. gentleman for the compliment to the former government which first put the item into the estimates.


Olof Hanson: I compliment any government which tries to help the pioneers.


Mr. MARSHALL:: How many buildings are under lease in Alberta; for what purposes are they leased, and what amount of money is expended on leases?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sure my hon. friend does not expect me to give an answer to his question at the moment. Later on, under another item, I may be able to give the explanation, which will cover especially what the hon. member has just mentioned. At all events, while I have not the details before me, I am quite ready at the very first opportunity to supply my hon. friend with a complete list.


James Alexander Marshall: May I also ask the minister if the department has ever considered charging the Post Office Department rent on the buildings that have been built for that department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That question was raised
during the discussion of the post office estimates last year, and we have supplied the Postmaster General with the estimated value of the occupancy of the buildings which are being rented for the use of the Post Office Department. That question is being studied with a view to reaching a solution along the lines mentioned by my hon. friend.


James Alexander Marshall: To what department are charged repairs to post office buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To the Department of
Public Works.


James Alexander Marshall: May I also ask the minister if the Department of Public Works has purchased lots 39 to 42 in block 1 in connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks at Edmonton? May I further state that the government entered into an agreement of sale in 1934. The terms were conditional. I should like to understand just what is meant by the terms being conditional, and to know whether the agreement has been consummated.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the barracks have been completed. I have not before me the details which I would require in order to answer the question of my hon. friend, but I shall be happy to supply the information.


Mr. FAIR:: Is there any specific basis upon which the grants to the various provinces

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
are based, or are they made according to the good crops there are in the various provinces or what we had the previous year? My reason for asking is that I find that last year the amount devoted to Manitoba was $105,000, while this year it is $7S,500. This year for British Columbia the vote is $318,000, while last year it was $413,500, and for Alberta this year the estimate is $76,000, while last year it was $64,000. These items do not seem to be consistent, and I was wondering whether there was any specific method of arriving at the amount to be granted to each province.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No definite rule or principle is followed when the estimates are being prepared in connection with the expenditure in the various provinces. We are guided by the requests that are made to the department, and the requirements of each province are considered on their merits, as far as we can judge them. There is no set rule under which a certain percentage of expenditure is apportioned to one province and a certain percentage to another. It depends upon the representations made to us and the justification put forward for the expenditure.


James Alexander Marshall: I should like to ask the minister-


The CHAIRMAN:: The item has been carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is all right; go on.


James Alexander Marshall: I should like to ask the minister how many new buildings were erected in Alberta in 1936.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am very sorry; that is the third question I am not at the moment in a position to answer. I have not the information before me, and neither has the deputy minister. I hope my hon. friend will not be angry if I ask him to give me a little time. I will supply all the information he requires; we shall have to have another opportunity when the estimates are under consideration, and I will give him all the information he desires on these points.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $50,000.
Kelowna-public building, $50,000.
Powell River-public building, $58,000.
Prince Rupert-public building, $150,000.
Vancouver postal station "C"-improvements and alterations for seed branch, $10,000.
Mr. NEILL:: With regard to this item
for Powell River, while it is not in my
district I have been asked to ascertain why this building was not constructed last year, and if possible to get an assurance that the work will be carried out in the coming year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed by the
deputy minister that the Post Office Department refused to accept the building which we intended to put up there.


Alan Webster Neill: The site?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The building itself; they thought it did not provide sufficient accommodation. That was why we decided to increase the amount by $18,000, but the building is going to be constructed this year.


Mr. DONNELLY:: How big a place is
Powell River?


James Houston Spence: I should like the minister to tell us the population of Powell River.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Five thousand.


James Houston Spence: Let us get some information about Prince Rupert. Surely the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) has not so much influence that he is worth $150,000 to this house. That is a wonderful sum of money to spend in the deadest town in British Columbia. I think it is an exorbitant amount, and it should not be spent.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For the information of my hon. friend I may say that in order to arrive at the amount required for that public building we have capitalized the rentals which we have been paying in the past and which we are paying at present for the different government services in Prince Rupert. The site has been given to the federal government by the provincial authorities, and it was by capitalizing the rentals which we are paying at present in Prince Rupert for accommodation for our different services that we arrived- at that amount.


James Houston Spence: What services are going to be accommodated in that building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is the post office, the national revenue department, the government telegraph and different offices of the marine and fisheries branches.


Olof Hanson: I am glad the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) asked that question because, representing Prince Rupert, it gives me a chance to say a few words. Prince Rupert is one of the greatest North American Pacific ports. The provincial government of British Columbia has seen fit to erect a building there costing approximately half a million dollars, realizing the strategic position of that

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
city as far as central and northern British Columbia are concerned. The minister has explained that this building will house the post office, the customs department, the Indian branch for central British Columbia and also the fisheries branches and the lighthouse offices. I think I am not wrong in saying that this is the one important point on the central British Columbia coast as far as the development of that area is concerned.


James Houston Spence: What is the population?


Olof Hanson: I am not making any
rash statements. As a representative of a part of British Columbia I am trying to explain that we hold a strategic position in British North America. We 'have the first railway connection in that part of the country.


James Houston Spence: Have railways ever paid
up there?


Olof Hanson: The Department of
National Defence will no doulbt bring before the house some measures which may or may not be approved. So far as I am concerned, I must say that the world is in such a state of turmoil that an oriental power could come in with a rowboat manned by two men, with one additional to handle a machine gun, and they could take the whole coast. I am surprised that an hon. member from a province such as Ontario, one supposed to uphold all British traditions, one of the pioneer districts, should question any expenditure in the part of the country about which I am speaking. We are trying to convey to the committee that we form part of the dominion and that we hold a strategic position within it. I am surprised to hear any hon. member ask about our population, about our traditions or our possibilities.
I remember an occasion two years ago when in opposition I tried to suggest that in my section of the country we have room for hundreds of thousands of families. Upon that occasion one hon. member on the government side of the house said, "Where are you going to put your houses? On the sides of the hills?" I would ask the hon. member for Parkdale to visit that part of Canada and see for himself that we do not have to put our houses on the sides of the hills.


James Houston Spence: I have been there.


Olof Hanson: There are four hundred
miles east and west where one cannot see a mountain; there are seven hundred miles north and south where one cannot see a mountain.


James Houston Spence: Or anything else.


Olof Hanson: Consequently it is not
necessary to put houses on the sides of the hills. I notice the former Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) is looking at me; he knows something about the matter. Hon. members who insinuate that we have no space in that part of Canada had better take a trip to our country and find out for themselves. Then they would not come back to the floor of this chamber and say there is any lack of space. Like Mae W'est I would say, "Come up and see me some time."
So long as British Columbia is in the Dominion of Canada, and so long as w,e have opportunities and possibilities for development, and the .place to put hundreds of thousands of people, I think our interests should be considered. When an hon. member such as the hon. member for Parkdale asks why the government is making such an expenditure, surely he cannot know what he is talking about. We are supposed to be operating under a British constitution and the principles of British fair play.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I have much pleasure in supporting what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) has had to say with reference to the port of Prince Rupert and the tremendous area for which it is the Pacific outlet. In his section of the country are many attractions and resources. No person knows just how rich the resources are, because many miles of that section have not been scratched or prospected. I am quite sure the hon. member will agree with that statement, and even without Mae West there are attractions for hundreds of thousands of people. I could not help rising in an attempt to support what the hon. member has said. He has told the truth about that section of Canada, and no doubt he could have told much more had he had time to do so.
In the city of Victoria for many years we have been promised a public building. There has been a feeling that a public building is needed and that the present arrangements for the administration of the business of the federal government in that city are not sufficient. Two or three years ago a suitable site was purchased and plans for a building were accepted, but building has not commenced. Within the last week there has been a serious fire in the post office, destroying two floors and doing a great deal more damage to the remainder of the building. Has the minister any report on the result of the fire, and what are his intentions in the matter?

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The information given by the hon. member is correct. Fire destroyed two floors in which the public services were housed in Victoria. Without having gone into details I am informed that there is a possibility of reconstructing the part of the building which has been destroyed. I am told that something similar happened in Ottawa through a fire which took place about twenty-five years ago, and as a result the department constructed two additional stories.
I believe the same can be done in Victoria although I confess we have not yet reached any decision in the matter.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand the minister to say that the survey of the situation is not yet complete.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon Territory
Dawson administration building-repairs, improvements and alterations, $25,000.
Mrs. BLACK:: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to say that the government is showing great wisdom in granting 126,000 to the Yukon territory. This may seem to be a large sum for the city of Dawson with only about 1,000 inhabitants. It would appear that hon. members on both sides of the house lay stress upon the fact that the number of inhabitants is of importance. Dawson loses many of her people when the working season is on as they go to the mines. The administration building houses the regular government of the territory, the post office, the telegraph office, the gold commissioner's office, the court and the council chamber; in fact all, save the mounted police, have offices there. In the territory we have had two serious floods causing an enormous amount of damage. The last one was last summer, and I was in Dawson almost immediately after the flood had subsided. The administration building was moved almost two feet from its foundation, and a great deal of damage was done to that part of the building.
For a number of years the previous member for the Yukon, my husband, tried to obtain a larger grant to repair the vaults in the administration building, and it is high time those vaults were cared for, if the government wishes to preserve valuable papers which could be lost through fire. In a country where all buildings are frame, there is naturally a heavy fire hazard, and the documents should be cared for. I wish especially to thank the minister for remembering us with this additional grant.
Might I be allowed to say just a word to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson). Ever since 1898 I have been going past his home town. When first I went into the north country the site on which Prince Rupert now stands was nothing but a barren, rocky hillside, and to-day we have there a beautiful little town growing, and feeding an area that not only is a mineral section but contains the port for one of the largest fisheries in Canada. It also feeds what will be eventually an agricultural section, because if we have any faith in this country of ours we expect the west to grow.


Jean-François Pouliot: Nothing is too good for our gracious colleague from the Yukon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generally
Experimental farms - replacements, repairs and improvements, $100,000.
Flags for dominion buildings, $5,000.
Military buildings-repairs, fittings and additions, $25,000.
Military hospitals-repairs, improvements and alterations, $80,000.
Decorations for coronation, $65,000.
Post office equipment, $24,000.
Public buildings generally, $30,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I notice that one of the items comprised in this vote is $65,000 for decorations for the coronation. I suppose that is what the name implies, decorations which in a day or two will be gone. If it happens to be a wet day they would not look very beautiful anyhow. Does the minister not think the money would be better spent, as was arranged at the time of the coronation of the late King George, in inaugurating some useful scheme? I believe, in the case of the late King George V, at his own request, a fund was subscribed for cancer research. Suppose we did something of that kind, or established playgrounds for children or homes for orphans. Does the minister not think that would be a far better indication of our respect and loyalty, than to waste the money on something which is evanescent and would at best last only a few hours? But if it were used as the basis of some such fund as I suggest, public sentiment might be aroused throughout the dominion and people would contribute more money to make it a substantial amount.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: According to the information which has come to me, the generosity of the late King George V, in connection with the fund my hon. friend mentioned, was demonstrated on his jubilee celebration, not his coronation.
To a certain extent I would be inclined to agree with the remarks that have been made
304	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) but I am afraid we would disappoint a very large number of people if we did not make the necessary expenditure for the appropriate decoration of all our public buildings on the occasion of the coronation of the present king. It may be that those who share the views of my hon. friend, and my own to a certain extent, would find themselves in a very small minority as compared with those who would be anxious to show their enthusiasm and loyalty by decorating their houses and having the public buildings decorated on that occasion. It is often good to follow the example of others, and I am informed that in London one large store alone is preparing to spend $600,000 simply on decorations for the coronation to show their respect for the king. So I am afraid my hon. friend is not voicing the opinion of the majority, although he may be voicing mine to a certain extent. After all, this is a very modest sum to be spent by Canada for the decoration of our public buildings. If the money were to be spent on only one building in Ottawa there might be some justification for my hon. friend's criticism, but this is for the decoration of public buildings throughout Canada, and when one considers the number of buildings that belong to the government one can see that it means a very small amount for decorations for each building.
If it happens we have bad weather, as my hon. friend suggests, it is not likely to be bad weather everywhere throughout the dominion, and some places will undoubtedly be enjoying nice weather, so that the decorations will not be a total loss even if there is bad weather in spots. Under the circumstances I think we are justified in joining with others and putting up decorations.


Alan Webster Neill: I would make two comments on the fact that a store in London is going to spend $600,000 on decorations. The first is that a large portion of that will, I should imagine, be put down to advertising. The second is that there is going to be an enormous gathering in London, which would justify the expenditure. But in which of our cities is there going to be an enormous gathering? If I understand the minister, this money will be evenly distributed for decorations on all the public buildings, and there will not be any substantial gathering at any one of them.
The minister also says that lie believes I am in the minority in my view. Possibly, but I am not aware of that, and even if it were so, if he will look over the pages of history he will find that the minority has often been justified.

May I ask what particular form the decorations are going to take? Are there going to be firecrackers, flags, an electrical display, or what? I understand the decorations are not only for Ottawa, but to be evenly distributed over every public building.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All the public buildings in the main centres.


Alan Webster Neill: Who is to be the judge of what constitutes a main centre? Is the public building at Port Alberni not just as much entitled to celebrate the occasion as any building in Montreal or Toronto, in proportion?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. If my hon. friend makes a request, I expect I can spare a few flags for him.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: What proportion of this $65,000 will be granted to the Toronto district? Toronto is our second largest city, and 1 would suggest that there should be something for Toronto.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have not yet decided on any apportionment of this amount. We have simply made a rough estimate of what might be required for decoration of the public buildings in the most important centres in Canada, but I can assure my hon. friend that a very good share of the expenditure is going to be reserved for the great city of Toronto.


Alan Webster Neill: I would point out to the minister that already he is in trouble. One man wants his share, and I want my share. Already we are approaching this matter from a petty, parochial point of view, and if that plan is followed he will have to allocate the money on the basis of so much per head, whereas if the money were used along the line I indicated, for some useful public purpose, our better instincts would be stirred and we would contribute some money of our own to help swell a fund that was started for some real practical purpose, and would not be squabbling among ourselves.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We could not get very far with $65,000 if we were to start on a program based upon social needs in Canada. There would not be much if the vote were divided among 245 constituencies.


Alan Webster Neill: It would be a start, and would give an impetus. If he puts up $65,000 to start a worthy cause I will subscribe my little mite and other people will do the same.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have to make a choice, and if we followed my hon. friend's suggestion and started on a program to meet certain social needs there might be nothing left for Comox-Alberni.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not the least objection to the vote of $65,000 for decorations for the coronation, provided it is spent only for the decoration of buildings, not of men. There should also be an amount for a very different matter. I happened to be outside this building when the Governor General's horse guards paraded for the opening, and I noticed that they were very poor riders. As they will take part in the celebration of the coronation, I suggest that there should be an item to give them lessons in riding in order that they may not be any longer a disgrace in the parades which take place around this building.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: With reference to the item of military hospitals, are any particular hospitals being considered, or is the item a general one for repairs to military hospitals throughout Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is required for general repairs and improvements to the various military hospital buildings throughout the dominion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The department has no
particular hospitals in any place to which this item has specific application?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not in particular.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, etc.
Ottawa public buildings and grounds-*
Elevator attendants, $124,000.
Departments generally-char service, including $150 for firing noon gun, $489,000.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $408,000.
Light and power, including roads and bridges, $204,000.
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $360,000.
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light, $19,000.
Rideau Hall-improvements, furniture and maintenance, $42,000.
Telephone service, $93,000.
Water, $67,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I ask the minister to be good enough to adopt the usual course of leaving one item open for discussion upon any matter that may arise. I cannot think of a more comprehensive item than this one, and I suggest that he should allow it to stand and that we might deal with the next one, and so clean up public buildings.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend refers to item No. 117?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. That might well stand.	i


Frederick George Sanderson: Item stands.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to say about it. It is, that if the chief justice of Canada were the governor general, and if the chief justice of each province were lieutenant governor of that province, this item would disappear and we would save a great deal of money. I make that suggestion because the chief justice of Canada is competent and duly qualified to represent His Majesty, and so are the chief justices of the provinces. The suggestion was made in the house some years ago. I renew it in order to give every member an opportunity to think it over. In these times of stress-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I do not want
to interrupt the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), but item 117 stands.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but it has not been decided yet.


Frederick George Sanderson: Oh, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I spoke before it was decided that it stood. By the way, I am through.
Item stands.
Dominion public buildings and grounds-
Dominion immigration building-repairs, improvements, additions and furniture, $10,000.
Dominion quarantine stations-maintenance and repairs, $13,000.
Fittings and furniture, $100,000.
Heating, $463,000.
Light and power, $334,000.
Rents, $1,390,000.
Salaries of caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc., $1,395,000.
Supplies for caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc., $62,500.
Water, $84,000.
Yukon public buildings-rents, repairs, fuel, light, water service and caretakers' salaries, $24,500.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice that the amount of the item of rents is substantially less than that appropriated last year. I assume that is owing to the fact that we are occupying some buildings we have constructed and have been able thereby to give up some leases.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Exactly; that is the reason.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister, on the item which has been allowed to stand, inform the committee of the leases which are being surrendered or given up, and also any additional leases that have been entered into recently.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protections service, $930,000.
Frank Exton Lennard: Will the minister explain the increase?


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: Yes. An increase of $3,035 for fishery officers, $8,307 for service of guardians, and $60 for increased boat service.


Mr. BARBER:: Is it the intention to increase the number of fishery guardians in British Columbia, and, if so, to what extent?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is not an increase in the number of officers. It represents statutory increases of officers' salaries.


Harry James Barber: Are the services of any of she officers or guardians being dispensed with?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $9,000.
Harry Gladstone Clarke: Will the minister inform us what rivers are being cleared and where the building of fishways is to be done?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Wherever it is needed, depending upon the obstructions that may happen to be found, especially in the spring of the year after the run of the ice or logs. If the hon. member wants a list of the rivers upon which money was expended last year, I shall enumerate them.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: It would take ud too much time to give all of them. But where an advance has been made which more than doubles the cost of the work, it would seem to me that there should be something more definite in the minister's explanation.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is for the purpose of building a fishway through certain falls of a river in British Columbia called the Maggie river. The fishway is now under construction.


Harry James Barber: Where is that?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: On the west coast of
Vancouver island.


Olof Hanson: Since the government has seen fit in its wisdom to abolish the salmon hatcheries on both the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts, I submit that reasonable consideration should be given the original spawning grounds in the different rivers on both the Atlantic and the Pacific. As a result of correspondence I have had with game and fish

organizations I can assure the government that there is a widespread feeling that in consequence of the abolition of the hatcheries something is necessary for the preservation of the fish, and that attention should be given the original spawning grounds. I have not thought it advisable so far to bring this matter to the attention of the government, but I would urge upon the minister that he give reasonable consideration to any suggestions which may be made in connection with the original spawning grounds on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. No doubt the hatcheries were originally established to assist the spawning grounds, but since it has been decided to discontinue these hatcheries, I think it is wise for the government to consider very carefully any suggestions which come from those familiar with the subject in regard to the original spawning grounds of salmon. Years ago in certain districts trees were plentiful in the vicinity of rivers and creeks, but fire has destroyed them in many places and the trees have fallen into the water, making it practically impossible for the salmon to reach the spawning grounds. I submit that when recommendations come from reliable sources the department should take steps to clear the creeks of these obstacles which prevent the salmon from getting up to the original spawning grounds.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Every precaution is being taken to protect the spawning grounds, and I shall be pleased to consider every recommendation or suggestion that may be made to the department.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: From present indications
does it appear that the hatcheries will be permanently discontinued?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Just the sockeye hatcheries. We hope it will be possible to make use of those hatcheries that have been in operation for some years for the conservation and propagation of sport fish. At present there is a joint committee of the dominion government and the government of British Columbia studying the problem, and in the meantime some of the hatcheries are being kept open for experimental purposes.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In connection with sport
fish?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Fisheries
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish. $61,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have noticed a good deal of favourable comment, both in the press and ^on the part of the public, on the minister's efforts in trying to increase the demand for fish throughout Canada, and I am sure that^ those efforts are commendable. In connection with conservation, a commission has been investigating the lobster fisheries on the north and west coasts of New Brunswick. Is this item to include the expenses of that investigation? I understand from reports in the newspapers that the boats used for patrol purposes are not capable of coping with the situation; that is, the boats used by those who are illegally fishing lobsters are faster than the patrol boats. Is it the intention of the department to get faster boats for that service and to see that illegal fishing is prohibited in that district? I do not think the fishermen are altogether to blame for the situation which has arisen there. For a great many years they have been suffering great hardships, as indeed they are at the present time. They have not been able to make a livelihood for very many years, nor can they make a livelihood to-day in. that pant of New Brunswick. I said last year- and I believe that my words then are true to-day-that the fishermen there were disappointed in the treaty we -made with the United States. They expected that more provision wrould be made for the sale of our maritime fish in the United States. The great difficulty facing the fishermen in the maritime provinces is the question of markets. I wish to commend the minister for the efforts he has made to secure increased markets -throughout the country and to encourage the people in the larger centres, particularly in central Canada, to eat more fish.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In reply to the first question I would say, yes. The cost of the inquiry is to be paid, not out of this vote but out of a similar vote passed last year, because the expenditure is taking place in the present year. Second, I should hesitate to discuss the nature of the evidence which has so far been submitted 'to the commissioner, because it is not yet all complete. The investigation is being carried on by a royal commissioner, a judge of the supreme court, and I should prefer to wait for his report before placing any interpretation on the evidence that has been adduced before him. As regards the criticism that the government boats are not adequate,
I do not believe that has been yet established, but some opinions have been given to that effect. We are satisfied that most of our men
31111-20J
are efficient and most of our boats are of equal speed to those of the few who defy the regulations and the law. I can assure my hon. friend further that we are going to make some changes in the regulations, which changes will depend upon the report and suggestions of the commission.
Mr. hon. friend referred to the price of the fish to the fishermen. It is true that under the treaty with the United States the concessions were not as great as was expected; notwithstanding that, during the last year our exports of fish to the United States have more than doubled.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that from the maritime provinces, or from the whole of Canada? I know that from British Columbia they have increased, but I understand that from the maritime provinces they have not.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, yes, the total export of fish to the United States last year was 100 per cent greater, and the same ratio would apply to exports from the maritime provinces, mostly fresh fish.
Mr. hon. friend has referred to the depressed condition of the fishermen along the coast of New Brunswick, especially the lobster fishermen, whose situation we are investigating now.
I may inform him that there is no duty on lobsters going into the United States, and fortunately our fishermen have enjoyed a fairly good market during the present season, although the catch was not as large as it had been in the past.


William Michael Ryan: I do not know that my question is in order in connection with this particular item but I should like to ask the minister about a licence fee imposed by the late government on the fishermen of Lorneville. I do not know whether that was done to assist in the conservation of the deep sea fish or what the object was, but I have had innumerable protests and I cannot get any explanation why there should be what I call this discrimination against the fishermen of that district. Can the minister give some information as to what revenue is produced, and what the reasons are for centering on this particular district to impose this licence fee, which is regarded as a nuisance tax? I should like to have some information which I may convey to those who are repeatedly writing me protesting against the imposition of this fee.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I believe my hon. friend has reference to a nominal fee of $1 charged to those who wish to take out a fishing licence.
It is simply for the purpose of administration.
If there were no fee most of the people would forget to take out the licence, which the law
Supply-Fisheries

compels them to take out. I do not believe my hon. friend is correct in stating that there is discrimination against the people of the community he mentioned, because the regulation applies to all who want to take out licences in New Brunswick, and not to those of any particular locality.


William Michael Ryan: Would the minister tell me how many licences are issued in the fishing district adjoining Lorneville?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have not the details by localities of those who have taken out licences during the past year. I have the information for the entire province. In district No. 2, salmon gill net drift licences, 192, and trap nets, 386; in district No. 3, 161 gill nets and 97 trap nets; Gaspereau licences, 137. Probably it is district No. 3 in which the place referred to by the hon. member is situated. There were 23 shad licences, or a total of 1,135 licences in district No. 3.


William Michael Ryan: I cannot say that is the district, but I would ask the minister to be kind enough to take this matter into consideration. This tax may not seem serious to some, but it is creating a hardship on the fishermen. I do not see what the department gains by imposing this licence fee. It is only a recent innovation; the fishermen carried on for years without it. I know there is considerable opposition in the department to what I am saying, but I wish the minister would take the matter into consideration. The fishermen are protesting; the country gains very little by the collection of the fee, and I assure him that in these days when the fishermen are struggling to earn a livelihood in an honest way, as they do in my part of the country, it would be appreciated if this licence fee were done away with. I ask that in all seriousness.


Mr. LEADER:: As some hon. members know, I come from Manitoba, where it is generally believed that we raise wheat, cattle and other agricultural products. When I heard this discussion of the fishing industry on the Atlantic and the Pacific I was much interested, because the fishing business in my province is developing into quite a large industry. Our fresh water lakes produce the best whitefish and pickerel in the world and I just wanted to apprise members of the committee of that fact. I also wanted to tell them, as I have told the minister'-and he was good enough to answer my correspondence -that the fishermen of my province suffered a major catastrophe this year. After the winter season opened and the ice was sound enough they went out and placed their nets.

Then milder weather developed, with high winds; the ice was broken up, and hundreds and thousands of these fishermen lost their nets. I accompanied a delegation to Winnipeg and we appealed to the Manitoba government for aid. The appeal was also taken up with the dominion government, but they found it impossible to reimburse these fishermen for their loss. This was really too bad, because I believe since then many of those men have had to apply for relief. It seems to me that it would be a very wise action on the part of this government and our provincial government if they would take care of situations such as these, which develop perhaps only once in ten years. I just wanted to tell the minister that a major catastrophe occurred and a great hardship overtook those honest, hard working people in Manitoba. If there is in the estimates any amount that can be made available to reimburse these men in order to reestablish them for next year, I believe the officials of the department should give the matter their very earnest consideration.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In reply to the hon. member and for the information of the committee may I say that the fisheries of the inland provinces do not come under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I was sorry to have to turn down his request for help in the matter he has just brought to the attention of this committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT Marine Service
Aids to navigation: maintenance and repairs to wharves, $7,500.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This item covers the expenditure for maintenance and minor repairs to the large number of small public docks administered by this department. Major repairs to these docks are made by the Department of Public Works, but repairs costing less than $50 are made by the department as required, and this appropriation is for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay pensions to pilots: Alphonse Asselin, John I. Irvine, Adjutor Baillergeon. J. Alphonse Lachance, Joseph Pouliot. Raoul Lachance, Phileas Lachance, Arthur Baillergeon, J. H. Talbot, Jules Asselin, Joseph Vezina, $3,300.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This is an appropriation
which goes back to 1906. At that time the pilotage district of Quebec was reorganized

Supply-Transport-Marine
and the number of pilots reduced. There were far too many pilots there for efficiency, and as part of the plan to reduce the number of pilots provision was made for pensioning the then existing pilots at the age of sixty-five, with a pension of $300 per annum. The pilots are becoming less in number each year, which accounts for the reduction in the vote this year.


James Alexander Marshall: May I ask the minister how many were retired?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The names of the surviving pilots appear in the estimates. I think there are eleven of them left, out of a total of fifty-one.


Robert Emmett Finn: I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport a question that has been brought to my attention by steamship men who are trading up the St. Lawrence river and through to the great lakes. I am told that in the great lakes these ships are required to carry two pilots, and the expense is so great that it is absolutely impossible for those engaged in the shipping business in the port of Halifax to enter into trade which carries them into the great lakes. It seems to me there should be some sound reason for requiring ships to carry two pilots, but this information comes to me from an outstanding shipping man who is directly engaged in that trade. He informs me that if that regulation is enforced he will have to retire and take his ships out of the trade between Nova Scotia and the great lakes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that no such regulation as has been suggested by the hon. member for Halifax is in force at the moment. Some conversations have taken place with the United States about it, but at the present time the whole matter is only under discussion. No conclusions have been arrived at as yet, and I do not think anything further can be said about the matter just now.


Robert Emmett Finn: It is as the minister says: I had forgotten that this is a question having to do with a relationship between the United States and Canada. Perhaps this is not an opportune time to discuss the matter; I accept the suggestion of the minister, but I should like an assurance from him' that before this matter is dealt with hon. members will have an opportunity of discussing it further.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to my hon. friend I may say that if any such arrangement is made, I am informed that it must be by legislation, so the house will have a chance to discuss it.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not want to be unduly technical, but is it necessary that this should be done by legislation? May it not be done by treaty, binding both countries, which will be brought to this house only for confirmation? If that is so, I think an opportunity should be afforded hon. members to discuss this matter. It is not a question in which I am interested personally, but when steamship people in my constituency are interested and set out the facts succinctly, clearly and honestly, we should have an opportunity of dealing with this question in a preliminary way so that we shall not find ourselves in the position of having international negotiations carried on, resulting in a treaty being brought into the house as a government measure for confirmation, so that refusal to vote for it will be equal to a vote of want of confidence in the government. I do not want to place myself in that position, but I should like to be able to discuss the question in order that those who are interested might be informed as to the position and as to the possibility of a further discussion being carried on before any of these international pourparlers are concluded as between the United States and Canada in reference to this vital question of putting two pilots aboard a ship and making the charterer or owner of the ship pay for two pilots when one would be sufficient. That is the only point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall do my best to see
that the 'hon. member has an opportunity to discuss the matter before we go too far.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am satisfied with the minister's answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Compassionate allowance to recoup the Workmen's Compensation Board of British Columbia in continuation of a pension granted and to be paid by that board up to the 31st March, 1938. in the sum of $35 per month, to the widow of the late E. J. McCoskrie, who was formerly employed as port warden at Prince Rupert, B.C., and who was killed while in the performance of his duties, $420.
Mr. STEW'ART:	How long has this item
been running? I see there is a vote in 1936-37?
Clarence Decatur Howe: It was instituted in 1930-31.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it annually during
the lifetime of the recipient?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, through the widow, I
believe. The person in question was a port warden at Prince Rupert who was killed on duty. He was not entitled' to a pension, and this is a compassionate allowance to his widow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport-M arine
Compassionate allowance to John Davidson, formerly lightkeeper at Cape Mudge, B.C., $500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: How long has this item
been running?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since 1922-23. It has been
annual since then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Steamboat inspection, $172,625.75.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Why is there an increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is for statutory and promotional increases.


Robert Emmett Finn: Does this apply to * steamboats that are receiving subsidies, or just government boats?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Government and other boats. I find the increase is for statutory increases and promotions and that it amounts to about $1,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should have thought
this would come under civil government, if they are permanent employees?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Although I have not the
exact details, I am told that this includes members of the staff who are not included in the civil government vote.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How do statutory increases go to them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All members of the service
receive statutory increases, whether or not they come under t'he civil government item.


Mr. STIRLING:: In the previous year
there was a decrease of $11,000, while in the present year there is an increase of a few hundred dollars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Either to-night or before the item passes would the minister be prepared to give particulars of the expenditure in the last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. They are these for
the coming fiscal year:
Salaries of administrative staff, $22,050.
Salaries of steamship inspectors, tackle inspectors, clerks, $130,495.75.
Travelling and office expenses, $15,080.
Travelling expenses of customs officers, investigating complaints, expense of legal proceedings, printing, stationery and unforeseen expenses, $5,000


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many inspectors
are includued in that expenditure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thirty-two will be required.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where are they located?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Sorel, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, Midland, Collingwood, Port Arthur, Vancouver and Victoria.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister has an
excellent memory and his geography is particularly good. Are these inspectors appointed by the civil service commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the salary of an inspector?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They range from S3,660 to $2,880. That of the senior steamship inspector is $3,660: steamship inspector, general, $2,820 to $3,360; inspector of boilers and machinery, $2,520 to $2,880; inspector of hull equipment, $2,520 to $2,880; inspector of ships' tackle, $1,260 to $1,440.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, January 27, 1937