1939-05-31

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of article 405 of the treaty of Versailles and the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace, I desire to lay on the table of the house, and thereby to bring to the attention of parliament with a view to any action which may be desired, the authentic texts of the draft conventions and recommendations which were adopted by the international labour conference, League of Nations, Geneva, at its nineteenth to twenty-fourth sessions inclusive, comprising in all nineteen draft conventions and twelve recommendations.
With these texts, I desire also to lay on the table of the house the text of an order in council which was approved on March 7,
1939, dealing with the competence of parliament and of the provincial legislatures as to the subject matters involved in these draft conventions and recommendations.
The decision of the judicial committee of the privy council in the radio reference, 1932 Appeal Cases, 304, had given rise to the view that the parliament of Canada possessed general legislative authority to give effect to international engagements, including those arising from the ratification of labour conventions entered into by the government of Canada. In reliance upon this view, three acts of the parliament of Canada were enacted in the session of 1935 to give effect to conventions of the international labour conference previously ratified by Canada, in respect of hours of work, weekly rest and minimum wages. The validity of this legislation was the subject of a reference which came before the judicial committee of the privy council in the labour conventions case, 1937 Appeal Cases, 327. The board held the legislation to be invalid on the ground that parliament had no such general legislative authority in relation to international obligations as was claimed, and that the subject matters of the legislation fell within the exclusive legislative competence of the provinces.
The report of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on which the order in council of March 7, 1939, to which I have referred, is based, indicates that the individual draft conventions and recommendations adopted during the period 1935-1938 involve, with certain exceptions, subject matters in respect of which legislative jurisdiction is primarily vested in the provinces. In conformity with the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council, the procedure which was followed prior to 1935 has now been reverted to in respect of all of the draft conventions and recommendations adopted between 1935 and 1938 which were found to fall in point of subject matter primarily within the provincial sphere of authority, and authenticated copies of the said draft conventions and recommendations, together with copies of the order in council of March 7, 1939, have been transmitted through the Department of the Secretary of State to the lieutenant governors of the respective provinces for the consideration of their respective governments, with a view to the enactment of legislation, or such other action, upon the parts of the subject matter of the several draft conventions and recommendations within the provincial sphere of jurisdiction, as each government may be advised to take.
Consideration has been given also by the government of Canada to certain aspects of the foregoing draft conventions and recom-
[Stage Direction]
International Labour Conference
mendations subject to the legislative authority of parliament, and in so far as these may be approved, legislative or executive measures will be taken to give effect thereto.
As regards the draft conventions and recommendations affecting seamen which have been successively adopted by the international labour conference, since the inception of this body, all of which involve subject matters within federal jurisdiction, six draft conventions in all have been ratified already by this country, concerning: (1) minimum age for the admission of children to employment at sea; (2) unemployment indemnity in case of loss or foundering of the ship; (3) minimum age for admission of young persons to employment as trimmers or stokers; (4) compulsory medical examination of children or young persons employed at sea; (5) seamen's articles of agreement; and (6) the marking of the weight on heavy packages transported by vessels.
Five draft conventions, Nos. 53 to 57 inclusive, and one recommendation, No. 49, which were adopted at the twenty-first session of the international labour conference in 1936, and one draft convention, No. 58, which was adopted at the twenty-second session in the same year, deal with matters affecting seamen which are competent to parliament. The provisions of these draft conventions .and recommendations are being given examination in the marine section of the Department of Transport, and parliament will be advised in due course as to any measures which may be taken looking to the acceptance by Canada of the proposals which are respectively involved. Attention is being given also by the government to draft convention No. 63, and recommendation No. 50, concerning statistical matters which are within federal jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) moved concurrence in the second and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act, as follows:
Pursuant to order of reference dated February 21st, 1939, your committee has perused the evidence taken before the special committee on the Civil Service Act presided over by Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot during the session of 1938; has studied most carefully the report of that committee; has examined the chairman and the chief executive officer of the civil service commission and has given consideration to numerous suggestions proposed by members of the committee.

Your committee recommends that legislation be enacted to implement the following proposals:-
1.	Your committee deems it expedient and in the interest of the public, the civil service and the civil service commission that a standing committee on civil service matters be appointed at the commencement of each session of parliament, and therefore recommends to parliament that standing order 63 be amended by adding after clause (k) of said order the following clause: (1) "on civil service matters to consist of twenty-five members, nine of whom shall constitute a quorum."
2.	That subsection one of section 38 of the Civil Service Act be amended by adding at the end thereof the following proviso:-
"Provided that, except on approval by the governor in council, such authorization shall not extend to the employment of a person who
(1)	is not a natural born or naturalized British subject; and
(2)	has not been a resident of Canada for at least ten years prior to such authorization."
3.	That subsection (1) of section 33 of the Civil Service Act be amended by substituting the word "ten" for the word "five" in the last line thereof.
4.	That the commission may, on the written request of the department concerned, and subject to the approval of the treasury board, appoint without competition any person who has already held a permanent position in the civil service and who has resigned, to the same or a similar position within the department, provided however, that such written request shall state fully the reasons for such appointment, and that such person is deserving of such appointment, is not over fifty-five years of age, is of good character, and in good physical condition, and the commission on being satisfied that such appointment is in the public interest, may appoint such person.
5.	That section twenty-one of the Civil Service Act, dealing with vacancies in the departments, be amended by providing (in subsection two thereof), for the case of temporary appointments when there is no eligible list, that
the commission shall forthwith hold an examination, and, if necessary, to prevent any serious interference with the public business, but not otherwise, may fill the position at once, subject to the approval of the head of the department, by making a temporary appointment as prescribed herein, the only change in the subsection being the insertion therein of the words in italics above.
6.	Your committee is of the opinion that the preference granted by sections twenty-eight and twenty-nine of the act to persons who have served overseas in the military or naval forces of his majesty's allies should apply only when such persons are natural born or naturalized British subjects, and also had been resident in Canada before the great war.
7.	Your committee recommends that no male employee shall be retained in the civil service beyond the age of sixty-five years, and no female employee beyond the age of sixty years, and that such retirement be made compulsory, without any extension, except when deemed against the public interest by the governor in council.
Your committee is of the opinion that this would materially increase the efficiency of the civil service, would facilitate promotion and

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
create a brighter outlook for the future of the younger people in the service or desirous of entering therein.	.
8.	Your committee recommends that all positions for which the maximum salary rate is $700 or less, except the positions of office boys, or others usually subject to promotion, shall be excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Act, and that the governor in council be empowered to make regulations for the control and direction, organization, classification, and compensation, appointments to and general conditions of such positions.
9.	Your committee recommends that longterm temporaries on the staff of all government departments, who have been giving satisfactory service for a number of years, should be made permanent employees under the civil service commission.
Your committee also recommends that the civil service commission make effective by regulation or otherwise, the following proposals:
1.	The committee recommends that no official or employee in the civil service shall make any direct or indirect recommendation or reference by letter or otherwise on behalf of any relative by blood or marriage, or take any part, whether directly or indirectly in any competition, temporary or permanent assignment, promotion, classification or reclassification in which any such relative is an applicant.
2.	Your committee recommends that^ it shall be the duty of the civil service commission to make their own rulings on the operation of the act and apply the same uniformly, provided however, that any department affected by such ruling may request the civil service commission to join in any submission to the Department of Justice for an opinion.
3.	Your committee reaffirms the eighteenth recommendation of the civil service committee of 1932 which is as follows:
18. Your committee is of opinion that there is a great deal of overlapping in the performance of duties by the heads of different branches of the civil service commission, owing to matters receiving the attention of the secretary of the commission which are in no way related to secretarial duties.
Your committee, therefore, recommends that the secretary of the civil service commission be called upon to perform only those duties which are peculiarly those of a secretary and that the civil service commission consider ways and means of eliminating duplication of correspondence and departmental memoranda which now pass through the secretary to the commissioners, and your committee recommends that all forms presently in use for such purposes shall be altered accordingly.
4.	As the multiplicity of classification and the discrepancy in salary ranges tend to create dissatisfaction in the service, your committee suggests that the classification should be simplified to as great a degree as possible, with such reduction in the number of salary grades as is commensurate with efficiency and economy.
5.	From the evidence it appears there is at present a considerable discrepancy in salary ranges as between departments and as between the various branches of the same department and as between the Senate and House of Commons, which militates against efficiency and co-operation. Your committee recommends that the organization branch be charged with special responsibility with regard to salary levels in order to simplify ranges and also to thoroughly
investigate salaries paid in comparable classes within and without the service.
6.	Your committee recommends:
(1)	That annual surveys of departments, units or branches shall be made in rotation by the various investigators, whether requested by the department or not, and such reviews shall be made so as to remedy overlapping, overstaffing or understaffing and any unfair discrepancies which may exist.
(2)	That if there is to be specialization, it shall be within classes rather than by attempting to cover a whole department from top to bottom, as at present.
(3)	That investigators shall mention in each report the time spent with each employee and the date and circumstances of the interviews.
(4)	That investigators shall not sit on examining boards as members thereof.
7.	In order to give the civil service commissioners a complete picture which will ensure fairness and departmental responsibility, and which will standardize the service and speed up handling of cases, your committee recommends that the investigator's report with the comments of the chief of the organization branch be forwarded to the department concerned and returned to the civil service commission with any comments such department wishes to make.
8.	Your committee recommends that no married woman shall be employed even temporarily under her maiden name and that regulation No. 36 of the civil service commission shall be strictly applied.
9.	Your committee recommends that standard advertisements to cover all classes and grades should be prepared and adhered to and that the practice which has often been followed in the past of -writing advertisements to fit the qualifications of a single individual should be discontinued. Your committee recommends further that any reason for varying such standard advertisements should be submitted in writing by the deputy head suggesting such variation and be reported thereon by the organization branch and that no such varied advertisement shall be issued or published unless previously approved by the civil service commission.
10.	Your committee recommends that examination papers should not be translated for examination purposes but should be read by the examiners in the language in which they have been written, whether English or French.
11.	Your committee is pf the opinion that wherever advisable, transfers to other branches of departments, as well as from one department to another, should be encouraged so as to facilitate merited promotions and for the purpose of helping employees to acquire £ general knowledge of the work of the depart ment or departments of the government. Youi committee considers that the effect of this recommendation will open new horizons to the younger employees by offering opportunities for advancement and promotion at the same time preventing the static condition of the service and remedying certain injustices.
12.	Your committee recommends that in connection with ratings on efficiency and fitness on which selections for promotion are based, the fitness ratings, -whenever possible, be made by a board of three departmental officers instead of individual departmental officers as at present, and that the efficiency ratings be _ made by the immediate supervisors of the applicants and reviewed by the board of three departmental officers.
Your committee recommends that a system of periodical ratings recording the efficiency of employees be established for use in eon-
4782	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
neetion with promotions, classification, salary increases, and retirements and that the employee 6hall be advised of the results of all his ratings and shall have the right to appeal such ratings to the board mentioned in the following recommendation.
13.	To facilitate the adjustment of complaints of a civil servant where such complaints cannot otherwise be adjusted, your committee recommends that such complaints be adjudicated by a board of appeal consisting of a nominee of a civil service organization named by the complainant, a nominee of the chairman of the civil service commission and one, who shall be the chairman of the board, to be named by the head of the department; the findings of the board to be reported to the bodies having jurisdiction over the matter, to be final respecting ratings for promotion, and to be put into effect.
14.	Your committee recommends that promotions shall not be confirmed until after the expiration of fourteen days so as to permit the filing of an appeal to the board mentioned in your committee's thirteenth recommendation, and hi the event of such appeal being made that such promotion shall not be confirmed until the appeal has been disposed of.
15.	Your committee recommends that the practice of placing employees in vacant positions m an acting capacity instead of holding promotion competitions for them be discouraged.
16.	Your committee recommends that the commission investigate the feasibility of more extensive and adequate advertising of competitions by press and radio.
17.	Your committee regrets that the recom-menaation of the civil service committee of 1932 "that all papers, documents, et cetera, placed on the files of the commission be consecutively numbered in each file, so that removals or deletions therefrom will be apparent has not been put into operation, and recommends that it shall be strictly observed and that_ also each document on file shall be duly initialed and classified in each file.
18.	Your committee is of the opinion that:
(1)	a departmental division of eighty per cent permanent and twenty per cent temporary results in discrimination in certain branches where the work is entirely permanent and where twenty per cent have to wait years for any hope of permanency; and
(2)	disapproves of any practice which will result in a branch creating work to bring in extra temporaries so as to absorb into the permanent quota those who otherwise would not be permanent.
19.	That_ in order to remove all appointments from political influence, all advertisements for applicants shall contain a notice advising the applicant that he must not seek political assistance to further his application.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before your committee is tabled herewith.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a special committee to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act was appointed on February 21, 1939. This was the second committee appointed in the last two years to look into the operation of the act and the conduct of the civil service commission and its officials regarding the service in general. The second report was presented to the house on April 27, and on May 9 I gave notice that I would move concurrence.
The civil service commission is one of the most important bodies of public administration in Canada. It has jurisdiction over every department; it has control over a large number of civil servants, and the amounts of money expended by the government upon its recommendation are enormous. Since confederation many committees have been appointed to investigate the civil service of Canada, and reasons were given for these investigations. I may say at the outset that the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), when moving the appointment of this year's committee on February 21, 1939, gave the main reasons for its appointment. I quote from page 1170 of Hansard'.
I have only to add a word to alleviate the fears of any hon. member that the continuance of the work of this committee may in the least degree weaken the authority of the civil service commission. On the contrary, the appointment of the committee is meant to strengthen the civil service commission and to surround it with the proper guarantees which it has a right to expect from parliament. I need hardly repeat what has been so often said by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), namely that the present government is strongly and unequivocally in favour of the merit system, and I believe that parliament, if the question were put to a vote, would pronounce by a very large majority in favour of the merit system.
Since confederation, committees have been appointed at different periods with a view to rendering the civil service more efficient. From 1877 to 1881 reports were made from different civil service committees to the house, and in 1882 a board of examiners was created by parliament to hold qualifying examinations for appointment to the civil service. These qualifying examinations were a strict rule for appointment to the civil service, but in 1908 a civil service commission was appointed and empowered to hold competitive examinations for appointment to the inside civil service of Canada. All appointments to the outside service were dealt with by patronage. But from 1908 to 1918, if you will study the statute, you will find that the last word in the appointment of civil servants was always left to the head of the department.
In 1918 the present Civil Service Act was adopted-not exactly in the form in which it now stands; but the principle of that act is what we have followed ever since 1918. All positions in the civil service were to be filled after competitive examination, were open to every part of the country, and wide publicity was given to the holding of the examinations. From 1918 to the present, civil service committees have been appointed and have laid down certain principles in the attempt to

Civil Service-Re-port of Committee
bring appointments, promotions, reclassifications and salaries more in line with the needs of the country.
In 1938 the government decided to appoint a civil service committee, which was presided over by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). The hon. member, who, as everyone knows, is one of the hardest workers we have in this house, gave all his time and energy to the holding of the fifty-two sittings of that committee. Over a thousand pages of evidence, I believe, accompanied the report which he laid on the table of the house last year, and facts and data were presented showing how examinations were held, appointments made and promotions dealt with. His report was a complete one, and he should be congratulated from all sides upon the work he did during the sittings of that committee.
In this year's committee we had twenty of the members who sat on last year's committee. The members of the committee this year followed the proceedings attentively, and every member gave his opinion in the preparation of the report. The sittings were devoted mainly to a consideration of the recommendations contained in last year s report. We had as advisers and heard as witnesses only the chairman of the commission and the chief examiner, Mr. Nelson. I wish to state here and now that I was impressed by the evidence given by Mr. Bland, the chairman of the Givil Service Commission of Canada. He is certainly one of the cleverest men we have had in that position. His evidence was carefully prepared, he was calm in delivering his statements, and he certainly was of great assistance to the members of the committee in preparing the report in which I now ask the house to concur. The other witnesses heard last year and this year did not impress me to the same extent. I noticed that some of the officials were not well acquainted with the act itself. When questions were put to them they hesitated before giving an answer, and on many occasions members of the committee referred to sections of the act to indicate that we would not touch things which to our minds seemed perfect. I do not wish to cast reflections upon any member of the commission or any of its officials, but in the years to come I am of the opinion that the situation could be bettered by the appointment to the commission of real technicians. A list of the technicians of the commission was filed, and I was surprised to find that most of them had passed examinations fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years ago as clerks in the civil service. They had grown up and learned their trade in the civil service, but 71492-301
some of them did not seem to have the necessary background to give to the commission the effect which parliament expects from it.
The report submitted this year is divided into two parts. Nine recommendations were made, two or three of which would, if adopted, require legislation. The remainder could be dealt with by order in council or upon recommendation and with the help of the commission. The other recommendations are addressed to the commission itself and concern the internal administration of their work in different departments.
The first recommendation was that the rules of the house be amended to add to the standing committees a committee on civil service matters. For two or three years special committees on the civil service have had to be appointed by reason of complaints made as to the operation of the Civil Service Act. It was found that when a considerable time elapsed between the appointment of one special committee and another there was an increase in the complaints made to members of parliament and people outside as to the way the act was administered, or how examinations were held, appointments made, or promotions dealt with. I really believe that if we had a standing committee on the civil service which would sit at every session, if necessary, or upon demand, the officials of the department as well as the members of the civil service commission and their employees generally would be far more careful in the work they do and the decisions they make.
I am not of that school of thought that believes that the civil service commission should overrule everybody and everything. It will be found upon reading the evidence of the committees of last year and this year that upon those committees were hon. members who had the most extreme views as to giving control of the civil service to three men, namely, the civil service commission, and others who believed that we should do away completely with that organization and have appointments made after qualifying examinations by a board of examiners. Actually our service is not completely a merit system. It is a dual system. A number of the employees are appointed after examination by the commission and according to eligible lists which are prepared by the commission. Other appointments are made by order in council, by votes in estimates, and, under section 59 of the act, upon recommendation of the civil service commission.
It is pretty difficult to obtain the exact figures concerning the number of civil servants in Canada. Mr. Ronson handed to the committee a list of employees in the
[Stage Direction]


Civil Service-Report oj Committee
different services of the departments of federal government, and the total was approximately 57,000. Not long ago in the house a return made by the secretary of state indicated that there were only 44,102 civil servants, namely 32,263 permanents and 11,839 temporaries. Mr. Ronson's total of 57,426 civil servants was made up of 43,200 permanents, 13,268 temporaries and 958 casuals. A large number of these employees -according to the chairman of the commission, some twenty to twenty-five thousand- have been appointed by the three methods I have mentioned, namely, by statute, by order in council on recommendation of the commission under section 59 of the act, and by votes in the estimates. Nobody has given evidence before these committees as to the qualifications of civil servants appointed by statute, by votes in the estimates, or by orders in council. I have not heard so many complaints in respect of, for instance, appointments to the income tax branch, which does not come under the Civil Service Act. I understand that the Department of National Revenue, before making appointments to the staff of that department, have a list of candidates, that these candidates are examined by departmental officials, and if qualified, they are appointed later upon the recommendation of the head of the department.
Other appointments made by the commission, after examination, held, it may be, every year or every second year, are to the clerical classes-stenographers and clerks of different grades. I have not heard many complaints about appointments to the commission. The examinations appear to be held very fairly, although during the sittings of the committee we found that everything in relation to those examinations was not always correct, and probably other members of the committee will give their views as to the way in which examinations should be held. In general, I really believe, not many complaints are to be made against the manner in which appointments to the service are effected. Complaints come rather after a person is appointed, and on account of this order in council requiring that twenty per cent of the employees should be temporary such appointees may stay in the same position, without any increase in salary and without the benefits of the Civil Service Act, for one year, two years, five years and up to eight years. This is the subject of a recommendation, and it is a matter upon which the members of the committee felt very strongly. In this regard we have received a letter from the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Pinard) giving all the

reasons why the government should cancel that order in council, and pointing to the hardships occasioned to the people who passed examinations in good faith, believing, according to the act, that after six months they either would become permanent or be let out of the service because of inefficiency; yet some of these men and women remain in the service year after year, hoping to become permanent some day, but meanwhile receiving no benefit from the provisions of the act and having no prospect of promotion. I know of men who have been in the service for eight years, doing the same work as their confreres seated at the next desk, receiving the minimum salary, and not benefiting from the superannuation act or obtaining any of the advantages which pertain to the status of permanency. We believe that that is not fair to those who have entered the service anticipating that six months after their appointment they would have a good chance to become permanent and receive promotion and increase of salary.
The argument against our recommendation will probably be that the cost to the country will be quite high. Certainly that is a serious consideration, and throughout the country there will be people trying to find out just what the additional cost will be. Nobody who appeared before the committee could give us the exact figures on this point. On the other hand the government must keep in mind that people who go into the service upon a temporary basis may have to wait, according to that order in council, if eighty per cent of the permanent employees are of the younger generation, as long as ten, fifteen or even twenty years before they will become permanent. In cases of this kind much hardship has resulted from the operation of the order in council, which was passed, I believe, in 1936.
With reference to the recommendation that a standing committee on civil service matters be set up, serious reasons have been advanced against the proposal. I recently read an article by Professor McGregor Dawson of the university of Toronto in which he stated that in his opinion to hold sittings of such a committee every year would paralyze the initiative of the commission and its officials. In answer to that I can say that the committees inquiring into the operation of the Civil Service Act do not, generally speaking, go into personal cases or personal complaints of civil servants, and in the future, if the recommendations in this report as to rating boards and appeal boards are adopted, they will not inquire into those questions at all.

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
Last year, when the question was put to the commissioners and to the former secretary of the commission, they admitted that tJhey thought a standing committee would be helpful to the commission and to the service in every department. I have much respect for those who believe that it would harm the service, but from most of the information I have received I believe these committees help the service rather than do it harm.
Another recommendation is an amendment to add a few words to section 21 of the act. It is in the second paragraph of the section, and concerns vacancies in a department when no eligible list exists. I will read the section so that hon. members will fully understand it:
21. . . . 2. The commission shall thereupon appoint the person whose name stands highest upon the commission's list of eligible persons for the class in which the position is found and who is willing to accept the appointment; in case there is no such list for the class, the commission shall forthwith hold an examination and, if necessary to prevent any serious interference with the public business, but not otherwise, may fill the position at once by making a temporary appointment as prescribed herein.
This is the section as it exists, and the amendment is to add the words "after being approved by the head of the department." The evidence is not very clear, but information was given that when vacancies occur in the departments and there is no eligible list from which to choose, someone in the commission, an examiner or investigator or a member of the commission, chooses somebody to fill the position temporarily with the result that examinations are delayed for a year or so; and while the temporary appointee is discharging his duties he has an opportunity to acquaint himself with the work, so that he is in a favourable position to pass the examination when it is called by the commission. I believe that this amendment would serve a useful purpose. It would provide that the approval of the head of the department should be obtained before any temporary appointment could be made and might induce the commission to hold their examinations at shorter intervals.
The next recommendation is out of the ordinary. It was discussed at length in. the committee and opinions were divided as to its desirability. With regard to. this, the fourth, recommendation, it is represented that persons leaving the service with a view to improving their position or for the purpose of getting married or going into business sometimes find themselves, after two or three years, either out of luck, so to speak, or in distress, and having been efficient civil servants they wish to return to the service. The committee recommended that up to the age of 71492-3011
fifty-five such persons should be reinstated in the service under strict conditions but without having to undergo an examination. They would have to be approved at the request of the department and they would come back subject to the approval of the treasury board. Further, the commission would have to be satisfied that the applicant for reinstatemenA was physically fit to reenter the service andl possessed sufficient aptitude to fill the position.. I understand that this is a departure from the; merit system and it has been criticized by civil service organizations in Ottawa. I have received some protests from these organizations.
The next amendment has to do with sections 33 and 38. In section 33 it is proposed to amend the qualification as to residence in Canada, substituting the word "ten" for the word "five." Section 38 relates to temporary employees. It is a general section and the committee decided to add this proviso:
Provided that, except on approval by the governor in council, such authorization shall not extend to the employment of a person who
(1)	is not a natural born or naturalized British subject; and
(2)	has not been a resident of Canada for at least ten years prior to such authorization.
We believe that under present conditions in Canada this ten year requirement should be imposed upon those who wish to enter the service.	[DOT]
Amendments to sections 28 and 29 have reference to those who served in the great-war in the allied forces. We are adding that these applicants should be naturalized or bom British subjects or have been resident in Canada prior to 1914. There are in the civil service many men who were members of allied forces, coming from other countries,, and after a few years' residence here they became civil servants to the disadvantage-of Canadians who served in the great war
The next recommendation gave rise to a good deal of discussion in the committee. It concerns the retirement age for civil servants. We agreed on an age of sixty-five but added: at the end of the recommendation that sucfr retirement be made compulsory, without any extension, except when deemed against the public interest by the governor in council. That is not so drastic. In the last ten or fifteen years it has been suggested that civil servants should be retired at sixty-five. Many of them are quite efficient after that age and others not so well able to carry on, but in these distressing times we are of the opinion that the young people should be given a greater opportunity to enter the service and
4786	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
if civil servants were retired at this age on pension it would make room for a number of young, ambitious people to come in.
Another contentious recommendation is to remove from the jurisdiction of the civil service commission all minor positions carrying a salary of less than $700. These positions embrace such persons as cleaners, helpers, certain labourers and caretakers and others working around buildings, appointed in every riding in Canada. The members of the committee were not unanimous, but many felt that the commission is not in such a position as to judge of the ability of persons appointed to such positions, in the city of Halifax, say, or in my own city. These members believe that the sitting member is better qualified to form a judgment. Those who favour the idea of bringing all these positions under the control of the commission will certainly propose an amendment to this recommendation. The majority of the committee were in favour of it and others were strongly opposed. For my own part, I should prefer in my own riding to make no recommendations and to have nothing to do with civil service matters, being as close to the city of Ottawa as I am. In the city I represent there are more than 800 people working for the government, and I would invite hon. members to come to my office and see some of the claims and the demands that are made with reference to employment. On the other hand, I do not like to see the commission, instead of getting in touch with me, calling up the principal of a school in my city or somebody else and asking whether he would prefer Mr. So-and-So to be caretaker at the armouries in Hull. I think I know the people in my riding better than most of the constituents of the riding do. I do not see that this recommendation would do any harm. The reason given by those who oppose it is that this is a matter of political patronage, to compensate for services rendered to the member or his friends during the election. That may be true, but I am still of the opinion that people who take part in political affairs and help candidates are not so bad. They have their qualifications and they can do as well as others who are recommended from other sources. Really, I am going to vote against any amendment to the recommendation. In my opinion the recommendation, if adopted, would relieve the commission of a burden which it cannot now carry to the advantage of the riding in which the appointment is made. That is my personal opinion, of course.
A recommendation which received unanimous support was that long-term temporaries in the service should be made permanent and
IMr. A. Fournier.]
should be brought under the act. This recommendation was made last year and was supported strongly by the chairman of the civil service commission. In 1920-21 orders in council were passed giving these people the privilege of becoming permanent employees and receiving the benefit of the act, but only a certain number were admitted under the civil service commission, and I believe some two hundred are still temporaries. When they retire they will have no pension or superannuation or any of the benefits granted to civil servants under the act. They have been in the civil service for years and years, and we believe it would be only just and fair that they should be put under the act. I remember that in 1938 Mr. Bland advised in his evidence, pages 63 to 65, "that permanent status be granted to the long-term temporary employees who are still in the service and who, although qualified under the provisions of orders in council P.C. 2958 of December 16, 1920 and P.C. 3895 of October 22, 1921, did not secure permanent status at that time." If this were remedied I believe it would remove some injustices left since 1920-21.
Now we have the recommendations of the committee. This is more in the administrative field and I will deal with these nineteen recommendations briefly.
The first is to the effect that no one in the commission or in any department of the government should recommend the appointment of a relative or have anything to do in the appointment, promotion, classification or reclassification of a relative. I did not really believe that we should have this recommendation, because I thought that officials of the commission or high officials in the departments would not use methods not in accordance with the act to have their relatives appointed to positions in the service. But it was revealed in the committee that these things did take place, and we thought we should recommend to the commission that they look into these matters and prohibit all these undercurrent ways of obtaining positions or promotions in the service.
One of the most important recommendations of your committee relates to the classification of employees in the different departments. Actually, if I am correctly informed, there are some 2,400 different classes of employees in the civil service of Canada, while in Great Britain, although they have not exactly the same system, they have divided their civil service into four broad classes with salaries ranging from so much to so much. When you start studying the classification of the civil service in Canada, inside of ten or fifteen minutes you are lost;

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
you do not know what it is all about. Take, for instance, the seventeen classes of lighthouse keepers. These ligbtkeepers receive from $180 to say $3,000 a year. The committee thought we could simplify the classification of civil servants in broad classes, so that the civil servants themselves would know exactly where they start and where they will stop as to salary or grades in the service. The recommendation is in very general terms, but if the commission try to apply this in the next four or five years I believe they themselves will see that it would render the service more efficient.
As to the multiplicity of classifications and discrepancies in salary ranges, it is thought these tend to create dissension in the service. The committee suggests that the classification should be simplified as much as possible, with such reduction in the number of grades as is commensurate with efficiency and economy. This same recommendation goes as to the classification of salaries, which is the next recommendation.
I believe that certain of these recommendations are not as important as those about which I now wish to say a few words. We suggest that the commission should change its rating system, where a rating system actually exists. I understand that at present the superior officer of an employee in the service rates the employee when required to do so, except in certain departments where there are annual rating of all civil servants in the department. Our recommendation is that a board of at least three departmental officers, instead of an individual department officer as at present, should make the rating; that the efficiency ratings should be made by the immediate supervisors of the applicant and be reviewed by a board of three departmental officers. The more people you have in to judge of the efficiency and fitness of an employee, the fairer will be the treatment of the employee in respect to increases of salary and promotion.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Would there be such a board in every department?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: There should be in every department a board to give ratings to the civil servants; it should not be done by one superior officer alone. He will make the first rating, and this will be reviewed by the board. I know personally of civil servants who have occupied the same positions for many years and who cannot be promoted because their superior officer does not like them. They may be efficient; there may be some other reason, but they have been receiving the same salary for the last fifteen years.
I can tell of professional men in certain departments who were appointed twenty-five years ago at say $1,400 or $1,500 a year and are receiving now only about $2,000. I am not charging that the superior officers are not doing what they should, but when a reviewing board or rating board passes on the ratings, a man who does not get his promotion will at least have more satisfaction and consequently I believe will be a better servant.
We recommend that these ratings should be periodical. We did not think we should require it to be done yearly, although I believe that is done in the Post Office Department; but it is desirable that in each department there shall be periodical ratings, and these ratings should be known to the civil servant himself and should be known in his branch. If there is any complaint against him it will not be made behind his back; he will be able to see that he was checked when he was late on duty or did not do the work properly. He will know Aout it and if he is a good servant he will try to improve his work.
But the most important of our recommendations in this field is the establishment of appeal boards. There is no promotion given in the civil service which does not create discontent amongst the other employees. Generally when a position is open for promotion there are four or five or six who apply for the promotion. They are rated, as I have mentioned, by one official, and the others do not know why they are not getting the promotion and are kept back in the same position. We suggest the establishment of an appeal board consisting of a nominee of the civil service organization to which the complainant belongs, a nominee of the chairman of the civil service commission-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry, but the hon. member has exhausted his time. He may continue only by unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall conclude in a few minutes-a nominee of the civil service commission and a nominee of the head of a department, who will be the chairman of this appeal board. These appeal boards have been discussed for the last twenty years but so far no recommendation in that regard! has been made to the house. We feel strongly that this recommendation should carry.
To this we add the recommendation of a delay of fourteen days after a promotion is made before it becomes final, so that if there are any complaints they may be made within that period.

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
There is a recommendation also as to the advertising of positions.
Our last recommendation is that in order to remove all appointments from political influence, all advertisements for applicants shall contain a notice advising the applicant that he must not seek political assistance to further his application. This was recommended to help members of parliament to fulfil their duties without being obliged to try to pull strings to help people who want to enter the service.
To conclude, I feel that it will take many more years before a complete merit system shall be operative in the civil service of Canada. As governments are constituted today I do not believe they will hand over to an independent body the selection of those best qualified to occupy superior positions in the various departments. I believe hon. members are wasting their time if they say to the .government, "We are going to let these three rnaen, whom we appointed, make all the selections for appointment to higher positions," i because when you look into the civil service jyou find it so intricate, with appointments Ibeing made for many years from the same families and the same groups, that if you do not keep some authority over the commission you may have in this country a bureaucracy such as does not exist anywhere else in the world. We must have a system based on merit, but no doubt there will be long discussions as to what is understood by a merit system, and I do not believe two members will agree on that point. On the other hand we must maintain control over the commission so that it may not become one of those organizations, such as exist in some countries of Europe, capable of controlling and overthrowing governments. I believe our system is one of the best in the world. As time goes by I believe it can be rendered more efficient, that better appointments may be made and a higher class of civil servants admitted; and the reports of civil service committees during the past twenty-five years tend to these ends.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to pay a sincere compliment to the chairman of the civil service committee, not only for the comprehensive and explicit manner in which he has explained the report, but also for his conduct during the deliberations of the committee. At all times he exhibited that courtesy which is a characteristic of his race, and showed ability and knowledge of civil service matters which proved very helpful to the committee. I believe it is the unanimous opinion of members of the committee that .the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) will

take a greater part in the public affairs of this country as the years go by, a view which has been supported by his presentation this morning.
I am in almost complete agreement with the report itself. It is true that we had a great deal of discussion, some of it acrimonious, with regard to certain features of the report, and it contains one or two features with which I am not wholly satisfied. For instance, in paragraph 4 we depart from the established rules in that we create exceptions in regard to people formerly in the service who, for reasons of their own, left to enter some other line of activity. In the past it has been found that many of these people, not meeting with success in that other business, desired to return to the service. They possessed qualifications which fitted them for the positions such as they formerly occupied, and the recommendation now made is that as long as the public interest is protected these people should be allowed to reenter the service without examination. I am not entirely pleased with that recommendation, but these matters can be ironed out in the committee next year, and perhaps no serious detriment will result to the public service if this procedure is followed in the meantime.
There was difference of opinion in regard to several other matters, and I was very much concerned in particular as to the question of patronage. In paragraph 8 of this report we have what I believe is the second invasion of the merit system since it was established in 1918. Strenuous objection was taken by many of us to this recommendation. Last year in discussing this matter in the committee I took the position that we should bring back under the statute those positions which had been taken out by the committee of 1932, I think. It will be remembered that up to that time only post offices where the revenue was under 8400 were under patronage, and that in 1932 that limit was increased to 83,000, which meant a large extension of patronage and a diminution of the powers of the commission. As I say, I took the position in the committee last year that all post offices should come under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission. Those of us who supported that view succeeded in having it adopted by the committee, but as hon. members know, concurrence in the report presented last year was not moved, so we were faced with the same situation this year. When the question again came up we found that those who supported this view were in the minority, and as a result that recommendation does not form part of this report.

Civil Service-Report of Committee
Again this year the question of such positions as lighthouse keepers, cleaners and so on was brought up in committee, and the majority in the committee were of the opinion that these positions should be taken out from under the commission; hence the recommendation contained in paragraph 8 of the report. I view this matter not from the point of the number of positions concerned, which according to the evidence of Mr. Bland would be only about seven hundred, but from the point that one invasion of the merit system has occurred in connection with post offices, and now we are faced with another. I am not so much concerned with the particular jobs affected, or their number, or the salary involved; I am dealing with the matter solely from the point of view of the merit system. The chairman of the committee has stated in the house, as he did in the committee, his point of view, and has indicated that he would be against any amendment that might be moved, knowing I intended to take that action. Let me explain that I intimated in the committee that I would again bring up the question of the post offices, but it seems to me that in these dying days of the session, with so many hon. members hway, it would not be possible to have a proper discussion of the matter, and that I might be defeating the very object I had in mind, namely the continuation of the merit system as far as those positions were concerned. For that reason I came to the conclusion that I would not introduce any amendment in regard to the post offices, but if there is a committee appointed next year, and we are all here, I shall certainly bring up the matter then.
We in the committee did consider the effect on members of parliament when they have to become an employment agency in connection with the civil service. Last year Sir Francis Floud, the British high commissioner, gave evidence before the committee, which evidence I believe has been fairly well disseminated throughout the dominion. When he was asked with regard to political influence in the English civil service he said that if any applicant wished to destroy his chances of obtaining a position the best thing he could do would be to obtain the recommendation of a member of parliament. In the old country the approval of a member of parliament simply means that the application is refused. The chairman of the committee referred to the recommendation made at the end of the report. While that does not go as far as I
should like it to go, I am always content with half a loaf when I cannot get the whole loaf. This recommendation number 19 reads:
That in order to remove all appointments from political influence, all advertisements for applicants shall contain a notice advising the applicant that he must not seek political assistance to further his application.
I am quite satisfied that, if adopted, this recommendation will be of considerable benefit, not only to the applicants and members of parliament, but also to the civil service commission. If the extension of that principle is made to a greater extent than is provided for in the recommendation, I believe the day will come when members of parliament will be able to attend to their duties as legislators without this outside interference.
There are one or two other matters which are not referred to in $ie report but which ought to be the subject of discussion. We discussed for some time the question of the entrance age limits for each of the respective classes, the types of examination papers, the advisability of holding examinations at dates fairly close to the annual graduation dates of our educational institutions, and other matters. Throughout the whole dominion, and especially in Manitoba, there are many young men in the colleges and collegiates who are looking for places where their educational abilities may be utilized. In our province there are not many young men preparing themselves for these examinations. There are many bright men who if they were directed in the proper way would be of considerable value to our country. There seems to be a general ignorance of the civil service. As a matter of fact, there is a feeling throughout the country that the civil service of Canada is open only to persons in the larger cities, and especially Ottawa. The consequence is that very few young men and young women in the far west are candidates for the civil service.
The suggestion has been made that some endeavour should be made to advertise vacancies in the civil service for some considerable time before they are filled. These advertisements could be placed in the newspapers so that young men would know when vacancies within the service are likely to ' occur and could direct their studies in an effort to qualify. I think this would be done by the civil service commission if there were a further extension of this principle. The educational authorities throughout the whole dominion should be made aware of these positions so that young men and women from all parts of the country could ultimately enter the service. In our report we have

Civil Service-Report of Committee
not referred to what is done in the old country in connection with the administration branch of the civil service. The young men who enter the administrative branch of the civil service in the old country really form the backbone of that service. They are not political appointees, and no matter what government may be in power they are ready to render the same service. When the labour government in Great Britain first took office and Viscount Snowden became chancellor of the exchequer, he was struck by the type of service he obtained from civil servants who up to that time had been unaccustomed to a Labour government, having worked only under Liberal and Conservative governments. He refers to this in his autobiography.
We have many extraordinary good men in the civil service to-day. I was amazed at the amount of material that was supplied to the committee during the two years in which it sat. The officers of the civil service commission appeared before us, and, without any reservations, submitted all the material facts they were called upon to submit. I was particularly struck by the attitude of the chairman of the commission. Several committees have been sitting during this session before which many outstanding officers of the government have had to attend. I do not think it would be out of the way to refer to Mr. Towers, who appeared before the banking and commerce committee, and Mr. Finlayson, the superintendent of insurance. In Mr. Bland I think we have a man who is as capable as any other member of the civil service. Mr. Bland rose from the ranks; he was not a political appointee, he was simply a civil servant who by the force of his own character and ability became the chairman of this commission. He is an example of what should be possible within the civil service. I make this commendation now because I believe in giving a bouquet to a man when he is alive, not after he is dead. In the chairman of our civil service commission we have a most distinguished public servant.
I should like to read some of the evidence given by Mr. Bland in connection with paragraph 8 of the recommendations. It has been said that the civil service commission is not in as good a position as a member of parliament or the defeated candidate to make appointments to small positions, such as lighthouse keepers and cleaners; that these positions should be taken out of the civil service commission. The question of cost was also referred to. In the committee the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Tomlinson) had moved a resolution, and he wished to ascertain

whether its form was in accordance with what Mr. Bland thought would be proper. I should like to quote from page 120 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee taken on March 30, 1939. Mr. Bland was a witness, and he was asked by Mr. Tomlinson:
Q. Mr. Bland, I should like to ask you if the wording of that resolution is such that it protects all positions in which merit is involved or promotion? Does it protect those particular classes?
A. I think, Mr. Chairman, there might be two small amendments to clarify the motion.
Here is the pregnant sentence.
As the committee knows, from my evidence before it last year, I am of the opinion that it is in the public interest that all positions- even the lower grade ones-should be filled by competition. I do not think that I need to reiterate that. The committee knows what I think.
By Mr. MacNeil:
Q. Would you mind repeating that answer?
A. As I said before the committee last year, I am of the opinion that it is in the public interest that all positions-even the lower grade ones-should be filled by open competition. That is simply a statement of general belief.
Further on I examined Mr. Bland, and I quote from page 123 as follows:
By Mr. Glen:
Q. How long have these appointments been under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission?
A. Since 1918.
Q. Have you had any difficulty in operating the act with regard to these particular appointments?
A. Our main difficulty has been lack of sufficient funds to send examiners to hold tests for these particular classes, they being local appointments.
Q. If you had sufficient funds, there is nothing so extraordinary in the appointments but that they could still be made under the civil service commission?
A. No. I think they could be made satisfactorily if we had sufficient funds to employ sufficient examiners.
Q. Has there been any objection made with regard to the appointments under the act with regard to these positions?
A. As I told the committee last year, I think that positions of caretaker are more subject to criticism, because they are local positions in which residents of a small town or village are particularly interested. There has, I think, been perhaps more expression of opinion about appointments of caretakers than there has been about any other classes of that kind.
Q. So far as the general principle of the merit system is concerned, it has worked satisfactorily with you since 1918?
A. I think so.
Q. And if you had sufficient money wherewith to conduct proper examinations, are you of the opinion they should be within the Civil Service Act?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Definitely so?
A. Yes.

Civil Service-Report of Committee
Further, on page 124, I asked Mr. Bland this question:
Q. I am going to ask you a question, Mr. Bland, and I do not know whether you wish to answer it or not. If you do not wish to answer it, of course, you will say so. We have heard a great deal with regard to the merit system in the civil service. Would you care to say that a recommendation such as is proposed by this resolution this morning is a breach of the merit system, as you understand it, under the civil service commission?
A. I believe better employees would be secured under open competition than by this system.
Q. You do?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you fear that there might be the danger, in the reopening and the taking out of the jurisdiction of the commission such appointments, that there might be other demands made in order to make a breach in the merit system?
A. I think that might be the natural consequence, yes.
On page 125 the hon. member for Bruce asked this question of Mr. Bland:
Q. Mr. Bland, why would you say that this affects the merit system?
A. I do not think I could put it any more clearly than I have put it.
Q. I think you will have to, to make me understand it.
A. Well, I shall try to say it again in another way. As Mr. Pouliot has said, we are expressing our own opinions. My opinion, based on my thirty years of experience, is that better appointments are made under open competition than under the other system.
Further on, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Bruce, Mr. Bland said:
A. I think this question can only be answered on the basis of general experience. I would not be prepared to say that you would not appoint as good a man as I would at all. But I do say that, taking by and large most of the appointments that have been made, my opinion is that better appointments are made when there is open competition than when there is not.
Q. Do you not realize that, as a rule, there is open competition with the average member?
A. I would not say it was open competition.
Mr. Lennard: No, it is not.
Mr. Tomlinson:	You have not had any
appointments to make yet.
Mr. Lennard: I would say it is certainly not open competition. It is very much otherwise.
On the question of expense, Mr. Bland, the chairman of the commission, in a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee dated May 5, 1939, said:
Ottawa, May 5, 1939.
Dear Mr. Fournier,-
At one of the sessions of the committee I was asked to supply an estimate as to the approximate cost which would be entailed if the commission were to send a member of its examining staff to hold tests for the smaller positions, such as lightkeepers, caretakers, etc.
I have asked the chief examiner to estimate the approximate cost, and he is of opinion that $5,000 would be sufficient to provide for this work.
Yours sincerely,
C. H. Bland,
Chairman
I submit that $5,000 is a very small sum to pay in respect of a matter which involves,
I contend, a breach of the merit system in order that these positions may be retained under the civil service commission.
While the present act has been in force since 1918, I do not know whether many members or people outside this house know what difficulties there were in the civil service before that act was put upon the statute book.
I have here an address on the Problem of an Efficient Civil Service, which was delivered by the Right Hon. Sir Robert Laird Borden on May 26, 1931, to the Canadian Historical Association. Discussing the question of dismissals when a new party gets into power, Sir Robert Borden said:
There began to spread abroad the realization that wholesale dismissals followed by appointments based largely on party service were a serious detriment to the public interest. But this spirit was of comparatively slow development-
These are the words to which I particularly direct attention:
-and I doubt whether any administration, other than one founded on the cooperation of both political parties, could have secured the enactment of the Civil Service Act of 1918.
With that I wholly agree. At that time the act could have been passed only by such a government. From that day to this the Civil Service Act has remained on the statute book until it has become really worth while.
On the question of patronage, with which members are so familiar, Sir Robert Borden on page 4 of his address points out what I think is common knowledge to everybody in this dominion, and it is the basis upon which I form the conclusion that these post office positions should be retained within the jurisdiction of the civil service commission. Sir Robert Borden said:
This system was supposed to function in the interests of the member or the defeated candidate, but in truth it frequently operated to his disadvantage. Perhaps twenty supporters would seek a certain appointment and, although he might endeavour to throw the onus upon his patronage committee, yet he was held responsible. Thus, instead of twenty strong and active supporters he found himself confronted with the loss of the active political services of the officer whose appointment he had recommended while nineteen disappointed office-seekers would fail actively to support, if they did not actively or passively oppose, his interests during the next electoral contest.
4792	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
I am sure that every member of the house, especially those on the government side-and those opposite have been in that position- can endorse every word there said by Sir Robert Borden. I know I certainly can.
In connection with the appointment to small positions such as caretakers, the argument is made that the sitting member knows more about these things than the civil service commission, and c'an therefore make better appointments. On page 9 Sir Robert Borden says:
I do not for one moment venture to say that appointment by competitive examination will always result in the best selection, hut I do say it will conduce to the public interest and that it will result in better appointments than those made simply by reason of party pressure and for partisan reasons.
That is almost the exact language used by the chairman of the commission which I quoted a moment ago.
I do not think I need say much more. I think the temper of the people of Canada to-day is that, wherever possible, patronage should be excluded from our civil service system. I believe that paragraph 8 of the committee's report, if adopted, would be an invasion of the merit system, and should therefore be refused by the house. The rest of the committee's report is worth while and should be concurred in. The only objection I have is to paragraph 8. Public men in all spheres of life in every country where there is a civil service, and especially in the old country, are satisfied that wherever there is the slightest indication of a breach in the merit system within the civil service it militates against the efficiency of the service and is a disadvantage to the country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am moving, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver):
That paragraph 8 of the report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act which reads as follows:
"8. Your committee recommends that all positions for which the maximum salary rate is $700 or less, except the positions of office boys, or others usually subject to promotion, shall be excluded from the operation of the Civil _ Service Act, and that the governor in council be empowered to make regulations for the control and direction, organization, classification and compensation, appointments to and general conditions of such positions." be deleted from said report and be not concurred in.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: We have in Canada to-day in the employ of the dominion government just over 62,000 men and women. They receive a total compensation of over 892,000,000 annually. From these figures it will be clearly evident that the group of individuals that assists the government of Canada in its administrative work

is one of the most important groups of people in Canada to-day, and I think we all agree that we should do anything within our power to assist them in carrying on their duties and improving their efficiency. Of these 62,000 men and women, only some 35,000, or a little more than half, are appointed by the civil service commission upon the merit system.
There are still large numbers of people who believe in the patronage system, and who think that government positions should be used as a means of rewarding their political friends. I do not say that these individuals are not entitled to their opinions, but I do assert that those opinions do not represent a majority opinion in Canada to-day.
As we have in existence a dual system, the merit system on the one hand and the political patronage system on the other, we might as well be frank about it. Necessarily there is a warfare constantly going on. Those who believe in the patronage system are constantly seeking to encroach on the merit system, and those of us who believe in the merit system must be eternally vigilant to see that these encroachments do not take place.
In discussing the question of the public service of Canada, it seems to me that the two most important factors with regard to the welfare of the country are, first, the question of who will be admitted to the service, and, second, the matter of promotions within the service. I find myself in entire agreement with the committee in its recommendations as to promotions within the service. My only complaint is that they do not go far enough. In brief, the committee's recommendations are these. We recommend that an annual survey should be made and that every individual in the service shall yearly be rated or scored with respect to the work which he has done during that year. We suggest that the result of these ratings should be made known to the individuals interested. If they feel that they have been unfairly treated, we have suggested that a properly constituted appeal court should be set up to deal with the complaints. We recommend also that a permanent record should be kept of these yearly ratings, with the result, we hope, that when the time for promotion comes the man or the women who by his or her work has earned promotion will receive it, entirely apart from any question of political influence or inside departmental pull or anything of the kind.
As I said a moment ago, I am in entire accord with the recommendations of the committee with respect to promotions, but I think we should go one step further. There are two very important instances wherein we

Civil Service-Report of Committee
make no provision for giving reward to merit;
I refer to the appointment of deputy ministers and the appointment of members of the civil service commission. I firmly believe that with respect to those two classes of positions the merit system should apply, that the appointments should be made by way of promotion within the service.
With regard to the question of entry to the service, here we arrive at a very serious difference of opinion. In seconding this amendment now before the house, I do so not because I regard the appointments covered by it as of any great consequence; I believe that the section of the report which we are asking to have deleted covers only some seven hundred minor positions. But I have seconded the amendment on the broad ground that I am opposed to any further encroachment upon the scope of the civil service commission. I believe that if we are to improve the service we should enlarge the jurisdiction of the commission so that eventually every appointment to the public service of Canada will be made upon merit. I believe that it would be decidedly to the benefit of this country to build up morale within the service, and to build up public confidence to the point where we shall have a public service comparable to that of Great Britain to-day. When I sponsored section 19 of our report, a recommendation that, in order to remove all appointments from political influence, all advertisements shall contain a notice advising the applicant that he must not seek political assistance to further his application, I did not do so in order to shirk personal responsibility, I did it with the idea that such an advertisement would be of material assistance to this country on two broad grounds: on the one hand it would inspire additional public confidence in the non-political character of the civil service commission; on the other hand it would inspire confidence in the applicants who are called upon to write these competitive examinations that there would be no political influence in connection with those examinations and that the best qualified candidate would receive the position. I believe that we should hold dominion-wide examinations for entry to the service, and that these examinations should be held at a time of year which would synchronize with the graduation of our students from the high schools, the business colleges and the universities. I should like to see these examinations set up in such a way as to attract to the service
of Canada the brightest minds in our student body. To that end I moved, but it has not been included in the report:
That a careful study be made by the commission with respect to:
(a)	Entrance age limit of each of the respective classes;
(b)	Type of examination papers;
(c)	Advisability of holding general examinations country wide at the right season of the year and coordinating with our educational institutions and that such matters be dealt with by the committee of the house next year.
This proposal I sponsored in the hope that we would attract to the civil service our brightest students. I should like to see the civil service looked upon as a profession just as highly esteemed as any of the others, and I believe that if the merit system could be made universal and these different reforms brought about, we would attract to the service our brightest students.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I desire to discuss briefly this very important report. My first comment is that it is unfortunate that the motion for adoption of a report upon which a committee has spent so much time, which report is found in the votes and proceedings of April 27, is brought forward only in the last day or two of the session. I say that because it is a report of far-reaching effect, of importance to the large body of public servants and to the public at large.
I was a member of the committee which had this matter under consideration, not this year but the year before, and I think we may all agree that the investigation was indeed a searching one. A great deal of time was spent in reviewing individual files and in hearing the testimony of witnesses who could give any information upon the matters which the committee had under consideration. I wish to pay a tribute to the committee for the searching character of their investigation and the thoroughness with which they dealt with all these subjects, and in the main I approve of their report.
One inevitable result of this report, and one upon which I think there is almost unanimous consent, is the vindication of the conduct of the civil service commissioners in the administration of the act. There was unfortunately, I believe, some suspicion, some suggestion, that the administration had not been exactly what it should be, and everything that pointed in that direction was brought forward, discussed, considered and answered. I think we may agree that the commissioners came through that investigation with a clean sheet. They have a difficult duty to discharge, a great many cases to deal with; and a review
4794	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
of these numerous files failed to disclose anything in the nature of maladministration, wilful misconduct or anything that seriously reflected upon the administration of the civil service commission. That may be said also of the chief officials who appeared before the committee.
Another most fortunate result of the report is the recognition of the value of the merit system. I do not find in this report or in anything that took place before the committee any serious contention that the merit system i3 not in the public interest. I say that after an experience of the working of this system for twenty years. I do not believe there is a member in this house who would assume the responsibility of moving that appointments on the basis of merit be discontinued. I say, therefore, that our experience over a period of twenty years and after all these investigations is a vindication of the adoption of the principle of appointments to the public service on the basis of merit and of competitive examination, which is embodied in the Civil Service Act.
Having once adopted that principle, I think it is very difficult for us logically and convincingly to argue that any appointment should not be made by the civil service commission. If we adopt the general principle that the merit system is sound, then where are we to draw the line and say that this or that class of appointment should not be made by the commission but can be better made in some other way? It appears to me to be illogical and unsound, and a disposition, not an unnatural one, to cling to the old system of patronage. There are those who think that that is the proper system with respect to all appointments, but I believe those who hold that view are very few. There are those who believe that it is not sound with regard to any appointment, and I find myself, after considerable experience, in the ranks of the latter.
Any member of parliament who has had much experience will admit that there is no advantage either to himself or to his party in the long run to be derived from appoints ments or from political patronage.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Or pork banrels.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Or anything of that sort. If we believe in the merit system, and I say we do, is it not desirable to remove from the public mind any confusion, any misunderstanding and misconception in connection with appointments to the public service? At the present time, when we make some appointments through the civil service commission and some on another basis, can we blame the public fear being confused, for not

understanding the situation and assuming that when an appointment is to be made it will not be exclusively under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission? The result is that in connection with appointments that are under the commission some people have the suspicion and the belief that something can be done by the sitting member to secure the appointment for them. The result is the exercise of pressure; representations are made, and the membeir or defeated candidate is subjected to the difficulty of convincing an applicant that the appointment is to be made by the civil service commission and he cannot do something about it. If we approve the merit system, the sooner we cause the public to understand that that system prevails in appointments to the public service, that no other influence can intervene or be exercised, but that all appointments are made on that basis-the sooner that is done, the better, for the civil servant, for the public, and for men in public life. For this reason I find myself opposed to section 8 of the report, which recommends that all positions under $700 a year should be excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Act. It is an arbitrary line to draw.


Mr. SPENCE:: What was the amount
before?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.


Mr. MacINNTS:: Two hundred dollars.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This goes a little further. I do not know how that amount of $700 was arrived at, but the principle is the same. I return to what I believe to be the sound principle, that all these appointments should be made by the civil service commission.
It is said that to do this would involve expense. But I find myself very much in accord with the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) who in the committee was very active in bringing out information. And the quotation which he gave here to-day showing that the additional expense would be about $5,000 a year, surely disposes of any argument on that ground.
There are two other recommendations in the report, Nos. 12 and 13, which are calculated to improve conditions very much and to dispel grievances or imaginary grievances in connection with appointments and promotions in the service, particularly promotions. It does not make much difference whether it is a real grievance or not if a civil servant is of the opinion that he has a grievance. If he has a suspicion or a belief or some reason to believe that he is not being fairly treated, it does not make much difference whether that belief is sound or not, if there is no way open

Civil Service-Report of Committee
to him to 'have the matter investigated, to have his contention considered, to present an appeal and have his case disposed of. Undoubtedly in the past that has been the cause of much trouble and ill feeling in the service. These clauses 12 and 13 are well calculated to remove that ground of grievance by making new or additional provisions in connection with the rating of civil servants from year to year, and providing a tribunal within the service to which a civil servant may appeal for the consideration of his complaint and anything that he considers unjust or unfair in connection with his grading or his promotion. That recommendation is calculated to improve conditions and to bring about a better feeling within the service.
I am not sure that the appointment of a standing committee to meet every year is necessary. It is well that conditions in the civil service should remain settled, and it is doubtful whether, with the system that will prevail if this report is adopted and implemented by the necessary legislation, if any, there will be much to be gained by an annual review, the calling of the officials of the civil service and the airing of grievances. I think the machinery will be ample for the adjustment of all these matters; and the general principles of the merit system having been adopted it appears that we might safely leave any further action to depend upon special conditions as they develop. The machinery of parliament is extensive enough now. Members find it difficult indeed to discharge their duties in the house and in the various committees, and with the experience of twenty years and the settling and establishment of conditions and of the practice and rules of the service, I doubt very much whether it is necessary or in the interests of the service that we should have these annual reviews. It seems to me that to do so might afford opportunity for contention, for discussions of a minor character, and the unnecessary taking up of the time and attention of members of this house.
I find myself very much in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Marquette, .and shall be pleased to vote for it.


Mr. G. W. McDONALD (Souris):: I am not a member of the committee, but I think every hon. member of the house has been brought more or less into touch with the civil service by way of correspondence and personal contact with civil servants. Whether we like it or not, we have to do with it more or less. Certainly I do not believe that the patronage system is any good to any member
of parliament. On the contrary I believe it will do us all harm. We should like to see the civil service on a high plane. I believe most hon. members would gladly get rid of the patronage system. But when we hand it over to someone else we naturally and rightly expect that there shall be no patronage in it. Yet we are human, even members of parliament, even the ministers and the commission; and as long as we are human I cannot see that we can be strictly impartial and live up to the merit system. I do not think anyone could claim that. But while all this is true, I think we would do well to adopt the splendid report which has been brought in by this committee.
I am very much in favour of the recommendation which says that when a civil servant has for some reason resigned from the service and afterwards finds he has made a mistake and would like to get back, our laws should not be so inflexible-should not be like the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. When a man leaves the service, so long as he did not leave through bad conduct or inefficiency, but was a good civil servant when he left, reinstatement should be open to him, and I should be glad to see the government act on this recommendation.
Then I know there are many civil servants holding long-term temporary appointments. If there is anything which will work against the making of efficient civil servants it is this, and it should be attended to as soon as possible. I know there are people who have been working eight years for $60 a month. That just cannot be done in Ottawa. You might do it in the country towns, such as I come from, but it cannot be done here. I do not believe any people who have to work for such low wages can give adequate service in return, and in addition I am told they have to work overtime with no extra pay. We know there are many in the service who are getting very high salaries. I have no fault to find with that; we all like to get high salaries, but I believe the government should set an example in fair play. I am told that very often these lower salaried men do the work of higher paid officials, but they do not get the higher pay. That is not fair, and I hope that, between them, the government and the commission will see that justice is done.
I am at a loss to understand how the civil service commission can make promotions in a fair and impartial manner. Civil servants work under the direction of the departmental heads, and I do not see how the commission
4796	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
can intelligently make promotions; I do not see how it can foe done. Of course I know they act on the recommendation of the head of the department, but I think there should foe more cooperation. I am speaking without a great deal of knowledge, tout I should like to see the power of the civil service commission reduced so that they would work more in harmony with those in charge of the various departments when promotions are to foe made.
There are discrepancies as between the salaries paid in different departments, but I have touched upon that point and I need not delay the house further. I would strongly recommend, however, that the government and the civil service commission clear up, if not all, at least some of the most glaring abuses that we find in the service to-day.


Angus MacInnis: I desire to say a few words in regard to this report, but before doing so I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) in commendation of the work of the chairman of this committee. I have been on every civil service committee set up since 1932, and I do not think I ever served under a chairman whom I found more agreeable, more efficient in the discharge of his duties and more desirous of helping the committee get on with its work than the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier).
This report contains the conclusions of the special committee which sat during the session of 1938, which was continued during the present session. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) referred to section 1 of the report, which recommends that this foe made a standing committee to sit every session and look into the operation of the Civil Service Act. I did not oppose this recommendation in committee; I have an open mind on it. I believe certain benefits might result if this were done, and I can also see possible disadvantages. I think either the benefits or the disadvantages would depend largely on how wisely the committee approached its work. We might have a standing committee that would go into the matter unreasonably, and do harm. On the other hand we might have a standing committee, as would probably be the case, such as we had this year, that would realize its own linaitations in dealing with matters affecting the civil service.
I think it was to be regretted that when the committee met last year certain statements were made in regard to the civil service commission and emploj'ees of that department before those officials were called as witnesses. I believe, however, that if there was any outstanding feature of the investigation of last year it was the very favourable impression

made upon the committee by the chairman of the commission and some of the senior officials. I need not mention names, but I am sure those who sat with me on the committee will agree with that statement. Hon. members will recall that the committee of 1932 made special reference to the capabilities of the present chairman of the commission, who at that time was chief examiner, and I think the former Conservative government are to be commended for appointing Mr. Bland to his present position. I hope future governments will follow the precedent of making appointments to posts of this kind from the service itself, which I am satisfied contains abundant tried material which will give greater satisfaction than appointments made for political purposes.
There are two sections of the report of which I do not approve, sections 4 and 8. Section 4 deals with perhaps a minor question. It reads:
That the commission may, on the written request of the department concerned, and subject to the approval of the treasury board, appoint without competition any person who has already held a permanent position in the civil service and who has resigned, to the same or a similar position within the department, provided however that such written request shall state fully the reasons for such appointment, and that such person is deserving of such appointment, is not over fifty-five years of age, is of good character, and in good physical condition, and the commission on being satisfied that such appointment is in the public interest, may appoint such person.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the
house rose at one o'clock I had just finished reading section 4 of the report of the special committee which recommends that when a civil servant has resigned from the service he or she may re-enter by appointment by the commission without examination provided certain conditions are complied with. I said that I was opposed to this recommendation because I believed it to be a negation of the merit system. Those who pressed for its inclusion in the report maintained that because these persons had passed an examination before entering the service, it was not just that they should be asked to pass a second examination. There was also the possibility that their age might prevent them from sitting for an examination. Despite these extenuating circumstances I am still of the opinion that this recommendation is wrong in principle, but had it not been for the inclusion of section 8 I would not have spoken to oppose it.

Civil Service-Report of Committee
In my opinion section 8 is a most serious departure from the merit system. This recommendation provides that all positions for which the maximum salary is 8700 or less, except the positions of office boys, shall be exempt from the Civil Service Act and that appointments shall be made by the governor in council. This is a reversion to the patronage system with all its evils and I am absolutely opposed to it. I hold in my hand a certified copy of order in council P.C. 1053, dated June 29, 1922. By this order in council, the government, upon the recommendation of the civil service commission, exempted certain positions in the civil service from the operations of the Civil Service Act. The positions exempted were: first, those where the compensation did not exceed S200 per annum; second, those positions for which the compensation provided was fees of office and honorary positions to which no compensation was attached; third, the position of orderly in the office of the governor general's secretary and, fourth, the position of Indian interpreter in the Indian affairs branch. Then follows a long list of port physicians operating under the department of health in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and British Columbia. There is also a long list of positions filled by unskilled and skilled labour as well as of a domestic nature. These were all the exemptions recommended by the commission in 1922, but since that time a number of other positions have been exempted by statute. Certain positions are usually exempted by the supply bill. As I have said, section 8 of the report recommends the exemptions of all positions for which the salary rate is 8700 or less, but section 19 of the report reads:
That in order to remove all appointments from political influence, all advertisements for applicants shall contain a notice advising the applicant that he must not seek political assistance to further his application.
Section 8 is contrary to the intent of section 19. How could section 8 and section 19 be carried out at the same time? The committee is first recommending that all positions for which the salary rate is $700 or less shall be exempted from the Civil Service Act, and then it recommends that in order to remove all appointments from political influence, all advertisements for applicants shall contain a notice advising the applicant that he must not seek political assistance to further his application. The committee discussed whether the civil service commission was in a better position to appoint persons to positions of the kind mentioned than the member for the particular constituency. However,
that is not the only point to be considered. My opinion is-I believe this opinion is widely held-th'at the civil service commission is best equipped to make all appointments. It is possible that in any parliament nearly half the constituencies in Canada might be represented by members other than those on the government side. If this recommendation is accepted it will mean that appointments would be made, not by the sitting member but by the defeated candidate. My primary objection to making appointments in this way is that they are made without the general public being made aware that there is a vacancy to be filled. When appointments are made under the Civil Service Act the vacancy is advertised, and the whole community knows that a position is to be filled and can make application accordingly. I think the house should consider very carefully before it approves this recommendation.
In moving concurrence in the report this morning, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) stated that it would take many more years to get a civil service based on merit alone. I think we all agree with that statement, but we shall never get a civil service based on merit unless we begin now to make appointments upon merit alone. The longer we delay doing that, the longer it will be until we have a service based on merit alone. I plead with members of the house to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) which deletes section 8 from the report. I think the balance of the report is fairly satisfactory and could be concurred in by the house.


Mr. R. L. BAKER (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate speaking on this subject, but one point that comes to my mind should, I think, be discussed. I believe I have studied the report of this committee fairly closely, but I cannot find where attention has been drawn to the increase in the number of civil servants which has occurred in the last four years. According to the figures of the bureau of statistics, in the last four years the total number of civil servants has increased not by hundreds but by thousands. Is that not an important matter to consider? Should we not place responsibility for this heavy increase? If we continue to increase the number of civil servants at the rate at which their number has been increased in the last four years, we may reach the time when twenty-five per cent of the people of Canada will be in the government service and the other seventy-five per cent doing their best to pay the taxes to provide the salaries. This is particularly serious at a time when the people

Civil Service-Report of Committee
of Canada are concerned over the tremendous load of taxation which they now have to carry. Yet here we are piling on more taxation.
I am satisfied that many* of the additions made to the civil service are not necessary. Until 1930, when a man left the civil service, whether he resigned or was superannuated at sixty-five or seventy years of age, the civil service commission automatically got busy and appointed another man to the position whether he was needed or not. Often when a man reaches seventy he is not doing very much in the civil service, and there is no real need of replacing him. In business when an employee of seventy retires, he is often not replaced, but in the government service vacancies are automatically filled. For the period 1930 to 1935' however, the rule was made by the previous government that no replacements would be made unless the head of the department stated to the commission that the position required to be filled. The result of that rule was that the number of civil servants went down and down and down constantly from 1932 to 1935. But in 1936 the number increased again by hundreds and hundreds, and finally it amounted to additional thousands.
I do not know of any question that is more important for a civil service committee to consider, yet I do not find it dealt with in this report at all. It is a question of great importance to the taxpayers of Canada. As I say, if appointments continue at the present rate we may reach a point where twenty-five per cent of the people of Canada will be in the public service, and the other seventy-five per cent will be trying to earn enough money to pay the salaries of the twenty-five per cent. An impossible situation will be reached if this practice is not stopped, and I wish to put myself on record that in my opinion this committee in not taking up this matter was guilty of overlooking a question of very great importance to the taxpayers of this country.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to
this motion I wish first to congratulate the mover (Mr. Fournier), who was also the chairman of the committee, and the members of the committee upon the very good work which they have done. The work which was accomplished by the committee of last year and by the committee which sat during the course of this session has afforded not only to members of the house but to the public at large an opportunity to become acquainted with some of the problems connected with the civil service. I believe that an occasional

committee inquiring into the operation of the Civil Service Act, I would say once in the lifetime of a parliament, can accomplish very good work by reviewing the situation generally and considering the numerous amendments that are suggested from all quarters and from both sides of the house-those who stand for a 100 per cent merit system and those who stand for a somewhat mixed system, according to the character and quality of the positions to be filled.
I notice that this year the report is pretty extensive but that it can be divided into two parts, one part recommending amendments to be enacted as legislation, and the other part containing recommendations to the commission proper. Earlier in the session when this committee was formed I pointed out that the civil service commission of its own volition and on the suggestions of the committee of last year had already taken action in a number of cases. I understand that the committee this year have merged _ in their present report some of the questions that had remained pending, and have dealt with them in the present report.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that this motion has been made if only to allow a certain number of members, both those on the committee and members who were not on the committee, to offer their opinions, and the debate we have had to-day has been most illuminating. At the same time I notice that while the recommendations which have been made to the commission proper, and which can be accomplished either by regulation or by order in council, seem to have met with unanimous approval in the house, the recommendations as to legislation seem to be more contentious.
Taking the recommendations in the order in which they appear, personally I share the view expressed by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), the acting leader of the opposition, as to the first recommendation. There is no doubt that there must eventually-I would repeat, perhaps once in the lifetime of a parliaments-be	a committee specially
appointed to deal with certain aspects of the Civil Service Act. But I doubt whether it would be wise to have a standing committee, standing there session after session not only to consider possible amendments to the act but to become a sort of clearing house for grievances from all sides. That has objections which are quite obvious, and therefore personally, speaking not so much as a member of the government but from my own experience, I would suggest that the house should

Questions
hesitate before agreeing to establish a standing committee of that kind. Perhaps it would be wise in these last hours of the session not to deal with that matter at all but to leave it to be considered more exhaustively at another session of parliament.
I have no doubt either that the recommendations made in regard to the appointment of war veterans will prove contentious. They always have been, and although in every committee which has dealt with civil service matters the question has been brought up, in many instances it has never reached the final stage. So here again I think it would require considerable discussion before we could get-even a majority of the house to agree on some solution.
The recommendation contained in paragraph 8 has been made the subject of an amendment. Some hon. members have spoken in favour of the change recommended by the committee, while other hon. members on the committee and others have expressed themselves as not in favour of this change. There again, although the salaries attached to the positions dealt with in paragraph 8 may be small, you have contention on rather an important point, as to the principle that should govern in these appointments, whether they should be made by the commission or by the government.
There is another matter which I wish to point out with respect to the recommendations of the committee for legislation which are contained in paragraphs 7 and 9. Paragraph 7 recommends an age limit of sixty-five years for retirement, with a qualification which alleviates considerably the weight of the recommendation and which is expressed in these words, "except when deemed against the public interest by the governor in council." I notice that in the report of the superannuation committee a similar recommendation is made, without the same qualification. I doubt very much if it would be wise to amend the Civil Service Act in this respect without having a corresponding amendment made to the superannuation act. The same remark applies to the recommendation made in paragraph 9, that long-term temporaries on the staff of all government departments should be made permanent employees under the civil service commission. There again that brings up a question affecting not only the civil service proper but superannuation as well, and I do not think the house would want to consider a bill amending the Civil Service Act in this respect without having a corresponding section in the superannuation act.
The government will very shortly make a declaration as to its final intention concerning the bringing down of legislation covering civil service and superannuation. In the meantime I think this discussion has served its purpose in that it has allowed a number of members, especially those who served so faithfully on the committee, to express their opinions on these different matters. I do not think that we can get much further by prolonging the discussion. For that reason I would move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)

Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Is the Department of Transport carrying on any construction w'ork at Malton, Ontario, under the auspices of Trans-Canada Airways?
2.	If so, are all persons employed on this work British subjects?
3.	Are all the persons employed by Trans-Canada Airways at this airport British subjects?
4.	Is the city of Toronto carrying on any construction work at that airport?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No construction work is being carried on at Malton, at present, under the auspices of the Trans-Canada Airways, the hangar building and facilities having been completed last February.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.



OTTAWA-STREET IMPROVEMENT IN VICINITY OP NATIONAL MEMORIAL

Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	Has the government called for tenders in connection with paving Wellington street from Mackenzie avenue to Elgin street in the city of Ottawa, and for the construction of new sidewalks in this area?
2.	If so, what are the names of those who tendered, and the unit prices quoted in each tender?
3.	Who were the successful tenderers, and what unit prices are to be paid them on this work?


Mr. CARDIN:: This work is included in the specification and contract of A. W. Robertson Limited of Toronto for roadways, sidewalks, promenades, terraces, etc., surrounding the national memorial.
4S00
Questions



WESTERN PROVINCES-REFINANCING OF MATURING OBLIGATIONS

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	What assistance has been given by the dominion government during the last two years to (a) Manitoba, (b) Saskatchewan, (c) Alberta, in the refinancing of maturing obligations ?
2.	Has the dominion government given any guarantees on behalf of these governments to insurance companies or other financial institutions in respect of such obligations?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	None.
2.	No.



STE. PERPETUE, QUE., RURAL MAIL SERVICE

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Who has the present contract for the delivery of rural mail at Ste. Perpetue, constituency of Nicolet, province of Quebec?
2.	How long has he held sucb contract?
3.	Has he been notified of the termination of such contract?
4.	If so, on what dates, and for what reasons?
5.	Will tenders be called for the letting of this contract?
6.	If so, will they be by public advertisement?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Paul Doucet.
2.	Since 1st July, 1935.
3 and 4. No .notification necessary, his contract automatically expires on 30th June, 1939.
5 and 6. No. The amount involved being less than $200.00 per annum, the invitation of public tenders is not obligatory under the terms of section 73 of the Post Office Act.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


John Ritchie MacNicol: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, leases or contracts between the government of Canada and any person or company, during the years 1937, 1938 and 1939, in connection with any work undertaken by the government on the Cape Breton national park, Nova Scotia.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I would ask that this resolution stand. I note that the hon. sponsor of it is not in his seat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the seconder does not know anything about it.


Richard Langton Baker: Order. I was the seconder. I might know something about it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the hon. gentlemen on the other side will settle the differences between them I might say that there would be involved in dealing with this matter a tremendous amount of work, and I would

suggest to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Clarke) that if there is some special information he desires, it will gladly be furnished, but as the inquiry stands, a tremendous amount of work would be involved in preparing the return.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I must correct what I said. It was not my hon. friend who did not know anything about it. When the Speaker read out my name I was not listening intently, and I did not notice that I was referred to as the mover rather than the seconder. It was myself to whom I referred.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is excused.


Walter Edward Foster: Motion stands.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE [DOT]



DRAFT CONVENTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS- JURISDICTION OF DOMINION AND PROVINCES -OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Alexander Stewart: May I inquire of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether there is any intention of taking any action in connection with the recommendations and reports which were laid on the table of the house this morning, including an order in council passed on March 7 in connection with the proceedings at the international labour conference? At the same time I should like to know whether there will be an opportunity of discussing them. I do not know whether the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) are passed.


Mr. STIRLING:: No, they are not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then there may be an opportunity to discuss the matter when his estimates are under consideration. I should also like to know why an important matter like this, dealt with by order in council on March 7, has not been brought to the attention of the house until to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: I will submit the question to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I may tell my hon, friend that the Minister of Labour has not yet gone on with his estimates, but they are expected to come up either to-night or to-morrow.
With regard to the draft recommendations of the international labour conference, I believe that the government has already done what is within the limit of its jurisdiction. So far as all matters which come under provincial authority are concerned, the recommendations have been already sent to the

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
various provincial governments. I will see to it that my hon. friend the Minister of Labour completes the answer to the questions of my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was a little concerned to know, regarding the matter dealt with on March 7, which appears to be of sufficient importance to be the subject of a statement on the orders of the day, why a statement was not made until the last two or three days of the session.



CIVIL SERVICE'


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Would this not be a proper time for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to give the statement he promised yesterday to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) as to the action to be taken by the government on the report of the superannuation committee?


Ernest Lapointe: The
Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) will speak for the government.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have been authorized by the government to make a statement in reference to its intentions regarding the recommendations of the civil service superannuation committee and the civil service committee.
The recommendations of these two committees are in some respects inter-related; and, as I stated the other day, the recommendations of the civil service superannuation committee, particularly, are very far-reaching and have a great many ramifications. In view of these considerations it is not the intention of the government to introduce any legislation during the present session; indeed the session has now reached such a stage that probably it should be the object of all of us to attempt to bring it to a conclusion as soon as we reasonably or satisfactorily can.
There are some situations which prompted a few of the recommendations and which could be relieved in whole or in part by treasury board action or by action of the governor in council; and the government will, immediately or as soon as the session ends, give consideration to going as far as they can reasonably go in taking that kind of action to relieve these situations. Beyond that it is not intended to take action.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: It is a pre-election
action.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Permit me to add a word or two to what I have said. I had a written statement which arrived just a little too late. I want to say further that if these reports are implemented in full, very long debates and discussions in this house, and perhaps in the other, are inevitable. If bills are introduced implementing the recommendations in part, a sense of disappointment and discrimination will be widespread. Careful consideration will be given to these reports with a view to dealing with them as comprehensively and satisfactorily as possible at the next session of parliament.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: I
should like to ask a couple of specific questions of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) with respect to his announcement. First, is a reopening of the act, to permit those persons who did not elect to come under superannuation before, to come under it now, possible by other than legislative action; and, second, is legislative action essential in order to extend to the returned men in the service the benefits which were recommended by the committee?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In reply to the first question, the benefits of the superannuation act can be partly extended by order in council to certain classes. For instance, if temporaries are made permanent they become eligible for benefits under the superannuation act, and the control of the proportion of temporaries and so forth is within the treasury board or council. But if I understood the hon. gentleman's question correctly, he inquired whether the act could be reopened by other than legislative action. Of course, an act cannot be amended except by parliament, and if I am correctly informed an amendment to the act would be necessary to permit ex-service men to get the benefit of their period of service in addition to the time they were in the service.


Alan Webster Neill: Can the minister give an expression of opinion as to whether he could act without legislation with respect to masters, officers and petty officers on government ships?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that can be done.


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: I understood the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) to refer to masters and mates on the Pacific coast. If I heard him aright, he wanted to know whether they could be brought within the superannuation act. I assume the answer the minister gave has reference to both the Atlantic and the Pacific?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Canadian Wheat Board Act



UNITED STATES PERIODICALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Gariepy) the other day mentioned a matter concerning which the government has received a communication from the city council of Montreal referring to and complaining about certain statements appearing in two United States magazines which circulate in Canada. The government has given careful consideration to these complaints, and while specific action, such as prohibiting the entry of these magazines, does not seem to be possible under our law, and indeed is not asked for by the city authorities of Montreal, I may say emphatically that the government considers it most regrettable that such statements should have been made. They are false and ridiculous and will be so regarded by Canadians in all parts of the dominion. I refer to the statements with regard to the car in which their majesties-


Mr. STEVENS:: The statements in the magazine Life.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, the statements to which the hon. member for Three Rivers referred.



GOLD CLAUSE OBLIGATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice-for the Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 87, respecting gold clause obligations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: With regard to the amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 63, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, I move:
That the amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 63 be concurred in and that a consequential amendment be made to the said bill by striking out the words "Fort William" in lines 1 and 2 on page 2 and substituting therefor the words "Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver."
The reason for this amendment is that while the word "Vancouver" was placed in another clause the senate apparently omitted

to make the corresponding correction in a succeeding clause. The amendment is merely consequential.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it competent for the house to amend the bill in this way merely by a motion to concur in senate amendments? Is it not necessary to recommit the bill in order to make this consequential amendment?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that this is the proper course to follow and that the amendment inserting the word "Vancouver" will have to go back to the senate and be concurred in there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am really speaking to a point of order, although I do not wish to raise the point in the ordinary sense. There ha^ been a tendency in the last two sessions towards rather loose methods in the handling of legislation. I am not a stickler for form in everyday procedure, but we do know that carelessness in putting through legislation often results ultimately in the rejection of such legislation as ultra vires for some reason or another. These bills are the foundation of subsequent action, and if they are not properly passed they are open to challenge in the courts. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that any amendment we propose to make to this bill can be made only by referring the bill again to the committee with the necessary instructions. I may be wrong, but I make that suggestion in case there is something in the point.


William Daum Euler: I do not profess to be an expert in the rules of the house, but I was careful to submit this matter to the proper officers and they have advised that this is the course to follow.


Ernest Lapointe: If it were a new amendment, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) would be perfectly right in his point and we could not amend the bill in this way. As a matter of fact, however, this is an amendment made by the senate, and apparently they forgot to use the same words in another clause. As it stands, it would be contradictory. It is simply repeating the words in another section in order to harmonize what has been done.


Walter Edward Foster: In the fourth edition of Bourinot, at page 535, I find the following:
It is perfectly in order to propose any amendment made by the one bouse to a bill of the other house, provided it is "consequential" in its nature, that is to say, consequent upon, or relevant to the amendment under consideration.
As I understand the proposed amendment, the only change contemplated is in some words

Canadian Wheat Board Act
and not in the principle of the bill, and therefore I am of opinion that the procedure with respect to the amendment is in order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to have the opportunity of adding a word. The words that are changed here are definitely not consequential upon the other, so far as I see. It is a changing or expanding from Fort William to Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver; three points instead of one.


William Daum Euler: Which is already provided.


Henry Herbert Stevens: However, I am not going to argue the point. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) wished to speak on this amendment made in another place. I confess I have not had time to study it at all carefully, but as I understand it, it means that the limitation to 5,000 bushels from any one producer has been changed by a proviso reading:
Provided that the board may, by way of one or more purchases, as the case may be, buy from any one person entitled as landlord, vendor, mortgagee or otherwise, by contract or operation of law, the wheat or any share therein to which he is so entitled grown by another producer either alone or in conjunction with others on any farm or group of farms operated as a unit; but the aggregate of such purchases of wheat grown on any one farm or group of farms operated as a unit shall not exceed 5,000 bushels in any one crop year.
That would seem to restrict the amount which can be purchased still further than in the original bill.


William Daum Euler: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister did not make much of an explanation of it, but that is the impression one gets. Could the minister favour us with further explanation?


William Daum Euler: In my opinion, for what it is worth, I do not think it was necessary to make this change at all, but the members of the senate committee felt that it would clarify the situation a little more.
My hon. friend made some reference to others than, say the actual grower of the wheat, having the power to sell up to 5,000 bushels. As a matter of fact, in the original bill of 1935 "producer" did already include-
... as well as any person actually engaged in production of wheat, any person entitled, whether as landlord, vendor, mortgagee or otherwise, by contract or operation of law to the wheat grown by a producer or to any share therein.
No extension of that is made. The only thing is to make more clear the intention of the government that it should not be legal for more than 5,000' bushels to be purchased from any farm or any group of farms operated as a unit.
I might add that the members of the senate committee, together with myself and the law officers of the crown, had a conference with regard to the matter, and we felt that this comes as close as possible to carrying out the intention of the government as originally proposed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister give his interpretation of a situation such as this: Assume there is a farmer, an actual producer on the farm, and that by way of mortgage or agreement he has undertaken to share the crop with another party. He as the producer would be entitled to the limit. When we come to deal with a second party who is entitled, say to half the crop to be applied on account of his mortgage or security or agreement, to what extent is he entitled to come under the provisions of the measure? Is there a double right, or has the one limit to be applied to both, or is there what I might call an overriding limit, or two limits?


William Daum Euler: There is no intention on the part of the government or in the bill to adjudge as between the farmer himself and, say a mortgage holder who is entitled to share in the crop. The bill does not propose to interfere with their contractual rights at all. But it does mean that from that farm there shall be sold not more than 5,000 bushels of wheat. Suppose, for example, that there are only 5,000 bushels altogether and that the farmer is entitled to 3,000 bushels and perhaps a mortgage company is entitled to 2,000 bushels. The farmer can sell his 3,000 bushels at the 70 cent rate and the mortgage holder can sell 2,000 bushels; but the amount shall not exceed 5,000 bushels between the two. We do not concern ourselves with what arrangement they make between themselves.


Mr. PERLEY:: Of course I was opposed to this clause of the bill from the start. I do not think there should be any limit.


William Daum Euler: That is settled.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, I understand that; most things are settled before they come to the house. But this interpretation that the minister has just put on this amending clause puts both parties in a more unfavourable position. If 5,000 bushels constitute the limit from any one farm, the tenant might supply
3,000	bushels and the landlord, 2,000 bushels. That practically imposes a further restriction which was not in the original bill. In some instances the landlord's share of the crop might amount to 5,000 bushels and the tenant have, say 10,000 bushels; does this mean that from that farm only 5,000 bushels can be sold by the two together?
Canadian Wheat Board Act


William Daum Euler: That is exactly what it means.


George Halsey Perley: Well, that is a further restriction beyond what was in the original bill.


William Daum Euler: No.


George Halsey Perley: Take my own case for example; I have six tenants and am also operating some land myself. If we have
40.000	bushels, which with a reasonable crop we should have, does the minister mean to say that the tenants and I can market only
5.000	bushels?


William Daum Euler: From one farm or any group of farms operated as a unit there can be sold to the government at 70 cents a bushel only
5.000	bushels.


George Halsey Perley: That is quite a restriction that is being placed on the landlord and the tenant.


William Daum Euler: Just as intended.


George Halsey Perley: I was going-


Ernest Lapointe: We are not in committee.


George Halsey Perley: I beg pardon; I thought we were.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has already spoken more than once.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: I have a real amendment to offer, instead of one only consequential. It will be recalled that on May 11, when this bill was before the committee of the house, I took the objection that under the law as it stood there was nothing to prevent me-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I think the hon. member is out of order. We are dealing with a motion for concurrence in the senate amendment, and the consequential amendment moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: All right, sir, you may put the motion of the minister, but I do not think you can put the motion that the senate amendments be concurred in.


William Daum Euler: I moved concurrence.


Walter Edward Foster: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Surely this is not in order.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I want to offer another amendment, because I contend that as the
fMr. Perley.]
bill now stands, there is nothing to prevent me. if I am a producer of 500 bushels of wheat-	'


Walter Edward Foster: I have declared the motion agreed to.


Ernest Lapointe: The bill was read a third time in this house.


Walter Edward Foster: The bill was given third reading some time ago, and we are now dealing with a motion to concur in amendments made by the senate. Therefore it is not proper to bring in another amendment.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Is there to be only one amendment permitted to the amendment made by the senate?


Walter Edward Foster: At the present time we in this house have only to concur or refuse to concur in the amendments made by the senate. The motion by the minister was that we concur in those amendments, and as a consequence of those amendments the minister moved an amendment consisting of only two words. That is the only question before the house, and no other amendment can be entertained. I declare the motion carried.


Alan Webster Neill: Surely it is not in order to carry two amendments at the same time. A man might want to vote for one amendment and not for the other.


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot amend this bill now. It has gone through all stages in this house and been sent to the senate, where an amendment was inserted. We are now concurring in that amendment, and we cannot further amend the bill. The only amendment proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) was a consequential amendment resulting from the senate amendment. We cannot now insert new amendments.


Alan Webster Neill: We can if they are further consequential amendments. My point was that two motions cannot be put at once. First, the consequential amendment must be adopted, and their the amendments made by the senate can be concurred in.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: My amendment was also a consequential one; it was an amendment to the amendments made by the senate.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry, but I have declared the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
71. Departmental administration, $125,520.
Mr. REID:: I think this is the proper item under which to bring up a matter dealt with in a resolution which I placed on the order paper but which unfortunately was not reached. I am not going to take time to read the whole resolution, but I deem it my duty at this time to bring the matter to the attention of the minister in the hope that through him it may reach the Prime Minister as well. The resolution asks the dominion government to consider the advisability of setting up a committee similar to the United States joint committee for the protection of Pacific fisheries, for the purpose of collecting and coordinating, in conjunction with the United States committee, all information in regard to the encroachment of nationals of other countries on the Pacific fisheries of north America.
I am sorry indeed that my resolution was not reached this year. We have two great fisheries on the Pacific coast, the halibut and salmon fisheries. I believe the United States and Canada are the only countries in the world that have had the foresight to take steps looking to the conservation and rehabilitation of their fisheries. These two countries have spent millions of dollars in looking after these fisheries, which afford employment to thousands of men. We have two treaties in effect, one to regulate the halibut fishery, which I might point out to hon. members is the last great halibut fishery left in the world, and the other to rehabilitate our salmon fishery.
Early in the development of our salmon fisheries we paid little heed to the devastation, by intense and sometimes wasteful fishing, but later the United States and Canada agreed upon a treaty to rehabilitate the great Fraser river salmon runs. I repeat, the United States and Canada have signed the only treaties of this kind in the world to-day. Other countries have taken no steps whatever to conserve their fisheries. Some appear to consider that fish can be taken from the sea in any unlimited quantities, without thought to their eventual depletion. In recent years new fishery methods have been developed, and we now have in existence large ships called mother ships, which can remain away from their home ports for as long as six or nine months or even a year. On the Pacific we are faced with a menace by this form of
fishing by one nation that has taken no steps whatever to conserve its fisheries. I refer to Japan who, having fished her own and other seas, is now out looking for new fishing grounds. Some three years ago one of these mother ships came down the coast of Alaska, and when it arrived at the United States port of Seattle it was found to have on board some 22,000 cases of canned salmon. It is little wonder that when that report went back to Japan they became envious of the great fisheries of the Pacific coast.
In the United States they have become a little more perturbed than we have been in regard to the encroachment of the Japanese as for instance what has happened in Bristol bay, Alaska. Japanese fishing Ships went there presumably to fish for crabs, but the United States fishermen soon noticed that not only crab fishing was being done by the Japanese vessels, that they were catching great quantities of salmon as well. It might interest the committee to know that at that time the Japanese were using nets as long as four miles, forming an absolute barrier out in the ocean and intercepting the great runs of salmon heading toward Alaskan waters. The United States fishermen were incensed at this and representations were made to the United States government. Little notice was taken at first by that government, but when it was intimated that the fishermen on Bristol bay would take matters into their own hands if no action were taken by the United States government, that government began to be seriously interested in the question. Representations were then made to Japan by the United States government, and although promises were made in 1939 by the Japanese government, I understand that fishing by boats of Japanese register still continued in Bristol bay.
Some hon. members who are not familiar with this may say, "What has this to do with Canada; why should we be interested in what the Japanese are doing to the United States fishermen on Bristol bay?" We in Canada are interested to this extent: If the Japanese are allowed to get away with fishing in Bristol bay, their next move will be to come on our halibut banks. Then they will enter our salmon fisheries on the Pacific coast. When protests have been made, Japanese officials have laughed and said, "Does every salmon that comes out to sea carry a union jack or a stars and stripes on its back; whose fish are they?" I claim in all seriousness that the fish which leave the head waters of the Fraser river and head out to sea for three, four or five years are strictly Canadian fish, and now is the time that representations should be made that they are.
4806	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-Administration


Mr. MICHAUD:: They have return
tickets.


Thomas Reid: They certainly have return
tickets, because when the time for spawning arrives they return to the rivers, lakes and tributaries whence they came. It would be quite easy for the Japanese to place a net outside the Juan de Fuca strait, beyond the three-mile limit, and intercept the great runs of salmon which head back to the head waters of the Fraser river. We should lay claim to these fisheries now. We should also be ready to cooperate with the United States government which has set up a committee in the state of Washington to look after this matter on behalf of the United States interests. My information is that two years ago the association of Pacific fisheries appointed a special committee to deal with the problem arising from the encroachment of the Japanese upon the salmon fisheries of Alaska. This committee subsequently was joined by representatives of the fishermen's organization, and there was set up a joint committee for the protection of the Pacific fisheries. This committee is in close touch with the United States government; it keeps its eyes on what is going on in Bristol bay in connection with any illegal fishing, and the United States government consults it and keeps it posted as to what that government is doing.
We should take a long range view of this matter and lay claim to these fisheries now. Had it not been for the treaty signed by the two governments in connection with the halibut fisheries, there is no doubt that our halibut banks would have been depleted by this time. Not only has the work of the commission preserved those fisheries, it has increased the annual catch. The commission set up to rehabilitate the salmon fisheries on the Fraser river are faced with quite a task, but all our work and energy, all the millions that have been spent on these fisheries, will go for nothing if fishermen from countries like Japan can come down our coast and fish outside the three-mile limit. My information is that the salmon heading up to the Fraser river do so in schools not over half a mile wide. Members of the committee will see how easy it would be for Japan or any other nation to place a long net and catch all the returning salmon heading up to spawn in the Fraser river.
I shall not take up more time of the committee because I realize that we are nearing the close of the session. I should have liked to discuss this matter in more detail under the resolution which still appears on the order paper, but I am taking this opportunity now to suggest to the minister

that he consider the setting up of a Canadian committee to work in cooperation with the United States committee in the interests of both countries. What affects the United States in Bristol bay is our 'business. We cannot sit back and do nothing. We cannot say, " It is not our concern; let the United States do what they like." This is a matter that requires the cooperation of the two countries. I should like the minister to give this matter serious consideration and, if necessary, take it before the cabinet or the Prime Minister with a view to having a committee appointed to cooperate to the fullest extent with the United States. If this matter is allowed to continue, the fisheries on the Pacific coast will be menaced.


Alan Webster Neill: The particulars of this item mention a director of fisheries promotion and inspection, and I should like to know the name of the gentleman filling this position and his duties.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Mr. J. J. Cowie has occupied this position for several years. His duties are to supervise inspection work on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, principally on the Atlantic. He coordinates the several branches of the inspection work and tries to promote the exploitation of our fisheries on both coasts.
In reply to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), let me say first that I do not think it is in order to discuss this matter because it is the subject matter of a resolution still on the order paper. However, I shall not raise an objection, I will simply state that apparently he is labouring under a misapprehension. My information is that no official committee has been appointed in the United States to gather the information which he suggests should be gathered by a Canadian committee to be appointed. I understand there is a committee of interested parties which has undertaken this business. The kind of work which the hon. member suggests should be assigned to a committee to be appointed by the government has been done by the officials of the department right along. There are- departmental officials on the coast whose business it is to watch for incidents along and off the coast such as have been referred to by the hon. member. They gather such information as is thought necessary for the protection of Canadian fisheries and Canadian interests. Of course on the border, especially on the Pacific coast, we have to work in cooperation with the United States officials. In the past our officials have cooperated and are still doing so with the officials of the United States. There are certain international relations of a semi-secret

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
nature concerning *which nothing is published in our reports. Nevertheless I can assure my hon. friend that we are cooperating fully with the officials of the United States particularly in regard to the fisheries of the Pacific coast, and there is no reason why we should appoint another committee to do work which is actually being done by the officials of the department and part of which will have to be done by the joint commission recently appointed to look after the fisheries in the Fraser river. Again I want to assure my hon. friend that we are not overlooking anything with respect to the protection of the fisheries.
As to the ownership of the fish, that is a moot question which has not yet been determined and still remains in the domain of international law. Some claim that the fish belong to the country where they are born, and others that they belong to the party who first gets at them. I assume it will take some time yet before we have this question finally determined and recognized by all nations. I think that is all that can be said at the present time.


Thomas Reid: While it may be quite true
that the committee in the United States started on its own initiative, so to speak, the state department of the United States suggested that it would welcome the creation of such a committee representing these very interests; and after the committee was set up, it established direct communication with Mr. Cordell Hull of the United States. He sends it information, keeps it officially informed, and it in turn keeps him officially informed. So the committee has a recognized status which is quite different from that of a committee which is just got together and says: "We will look after the fisheries." I have it from the committee itself that it now has official recognition.
I was surprised to hear the minister say that there is doubt as to the ownership of the fish. There may be doubt regarding halibut but none as regards salmon. If the salmon never got out of the Fraser river the fisheries would be gone. It is Canada that is spending its money to propagate and conserve these fish. It is Canada that makes the regulations for their protection and it is to Canada the fish belong. If they were caught out in the open the fisheries would be depleted, or if we prevented them from going out from the Fraser river there would be no more salmon fisheries. Let us take a long view of the matter and say to foreign powers:	"These fish are ours,
because without our taking safeguards to conserve and propagate these fish there would be no more salmon fishing." But the attitude 71492-302
which the minister exemplified a moment ago can only, in my opinion, lend encouragement to nations like Japan to say: "Canada is in doubt about the matter."
Before I resume my seat I desire to repeat that this committee in the United States has official recognition from the United States government.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not want to prolong
this debate, but I wish to reassert, for the benefit of my hon. friend, that I do not think we can decide to-day this intricate and important international question as to the ownership of the fish. Whether or not we asserted that the fish belonged to us would not make much difference. It might simply tend to complicate matters.
With regard to the committee to which my hon. friend referred, although we do not adopt exactly the same procedure as was adopted in the United States, this does not mean that we are not working towards the same end. The fact must not be overlooked that in the United States the fisheries are administered by the individual states, and when the central government asked the states on the Pacific coast to appoint a committee, it was because the central government had no power to appoint such a committee. The committee was appointed; it keeps in touch with Washington, and through that channel there is cooperation with the Canadian authorities. Our method of dealing with these matters is different, but in the end it will bring the same results as have been obtained in the United States.


Mr. MASSEY:: May I direct the minister's attention to page 3809 of Hansard of May 9, 1939, on which is recorded an extraordinary statement with regard to the retired deputy minister of fisheries. At the time that statement was made it was one minute to eleven o'clock, and the minister said that he would make a statement in reply when his estimates were again before the committee. I wonder if he would make that statement now.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I thank my hon. friend for bringing the matter to my attention. I intended to refer to it later to-day. The statement referred to by the hon. member was made at one minute to eleven o'clock just before the house adjourned. When my estimates were before the committee on that occasion, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred to the retirement of the gentleman who had acted as deputy minister of fisheries until January last, and paid what I thought constituted an appropriate eulogy and deserved compliments to the work of Doctor Found while in office. I fully agree with the compli-

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
ments that were paid to Doctor Found by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. It was not my good fortune to be associated with the former deputy as long as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was. I met him for the first time when I came into the office as minister, and Doctor Found served me as deputy for three years. During that period I never found him anything but a perfect gentleman, a most diligent official, a most loyal deputy and assistant, the type of civil servant that we always regret to lose.
Doctor Found, if my information is correct, served continuously in the department for forty years and retired on December 24 last, when he had attained the age of sixty-five, taking his retiring allowance. He had intimated his intention to retire a year previously, but was prevailed upon to continue in the office and even to forego his six months' leave of absence with pay. He served to the very last minute without any extra remuneration. But he refused to continue longer, and I do not blame him because he was practically acting in the capacity of deputy minister, bearing the responsibility and doing the work connected with that office for about $2,000 a year. He felt that, having served for forty years, he was justified and fully entitled to retire and enjoy a well deserved leisure; so he retired with the full retiring allowance. I fully agree, I repeat, with what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said on that occasion.
With regard to the other compliments paid by the hon. member for Temiscouata to Doctor Found, I think they were somewhat exaggerated, and I cannot subscribe to them. I repeat that I regret very much that Doctor Found decided to retire upon reaching the age of sixty-five on December 24 last.


Denton Massey: The minister feels, then,
that the statement of the hon. member for Temiscouata was unfounded?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: So far as I am concerned, yes. I think it was exaggerated.


Mr. KINLEY:: I was pleased to hear the statement of the Minister of Fisheries with regard to Doctor Found, who has retired on account of age. Doctor Found has served for many years this country, this parliament and * the Department of Fisheries, and he is most highly regarded, especially in the maritime provinces, whence he came originally. On many occasions we who represent fishing constituencies have not agreed with Doctor Found in his conclusions or in his opinions, but we always regarded him as a sincere and .honest official who was doing his best and giving of the best he had in the interests of the fisheries of this dominion. I note that upon his retirement . the minister selected him to act on a

very important commission to Europe in connection with a fisheries conference in which our export trade was concerned. This showed continued confidence. I do not think what was said in connection with the appointment of Doctor Found's son to a position in the civil service is to be taken very seriously. I understand that his son qualified as an expert through his technical education, and that because of a delay of some kind in the civil service, something was done in order that he might still be qualified. I understand that the boy has performed good service and that he is a satisfactory employee, and I am sorry that the hon. member who spoke against him in this house did so in such drastic terms. I do not think they were justified.


Mr. FINN:: I wish just to congratulate the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) on this matter of the salt fish business. He evidently found that the salting was not as good on the other side of the chamber as it is on this side, so he came over to join his colleagues from Nova Scotia. Following that little bit of facetiousness, I say with all goodwill that we hope he will stay here with us.


Mr. HEAPS:: What was the total value of the catch of fish last year?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: About $38,000,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What are the expenses of the department each year in connection with this catch? For instance, what was the expense last year? I notice that there is a vote of approximately $2,000,000 for the department.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: About $2,100,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are there any other votes in connection with the fishing industry of Canada than those we are now considering?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There are supplementaries, but they are more by way of relief than actual administrative votes. They are principally for the relief of fishermen.


Thomas Reid: What are the revenues of the department? How much money does it collect?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In 1937-38 the total revenues received were $119,823.86.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not complaining in any way at the moment about the vote and the estimates. I am trying to find out what was the total value of the catch in one year. Was the amount mentioned by the minister - the value of the fish as delivered, or was it the retail sales value; or how is the value determined?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The $3S,000,000 represents the estimated wholesale market value.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Fisheries-Assistance
SOS. To enable aiding fishermen, groups of fishermen and others, to establish or better establish themselves in the industry, $500,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I believe there was a similar amount last year?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Could the minister give us some details as to how much was spent; who got the benefit-I do not mean the individual names, but what classes of people got it- and on what basis it was paid?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The wording of the vote last year was about the same as it is this year. It was to enable aiding fishermen, groups of fishermen and others to establish or better establish themselves in the industry. It was for the purpose of aiding needy fishermen to maintain themselves and buy gear. It was apportioned between provinces on the basis of the number of fishermen in need. Nova Scotia was allotted $100,000; New Brunswick, $50,000; Prince Edward Island, $50,000, and Magdalen islands, $25,000. Later on, a supplementary grant of $50,000 was given to Nova Scotia. There is a supplementary grant of $20,000 to Prince Edward Island and one of $125,000 to the gulf of St. Lawrence section of Quebec. There is always kept in reserve between $50,000 and $75,000, which might have been allotted to British Columbia. The sum of $11,000 was allotted to an industry in eastern Nova Scotia to establish a bait and cold storage plant for the fishermen in Guys-borough county.


Alan Webster Neill: What was the total amount spent out of the vote?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Up to the end of March we had paid out $369,444.57.


Alan Webster Neill: Were these sums loans or grants?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In Nova Scotia they were loans. In Prince Edward Island they were loans to individual fishermen or to a group of fishermen who, in the name of the group, could borrow a larger amount than any individual could obtain.


Alan Webster Neill: Loans?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. In New Brunswick and in the Magdalen islands they were loans, and in a part of Quebec they were grants. The fishermen were allowed an average of $15 each with which to buy hooks and lines. They are hook-and-line fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: Did these men sign a note or give any security?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The money was allotted to the province. They were grants to the provinces, and the provinces supplemented
the grants with money of their own. The provinces made loans to the fishermen and! took security; but so far as the federal government is concerned, they were grants. We do not expect to recover them.


Alan Webster Neill: The government did not deal with the individual fishermen in any case?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Was any rate of interest
specified?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Some provinces charged two or three per cent.


Alan Webster Neill: But the department in dealing with the province made a grant?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: A grant.


Alan Webster Neill: Was any condition imposed that the province should pay dollar for dollar or fifty cents or what? At one time it was dollar for dollar.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We gave two-thirds and asked the province to put up the other third.


Alan Webster Neill: What transactions had the
department with British Columbia? Did the department offer them $50,000, and did they say they did not want it?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They did not say they did not want it. They said the conditions were such that they could not use so small an amount. It was too small for their needs and I agree with them, because on the Pacific coast the method of operation is not the same as on the Atlantic. On the Pacific the fisherman's outfit costs a good deal. Boat and nets are costly, amounting to $400 or $500, and $15 or $20 to a fisherman would not serve the purpose for which we were giving the money. I agree that some other scheme must be adopted if it is to be applicable to the Pacific coast. If it is found necessary to make loans or grants to fishermen on the Pacific coast we must realize that each loan must be substantial if the fisherman is to be helped to put his gear into shape. So far we have been fortunate in that the fishermen on the Pacific coast have had good bankers and purveyors of money and have not had to resort to the dominion treasury.
Another aspect of the Pacific coast fisheries is under consideration by the government. It is in connection with the new policy of using the fishermen for the navy and adapting some boats for training and other purposes. This question must be carefully considered from the point of view of our own needs and the requirements of our own policy.
Supply-Fisheries-Assistance


Alan Webster Neill: The minister rather flatters us in British Columbia when he suggests that there was no need for assistance. I have received repeated applications from fishermen whose engines have played out or whose equipment needed replacing. They have asked for assistance and I have had to tell them there was none; yet we find Prince Edward Island getting an enormous sum in proportion to its population. This is not fair to British Columbia.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The money is allotted to the provinces on the basis not of the number of fishermen but of the needs of individuals.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not quite catch the minister's reference to the naval reserve started on the Pacific coast. I hope he did not suggest, did he, that the government was doing that as a hand-out to the fishermen?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No. I said that with regard to the fishermen on the Pacific coast a new angle of the situation was presenting itself, and that it might become necessary to adopt a wider scheme of cooperation with the fishermen in order to meet their requirements under the new set-up.


Alan Webster Neill: Just one more question. What we really want in British Columbia is to make the fisherman's loan act workable. I suggested that three years ago, two years ago and last year. Then leave the British Columbia government out of the picture; if they do not want to aid the fishermen we cannot help it, but we are in a position to help them. We had the fisherman's loan act passed ostensibly to help fishermen who need assistance for a boat that is played out or an engine that needs replacement. The whole trouble is that the act is utterly unworkable. Was it one or four loans that were granted in British Columbia? Perhaps the hon. member for New Westminster can tell me.


Thomas Reid: It just will not work in British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: No, it will not work. The wretched man who wants to borrow the money is required to have double the value in real estate, and what is more, he must occupy that real estate. He might own the site of the hotel Vancouver, but he must also occupy it. Even if that absurdity were done away with-and I think I did get them to agree that they might drop that-the point is that the fisherman may own a halibut boat worth $25,000 or a purse seine boat worth more than half that, but he lives on his boat, .
or if he does not he has a small house on shore where his wife lives. But his boat and gear are worth nothing when it comes to borrowing money. To put in a new engine might cost S 1,200 and he might want to borrow only $500-and these are not fancy cases, I know one like that-but he could not get a cent because he did not own $1,000 worth of real estate, and it had to be real estate appraised under certain conditions. Hon. members from the maritime provinces, an ex-Postmaster General, Mr. Veniot, and myself and others, pleaded with the government of the day, and we have since pleaded with the present government; all we ask is to make that act workable. And it is not workable to-day; it is not worth a hoot.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What did the department do to ensure. that when it made its grant to the province, the province made its proportionate grant to the fishermen?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The auditors of the
Department of Finance go to the provincial capitals and audit their books, and if they certify that the money has been granted to the individual in accordance with the provisions of the agreement then we refund to the province our share.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not rise for the purpose of being critical, and I do not rise at this late date for the purpose of lessening the expedition of the passing of these estimates. But I think this is an opportune time to ask for a word of explanation and also to make a suggestion to the Minister of Fisheries as to the policy under which these moneys are expended. Since these various amounts have been voted and spent I have taken the position in this house that the system is absolutely all wrong. I do not mean as to the manner of distribution or the manner of the exercise of authority over the expenditures. The Minister of Fisheries a few minutes ago stated that amounts were given to the various provinces- I am speaking now of the Atlantic coast- in the way of either loan or, in some instances, gift in order to help the poor fishermen to get lines and hooks so that they may be able to get at least the wherewithal to live from day to day.
In this dominion there are two separate branches of departmental government that deal with the question of the expenditure and the handing out of public moneys to the fishermen. One comes under the Minister of Labour and the other under the Minister of Fisheries. I well remember this last winter, through an act of God a situation arose not only in Nova Scotia but in the other mari-

Supply-Fisheries-Asm tance
time provinces, resulting in conditions that were worse than hardship, and most discouraging to the fishermen of the three maritime provinces and also, I believe, those in the lower stretches of the province of Quebec. The Minister of Labour handed out-and I do not mean that in any irregular sense- under the provisions of the act, as a gift in aid to Nova Scotia at the solicitation of the premier of that province, the Hon. A. L. Macdonald, some $20,000. It was on the basis, I believe, of fifty-fifty or else two-thirds and one-third. But that money, when handed out, was used by the government of Nova Scotia for the purpose of putting the fishermen, who desired the money in order to get the trappings and other equipment necessary to earn a living, on the public highways in midwinter to shovel snow and dig drains as preparatory work so that in the spring the highways department under the Hon. Mr. MacMillan might go ahead on these secondary roads, and in some instances first-class roads, in the way of permanently rebuilding them, this work being the foundation work. I took the view at that time-and I have had no reason to change my mind-that this was an absolutely wrong procedure.
My judgment leads me to the conclusion that with regard to the expenditure of federal money in connection with the fisheries of Canada, whether on the Atlantic or on the Pacific coast or on the St. Lawrence, every dollar that is voted by this parliament through either the Department of Labour or the Department of Fisheries should be expended under the supervision, scrutiny and direction of the officials of the fisheries department. I do not think any person who knows the facts will dispute the statement that we have an excellent gentleman in the person of Mr. Sutherland as inspector of fisheries for the maritime provinces. He has had long experience in connection with the Department of Fisheries, and his suggestions and ideas so far as they might have been expressed were not expressible because of the fact that these moneys were handed over to the provincial authorities to be expended by them as they saw fit.
I have said to the Minister of Fisheries personally and have said in this house that the fishermen to-day are more in need of financial assistance, with the proper safeguards, the proper instructions hnd advice, than ever before. I make this broad statement, that there is not in Nova Scotia-I speak of my own province more particularly-a combination of men or technical advisers connected with the government of Nova Scotia who
know anything comparable with the knowledge of the officers of the department over which my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries presides. That being so I ask why we should continue to follow a policy which leads up a blind street and under which hon. members are not in a position to know how much has been spent, who has received it and how much has been put up by the various provinces, in this instance, Nova Scotia.
A certain amount of money was made available last year to aid the lobster fishermen, after a proper survey had been made, under the direction of the minister, by the officials of the federal department and particularly Mr. Sutherland, the inspector for the maritime provinces. That survey was complete and satisfactory. It was conducted in each fishing county of Nova Scotia by Mr. Sutherland's assistants, and the result of that investigation was made known to the officials here at Ottawa and eventually to the minister himself. To-day I am in the position, as I think every hon. member for Nova Scotia who represents a fishing constituency is. that I do not know how much of the $177,000 that was to be made available for the assistance of lobster fishermen-


Mr. ISNOR:: What was the amount?


Robert Emmett Finn: I believe originally Mr. Sutherland reported that $177,000 would be required. Later, following a further survey or the receipt of additional information, I believe that figure was reduced, but I believe I am well within the mark when I say the loss sustained by the fishermen amounted to at least $140,000. That loss was sustained in the constituencies of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, Queens-Lunen-burg and Halifax.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What occasioned the loss?


Robert Emmett Finn: It was occasioned by one of the worst storms experienced in many years along the western coast of Nova Scotia, coming up from the south probably as the result of a hurricane in the West Indies, striking in off Hatteras to the bay of Fundy and then moving eastward along the coast of Nova Scotia to a point east of Halifax harbour. It was a major disaster, an act of God, that left the lobster fishermen wondering whether or not the future held anything for them. While this question was in the minds and hearts of all our people, irrespective of their occupation or politics, the Minister of Fisheries and his department were bending their best efforts to meet this serious situation and give material aid. The essence of that aid was the rapidity with which it could be given; but it was not forthcoming very quickly; a
Supply-Fisheries-Assistance

great deal of time was lost, so that I have no doubt the fishermen were not enabled to get their traps ready as soon as they would have been if that assistance had been immediate, as it should have been.
It distresses me to be obliged to criticize the Liberal government of Nova Scotia, believing as I do in Liberal principles; but the members of the Nova Scotia government had no first-hand knowledge of the situation. In the nature of things they could not have, because fishing was not their profession; they were not experts at it and had to depend upon what they were told. I am sorry to say that some of these gentlemen lacked what I might call the human element, and the moment administration is placed in the hands of gentlemen of that type you have indifference; with indifference you have want; with want you have privation, and with privation you have suffering and discouragement. All these were concomitants of the situation arising from that terrible storm. The minister-and to his credit be it said-refused to permit any of the money from the federal treasury to be spent on the highways and byways of Nova Scotia, in shoveling snow and digging ditches in weather five or ten degrees below zero. These people were neither road makers nor road builders, / but this fact was disregarded by the provincial government despite the entreaties of the minister that aid should be given immediately.
I do not know how much of that 8140,000 was received by the Nova Scotia government, or how it was spent. I was told that in Prince Edward Island the money was handed out in the way of gifts or in small amounts to buy a barrel of flour or a barrel of pork to tide the fishermen over the hard season. The same thing was done in certain sections of New Brunswick, but it was not done in the little province of Nova Scotia. The department and the government were criticized by the premier of Nova Scotia. The province did not want to have a burden placed upon its shoulders because of gifts to its fishermen, when such gifts carried with them a responsibility on the provincial government to pay a small portion of the amount expended. That argument is untenable.
1 submit that the time has come when the Department of Fisheries should control the spending of every dollar that is voted by this parliament for the assistance of fishermen on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts. This should not be left to the Minister of Pensions and National Health because he happens to be in charge of a particular branch, or to the Minister of Labour because expenditures to the extent of $20,000 were made through his department. The Minister of Labour is not in the chamber at the moment, but I do not think {Mr. Finn.]
I am doing him an injustice or saying anything that is beside the mark when I say that if time had not been of the essence the $20,000 which was spent for snow-shoveling and drain-digging on the highways would not have been granted for that purpose. That was the main element that entered into the question and caused the Minister of Labour to agree to the suggestion of the premier of Nova Scotia who came here to obtain that money. This was done without any conferences with those who represented these different constituencies.
The minister was quite candid and aboveboard in the statement he made a little while ago. Two-thirds of this money is donated by the federal treasury provided one-third is put up by the provincial government, but the minister practically admitted that they kiss the money good-bye. The local government may take a note, but if they get anything back from the fishermen there is no return to the dominion government. Many of these fishermen have a hard struggle to make a living, and they worry when they know they have notes outstanding with the government. At times their worry must be sufficient to make them feel it is almost useless to continue in their occupation and to-day the world is not offering many new occupations. I cannot for the life of me see why we should pay over the public moneys of Canada to the provinces and permit those moneys to be used for purposes other than direct relief. This money should not be used for other purposes which do not inure to the benefit of the classes of people intended to be helped. The dominion government puts up two-thirds and the provincial government one-third, and when the provincial government keeps any money that is returned, it has no more right to it than I have. That money belongs to the federal treasury and it should be returned to it. Otherwise, the money paid out should be a gift to the fishermen and they should be relieved from the worry of how they are going to pay it back.
This is only by way of a suggestion to the minister and his technical officers. A deputy minister is to be appointed, and when there is a proper set-up in the department a policy should be embarked upon which will carry out the suggestions I have made to-day. The Department of Fisheries should control every dollar that is paid out in any province of Canada to aid fishermen or any other class. About a year ago I asked the premier of Nova Scotia how much of the $150,000 which was available to fishermen along the shores of Nova Scotia had been spent, and he told me it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $42,000. When I asked how that money had

Supply-Fisheries-M arke ts
been expended he told me that some mitts, jumpers and rubber boots had been bought. That was the total amount spent. If the provincial government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, feels that it is going to have a deficit or if it wants to show a substantial surplus-


The CHAIRMAN:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn), but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Robert Emmett Finn: I have just one word more to say and I am through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Timel


Robert Emmett Finn: I thought I had forty-five minutes; is it only forty minutes?


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member has already spoken for forty minutes.


Robert Emmett Finn: I see, forty minutes is the limit, I thought it was forty-five. There is no ten per cent leeway one way or the other in this particular instance. I should like to say in conclusion-


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry, but the hon. member has exhausted his time.


Robert Emmett Finn: With the consent of the committee, I should like to conclude. Such consent has been given quite often, but at times I think I am becoming a bit of a political martyr. I am nailed to the cross as soon as my time is up. Well, the gibbet still has no one hanging upon it; it is there for some other hon. gentleman. It will take me only three or four minutes to say what I have to say in conclusion, if I have the permission of the committee to continue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


David Spence: You might as well let him go on, Mr. Chairman, as somebody else, because no one is saying anything anyway.


Robert Emmett Finn: All I am going to say to my hon. friend who has just interjected is that when I looked over at him five "minutes ago his eyes were closed and he was fast asleep. Perhaps this little reminder may keep him awake. If not I will try to get a Charlie Chaplin hammer to give to my hon. friend who sits behind him so that he can give him a gentle tap to keep his eyes open and his ears attuned with reference to this matter.


David Spence: The hon. member would
put the whole house to sleep.


Robert Emmett Finn: I trust that the Minister of Fisheries during the recess, after he has had a rest from the long and arduous duties of the session, will take the matter up with his technical officers and the new deputy minister
and see if some plan cannot be evolved whereby his department shall have direct control and look after the expenditure of public moneys under the jurisdiction of the federal government; and if it is desired to make the provinces pay for entirely provincial affairs, they should have the right to expend moneys under their own jurisdiction. If that is done, hon. members will be in a better position in the future to discuss these questions intelligently and to meet the views of the hon. gentleman who dispenses advice from the other side of the house even when he is not quite awake. My hon. friend is wideawake now. I thought I heard a noise almost like an interruption, but I do not mind that.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time, and his last few remarks had nothing to do with fishing at all.


Robert Emmett Finn: If my remarks had nothing to do with fishing, Mr. Chairman, what relevancy had the remarks of the hon. gentleman who said that nothing was being said anyway? If nothing was said, then my answer to him was nothing, and therefore I was not talking at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50b. To aid in expanding the sale of the products of the Canadian fishermen in foreign and domestic markets, $200,000.
Alan Webster Neill: How much was spent of last year's vote, and how and where was it spent?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Practically the whole
amount, $198,000 in round figures, was spent, and all of it in Canada except $15,000, which was spent in Great Britain to advertise British Columbia canned salmon. The balance was spent in Canada to advertise Canadian fish generally, no specific varieties. We advertised in some eleven hundred or more newspapers from coast to coast, and through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and all the stations connected with its network in the provinces; we paid for that service. We also used the medium of demonstrators in Canada. We had newspaper columns published at advertising rates. The whole amount with the exception of $15,000 was spent in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
505. To provide for the extension of educational work in cooperative producing and selling among fishermen, $50,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I understand that this is done largely under the extension branch of the St. Francis Xavier university, is it not? How much of this vote will be allotted to British Columbia?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: 



$5,000. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries-M arkets
Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister not think $5,000 is a little small?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is more than they asked for.


Alan Webster Neill: Surely not.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They asked for $4,500, and I am allotting them $5,000.


Alan Webster Neill: There must be a grievous mistake there. I cannot understand anybody in British Columbia not asking for more than they are likely to get. Some instructors were sent out from St. Francis Xavier university, were they not?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The work was started in Nova Scotia three years ago. Last winter a member of the teaching staff of the university of British Columbia, attending the conference in Ottawa of the research board, suggested that similar work should be started in British Columbia. I fully concurred in his views and was glad to have the work start in that province. He suggested a tentative program to feel out the sentiment in the province and suggested a meeting in the winter. He asked us to send out some instructor from the east who knew the technique adopted in the east. Immediately we communicated with St. Francis Xavier university in Nova Scotia, under which this work is done in the east, and they sent out Reverend Mr. MacDonald of the United Church, who, I understand, has done very good work. I have received many letters of commendation of his work. As a consequence Doctor Shrum, of the university of British Columbia, suggested a program to be carried on during the year and asked us to pay the costs, which would be $4,500. I have allotted the sum of $5,000 to take care of the first work done in British Columbia in this educational program among the fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: I can corroborate a good deal of what the minister has said respecting Reverend Mr. MacDonald. He has done good work and has been well received. The people took a great interest in his work. I understand that they formed a number of what they call study clubs in the country places. I have received a communication from an association of these clubs urging me to see if the minister would not have the work done directly from St. Francis Xavier university, instead1 of through the university of British Columbia, because they were so well satisfied with the work that Reverend Mr. MacDonald had done and they thought that with the greater experience of these men from headquarters in the east, the work would be more effective than having it done in a sort

of second-hand way through the university of British Columbia.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I appreciate the compliment paid by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi to the wise men of the east, but from an administrative point of view it is more practical to have the work centred in the province and done through the university of British Columbia, which is at closer range and more in touch with the needs, local conditions, and points of view of the people.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries.
611a. To provide for a contribution to the international commission for the assistance of child refugees in Spain, $10,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister explain this item?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is placed in the estimates of the Department of Fisheries because the money is to be used to cover the cost of a shipment of fish to the refugee children of Spain. It is supplementary to the contribution made by the government of Canada last winter in compliance with the request made upon us by the committee of the League of Nations. Great Britain and practically all the other countries of the world contributed, and the countries of the commonwealth contributed in practically the same amount. The government of Canada thought it advisable to send dried fish to Spain because in years past Spain was a very good customer of Canada for dried fish, and we thought we should renew our good relations. Further, it was one of the articles mentioned in the request of the committee of the League of Nations that Canada could very well supply to the refugee children.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was the fish sent to the government or to the rebels?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It was sent to the international committee appointed by the League of Nations. It went to Marseilles, France, and from there was distributed by the Red Cross.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To the refugees in France?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The Red Cross has supervision over the distribution of these supplies.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then the refugees referred to are those who had gone to France?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; the refugees mentioned here have been returned to Spain, but they need food. They are children who evidently were taken out of Spain during the war, have gone back home, and are without

food, but the League of Nations and the Red Cross are looking after them, and the contribution is made to them. -


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then what really happened was that the fish went to the present government of Spain?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Not to the present government.
Mr. MaoNICOL: To the refugees under the control of the present government of Spain.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I find that I have not before me a copy of that estimate. What is the amount involved?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Ten thousand dollars.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Well, speaking about
refugees and assistance to refugees, I think we could very well talk about certain refugees within this country. This appears in Hansard of May 12, at page 3963:
Mr. Landeryou: It is too bad, because there are all kinds of Canadian child refugees in the city of Hull who are in need of relief. Will the minister consider using any portion that has not been used, for Canadian refugee children in the city of Hull?
Mr. Fournier (Hull): May I interrupt the hon. member? There is nobody suffering in Hull.
Since that time a number of people have come to us and brought affidavits to the effect that there are children suffering in Hull; and I believe that, in order to keep the record straight, and to know what to do with any money which may be left over, these facts should be considered. I have here an affidavit sworn to on May 22, 1939, before J. Harold Maloney, commissioner of superior court for the district of Hull. This is what the affidavit states:
This is to certify I am a married man with one child.


Ernest Lapointe: That has nothing to do with this vote.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am at present on the street.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member for Peace River is out of order.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I submit that I am referring to the vote of $10,000 which is to be spent in assisting Spanish refugees, and I am suggesting that if there should be any money left over from this same vote, here is a place where it could be spent. Therefore I am discussing the vote itself.
Supply-Public Works-Architect's Branch


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is definitely out of order in discussing under this item what he would like to discuss, and I cannot permit him to do so.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Is this not a question of refugees?


Grote Stirling: Spanish refugees.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am speaking about Canadian child refugees.


Ernest Lapointe: It cannot be discussed under this item.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Peace River may proceed if he will confine his remarks to this item. Otherwise I cannot permit him to continue.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Well, the item is 611a, to provide for a contribution to the international commission for the assistance of child refugees in Spain, $10,000; and I say that-


Ernest Lapointe: Is the
hon. member opposed to it?


René-Antoine Pelletier: -if there is any money left over out of this vote, there are certain refugees here who could well be looked after.


Mr. HARTIGAN:: Why talk of Hull? What about Alberta?


René-Antoine Pelletier: So I think I am in order in discussing refugees. Perhaps I may be permitted to continue.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely
there are no refugees in Hull.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member for Peace River is out of order, and perhaps he knows he is out of order, and definitely so, under this item.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I, of course, submit to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps an occasion will present itself under another item to discuss this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Chief architect's branch-
298. Branch administration, $226,280.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to suggest to
the minister that when architects outside his own department are engaged to draw plans, the plans they draw should have the full approval of the architects within his department. Maybe they have. But if they have, the general outline of buildings which in the past have been drawn up by architects in the department is not being followed in respect

4816	(	.	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Architect's Branch
of new buildings. Perhaps it is not the policy of the department to do what I suggest, but I would imagine that any plans drawn for the department should have in the end the full approval of the department's architects.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What my hon. friend is suggesting
is the practice of the department. If the services of an outside architect are required, when his plans are ready they are approved by the department before tenders are called for.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to know that is so. My information was that the practice was otherwise. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
295. Maintenance and operation of other dominion public buildings and grounds, including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., $3,556,020.
David James Hartigan: Comparing this amount of $3,556,020 with the $2,817,357 spent for the maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds in Ottawa, I submit that the vote for Ottawa of practically $3,000,000 is, to say the least, out of proportion to an amount of only $3,500,000 to be expended throughout Canada. In this connection I have in mind a town in Nova Scotia, the town of Dominion. Although there are public buildings scattered all over the Dominion of Canada, there is not and never has been one in the town of Dominion. It is a long established town, yet they have not even a post office of their own; quarters are rented for a post office.
When I think of the amount of money spent in Ottawa, practically $3,000,000, and throughout Canada some $3,500,000 for the maintenance of grounds and buildings in cities and towns, I cannot help thinking that there is a marked disparity between the amount appropriated for some other places and the amount spent in Dominion. I am not asking for a large building, but at least the people there should have a respectable public building and a standard post office from which the Canadian flag or the union jack could fly. But there is no public building of any sort in that community. It is not fair. I admit that the revenue is not large; but, after all, that is not the sole consideration. Surely the government wishes to maintain a certain standard in its public buildings.
I do not see why we should be continually considering the revenue^producing capacity of any building in Canada. I venture to say there are many public buildings that could not begin to liquidate the capital expenditure
fMr. MacNicol.f
involved in their erection. I am not criticizing the department; I am speaking of the government as a whole,' and I am discussing public facilities, provided by the government to the .various provinces. I believe that we are too prone, whenever we are discussing any public building, to think mainly of the revenue that can be derived from it. That is the wrong attitude, and from my observations in the past four years it is becoming more and more evident. I think the fault lies with our system of government in Ottawa. Our civil servants are thinking too much in terms of revenues from amounts invested tq-day, forgetting the vast sums of money which, expended in the past, have yielded no revenues. One has only to look at the canals in Canada and other public works as well. Go down the St. Lawrence and look at that vast canal system which Norwegians and people from other countries make use of without paying any toll to the government. Again, I am not criticizing the federal administration with regard to all these public works. In my opinion they are wonderful feats of engineering and are a tribute to Canada; but it seems to me that the department lays undue emphasis upon the question of revenue. I repeat, I am not criticizing the minister. I give him full credit for all he has done. He is a genius, a prodigy; I have often admired his ability to stand up under strain. I am simply asking him to give some consideration to the smaller towns and to provide us with at least a small-sized post office in the community of which I speak.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend has made an able plea for a public building at Dominion in his constituency. I will make a note of his remarks and I promise that next year I shall give careful attention to his request.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister has been referring to the construction of public buildings, and I know the demands for them are many and the pressure is sometimes very strong in smaller communities where perhaps revenue and other considerations might appear on the surface not to justify the construction of these buildings. I recall that in some instances a policy was adopted of encouraging municipalities to construct community buildings, a part of the building in the community serving post office and other public requirements. That is an admirable policy. Local communities do now need buildings of this kind. Every community needs a building that will afford accommodation for local activities, a building which must necessarily be under their own control and not under the government, and post office and other accommodation are sometimes required in such communities.

Supply-Public Works-Architect's Branch
In most of the smaller communities the importance of the post office is diminishing. Even in the larger towns, the post office was the centre to which everyone resorted for mail and other business purposes. With deliveries in towns and cities and with rural mail delivery the post office is not as important nowadays as it was in years gone by. The same amount of space may be required, but the building is not resorted to in the same measure as in the past. If the minister can promote the policy of paying a generous rental in the smaller communities for the necessary space provided for post office and other public purposes he thereby serves a double end. He can pay a generous rental and still save money, and he can at the same time contribute to the construction and maintenance in the community of a building devoted to other purposes than those required for the post office. The minister knows of instances in which that has been done and the department has endeavoured to construct smaller post office buildings, but these seldom give satisfaction to the community. If the size of the building is limited to the actual requirements of the post office in some of the smaller communities, the people say the building is not creditable, they are ashamed of it, and they do not want it at all. There is the difficulty, and it can be overcome by the course I have suggested, of agreeing to pay a generous rental for space in a community building.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I greatly sympathize with the hon. member's views; in fact, in many places, the post office is to be found in the community building; and the rental we pay helps materially to pay for the building, to meet interest and capital invested by the municipality. In some instances the municipality asks too large a rental or contribution to the building, but whenever possible the policy suggested should be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
Alberta.	_ _	.
SOS. Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $40,000.
René-Antoine Pelletier: Would this include any vote for the proposed post office in Peace River?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, that will foe taken care of in the supplementary estimates. These are the main estimates and provide only for the general maintenance of buildings we already have.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
Generally.
308. Flags for dominion buildings, $2,500.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What are. the regulations in reference to flying flags over public buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The flags are on every building throughout Canada every day in the year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The union jack?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
Generally.
S10. Public buildings generally-repairs, alterations, fittings and improvements, $200,000.
Mr. EMMERSON:: How does this vote differ from item 298? To what does it apply? For instance, there was an amount of $50,000 for the maritime provinces for dominion public buildings. This item is for dominion public buildings generalh', $200,000. What is the difference?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This provides for repairs, alterations, fittings and improvements which may be required in any of the public buildings controlled by the Department of Public Works throughout the country.


Henry Read Emmerson: Is not the other for maintenance and repairs as well?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that this $200,000 is to supplement the votes for each province; in case we are short of an amount in any province we supplement it through this general vote which applies to the whole of Canada, while the other votes apply to the provinces.


Grote Stirling: Does this not cover those half dozen items that we have just dealt with, for instance Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia? I do not understand how the minister can be asking for $200,000 here when in item 304 there was over half a million dollars unexpended.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The provincial votes, if I may so call them, those we have just passed, are very often found insufficient for the repairs and alterations required. In this $200,000 wTe provide a vote from which we can take amounts required to supplement any of the individual votes that have just been passed.


Grote Stirling: An omnibus vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. BARBER:: That $200,000 might all go to one province.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; it is for the whole country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4818	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Architect's Branch
Chief architect's branch.
Generally.
S12. Statue of the late Sir Arthur G. Doughty, to be erected in front of the dominion archives building (revote), $13,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the $13,000 the total
cost of the monument?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, that is the total cost.


Grote Stirling: How far has it gone? Is
it ready for erection?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it will take several months before it is ready.


Grote Stirling: * Is it being made in Ottawa?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
SH. Engineering, including salaries of engineers, clerks, et cetera, $532,725.
John Ritchie MacNicol: When outside architects are asked to draw plans for public buildings, and they in turn provide their own engineers, do the plans then submitted to the department, that is the mechanical or engineering plans, have to receive the approval of the engineers of the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am going to ask later on, under another item, about a building concerning which I should be very much surprised if the engineers of the department have approved the mechanical plans.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is my information and the policy of the department that plans which are prepared outside the department are approved by the officers of the department before we ask for tenders.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then do the departmental engineers have to accept the mechanical plans prepared by the outside engineers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, they make suggestions as to changes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Dredging.
315. General superintendence, $12,260.
René-Antoine Pelletier: Under this item what type of dredging-


Frederick George Sanderson: Dredging is the next item. Item 315 carried.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They are all dredging. What type of dredging does this contemplate?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Item 316 for example, dredging in the maritime provinces, means
[Mr. Cardin.)
dredging near the wharves, the establishment of channels to reach the wharves, and in sections of rivers which are navigable. The Department of Public Works has jurisdiction over the dredging near wharves, or, for example, in the St. Lawrence river connecting the main channel with wharves. But the dredging of the St. Lawrence river from Montreal to the sea was transferred to the Department of Marine a long time ago and lately from the Marine department to the Department of Transport. But the public works department have to look after the dredging in the Saguenay river, for instance, from the St. Lawrence to Chicoutimi, and all dredging round the wharves or the establishment of channels to reach the wharves that have been built. Part of this work is done with certain equipment which belongs to the Department of Public Works, but most of it is done by contract after public advertisement.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Is this dredging to take care of navigable streams? If there are streams in Canada that can be considered navigable, the Department of Public Works looks after keeping the channel clear?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Exactly.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister knows of Lesser Slave lake in northern Alberta, which is perhaps one hundred miles long by thirty wide, and the outlet of that lake is Slave river which flows into the Athabaska which goes on to the arctic ocean. In recent years there has been difficulty in controlling the waters of Lesser Slave lake, with the result that in certain years a vast amount of damage has been done by the lake overflowing; it has washed out miles of railways and flooded out thousands of acres of hay lands belonging to private citizens and to institutions which look after the Indians in that part of the country. The minister no doubt knows that some work has been done there in the past attempting to find some means of controlling the flood waters in Lesser Slave lake, and I have no doubt his department has a vast amount of information concerning Slave river. Has the minister any intention of taking action there in order to get away from this flooding which occurs from time to time? It is not very often, I admit, but nevertheless it is serious when it happens. Is it his intention to clear out the channel of the Slave river so that the waters can be better controlled than they are at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no hesitation at all in saying to my hon. friend that I am ready to consider a proposal, if one is made to the department. At the moment I do not remem-

Supply-Public Works-Engineer's Branch
ber that any representations along this line have been made, but this comes within the jurisdiction of the department, and I am quite ready to look into any representation or request for a preliminary study of the river. Later on, we can do whatever work the engineers recommend.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Of course I accept the minister's statement, because he knows very well what he has and has not in hand, but I understood that many representations had been made. Perhaps they were made to the wrong department. In any event I should be glad to submit the problem to the minister, and I thank him for his promise of consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Dredging.
S16. Maritime provinces, $405,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice an increase of $30,000 under this item, the details of which appear at page 175 of the estimates. On turning to that page I find a substantial increase in the vote for maintenance and operation of dredges and in the wages paid. What is the reason for this increase?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The increase of $30,000 is mainly to provide for extensive repairs to dredges Nos. 9 and 13, which the engineers report have not been hauled out for repairs since 1935 and 1936. The entire increase of $30,000 is to look after the repairs to those two dredges. That is the only reason for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Dredging.
318. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta,
Hugh Alexander Stewart: In connection with the prairie farm rehabilitation work, the policy of the government seems to be to carry on a certain amount of construction in the nature of dams, dugouts and so forth. Is any of this work to be done under the Department of Public Works? It appears to me that this should be the case. With the efficient department under the control of the minister; with the district engineers experienced in that sort of thing, it seems to me this is the department to which that work should be assigned. I suggest that it is a clear case of overlapping and increased expenditure when the Department of Agriculture on its own account undertakes work requiring engineering services, when we have a department excellently equipped and organized, with an engineering staff possessing
experience gained over a long period of years in all kinds of construction work, which could! look after this work very well. There is really no branch of engineering work, dredging, the construction of dams or wharves or breakwaters, which the Department of Public Works is not equipped to undertake and carry out efficiently.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is what we are doing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, but my complaint is that the minister ought to be doing it all, and he is not. I suggest that the minister speak to his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, pointing out the facilities and equipment of this department and emphasizing the opportunity thus afforded to avoid duplication and bring about a substantial saving in. the expenditure of public money.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I understand that last year a project was undertaken at Fort McMur-ray or Waterways, Alberta. What progress has been made, and what further expenditures are contemplated in connection with that project this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At the moment I have not that information before me. In the supplementary estimates of my department there is a special vote for that very purpose, and when we reach that item during the course of the evening I shall be only too glad to give my hon. friend the information he requires.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Dredging.
319. British Columbia, $225,000.
Harry James Barber: Would the minister give the particulars of this vote. I notice the details show $9,300 for new plant, and there is an increase of $40,000 in the item. Where is that money to be expended?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My notes indicate that
this increase of $40,000 is required to provide for repairs to dredge No. 305; for hauling out, repairing and installing new lighting plant in dredge Arrow Lakes; for ten new pontoons and one new pipe scow for dredge No. 305, and to provide for several annual maintenance works formerly charged to harbours and rivers generally. There is a contract for repairing dredge No. 305 amounting to $37,675, and on that contract we have to pay this year a balance of $18,375. The sum of $3,925 is allotted for repairs and improvements to the dredge Arrow Lakes; $9,300 is provided for ten pontoons and one pipe scow for dredge No. 305, and $9,970 for increase in day
4820	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Branch
labour works to provide for annual maintenance works. That makes up the total increase of $40,000.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Chief architect's branch.
Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, etc.
SZI4. Maintenance and operation of locks and dams, $62,800.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the Rideau canal
being operated this year? In former years from my window in the hotel, I used to see boats going up and down, but I have not seen any this year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vote does not cover
the Rideau canal; that would be under the Department of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
.Construction, repairs and improvements-har-hours and rivers.
337. British Columbia-harbours and rivers generally

for maintenance of services, no new Works to be undertaken, $100,000.
Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: What work
does this cover?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: General repairs and maintenance on the wharves controlled by the department,
. Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch.
Telegraph and telephone services-operation and maintenance.
$),0. Land and cable telegraph lines-lower St, Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels for cable work, $135,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is an increase of
$2,000 in this vote. I take it that the policy of the department is not to undertake any extension of telegraph or telephone lines unless it is almost inevitable. Services are provided by the provincial governments and local companies apart from those maintained under this and following votes. What is the present policy of the department with regard to extensions, and what is the reason for the increased expenditure?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The increase is due to
Statutory increases to employees. As far as the policy of the department is concerned,

we do not go into any territory which is served by a private company or a provincial organization. We do what might be termed pioneering work in order to give communication services to localities where it would be unprofitable for a private company to operate. We resist, as far as humanly possible, all requests made for the establishment of new lines, We are following the policy that prevailed some years ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is some revenue
derived from these operations; perhaps the minister could give the details for all the items down to No. 345.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In connection with item
340,	the last report I have is for 1937-38 when the expenditures were $132,000 and the revenue $42,000, leaving a deficit of about $89,000. I am giving round figures. In 1928-29 the deficit was $163,000, but it has been reduced every year, and this last deficit is the smallest we have ever had. Under item
341,	Alberta and Saskatchewan, the deficit was $57,000. Under item 343, British Columbia, northern and Yukon districts, the deficit for 1937-38 was $51,000. Under item 344, Vancouver island district, the deficit for 1937-38 was $43,568.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Have any of these lines
been sold in the last year or two?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch.
Telegraph and telephone services-operation and maintenance.
British Columbia-Vancouver island district, $94,000.
Mr. MacNEIL:: Has any action been taken toward establishing telephone communication with Stuart island in British Columbia? Representations were made recently that over 4,000 boats had tied up at that point last year while waiting for slack water. A large number of these boats had urgent need to get in touch with the mainland by telephone or telegraph but were unable to do so from the government wharf or any adjacent point. This settlement is increasing in number and in case of accident it would be necessary to communicate with the hospital authorities.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no indication of any such request having been made, and I have no information before me on the matter, but I shall be glad to look it up and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.


Alan Webster Neill: I am familiar with the situation there, because it is just a few yards outside my district. The need is as the hon.

Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Branch
member has stated, but instead of putting two or three cables and a considerable land line on rocky islands it might be more profitable from, the point of view of expense and service to put in a couple of radiophone machines at the nearest accessible point. These machines , are working well and are being improved every day. I think they would be less expensive, cost less to maintain, and be more effective. The request did not reach the hon. member and myself in time to have an item included in this vote, but I would ask the government to consider including an item in preparing another vote.


Mr. CHURCH:: This is an item for telegraph and telephone services in British Columbia, in the northern and Yukon districts. In view of the great emergency on the Pacific ocean to-day what coordination is there between the government of Great Britain and the Canadian government regarding these communication services? Will the minister lay on the table of the house any information he has along that line? Has the minister had correspondence with the British admiralty? Is there any coordinated policy betwen the two governments with respect to these communication services? If not, the votes are wasted.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The question my hon. friend raises is within the competence not of the Department of Public Works but of the Department of Transport. Communication at sea comes under the Department of Transport. The Department of Public Works has to do only with telegraph and telephone services on land.


Thomas Langton Church: I asked the minister to table the correspondence with the British admiralty.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: So far as my department is concerned there is none.


Thomas Langton Church: We cannot depend on the Sorel canal for protection.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no canal at Sorel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch.
Telegraph and telephone services-operation and maintenance.
Si5. Telegraph and telephone services generally, $5,000.
René-Antoine Pelletier: From time to time there have appeared news dispatches, particularly in the Edmonton papers, to the effect that the federal government had undertaken to link up the Peace River country with the city of Edmonton by telephone communication. What steps have been taken so far by the government, and when will the project be completed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no recollection-of representations having been made to this department for telegraph or telephone, service to be established between the Peace River country and Edmonton. As I said a moment ago, we are only pioneering in providing these services for certain sections of the country which do not justify private capital or the provincial government making the necessary expenditure to have, the line built. We are dealing with telegraph and telephone services only in a very limited way compared with the service that is being given to Canadians all over the country: I am under the impression that a project such as my hon. friend mentions would be within the scope of either private enterprise or the provincial government.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The federal government provides telegraph service out of Edmonton into the northern parts of Alberta as far as the northwest territories. It was stated in the dispatches to which I referred that the federal government had undertaken to provide telephone communication, but I personally thought that was within the field of .provincial operations, and I wanted to know if it was the intention of the federal government to provide such a service.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know of any.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch.
Reconstruction, repairs and improvements.
SiG. Maritime provinces afid Lower St. Lawrence, $12,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is an increase of $4,000 in this item. Where is the additional expenditure likely to be made?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $12,000 is required to take care of general repairs that are necessary and will become necessary on the telegraph and telephone lines of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia and the north shore of the St. Lawrence. It will be necessary to do nine miles of construction work in the Pointe Lebel area. As the cost of all this work cannot be borne by the general maintenance vote, it is necessary to ask for an increase of $4,000 in this appropriation to carry out the work of rebuilding and reconditioning the lines in Cape Breton Island and along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. [DOT]


Thomas Langton Church: I had a return, tabled by the Prime Minister with reference to this item. Has the government received any additional advice from the President of the United States since that return was tabled? The president in his speech at Washington yesterday referred to the St. Lawrence improvements. Has the minister received any correspondence on the subject, and if so will he table it?
4822	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Branch


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That question is not within the competence of this department. The department has received no such correspondence. Any such correspondence would be found in the Department of External Affairs.


Thomas Langton Church: What is the policy of the government with reference to the St. Lawrence river in respect to navigation and power? President Roosevelt in his speech yesterday said that he was waiting for Canada to reply with respect to the St. Lawrence river improvements.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I frankly admit that I cannot give an answer which will be satisfactory to my hon. friend on such a question. I cannot make any statement of policy with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway. It is not for me but for the Prime Minister to make such a declaration. I shall submit the question of my hon. friend to the Prime Minister and even to my good friend the acting Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch.
Reconstruction, repairs and improvements.
SJ/9. British Columbia-Vancouver Island district, $9,000.
René-Antoine Pelletier: I understand that certain changes have taken place in the position of the employees of the government telegraph service; some sort of superannuation or pension scheme has been put into effect within the last twelve months or so. Will the minister explain what provision is being made for pensions for these employees?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At the moment I cannot give my hon. friend the answer he would like to have. My understanding is that our employees in the telegraph service are under the superannuation scheme at present and have been for some time. If my memory serves me aright, there is some difficulty about the position of telegraph employees in the Department of Transport, but I believe that all the employees in the telegraph service of the Department of Public Works are under the superannuation act.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That is a recent change?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think so, as far as this department is concerned.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does it now include those working at prevailing rates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As far as the Department of Public Works is concerned.


René-Antoine Pelletier: In the case of
employees of private railway telegraph companies, the principle of seniority is closely adhered to, as it is in all branches of the [Mr. Church.1
railway service. What is the position as it concerns employees in the government telegraph service? Is it always a question of closely following seniority, or is a preference shown for meritorious service? Is it a matter of merit rather than of seniority?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would be a matter of merit. They are in the same position as the other employees of the department.


René-Antoine Pelletier: So that in the telegraph branch of the government service the factor of seniority is not the one which is considered; a telegraph operator may be advanced to a higher position or transferred to some preferable position simply because of merit and not because of seniority?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings.
528. Nova Scotia.
Bridgewater public building-addition (revote $16,500), $21,500.
Chester-public building, $20,000.
Halifax old post office building-alterations and improvements, $25,000.
Halifax public building-repairs, $6,000.
Liverpool public building-addition and alterations, $12,500.
Lockeport-public building, $20,000.
Port Hawkesbury-public building (revote $20,600), $21,500.
Springhill public building-alterations and improvements (revote), $13,500.
Tatamagouehe-public building, $12,000.
Truro-public building, $20,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Upon looking over this series of items, which covers quite a number of pages, I must say that the minister has my sympathy; notwithstanding the fact that he has consented to such a long list of works and buildings, I am sure he has had to turn down a list about twice the size. I notice that there are 73 projects for Nova Scotia, costing about $1,700,000; 12 for Prince Edward Island, costing somewhat over $400,000; 36 for New Brunswick, totalling over $1,000,000; 153 for Quebec, costing over $5,750,000 ; 94 for Ontario, costing over $6,500,000;	14 for
Manitoba, valued at $225,000; 15 for Saskatchewan, costing $2,098,000. Alberta has the least number of any province, namely 9 projects costing $278,000; and British Columbia has 50, involving over $1,500,000. If the minister had not been on the defensive, the number might have been twice as great, in view of the approaching general election. I am led to inquire how these projects get into the list of works which are to be constructed iby the federal government. In an ordinary township or village council the

Supply-Public IFor&s-Buildings
councillors will sit around a table and discuss whether this or that project is required; if it i3 not necessary they strike it out. It is for that reason, that all over Canada you will find townships which have no debt; on the contrary, they have bonds from which they receive an annual revenue. I have often thought that if we could bring into this House of Commons about twenty-five or thirty township councils and let them run the business, we would reduce the expenditure to about three-fourths of the usual amount. I am not finding any fault with the minister. For a very special reason I have a warm feeling for him and hold him in high regard. Perhaps he is not doing differently from what other ministers of public works did in past years. It has been the system, but I hope the time will come when the estimates of the public works department will be carefully scrutinized by an inter-party committee somewhat after the manner in which these things are done in the old country. In Great Britain there is no such tabling of estimates for public works as we have here. All projects are looked into, and if any are not essential they are not brought into the house at all. But here, I suppose, the minister is compelled almost to stand at his office with a Bren machine gun to keep off the raid which is made from this, that, and the other quarter. One wants a wharf repaired at ten times what the wharf itself is worth; another one wants a building on the wharf; another wants this or that ditch dug or this or that public building erected. I have been in this house for ten sessions, and I have never asked that a dollar be spent in my riding, and I never intend to ask for anything. I do not feel that I am here to ask the government to waste public money on buildings of one kind and another, such as these, the costs for which fill page after page of these estimates. I suppose what has happened at Tweed may have been the result of just being compelled to arrange to spend money in Tweed, in spite of the fact that the town council does not want a new post office; they say that the present post office is all right; they met and passed resolutions against building a new post office. I recognize that it is pretty hard for any minister in charge of a spending department like this one to withstand the onslaught made upon him to spend public money in almost every manner, shape and form. I believe that altogether the estimates contain nineteen pages of appropriations for new public buildings and works.
This is all 1 have to say in that regard. At the present time, in my judgment, the way we handle the estimates of a spending department like this-through no fault of the
minister, I exonerate him

is nothing but a farce. Here we are, voting to-night estimates amounting to I do not know how many millions. Why? We cannot change one. We cannot wipe one out. Many of them should have been eliminated before they came here; all of them should have been carefully scrutinized by an inter-party or independent committee that would thoroughly discuss whether this or that project was necessary. Under our present system the minister is not to blame; as I have said, perhaps he is to be complimented upon the estimates not being twice as numerous as they are.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
5SI. Quebec.
Armstrong-building for customs and immigration purposes, $20,000.
Cabano-public building, $12,000,
Disraeli-public building, $15,000.
Donnacona-public building, $25,000.
Gatineau-public .building, $15,000.
Lacolle-customs and immigration building- addition, $8,600.
Lennoxville-public building (revote $25,000), $30,000.
Louiseville-public building-addition, alterations and improvements (revote $10,000), $15,500.
Maisonneuve-public building, $125,000.
Montreal, Craig St. drill hall-repairs to walls (revote $75,000), $175,000.
Montreal, old post office building-alterations and improvements, $32,000.
Montreal-building for Delorimier postal station, $70,000.
Mont Laurier public building-addition,
[Stage Direction]
Mont Joli-public building-(revote $12,800), $19,500.
Phillipsburg-building for customs and immigration purposes, $30,000.
Port Alfred-public building, $15,000.
Princeville-public building. $10,000.
Pointe au Pic-public building (revote), $10,500.
Quebec-postal terminal building-(revote $252,000) (estimated cost $1,108,000), $700,000.
Quebec - immigration building - alterations and improvements, $7,500.
Quebec Savard park hospital-improvements, $5,700.
Rock Island customs and immigration building-addition to site, $20,000.
Rosemount-public building (revote $19,500), $39,000.
Ste. Eustache-public building, $15,000.
St. George de Beauce-public building (revote), $23,500.
St. Henri de Lauzon-public building, $12,500.
St. Jerome public building-improvements, $6,400.
St. Jovite-public building, $12,000.
St. Johns-customs building (revote $36,500), $65,000.
St. Ours-public building, $15,000.
St. Raymond-public building (revote), $9,000.	...	.
Ste. Scholastique-public building (revote), $13,000.
Sayabec-public building, $20,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
Sherbrooke-public building (estimated cost $240,000), $75,000.
Stanhope-purchase of property for customs purposes, $500.
Sutton-public building, $10,000.
Thetford Mines-public building (revote $25,000), $75,000.
Thurso-public building (revote), $14,500.
Trout River customs building-improvements to roadway, $4,500.
Warwick-public building, $15,000.
Wotton-public building, $16,000.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Why is this amount for a drill hall not placed in the estimates of the Department of National Defence instead of Public Works, and dealt with under the new system of presenting estimates for the defence department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For a number of years armouries and drill halls were built by the Department of National Defence, but lately, I should say in the last five years, a certain number of drill halls and armouries have been built by the Department of Public Works, while the Department of National Defence would build some others. In the last two years it has been decided that all these buildings should come under the public works department, and last year they were all so dealt with. This year the same course is being followed. The policy was changed a few years ago.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In the national defence
estimates this year a new system was adopted. Certain items were charged to ordinary account and other items to capital account. In what way will the buildings not brought under the public works department be dealt with? Will they be charged to the national defence department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. They will be in the same position as the ordinary buildings put up and maintained by the public works department.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to ask the minister one or two questions with reference to item 531. The Postmaster General was asked the other night whose duty it was to decide upon the need for public buildings, and what coordination there was between the Department of Public Works and the Post Office Department. Of course, the same question applies to other buildings for various uses-customs, immigration and certain municipal institutions. The Postmaster General said he had nothing to do with that policy. He intimated that the Minister of Public Works laid down the general policy as to where buildings should be erected, and that this was his duty under section 91 of the British North America Act.
I am not objecting to expenditures in Mont-

real-that city contributes largely to the revenues of the country-but what is the policy of the government with respect to requisitions submitted to the public works department for various buildings? That is my first question. Second, does the - policy of the department recognize necessity from the commercial point of view? Third, what are the revenues derived from these buildings? Fourth, I notice in the estimates for the province of Quebec provision for certain hospital improvements. Again, I am not particularly objecting to these expenditures, but I would point out that in the estimates of the Department of Labour I find similar provision in relation to unemployment. How does it come about that hospitals in Ontario are obliged to depend upon the municipalities for work of this description, while in Quebec and in some other places there is evidently favouritism, on the face of it?
I should like to know what the general policy of the government is in the matter of coordination of programs as between various departments and the Department of Public Works. Does the minister receive recommendations from the chief engineer in Montreal, say, with respect to item 531? If so, would he be good enough to let us know what those requisitions are? Did he receive any applications from federal members? It is quite apparent that Ontario is treated in a different way. Although it contributes enormously to the revenues of the country, we cannot get a nickel for hospitals. We have to depend upon other sources than the government for any work done in connection with these institutions. We have not even a decent post office. The work of the department in Toronto is scattered over a number of buildings. Again, I would ask whether the need for these buildings is carefully considered and whether any attention is paid to the commercial aspect, the revenue derived from the buildings, and so on. It is no wonder we have over-government and over-taxation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the particular instances mentioned by the hon. gentleman, requisitions have come to the Department of Public Works from the various departments concerned. The requisition with regard to the postal terminal in Toronto came from the Post Office Department. They contended that the building that had been provided was not large enough to take care of the service in that city. So far as the architecture is concerned, that is a matter for the Department of Public Works, but the necessity must be established by the Post Office Department. The same thing applies to Montreal; the requisition came from the postal authorities in that locality. In the

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
estimates put through a few days ago for the Department of Trade and Commerce, provision was made for a public building for research purposes. That building is required by the Department of Trade and Commerce, but we do not initiate anything. As I say, the need has to be established in a general way by the departments concerned. The Postmaster General was right when he said he had nothing to do with the buildings, meaning the erection of the buildings. As regards the hospital provided for in the province of Quebec, that is an immigration hospital in which immigrants are examined before being admitted into the country. It is not by any means a hospital in the ordinary sense of the word. It is a federal institution for immigration purposes. We have also military hospitals in which returned soldiers are taken care of. The federal government has nothing to do with the maintenance of ordinary hospitals in any locality. As to the main question of the policy of the department in Toronto, Montreal and other places, I repeat, the requisitions come to us from the different departments, and to a certain extent the public works department is the contractor.


Thomas Langton Church: One further question: At the next session will the minister please indicate the revenues from public buildings? I notice an item of $10,500 for a new building. I speak subject to correction, but according to what I read in the blue-book the revenue from that building is only $950. I suggest that next year the minister indicate in brackets after the item the revenue received. Fancy a bank or an insurance company putting up a building to cost $25,000 or $50,000 and producing only $300 to $350 revenue! The Department of Public Works should be run with a commercial aspect, and set the rest of Canada an example. The minister should show- in brackets the revenue expected from each of these buildings. Reading the report of the Postmaster General or of the immigration branch I can find little or no revenue.


Harry James Barber: The minister mentioned the hospital and immigrants. Are these hospitals used for any other purpose? Are the Canadian authorities supposed to take care of these immigrants for a certain period of time in these hospitals?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These hospitals are not used for any other purpose than taking care of immigrants.


Harry James Barber: How long are we supposed to take care of them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It depends. If it is discovered that these patients are suffering from
contagious diseases we cannot say in advance how long we shall have to keep them. It depends on the circumstances of each case.


Harry James Barber: I thought that came under the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The administration is looked after iby that department. The public works department erect the buildings.


Thomas Langton Church: What are the postal
revenues from the main cities of Canada? We have no post office in Toronto except the terminal at the station. We are contributing seven and a half million dollars for post office- out of a total of twenty-eight million dollars. What was the revenue from this post office in Quebec for the last three years to justify such a reconstruction program, especially when there is a deficit in the post office to-day? The post office should be run on a commercial basis the same as the banks are. The post office has a deficit; the men are not getting a living; postmen are walking the streets for $600 a year and cannot get any help; yet here we are spending $700,000 for a terminal that may be necessary-I am not saying it is not necessary. I like Quebec; it is a very important city-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Thomas Langton Church: We do not object to Quebec getting a building, I am glad to see them get it, but what policy has the government in view of what the Postmaster General said the other night that he is not consulted; that the public works decide when a building is necessary and all he has to do is to say "me too"? What are the postal revenues of Quebec city compared with those of other cities?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I see the Postmaster General is not in the chamber at present. I will undertake to notify him of the question of my hon. friend and ask him to bring down the information as soon as he can.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In connection with this vote of $700,000 for a postal terminal at Quebec, the largest amount in this item, where is that building to be situated? Is it an entirely new building? What facilities does it replace? Are the existing facilities not sufficient?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This building is to be erected next to the union station at Quebec. It is being built to replace the old post office. It will be similar to the Ottawa postal terminal; it is not a city post office but is for

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
the handling of all the mails coming to Quebec to be sorted there for all the territory. It is similar to the Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa postal terminals. It is rather a working establishment than an ordinary post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings.
5S2. Ontario.
Barry's Bay-public building (revote $4,200), $5,000.
Beaverton-public building (revote $12,000), $19,500.
Blind River-public building (revote $20,000), $25,000.
Brampton-public building-addition, $25,000.
Brighton-Public building (revote $13,100), $19,000.
Chapleau-public building, $20,000.
Cobden-public building (revote), $5,000.
Cornwall-public building-addition, $30,000.
Colborne-public building, $20,000.
Dryden

public building (revote $13,500), $19,500.
Forest-public building (revote), $4,500.
Kapuskasing-public building (revote $25,000), $27,000.
Mattawa-public building, $21,000.
Millbrook-public building, $14,000.
Oshawa-public building (estimated cost $317,000), $100,000.
Ottawa - building for Supreme Court, $1,300,000.
Ottawa central heating plant-improvements and repairs, $21,000.
Ottawa-improvements to Confederation park, including compensation to the Ottawa Electric Railway Company, $295,000.
Ottawa-Parliament hill-walks and roadways, $6,000.
Ottawa-improvements to John St., $7,200.
Ottawa

post office (revote $325,000), $514,500.
Ottawa - Langevin block - improvements, $19,500.
Ottawa - National Research building-improvements and alterations, $11,500.
Oakville-public building (revote $20,000), $22,500.
Peterborough-public building (estimated cost $250,000), $100,000.
Port Hope-public building-addition and alterations, $5,000.
Ridgeway-public building, $15,000.
Schreiber-public building, $18,000.
South Porcupine-public building, $35,500.
Stirling-public building (revote $14,300), $17,500.
Sutton West-public building, $10,000.
Tara - public building (revote $12,250), $14,000.
Thessalon-public building, $20,000.
Tweed-public building (revote), $16,500.
Woodville-public building, $17,000.
Mr. MacNICOL; Referring to the item for the new supreme court building, I wish to say a word in reference to the heating and air conditioning. I have no doubt that the design of the building generally is very beautiful; from what we can see so far it

looks as if it is going to be a splendid addition to the public buildings of Ottawa. But looking over the specifications for the 'heating I find that notwithstanding that the hot water main which heats all these central buildings runs right under it, the new supreme court building is to be heated by another system. The engineer who laid out the first central heating plant for the government buildings was one of the eminent engineers of America, Mr. Melvern F. Thomas. He worked under two celebrated architects. He laid out what was designed to be the most economical heating system possible, which I believe it is. It is so efficient that this whole central building is heated for four months during the winter, without a dollar of cost, from exhaust steam which operates some of the equipment in the central boiler plant along the river, and which would otherwise go to waste. I do not know whether the engineers of the department have approved this proposed heating system; I intend to find out. I know from long experience that the department has a heating engineer of very high standing, whose name, I understand, is-
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. F. O. Hamel.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was thinking of
Mr. Hamel, who is one of the most competent and efficient engineers in Canada. I have the utmost confidence in Mr. Hamel, and if he has approved what is going in there, I would have nothing more to say on the subject.
In years past I had a good deal to do with this type of engineering, although perhaps I have now forgotten most of what I knew. But I know well the cardinal objectives we kept before us in laying out -hot-water heating and air-conditioning systems, the latter having come in about the time I left that calling. As objective number one we kept before us the most satisfactory equipment. Number two was to keep down the first cost, so far as might be consistent with first-class equipment. The third objective was low cost of maintenance, and the fourth was low cost, of operation. The original system specified for the central heating of all these government buildings fulfilled all four of these cardinal objectives. In our central heating plant in Ottawa I believe we have one of the most economical systems, if not the most economical in Canada. It is what is known as a forced hot water system. The specifications for the mechanical apparatus for the supreme court building which I have here call for a large amount of the most complicated equipment, to which I shall refer in a moment. I am satisfied that had they called for the same type of system as that by

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
which this building is heated it might not cost half as much money. I may be wrong, but the departmental engineers can tell; I know the minister has altogether too much to do to deal with a matter of this kind, and perhaps he does not bother with it at all. I am going to ask the minister to ask his chief engineer whether the system which is to foe installed in the supreme court building, if it is anything like what I have just said, will not be much more costly than would have been the *case if that building had been heated by forced hot water from the central heating plant.
Then there is the cost of maintenance. From my own experience I am as sure as I can be that the cost of maintaining this proposed heating system will be infinitely greater than the cost of maintaining a system such as we have in this building. To begin with I believe there are six pumps to take the condensation back to the central boiler building. So far as I know there are only two pumps used for forcing hot water through the whole central block of buildings. How many judges have we down there at the supreme court, or how many are we going to have? Are there to be a hundred or two hundred judges, to require such an extensive heating system and so much equipment?
Then I am sure the cost of operation, with these batteries of pumps, motors and valves to reduce the high pressure steam to low pressure-which would be wholly unnecessary if the central heating plant had been used- will be much greater. I am not finding fault with the plan; this proposed system may be so perfect that there has never been anything like it in the world before, and that may account for the costly equipment that is called for. As I understand it, the central heating plant which serves this central block of buildings requires only a few operators, but I believe it will take quite a staff to operate all the equipment to be installed in this new building. Nothing can be done about it now, because I believe all the contracts have been let, but I hope in future whoever is Minister of Public Works will see to it that the chief engineer of the department-one of the best in Canada-gives his O.K. to whatever equipment is used in government buildings erected in this central group in this city. I do not say that O.K. has not been given in this case, but I should like to know whether or not it has. I have a very high regard for the chief engineer, and I can hardly conceive that he would O.K. what is going in the supreme court building.
Then, when it comes to air-conditioning, one night on my way to Toronto I overheard
a conversation between two engineers. I did not know them then. I do not know them now, but having had some experience in air conditioning a few years ago I at once pricked up my ears and became interested in what they were saying. What they said may not be true, but they were very hostile about the fact that they could not figure on the air conditioning equipment. One of them said, "There is no equipment like it in Canada, and I know of only one similar installation in the United States." He may not have known of all the equipment of that type that has been installed in the United States; there may be installations for all he knew and for all I know.	What I paid particular
attention to, however, was their attitude towards a situation to which I have always been very hostile myself; that is, a specification sewed up so tight that only one firm could figure on it. I can remember back some years to when I used to call on the engineers of the Department of Public Works in this city to discuss specifications. Never did I suggest to them to specify one line of equipment. I always suggested to leave their specifications open, merely calling for standard Canadian material and one hundred per cent efficiency. I heard one engineer tell the other, "I saw so and so, and it was no use; I could not figure on it." The other gentleman replied that he could not figure on it either; then I became interested and looked into the matter.
I have in my hand one of the principal engineering journals of the United States, which is called Heating, Piping and AirConditioning, which gives the names of many of the leading firms manufacturing air conditioning equipment, such as:	Baker Ice
Machine, Worthington, Air Temp, Curtis, Brunner, York-perhaps the oldest of all and the one with the most experience, according to this magazine, having been manufacturing for fifty-four years-Carrier, which I believe is installed in the new Bank of Canada building, Kelvinator, Frick, Vilter and many others. Each of these famous companies has been barred from figuring on this equipment. I have been told, and I believe the statement to be correct-though of course I speak subject to correction-that according to these specifications only one firm, whose name I do not know, could figure on this installation. I heard one of the engineers add, "And it costs twice as much." Similar equipment might have been supplied for half the price, but it may be that the type that is being installed is worth twice as much; I do not know, but I do maintain that these specifications should

Supply-Public W orks-Buildings
have been wide open so that any company manufacturing one hundred per cent efficient equipment could have had the opportunity of figuring.
I want to be fair; I am not finding fault with what is going in, because for all I know this may be the finest equipment made. What I am finding fault with is that any specifications of the dominion government should be so sewed up that only one firm [DOT] could figure. And I do stress the fact that of all the buildings in this central heating area the one above all others that should have been heated from the central heating plant is the new supreme court building. Why, the forced hot-water main runs right underneath the supreme court building, but these specifications call for a main bringing steam into the new building, which steam will have to be greatly reduced in pressure before it can be used.
Then I find that the specifications call for 500 gallons of hot water per hour, or two batteries of 250 gallons each, to provide the hot water for domestic purposes. Well, the judges must be going to wash themselves every second and a half. They will be able to invite all the judges in Canada to come there and wash, and still there will be lots of hot water. We have nothing like that in this main building. The equipment in use here is modern ; I venture to say that it costs little to operate or maintain, and certainly it is very satisfactory. You cannot turn on a hot water faucet anywhere in this building where you will not find plenty of hot water available.
I do not want the minister to think I am finding fault, 'because I am not. Having had experience in this line of business, however, and having accidentally overheard the conversation to which I referred, I thought it my duty to inquire into the matter and this is the result of my inquiries.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I must thank my hon. friend for the moderation of his observations on a question about which hd seems to be much concerned and, so far as I can gather from his remarks, in connection with which he has had some experience. I am told that the new supreme court building is to be heated from the central heating plant in Ottawa. There may have been some discussion between the architect who designed the building, the assistant architect, and the assistant engineer in the department who looks after heating, as to what systems and methods of procedure should be used, but my information is that all points have been cleared up and an agreement has been concluded so far as heating is concerned. My information also is that there will be no large increase

in the staff in order to take care of the system and that it will not cost any more than any ordinary system. Of course, I speak subject to correction because I have not the details before me, and I am sure my hon. friend would not expect me to have all this information. The department is open to my hon. friend, and I invite him to come and discuss this matter with the engineers. He will be welcome and we will take advantage of his experience.
There was also a certain amount of discussion between the officers of the department and the architect in connection with the air-conditioning system. After discussing various points they came to an understanding as to the system to be used. The specifications were not drawn with a view to favouring any firm or individual. We always take care in the department not to bind ourselves to any class of material or to any firm or manufacturer. We try to leave matters open to all contractors and manufacturers provided they can produce the results we expect from the machinery or supplies required. The machinery and materials going to make up the air-conditioning system which will be installed in the supreme court building will be supplied by Canadian firms.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And manufactured in
Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Manufactured in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: One hundred per cent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One hundred per cent.
Perhaps I am answering a little too quickly, but I would say that the percentage of Canadian labour in the system we are installing is much greater than it would be in any other system proposed. My hon. friend has referred to certain firms, but if my information is correct they are all United States firms which do not manufacture in Canada to any extent. It .may be a compliment to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), but the firm manufacturing this system is located in that city. I repeat what I said in connection with the heating system. The air-conditioning system will not be installed for some time, and I invite my hon. friend to give us the benefit of his views and experience in connection with matters of this kind. I can assure him that we are not paying any substantially greater amounts for the heating and air-conditioning systems we are installing in the supreme court building. If my hon. friend is able to convince me to the contrary after discussing the matter with the officers of my department, I am open to conviction.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


John Ritchie MacNicol: In view of the fact that the hot-water main which heats this building runs right under the new supreme court building I cannot understand why an engineer would specify anything but hot-water heating for that building. However, I shall be glad to accept the minister's invitation to investigate further. I did not want to do that before bringing up the matter in the committee. The engineers that I overheard on the train must have been entirely mistaken because one said to the other that the air-conditioning system was not being manufactured in Canada. I do not know what type of equipment is being used in the Bank of Canada building, but it seems to be giving first-class satisfaction. I am glad to hear that the equipment which has been OJCd by the minister is to be made in the home town of my genial, good natured and good looking friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With a view to stimulating employment in Canada and in an effort to relieve the unemployment situation, between the years 1930 and 1933, I think somewhere around 1932, the Department of Public Works introduced a standard clause into all specifications in connection with contracts let by that department. This clause provided that the materials required in the construction or operation of a building must be, first, Canadian if available; second, British if available, and then if they could not be obtained from Canadian or British sources, resort could be had to other sources of supply. From what the minister 'has said, I assume that this standard clause is still in the specifications of the Department of Public WTorks. I am glad to hear that, and I hope it will continue to be used. I think Canadian manufacturers can supply practically every kind of material and equipment satisfactory for Canadian requirements.
This item for the supreme court building is $1,300,000. Frankly, that appears to be a large expenditure for a building to provide accommodation for nine judges-seven supreme court judges and two exchequer court judges. There will be judges' chambers and library accommodation, which will probably be extensive. The supreme court has the finest legal library in Canada, and the present accommodation is altogether inadequate. I have no doubt that suitable and ample accommodation is being provided for the protection and expansion of that excellent library. Then there is the courtroom itself, which by the way does not require to accommodate a vast number of people. Not many people" attend the sittings of the court in the ordinary course apart from counsel and
those immediately interested in the sittings. The building itself is large in extent and, of course, must be modern in every respect, but $1,300,000 does appear a large amount. What is the reason for this cost? I admit that a building which houses the Supreme Court of Canada ought to be beautiful, and fine from an architectural point of view; it should be good in every sense of the word.
Someone has stated, and I believe it is correct, that extensive garage accommodation is being provided in connection with the building. Accommodation of that kind is perhaps necessary and desirable, and that may in some measure account for what looks like a large expenditure. If the minister could justify what does appear to be a very large expenditure on a comparatively small building, I am sure the committee would be pleased to receive his explanation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: First, I must say that the terraces surrounding the building and the garage accommodation are included in the cost. So far as the general requirements for the building are concerned, the architect, before ever he started on his designs for the building, had several consultations with the chief justice of the supreme court and with the judges of the exchequer court, which is also to be housed in this building and after checking up on the recommendations and requests made by the judges of the supreme court, and particularly the chief justice, the architect began work on his designs. He did not start by designing and then afterwards ask the judges if they were satisfied; he consulted them first, and the building he has designed answers the requirements placed before him and before a committee by the judges of the supreme court. I think that is the proper way for an architect to proceed in designing a building of any kind, to make sure first what the requirements as to floor space are, and then make his designs in accordance with the requirements. That is the general procedure followed, and I am informed that the building as it has been designed by the architect meets the requirements of the judges of the supreme court.
I confess to my hon. friend that I am not competent to go into all the details, but I heartily endorse what he has said as to the importance of having a building of which we shall be proud rather than ashamed for the housing of the highest tribunal in this land, and possibly our court of last resort if a proposal now before the house is carried out. I think it is a good investment for a country like Canada to have, as my hon. friend suggests, a building which will be a source of pride to house the highest tribunal of the

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
dominion. There is no extravagance about the building. It is simply being built in accordance with the requirements and the desire to have a building in which we can take pride and which visitors to our country will look upon with a certain degree of satisfaction.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In a general way I agree entirely with what the minister states as to the nature of the building. Would he tell the committee the extent of the garage accommodation that is being provided, how many cars will be accommodated, who will make use of the garage space provided, and also give the name of the contractor?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contractor is the
Anglin-Norcross Corporation, which is a reputable firm. The garage space will accommodate 165 cars. It is to be used not only by people in the supreme court building but by people working in the neighbouring buildings.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will they pay rent for the use of the garage for their cars?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: So far no provision has been made as to rental. That may be considered.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not see why they should be rent free when all the rest of us have to pay rent.


Harry James Barber: What is the estimated cost of completing this building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total cost, when everything is completed, will be a little over three million dollars.


Harry James Barber: A return that was brought down for me a short time ago gave the estimated cost to complete as $3,360,000. We know that the justice building, which is completed, cost $1,365,811.37, and it is a great deal larger than the supreme court building. What is the reason for the big difference in the cost. I was in a committee not long ago where one hon. gentleman opposite made the statement that we were erecting a building costing $5,000,000 to house five men. I do not agree with him. We are putting up a building which will cost $3,360,000 to house seven men. I should like to know the reason for the difference in the cost between the justice building and the supreme court building.


Ernest Lapointe: The
supreme court building is to house the litigants of Canada who come to the supreme court. It is not seven men; it is the whole of Canada.


Harry James Barber: I wish to take issue with the minister. To house the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the justice department we
(Mr. Cardin.)
had a building erected at a cost of $1,365,000, while the supreme court building is to cost pretty nearly double, $3,360,000.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not the same type of building.


Harry James Barber: But consider what we are housing in each instance.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no court house in the mounted police building.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The estimated cost for the building itself is $2,500,000. The balance goes for supervision, fittings, the library, equipment for the whole building, provision for a garage and the terraces surrounding the building.


Harry James Barber: What is the total cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The estimated total cost is $3,360,000, which includes the building itself, the equipment of the interior, the terraces surrounding the building, and the garage.


Harry James Barber: But take the justice building; surely the sum of $1,365,811.37 includes the fittings as well. We have not any garage there. That includes everything?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed1 that the
figure my hon. friend has mentioned does not include interior fittings of the justice building. That is only for the building.


Harry James Barber: That is the total cost as supplied to me by the department.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, for the building itself, probably. But it is not the same class of building.


Harry James Barber: It is on the same return.


Ernest Lapointe: May I
say a word about that? The justice building is an office building. Surely my hon. friend does not think that the Supreme Court of Canada should have an office building? There are three powers in this land: the legislative power, the executive power, and the judicial power. My hon. friend is a part of the legislative power; he is well housed in this building, which has cost a good deal more than the supreme court building will cost. The executive power is housed in all the buildings of the government of Canada. It was a disgrace to this country to have the supreme court, the highest court of the land, housed in this old workshop. I remember that when the attorney general of Australia was here a few years ago and I was the Minister of Justice, he wanted to go to the supreme court and I was ashamed to take him to that building. It is high time that we in Canada

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
should have a supreme court building which is in harmony with the buildings of the other powers of the land, and one of which every Canadian may be proud.


Harry James Barber: I certainly agree with the
Minister of Justice that the housing of the supreme court has been a disgrace. But the question I have raised about the cost was stated by one of his own supporters in the committee. The difference in the cost of the two buildings is one which concerns the public of this country.


David Spence: My opinion is that there
are no departments so antiquated as the public works department and the Post Office Department. They seem to have no business administration whatever; nobody seems to know anything about what anything costs or what it may cost. I have no more complaint to make of the present Minister of Public Works than of any of his predecessors. All of them appear to be imbued with the same spirit; they do not seem to know anything nor do they want to know anything. If they had a proper accounting system, as they should have, when the Post Office Department or any other department asked for a building of certain dimensions the public works department should be able to say, "That will cost you so much." Nothing is charged against the Post Office Department, and that department reports that it makes a million and a half dollars a year. It is charged nothing by the public works department for providing the cleaning, the extra men and the other services pertaining to the post office. I have repeatedly suggested to the committee that the public works department should charge against each department what it does for that department and so ascertain what that department is costing.
The hon. member for Davenport gave a good illustration of how things are operating at present. The system which heats this building goes under the justice building, yet a new heating system is supplied for that building alone. All the administration buildings should be under the same system, which could then be operated at half the cost that is required to-day. There is no study of economy. I find the same trouble with all the Postmasters General; they do not seem to know anything; they do not care to know anything; but I will say this, that the last Postmaster General was getting nearer to perfection than any other Postmaster General I ever knew. The first year he came here he knew nothing at all; the next year he improved. The third year he improved yet further and was able to give us a certain
amount of information. Now we have another Postmaster General starting in new, and I suppose he will not know much until he has been here for some years. I am not criticizing particularly the individual, but I say that the whole administration of this government is absolutely rotten to the core from the point of view of economy. I do not mean that there is any graft; I say that no consideration at all is given to administration from the point of view of economy.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the former government?


David Spence: The hon. member did not hear me eulogizing the former government, did he? Governments of all kinds are the same. But when the leader of the last government was in power, one could not get away with much extravagance, because he was keeping his eye on everything. He had an eye to business, and nobody could get away with anything which was not entirely legal, honourable and honest. In so far as spending money was concerned, I will say that for the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, the former leader of our party.


Robert Emmett Finn: He has taken his eye off you now.


David Spence: I cannot hear the hon. member. It is a shame that when the public works department do a job for any other department, it is not charged up to the department which receives the service. If that were done we could find out how much the Post Office Department makes. As I stated before, they tell you they make so many millions a year, but so many items are not charged against them that at the end of the year they do not know whether they make or lose. That is no way for any department to be run, and that kind of thing goes on because the public works department has no proper accounting system and does not know what it is doing. It is not a good method of administration; the whole thing should be changed so that we may know exactly what each department is losing or making. At any rate that is my view of the matter from a business point of view. There is not a bit of excuse for the Minister of Public Works, because he is just as smooth as anybody else and he can rise in his place and make excuses all the time for what he is doing; but when he tells you that if the post office makes a demand for a building he must consent to it, he knows quite well that he can refuse to construct a building which is larger than is required, or he can tell the department, "You do not need a building at all." That is what he
4832	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
should be prepared to say if necessary, and if he has not that power he should not be public works minister at all. I hope the government will show some common sense and try to administer the affairs of the nation as a private firm administers its own business. We can all realize that any company which ran its business in the way that this government administers the business of this country would go bankrupt in no time, because its present methods are nothing but a waste of money in order to please this, that or the other fellow who wants a contract or something of the kind.
I hate to repeat what I have said; but as the hon. member for Davenport pointed out, this heating system is just one indication of the lack of decent, good judgment. In the city of Toronto all these buildings are centrally heated; The Royal York and station "A" are heated by the one system, the same as are the parliament buildings and the colleges. Why could not all the buildings- the administrative blocks, the justice building and the new supreme court building-be heated by the same system so that a great deal of money would be saved? Economy everywhere should be our watchword. We must do everything we can to save money in the interests of Canada and of the common people. Our debts are growing; our taxpayers are getting harder up, and the time is coming when the whole thing will stop, because this country's obligations cannot be carried much longer by only eleven million people. They are all bankrupt even though they will not admit it.


Mr. HANSON:: Will the hon. member
answer a question?


David Spence: If the hon. member will
speak up, I will answer it if I can.


Olof Hanson: Is the hon. member figuring that the Department of Public Works should be a money-making proposition, or is the purpose of the department to try to develop and assist Canada in different directions-to do something for the nation?


David Spence: I would not say that it
was a money-making proposition. The trouble is simply carelessness and indifference as to how money is being spent, and probably trying to oblige a number of political friends to whom they want to give a contract or something of that kind.


Ernest Lapointe: You are
pretty bad!


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps my first word
should be, on behalf of ministers of the department, of the past, of the present and of the

future, one of grateful acknowledgement to the tribute which the hon. member who has just spoken has paid us.


Olof Hanson: Which member?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We will take the compliments from whatever source they come; they are rare indeed. The other item in regard to which I should like to get some additional information is the one of $295,000 which reads:
Ottawa, improvements to confederation park, including compensation to Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
We know that some quite impressive, extensive and beautiful improvements have been made recently in the city of Ottawa round confederation park. A wonderful improvement has taken place. But here we have $295,000 which this government is contributing, and in it is included an item of compensation to the Ottawa Electric Railway Company. I understand that some of the tracks of that company in this area were taken up and their use for street-cars was, of course, discontinued. Buses have been substituted. How much was paid to the company in this connection?
It occurs to me that the present tendency is to get away from street-cars and to use buses instead. In fact, I doubt very much whether any company starting in the field of providing transportation in a city like Ottawa would put down tracks at all. There are disadvantages and objections to their use. There is no elasticity to the service provided by the old fixed and established trolley and track system. The new system of buses involves a smaller initial capital investment, provides greater elasticity of service and enables the company from time to time to adapt their service to changing conditions and developments, to movements from one part of the city to another even from day to day, and on special occasions to accommodate that service to the volume of traffic that is moving in the city as a whole or in any particular area. What does suggest itself to one is that under such conditions it would be really to the advantage of the Ottawa Electric Railway Company to adopt a bus service, and the wonder is why they should get some compensation for adapting their service to modern requirements. Perhaps the minister would break down the item and give us the expenditures in different directions, indicating particularly how much is involved in this particular item to which I refer.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $295,000 is to provide for the completion of all improvements to confederation park, including the

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
widening of the bridge, construction of roadways and sidewalks, terracing round the national memorial, and so forth. I can give the various details if the hon. member would like to have them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Please.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These are the amounts:
Improvements to confederation park and widening bridge, under contract, Goldie Construction Company, $10,000.
Roadways, sidewalks, terracing around national memorial, under contract with Robertson company, $178,000.
Re federal district commission, grading roads, etc., $20,000.
Sidewalks and roadways, $27,000.
Compensation to Ottawa street railway, $25,000.
Supervision, $2,744.
Contingencies, $31,000.
We are paying this compensation to the Ottawa Electric Railway Company to induce them to make a real start in the abolition of the street railways and the adoption of the bus system. Perhaps as a general rule it might cost the company in the long run less to operate buses than to continue with the use of car tracks, but that is not true when they are starting on the movement. They have to be to some extent induced to abandon the old system and adopt the new. Had we not contributed this sum of $25,000 to the company we should have been forced to pay a certain amount for re-laying the tracks along Elgin street joining the island in confederation park. That amount would have been more than $12,000. We would have had to pay them that sum, and the old system would still have remained. We thought it advisable therefore, with a view to getting a start in the right direction, to make the contribution. Moreover, it adds to the beauty of the park. The street railway company absolutely refused to agree to the change without compensation. They believed that they could continue to their own advantage the use of car tracks on Elgin street for a number of years without having to think of changing to the new system. The existing equipment would have lasted a long while, and it would have been to their advantage not to undertake any new capital expenditure in procuring buses. It was with a view to facilitating and hastening the change as far as possible that we agreed to the compensation, so that the buses could be introduced this year instead of next year or two or three years hence. This amount is partly compensated by the amount we saved, which would otherwise have been paid for re-laying the tracks on Elgin street.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a word on this excellent development. I fancy that if the whole cost were tabulated it would run into many millions. We removed the old Russell hotel and theatre and the church-


David Spence: And the post office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the post office, and the total cost would amount to over five million dollars.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Away more than that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, many millions of dollars. I notice already that the dear people of Ottawa are acquiring the habit of parking cars, some not bad looking cars, many of them disreputable looking, round the islands in the square. Surely we have not spent many millions of dollars to provide a cheap parking place for residents of Ottawa.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That will not be tolerated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But it is being tolerated, and once a thing like that starts-I notice it every evening-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They may be the cars of persons working there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, they are not, because they come there and stay for several hours when the men are not working at all.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The situation will be changed when the work is completed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I spoke to some of the police in an informal way, and they said they were having and would have great difficulty in dealing with the matter. When a thing like that starts, it is extremely difficult to stop it. Cars should not be allowed to park there, because it destroys the beauty of the whole area. Millions of dollars having been expended for beautifying that area-and it is a magnificent job, apart from the cost feature-let us see to it that the Ottawa folk do not get started using it as a cheap parking place, ,


Harry James Barber: What is the cost of this work? Does confederation park include Connaught place? What is the expenditure to date, including the memorial?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The expenditure for that park is nearly two million dollars. That includes the monument itself, which cost $168,223. The contract awarded to Cape and Company for the granite work of the monument totalled $124,573. The contract to A. W. Robertson and Company for the steps and sidewalks and renovation of the streets

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
and terraces amounted to $191,000-I am leaving out the odd figures. The contract to Goldie Construction Company for the widening of the bridge over the canal and the tracks was $325,912. Then there is compensation to Ottawa electric railway, $25,000, and incidentals including work done by federal district commission, $50,000. And I am including the construction of the new post office at the corner of Sparks and Elgin streets, the cost of which is going to be $644,000.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not part of the park.


David Spence: For that building, $644,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. And the properties that we expropriated at the comer of Sparks and Elgin streets cost $396,000.


Harry James Barber: What is that for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the expropriation of the two Hope properties and one Booth property, the site of the new post office. The total of the items I have just given is $1,924,000. That, I take it, would be the cost of confederation park as we have it now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What about the expropriation of the Russell hotel and the church?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was just going to mention that this does not include the cost of expropriation of the old Russell hotel and the old buildings. This takes into account the development of the park as we started to make it in the last two years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the cost of the other expropriation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I have not that now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It runs into several million dollars.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Another item is the Peterborough public building, estimated cost $250,000. I suppose that building will provide for all the public services there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I recall it, we already have a public building there now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is to be done with the old building? Is it to be abandoned entirely?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have not yet decided what we will do with that building, but representations were made to me that the

service could not be properly accommodated in the buildings we have in Peterborough; that a new building was required to meet the needs of the service in that city.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not a new issue; the question of a public building for Peterborough has been up for some years. Apparently they have been able to make out a better case in the last year or two than they were able to put forward in years gone by. As I recall it, the case was not a convincing one. Perhaps they have been able to bring some additional, more powerful arguments, to bear upon the minister than those they were able to bring in years gone by when conditions were practically the same.
There is in this vote another item upon which I think the minister should make a complete, comprehensive and chronological statement to the committee in considerable detail; that is, the public building at Tweed. The minister knows quite well that this has been the subject of extensive and sustained newspaper comment in Ontario. It is one of those cases that crop up from time to time where there is a dispute in the community, first as to the site of a public building, and a real difference of opinion as to whether a public building is necessary at all. As I recall it, the policy of the department in years gone by when these disputes arose was to wait and allow the local parties to compose their differences before a public building was constructed. That seems to me a sound policy. So long as a community is divided in opinion as to the site of a public building or the need for it the public vrorks department should go slowly about taking any action whatever until the municipality is agreed as to the site or the need for the building. If I am correctly informed, that situation has not been reached, in Tweed. One site was acquired; it was sold and negotiations took place between the municipality and the government in connection with an exchange of site. Finally another site was selected in a different part of the town, again against the wish of the municipal council, and against resolutions and petitions sent in by the residents of that municipality.
If I am correct in that statement, which is the one that has appeared in the press, I am at a loss to understand why there should be such persistence on the part of the Department of Public Works in forcing a public building upon this community. I believe this is a case in which the minister should be prepared to make a complete statement, because if the condition is as I have stated, it is a very disturbing state of affairs, which is altogether unsatisfactory and certainly should be cleared up. So I ask the minister to give

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
the committee, in his own way and from the beginning, a complete, chronological, comprehensive review of the whole situation, including the decision finally arrived at and the reasons for that decision, whether or not this building is to be constructed and any other information the minister feels should be given to the public at this time in explanation of this extraordinary situation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly I would have
felt a great deal more uneasy than I do at the moment if the discussion of this item had occurred a month ago, because in the interval new developments have taken place which entirely change the picture that has been drawn by my hon. friend. The construction of this building was decided a couple of years ago, and a site was acquired in what is known as the southern section of the village of Tweed. Representations were made to the department that this site was not proper and that it would not be convenient for the population to have a public building erected at that location. As a result of these representations the department did not proceed with the building but looked round for another site, which we discovered in the northern section of the village and acquired in exchange for the first site. We advertised for tenders, and when we were nearly at the point of awarding the contract, representations were made by members of the municipal council and others to the effect that the second site was not satisfactory to the residents of the village. I received petitions, letters and delegations supporting both sides of the argument. Some desired to have the public building on the site in the northern part of the village, commonly known as the Quinn site. Others said that site was no good because it was not in the centre of the community. Resolutions were passed by the municipal council protesting against the construction of that building on the Quinn site, and I continued to receive petitions and delegations suggesting that we should seek still another site.
Finally a representative of the department was sent to Tweed to look over the situation for the third time. That representative thought he had found in the centre of the village a site that we could acquire. After investigating that site and ascertaining the price, we were told that the proprietor, who at first had been ready to sell, refused to dispose of the property, which was considered to be well located in tl\e centre of the village about midway between the Greer site in the south and the Quinn site in the north. After some negotiations the members of the
municipal council came to Ottawa and offered to furnish the department with a site in the centre of the village, known as the Tweed hydro building, and they declared themselves ready to exchange that site for the Quinn site we had acquired in the second instance. The municipal council, in view of the favourable reception with which that offer was met, passed a resolution expressing their satisfaction at having this public building erected in their village and saying this was the first time in the history of Tweed that money had been spent there by the federal authorities. They also expressed their appreciation for the attention their requests had received. Everyone agrees that the building-in accordance with the policy explained by my hon. friend- is to be erected in the centre of the village on that hydro site, if we can accommodate the plans to it. I should explain that the site now being offered by the municipality is a long and very narrow piece of land, and we are trying to accommodate our plans to it and at the same time satisfy the Post Office Department in regard to the space that will be provided for them.
I can assure my hon. friend, as he suggests, that if no understanding is arrived at between the interested parties, that is, the municipal council and the residents of the village, that public building will not be erected. Construction has not yet been commenced, although the money was voted last year, because we wanted to meet the requirements of the people and to satisfy at least a majority of the residents. As the matter stands to-day, as recently as May 8 a resolution was passed by the municipal council of Tweed expressing satisfaction at the erection of that public building and commending the government for it. But there must be agreement between all the people concerned; if there is not, the building will not be erected.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Would the minister
give the details in regard to the addition to the Brampton public building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is to provide for the constmction of a one-storey addition and alterations to the pulblic building, as requested by the deputy postmaster general in letters dated April 9 and May 31, 1938. The estimated costs are as follows:
One-storey addition, 30 x 20, $12,000.
Alterations, $5,000.
Post office screen, $6,000.
Supervision, $750.
Contingencies, $1,250.


Gordon Graydon: When will the work be
started?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Without delay.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
Chief architect's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings.
534. Saskatchewan.
Biggar-public building (revote $13,400), $25,500.
Blaine Lake-public building, $15,000.
Eston-public building, $15,000.
Lanigan-public building, $12,000.
Nipawin-public building, $20,000.
Regina-public building-installation of elevator, $15,000.
St. Walburg-public building, $15,000.
Saskatoon public building-improvements to heating, $4,600.
Wynyard-public building (revote $14,400), $20,500.
Yorkton-armoury (under contract) (revote $34,000), $36,000.


George Halsey Perley: Could the minister give us some details with .respect to these public buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The buildings at Biggar, Blaine Lake, Eston, Lanigan, Nipawin, St. Walburg and Wynyard are all for postal purposes.


George Halsey Perley: The minister will recall that in the supplementary estimates last year there was a vote for the purchase of a building at Sintaluta for postal purposes. When I inquired last year I was told that the department was negotiating for the building, and it would likely go through. I understand the purchase has not been completed, and I should like to know the reason for the delay.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Post Office Department investigated the matter and informed us that the building was not suitable for their purposes.


George Halsey Perley: There are no negotiations under way for the purchase of that building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the case of these post office buildings did requests come originally from the Post Office Department for their erection ?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not want to deceive anyone, so I must say that requests do not come in all instances from the Post Office Department, but in practically all instances we have a recommendation from the Post Office Department as to the necessity of erecting a postal building.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Were any of the buildings covered by any of the votes erected without the approval of the Post Office Department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. There are certain instances where we have no requests from the Post Office Department, but they always say

that they will be very glad to have the building. I would say that in ninety per cent and probably ninety-five per cent of the cases there is a recommendation from the Post Office Department as to the need of erecting such a building.


Mr. McNIVEN:: In what public building in Regina is an elevator to be installed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In what is known as the old public building.


Donald Alexander McNiven: That is the present post office building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings.
536. British Columbia.
Alberni-public building, $18,000.
Armstrong-public building (revote $15,000), $23,500.
Dawson Creek-public building, $25,000.
Merritt-public building, $15,000.
Nelson public building-addition, $15,500.
New Westminster public building-addition (revote), $170,000.
Powell River - public building (revote), $8,500.
Prince George - public building (revote $22,500), $35,000.
Vancouver winch building-alterations and repairs, $22,000.
Vancouver immigration building-repairs and improvements, $8,500.
V ancouver examining warehouse-improvements, $19,000.
Victoria-public building (estimated cost $350,000), $100,000.
William Head quarantine station-alterations and repairs to residences, $6,500.
Harry James Barber: It would facilitate matters if the minister would give the particulars of each of the items in this vote.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The buildings at Alberni and Armstrong are for postal purposes.


Harry James Barber: What is the total cost of the Armstrong building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is $23,500. The building at Dawson Creek is to accommodate the postal and telegraph services. The building at Merritt is for postal purposes. The addition to the public building at Nelson is for post office services. An addition is to be built to the public building at New Westminster to provide accommodation in that city for government services.


Harry James Barber: What is the total expenditure in connection with that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total expenditure is $170,000. The building at Powell River is for

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
postal purposes and customs and telegraph services. The building at Prince George is for postal and customs services. There are two or three items covering alterations and repairs. The building at Victoria is for all services.


Harry James Barber: Is that the public building which was under construction some years ago?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Harry James Barber: Does this complete the
building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is to erect the building. An appropriation was provided in the estimates a number of years ago, but the building was not proceeded with.


Harry James Barber: This does not complete the building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is the estimated cost of the new building. The amount provided for William Head quarantine station is for alterations and repairs to the existing building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
540. Nova Scotia.
Anisaig-breakwater extension, $17,200.
Bayfield-wharf repairs, $11,000.
Bay St, Lawrence-breakwater repairs, $8,500.
Black Point-wharf extension, $4,500.
Boylston-to purchase and repair wharf, $4,000.
Bridgewater-dredging, $3,100.
Brooklyn-breakwater repairs and improvements (revote $53,600), $160,200.
Burlington-wharf extension, $3,300.
Caribou Harbour-'improvements (revote $89,700), $201,900.
Chegoggin Point-breakwater extension, $8,800.
Cheticamp-wharf extension and repairs, $4,600.
Cole Harbour-wharf, $7,500.
Comeauville-breakwater (revote), $14,000.
Cow Bay (Port Morien)-breakwater extension, $4,900.
Cribbin's Point-dredging (revote $6,300), $10,700.
Digby-wharf repairs and renewals, $7,500.
Dingwall-harbour improvements (revote $87,700), $209,000.
East Berlin (west side)-breakwater-wharf and skidway, $3,700.
East Port Le Hebert-wharf repairs and improvements, $6,300.
Englishtown-wharf extension, $3,300.
Estmere-wharf (revote), $3,400.
Falls Point-breakwater extension, $6,000.
Fpurchu-dredging, $8,100.
Great Village-wharf repairs, $7,000.
Green Bay-breakwater, $5,000.
Iona-wharf extension, $20,200.
La Have dredging (revote $1,900) to complete contract, $2,400.
L'Ardoise Beach-groyne, $4,100.
Little Harbour-breakwater extension, $14,300.
Lower Sandy point-breakwater extension, $5,300.
Lunenburg-dredging, $5,000.
Malagash-wharf	improvements (revote),
[Stage Direction]
Margaretsville-breakwater extension and improvements, $35,700.
Meteghan-wharf extension, $16,500.
New Edinburgh-breakwater extension, $6,500.
North West Cove-wharf, $3,600.
North West Cove (Tancook)-breakwater repairs, $10,000.
Pietou-harbour improvements, $100,000.
Pictou Island-breakwater (revote), $15,500.
Pinckney's	Point-breakwater	extension,
[Stage Direction]
Port Beekerton East-wharf, $12,000.
Port Greville-additions to shearwater, $8,300.
Port Hawkesbury-wharf reconstruction,
[Stage Direction]
Port Hood-wharf replacement, $18,000.
Pugwash-reconstruction of spur pier, $7,600.
Riverport-dredging, $29,000.
Sandford-breakwater extension, $22,500.
Saulniervdlle-breakwater extension, $5,200.
Seaside-wharf repairs, $12,600.
Sydney-warehouse (revote), $55,000.
Sydney-wharf repairs and dredging, $25,000.
St. Mary's River-dredging, $21,500.
Three Fathom Harbour-repairs and improvements, $8,900.
Island C°ve-breakwater extension,
<p 2,500.
Tiverton-breakwater repairs, $27,000.
*er s Cove-harbour improvements (revote), $5,300.
wiest*'?kd-^ate-harbour repairs and improvements, $16,500.
$7^oymouth-wharf reconstruction (revote),
Whycocomagh-dredging, $19,600.
Wolfville-dredging, $5,000.
Yarmouth-fishermen's wharf, $5,000.
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: This vote deals with construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers in Nova Scotia, and provision is made for such work being done at points ranging from one extreme end of the province to the other. What I have in mind at the moment is not only wharves, wharf extensions and repairs to wharves, but more particularly breakwaters which afford protection to our fishermen in carrying on their calling. I bring this to the attention of the Minister of Public Works because I consider that the money spent on breakwaters should be regarded not as an expenditure but rather as an investment. I know that when I have brought this subject to the attention of the minister in the past, he has agreed with me that such expenditures should be looked upon as an investment. I wish to emphasize that particularly to-night because last year in Nova Scotia we experienced a great disaster with property damage running into hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe that if there had been sufficient protection in the form
483S	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
of breakwaters and protective walls along certain parts of our rugged coast-line in Nova Scotia a considerable part of that loss might have been averted. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that old saying applies particularly to breakwater protection. I trust that when representations are made to the minister for such works, as I believe they are to be made, he will look upon them favourably.
I believe that one drawback in Nova Scotia has been the shortage of staff in the resident engineer's office. I hope the minister will look into that with a view to enlarging the engineer's staff which has to do with our rugged shore-line, and I have particularly in mind the 160 miles of rugged coast along the Halifax county boundary. As has been stated on the floor of the house in the last few days when we have been discussing the fisheries of Nova Scotia, our fishermen are faced with very serious conditions, and if the Department of Public Works would cooperate with the Department of Fisheries in providing necessary breakwater protection for the equipment which our fishermen use, it would considerably lessen their burden and help them to carry on their calling, bringing in new wealth from the seas and making life a little less hard for them. I could make extensive remarks on this subject, Mr. Chairman; but I feel that the minister is sympathetic to my plea, and I trust that when the various projects are placed before him, particularly requests for breakwater protection, he will give them his usual favourable consideration.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall certainly do so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In this vote which comprises some forty or fifty small items, there are two or three items on which I think the committee should have information. There is an item of $160,200 for breakwater repairs and improvements at Brooklyn, including a revote of $53,600. The minister might explain the situation there and tell us why this item oceurs from time to time.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $160,200 is required to complete breakwater repairs and improvements now under contract by Foundation Maritime Limited at a cost of $177,000. The improvements are requested by the Mersey Paper Company Limited of Brooklyn. The district engineer reports that the proposed work is necessary as a means of safeguarding the breakwater from the action of serious storms that occur from time to time and from the heavy surge and undertow which are present at practically all times.
[Mr. Isnor.l
This location is fully exposed to the Atlantic. The breakwater provides protection for steamers lying at the Mersey Paper Company's dock and for fishing and coastal vessels. The Mersey Paper Company, at whose request an extension to the breakwater was built during 1934-35, has a daily output of upwards of 260 tons of paper. Large quantities of coal and sulphur are brought in by water. Lumbering operations carried on average 1,500,000 feet per annum. The annual value of the fisheries is $40,000. Brooklyn is also a place of shelter for vessels going up and down the shore between Yarmouth and Halifax.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was any expenditure made on this breakwater last year or the year before?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the contract with Foundation Maritime Limited has been cancelled because it was found that the stone which the company was proposing to use was not satisfactory. As a result the cost of the stone will be increased if we have to get it elsewhere. Upon first examination it was thought that the stone in the vicinity would be satisfactory, but since the work started the stone was discovered to be not suitable for the purpose. We cancelled the contract, and instead of giving the contractor a higher price for stone obtained elsewhere we propose to ask for new tenders for the work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I know the location of this breakwater, the importance of the port and the extensive trade that is carried on there. I know too that it occupies an exposed position on the coast. It is a difficult breakwater to maintain and I was interested in knowing how much has been spent on the breakwater in the last year or two and why the work had not gone on more rapidly to completion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The reason is the one I just gave, that the contractor and, I suppose, everybody else concerned made a mistake as to the quality of the stone proposed to be used.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The next item is $201,000 for improvements to Caribou Harbour.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Caribou Harbour is the
terminal of the proposed new ferry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. That is a development of the harbour on the mainland of Nova Scotia. The contract has been awarded, because that is a revote for that work.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Dingwall, for which
$209,000 is appropriated is, I recall, the port from which there is an extensive export of gypsum.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The company has undertaken to export from that locality a certain quantity of material. It is noticeable that the annual shipments of gypsum will increase from 80,000 tons to approximately 500,000 tons. During the 1938 shipping season the. National Gypsum Company shipped over 81,000 tons of gypsum rock, and the company itself has expended over $58,000 on the maintenance and operation of that place. The reason for the increase in the vote is that they propose to use larger boats to ship their material. The matter is vague in my mind, but my recollection is that this company has given a guarantee to the government by way of bond that they will ship a certain amount of material, and if not, they will pay half of the expense of that development.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. I recall there was an agreement of that kind, and I assume that the company have carried out the provisions.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, yes, they have carried them out. They promised to ship 80,000 tons and they have shipped 81,000 tons.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work which was
performed some years ago was thought to be ample for their requirements. Do I now understand that they wish to use boats of deeper draught?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And therefore they
require a deepening of what in the first instance was supposed to be a channel sufficient for their purposes?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has there been any
change in the original agreement with .respect to their obligations as to the quantity to be exported?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They have agreed-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not speaking of the first agreement. I think I recall pretty well what that was. But there was a large expenditure made in the first instance to give them a certain draught, and in consideration of that they were to export annually a certain quantity. They are now asking for a greater depth and a further expenditure of money. Are they increasing their export over the amount specified in the first agreement? 71492-304


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, yes, they propose to increase it from 80,000 tons to 500,000 tons. That is why they require better facilities and a deeper channel.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Just to complete the item, I want some information in connection with Charlottetown:
Repairs and improvements to railway wharf (estimated cost $359,000), $150,000.
What are these repairs? They are very expensive.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This, of course, is in Prince Edward Island, and in the next item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
5lil. Prince Edward Island.
Bentinck cove-wharf, $8,500.
Canoe cove-breakwater, $10,000. Charlottetown-repairs and improvements to railway wharf (estimated cost $359,000), $150,000.
Malpeque (Kier's Shore)-wharf repairs (revote $1,600), $2,300.
Montague-purchase and reconstruction of wharf, $10,000.
Naufrage Harbour-breakwater repairs and extension, $10,000.
Souris-repairs to harbour works, $7,000. Summerside-repairs to railway wharf, $6,400. Tignish-breakwater reconstruction and repairs, $31,000.
Wood Islands-harbour (revote $47,000), $182,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This Charlottetown item is for the repairs and improvements of the old railway' wharf there, which is in a dilapidated condition and cannot be used at all. I must say that a much larger proposal was made to the department, for the construction of a wharf in Charlottetown, but the improvement and reconstruction of the railway wharf will meet the situation, and it will allow ocean vessels to come to Charlottetown. At present there is no place where they can come.


David James Hartigan: The hon. member for Leeds went from item 540 to item 541, and the chairman did not call the number.


The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fiset):: I did call item 541.


David James Hartigan: I know, but it was after the hon. member for Leeds shifted to the Charlottetown appropriation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is all right.


David James Hartigan: I wanted to say something for a moment on item 540.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no objection.

4840	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers


David James Hartigan: Had the number been called, I would have spoken before. What I wanted to bring to the notice of the minister was the position of Sydney with regard to the public wharf. I think it is of interest to the department to be well acquainted with conditions there in respect to public wharves.
A short time ago I took up with the transport commission the idea of re-routing the Canadian National Railways along the waterfront in Sydney. The dominion government has an extensive wharf property in Sydney; they have spent a great deal of money on it; but with all that there are a number of wharf properties below the government-owned property which are very unsightly, and I would suggest to the Department of Public Works that a survey of the Sydney waterfront be made this year. It would be of really economic value to the government as a whole, because, with the cooperation of the transport commission, a large amount of useless expenditure on the part of the railways could be avoided. What I have reference to is the fact that the Canadian National Railways go directly through the centre of the city, and at the present time Sydney is making application for overhead bridges to cross the railroad tracks. I am informed by the transport commission's engineers that those bridges will cost from $225,000 to $250,000 apiece. If we assume two or three of these are required, the aggregate expense will be pretty nearly a million dollars.
There are six crossings in the city, and because of the congestion of traffic, chiefly motor vehicles, I am informed, and I believe correctly, about twenty-five people have lost their lives at the level crossings. That fact will give some indication of the danger, which is increasing because of the greater tourist traffic following the completion of our public park and so forth, and probably the death-rate will increase in the future. Therefore Sydney has taken action by applying to the transport commission to provide over-head bridges or some means of eliminating the level crossings. My contention is that if the department would institute a survey of the waterfront at Sydney from their own wharf to where the railroad sidings go through the city, by means of a little cooperation-and I have no doubt the transport commission would be pleased to cooperate, because all these bodies come under the government of Canada-and because of this public works feature of the water-front, the whole scheme could be put through for roughly a million dollars, and it would give the government a real water-front. In any event it would cost the transport commission three-quarters of a 
million dollars to provide overhead crossings. A word to the wise is sufficient; I am not going to belabour the point.
I quite agree with the junior hon. member for Halifax that the biggest difficulty in Nova Scotia, and one which I will venture to say is not usual in respect of public works offices in Canada as a whole, is on account of the fact that our Nova Scotia district office of public works is under-staffed and undermanned. The officers of the public works department should 'be more cognizant of what is going on; if they were, a good deal of money would be saved. The public works department should undertake this work. If a survey were made this year I have no doubt a minimum valuation would be put on the properties and a good many of them could be had for next to nothing. No one knows who owns them. Altogether the situation is deplorable and calls for remedial measures. I hope the minister will take the matter into consideration.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall be glad to take the hon. member's representations into consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This item of $182,000
has reference to the establishment of a ferry between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and there is another item of $201,000. In other words, we have a total of $383,000, a large item for the establishment of a ferry. I understand that there is already a ferry between two points not very far distant from the present ones. Would the minister be good enough to outline the location of these termini in comparison with those of the existing ferry, and the reasons which make it desirable in the public interest that this large expenditure should be made for the establishment of another ferry. In what constituencies are the two ends of the ferry located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: From Charlottetown to
Pictou is a distance of fifty-six miles. The other is from Wood Islands to Caribou, a distance of about thirteen miles. It has been represented that the farmers of Prince Edward Island cannot easily reach the mainland with their trucks. Trucks were not allowed on the ferry from Charlottetown to Pictou, but the new ferry will provide facilities for trucks and the run will be much shorter. This will enable the farmers to dispose of their natural products. The Wood Islands development is in Queens county, the Caribou development being in Pictou on the mainland-the Caribou development.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a large sum of
money for the establishment of a ferry. Where

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
ia the vote coming from? What provision is made for the service after this expenditure is made? Will a subsidy be required?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The boat service
will be furnished by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that department will pay the subsidy. It is not exactly my concern, but it is the intention to transfer the subsidy at present paid for the vessel operating from Charlottetown to Pictou to the new ferry when established.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sure the minister
would not undertake such an expenditure without a complete survey and knowledge of all the details. Do I understand it is likely that the existing ferry will be abandoned altogether?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The subsidy will be transferred.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If it is necessary to pay
a subsidy now to maintain a ferry service and the subsidy is transferred, does the minister think it will be possible to maintain the existing service without a new subsidy?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have my doubts.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What does the minister
mean by transfer of subsidy? Does he mean that a subsidy will be granted for the new service, which is a much shorter one? Is it the intention that the same company or corporation now carrying on the service shall take on the new service and have transferred to them the present subsidy paid for the existing service? If that is not so, then the word "transfer" is hardly the appropriate one to use, because "transfer" conveys a different meaning. What I am anxious to find out is whether in the end this is going to result in a duplication of services, two ferries instead of one, two subsidies instead of one, and what the additional cost will be over and above this $383,000, which is a large initial expenditure. It is merely preparing the way for an annual expenditure for the maintenance of the ferry. I suggest to the minister that on the basis on which he has put it-the volume of agricultural products that will move from Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia over this ferry-such an expenditure cannot be justified.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I forgot to mention that strong representations were made that this new and much shorter ferry would attract a larger number of tourists to the island than the present ferry induces to go over. Tourists would naturally hesitate before crossing a stretch of fifty-six miles, but they are not at all reluctant to cross eleven miles. The information I have from the Department of 71492-304J
Trade and Commerce is that they have arranged for a ferry which will mean a subsidy of $28,000 from that department. The subsidy that is being paid presently, if my information is correct, is $30,000. My understanding is that the Department of Trade and Commerce will cease paying the $30,000 on the present ferry and will pay a subsidy of $28,000 on the new one. So, as far as we are concerned, the question of subsidy is not of great importance except that we pay possibly $2,000 less. The expenditure of course remains for the building of the terminals on the island and the mainland.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I venture to say that the government will be pressed to maintain the existing service also, and the amount involved is not simply the difference between $30,000 and $28,000 but probably an additional expenditure of $28,000. The minister speaks of this contributing to additional revenue from tourist traffic-desirable of course. The argument would be stronger if the existing ferry were the only means of communication between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. But is there not a car ferry and a means of communication between Charlottetown and-Borden, is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Cape Tormentine.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not familiar with the geography there. I am sure tourists do not make much use of the existing ferry on the sixty mile service about which the minister speaks. I believe the volume of tourist traffic between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia is fairly large at the present time. If that be true, they must be finding their way on another ferry altogether. It is most natural and proper that they should; that means of communication is now there. There is a car ferry that accommodates all traffic; it is ample. To a motorist in these days of good roads, a few miles more does not make any real difference. So I suggest to the minister that, so far as tourist traffic is concerned, there is already ample provision for them to make their way between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and they are taking advantage of it. Possibly the minister has some figures that he can give as to the number of motor-cars that pass between these points, and the number, if any, that pass by the present ferry.
This service for tourists is, of course, seasonal, and neither on the ground of service to tourists, who already enjoy ample and complete service, nor on the ground of transportation of agricultural produce from Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia, can this expenditure of $380,000 be justified as an
4842	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
initial expenditure. On neither of these grounds can this expenditure be justified, even if it were the beginning and the end. But when this large initial expenditure inevitably leads to further expenditure for the establishment and maintenance of a ferry for a service that is only seasonal and duplicates a service whioh already exists, it is very hard indeed to justify any such expenditure at this time when there is a demand all through the country for economy, and expenditure on unproductive public works should be curtailed. This large expenditure certainly should be held up, should not be authorized by this committee until some better justification is presented for it than is to be found in the arguments of the minister to-night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
5!/2. New Brunswick.
Bathurst-wharf and warehouse (revote $35,000), $130,000.
Black's Harbour-wharf extension (revote), $26,000.
Botsford-breakwater (revote $14,700), $36,000.
Buctouche-wharf repairs (revote), $32,000. Caissie's Cape-breakwater repairs and improvements (revote $14,500), $40,000. Campbellton-harbour improvements, $50,000. Cape Bald-breakwater repairs, $50,000.
Cape Tormentine-wharf repairs, $10,000. Chatham-wharf extension, $10,000.
Chipman-wharf repairs, $5,000.
Escuminac-breakwater improvements and repairs (revote $17,600), $36,000.
L'Etete-breakwater extension, $8,000.
Mills Point-wharf repairs, $5,000.
Miramichi Bay-dredging (revote $66,800), $78,800.
Miseou-dredging, $10,000.
Miseou-wharf repairs, $6,500.
Newcastle-wharf extension, $10,000.
Pointe du Chene-harbour repairs and improvements (revote $40,000), $55,000.
Riehibueto Cape-harbour repairs and improvements (revote $1,000), $24,000.
Rothesay-wharf repairs (revote), $10,000. Shediac-wharf reconstruction, $28,000. Shippigan gully-breakwater repairs, $40,000. St. Andrews-dredging (revote $8,500), $10,200.
Traeadie-harbour improvements (revote $13,000), $32,000.
Upper Jemseg-wharf repairs, $4,000. Welchpool-wharf improvements, $25,000. Wilson's Beach-breakwater-wharf extension '.revote $50,000), $60,000.
Woodward's Cove-dredging, $15,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is one fairly large item here of $130,000 for wharf and warehouse at Bathurst, with a revote of $35,000. Would the minister give the committee some particulars of this?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is for the completion of a wharf under contract with the E. C. Gorman Construction Company and $55,000 for the construction of a warehouse. I have a note that the wharf and warehouse have been requested by the Bathurst Power and Paper Company. The existing wharf is small, suitable only for fishing boats, the available depth at low water being only six to ten feet. It is entirely inadequate for the shipment of lumber, pulpwood, et cetera. Industries to be benefited by the new wharf include a large sawmill, woodworking factory, iron foundry and large pulp and paper mill. The warehouse in providing storage for large steamer loads would allow large steamer business and thus be of general benefit to shipping. It is anticipated that out of the total mill output, 60,000 to 100,000 tons would be shipped by steamer during the season of navigation, having a value of approximately $4,000,000, in addition to large imports of sulphur, salt cake, coal, et cetera. Without the provision of warehouse facilities and the lower cost of water transportation, the mill will have difficulty in maintaining its rated output. The annual wharfage revenue, based on present business of the Bathurst Power and Paper Company, would amount to about $15,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
543. Quebec.
Aguanish-wharf, $5,500.
Anse au Beaufils-to complete concrete pavement (revote), $2,400.
Bagotville-wharf repairs, $7,200.
Baie des Sables-wharf extension, $25,000.
Baie Ste. Catherine-to purchase and repair wharf, $25,000.
Baie St. Paul-protection work extension (revote $14,800), $23,500.
Berthier-dredging (revote $8,500), $10,000.
Berthierville-protection wall and ice-breakers (revote), $20,000.
Black Cape (Howatson's Point)-wharf extension (revote $3,700), $33,700.
Boisehatel-wharf extension, $15,000.
Bromptonville-protection work, $20,000.
Cacouna-wharf repairs, $14,600.
Cap Chat-deepwater wharf (revote $20,000),
[Stage Direction]
Cape Cove (Anse du Cap)

wharf reconstruction (revote), $36,000.
Cap des Rosiers-wharf, $20,000.
Cap Vert (M. I.)-landing pier, $6,100.
Chambly Basin-protection work, $10,000.
Chicoutimi-contribution towards protection work, $35,000.
Colonie des Greves-protection work, $8,000.
Contrecceur-protection work, $35,000.
Cross Point-wharf reconstruction, $56,000.
Disraeli-protection work, $15,000.
Drainage schemes, $100,000.
Drummondville-protection work, $25,000.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
East Angus

protection work, $10,000.
Garthby-protection work, $10,000.
Granby-protection work, $6,000.
Grande Entree (West Point), M.I.-breastwork extension (revote $5,500), $6,400.
Grand Metis-wharf and dredging (revote), $15,000.	.	.
Grande Vallee-reconstruction of jetty (revote), $9,300.
Greenlay-protection work, $20,000.
Harrington-wharf extension (revote $20,000), $42,000.	.
lie aux Coudres-wharf extension, $10,000.
Karaouraska-wharf repairs and improvements, $19,000.
Laohine-protection work, $9,000.
Lac Megantic-protection work, $10,000.
Lacolle River-dredging, the provincial government to contribute a like amount (revote), $5,500.
Lanoraie-protection work, $12,750.
Louiseville-protection work. $10,000.
La Tabatiere-wharf extension, $10,500.
La Tortue^-dredging, the provincial government to contribute, $16,000.
L'Anse a Brillant-fishing harbour (revote), $7,300.
Longue Pointe de Mingan-breakwater, $20,-
000.
Lome dry dock-new power house-pump house equipment and machine shop, $100,000.
Magpie-breakwater, $14,000.
Malbaie-wharf extension, $56,000.
Manicouagan-wharf improvements-one-third of cost to be contributed by the Ontario Paper Co.. Ltd. (revote), $26,000.
Marsouins-wharf extension, $21,500.
Matane-harbour improvements (revote $40,000), $78,000.
New Carlisle (Marsh Creek)

fishing harbour (revote $37,000), $100,000.
Newport Point-wharf	(revote $10,000),
[Stage Direction]
Old Harry, M.I.-breakwater (revote $8,000), $9,000.
Perce-wharf, $25,000.
Paspebiac (Barachois)-fishing harbour, $20,500.
Petite Madeleine-wharf, $8,800.
Pointe aux Anglais-breakwater, (revote) $16,600.
Pointe aux Trembles-protection work, $50,000.
Pointe du Lae-icebreakers, $5,400.
Pointe Lebel-wharf (revote $12,000), $25,000.
Port St. Francois-wharf reconstruction, $52,000.
Quebec, St. Charles River-protection work, $60,000.
Quebec-wharf extension, $55,000.
Rageneau-wharf (revote $14,700), $20,000.
Rawdon-wharf, $5,000.
Richelieu river-improvements, $325,000.
Richmond-protection work, $15,000.
Rimouski-harbour improvements, $186,200.
Riviere au Renard-fishing harbour (revote $25,000), $51,000.
Riviere des Hurons

contribution towards dredging, the balance of the cost to be borne by the province (revote), $44,000.
Riviere du Loup, en bas-wharf (revote), $36,400.	.
Riviere du Pot au Beurre-contribution towards improvements, the provincial government to bear a like amount, $10,000.
Riviere Noire (St. Simeon)-wharf, $20,000.
Ruisseau a la Loutre-wharf extension, $25,000.
Ruisseau Chapados (Gascons)-fishing harbour (revote), $7,100.
Ruisseau Masse-dredging-the	provincial
government to contribute a like amount (revote $10,250), $11,300.	_
Ruisseau Pariseau 

 contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province (revote), $10,000.
Ste. Anne de Bellevue-dredging (revote $3,300), $4,400.
Ste. Anne des Monts-wharf repairs, $50,000.
Ste. Emelie-wharf reconstruction (revote), $30,000.	,	„„„ „„„
St. Hvacinthe-protection work, $30,000.
St. Ignace de Loyola-wharf, $33,000.
St. Irenee-wharf reconstruction, $25,000.
St. Jean, I.O.-wharf reconstruction, $10,000.
St. Jerome-protection wall, $11,000.
St. Johns to Lake Champlain-dredging (estimated cost $415,000), $100,000.
St. Joseph de Sorel-protection work, $10,000.
St. Joseph d'Alma-wharf, $4,300.
St. Lambert-protection work, $25,000.
St. Laurent, I.O.-wharf reconstruction, $3,000.	„	.
St. Maurice de L'Echourie-wharf repairs and improvements (revote). $13,000.
St. Omer-dredging, $9,000.
St. Romuald-protection work, $25,000.
Sacre-Cceur (Anse de Roche)-wharf reconstruction, $10,000.
Sault au Mouton-channel, $3,000.
Sorel-harbour improvements (revote $8,000), $250,000.
Tadoussac (Anse a 1'Eau)-wharf reconstruction and improvements, $16,000.
Terrebonne-protection wall, $18,000.
Valleyfield-protection work, $25,000.
Vercheres-wharf reconstruction (revote $1,500), $25,000.
Vercheres-protection work, $15,000.
Varennes-protection work, $22,000.
Woodman's Beach-wharf extension, $3,015.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This again is rather a long item. The first that attracts attention is drainage schemes, $100,000. Would the minister give some details of that? Are there any new ones? I know there are some old ones that were hanging round. I know it is hardly consistent with the policy of the department to take on too many new ones.


Ernest Lapointe: I remember my hon. friend originated some of them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, we tried to finish some that I think my hon. friend originated, and we were not very successful in terminating them. The difficulty about these is they are really interminable. Once you begin them you find many creeks running into the original drainage scheme.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In large measure I agree with the comment of my hon. friend that the moment you commence a drainage proposal it is very hard to stop it. This item was included to meet a number of requests coming to the department from Ontario and Quebec for small projects; it does not cover any large
4844	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
project at all. The idea is to meet the requirements of the residents of poor municipalities and parishes who cannot obtain assistance from the provincial governments. They come to us asking for the expenditure of a little money in these small, usually isolated localities not only to help improve the lands upon which, generally speaking, newcomers are being established, but also to expend a certain amount of money in these localities in order to help these people keep body and soul together. This expenditure relates perhaps more particularly to sections where colonization is being carried on. My hon. friend can take my word for it that I have no idea of going into any large scheme in regard to these drainage proposals. My contention is that they are provincial rather than federal undertakings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Absolutely.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But we have done so many of these little works already, practically all over the country, that at this time, while there is a certain amount of distress, I did not think we should refuse to carry on and help, in that limited way, a number of small, poor communities in Ontario and Quebec.
My hon. friend has referred to works carried on in the past along this line. I must confess that the federal government has spent a large amount of money to assist in draining land in Quebec and Ontario, and I assume, to a certain extent in other provinces; and although we do not admit or recognize any real responsibility under the cold letter of the law, I imagine it is only fair that we should show a little goodwill towards these poor parishes and municipalities by helping improve their land, at the same time spending a few dollars to help relieve the limited unemployment that exists even in these localities. We speak of trying to keep people on the land. Well, while properly speaking this does not come within our jurisdiction, I think it only fair that we do something to encourage these people to stay on the land instead of coming to the towns and cities, where they become a much greater burden to the public.


Harry James Barber: Does the province, the
municipality or the parish contribute to the cost of these works?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not exactly. There is no
understanding, but legislation has been enacted in the province of Quebec dealing with the improvement of the drainage of lands generally, and from the correspondence I have already received I understand they look to the provincial government to contribute a certain amount of money under that legislation to meet the drainage requirements in connec-

tion with these lands. It is a new thing, I admit, but after all it is a small matter. I propose to check it, and if I am not here probably my hon. friend will continue the policy of checking these expenditures.


Ernest Lapointe: He entertains no such hope.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister has furnished much better arguments than I could advance as to why an item of this kind should not appear in the estimates. This concerns a purely provincial matter. I think this error began in connection with some drainage scheme in the vicinity of Beauharnois. The amount of this vote, a round sum of S100,000, suggests that possibly the minister has no particular schemes in mind, but that he is providing this $100,000 for safety purposes, in case he should become convinced that any of these schemes are worthy or should be undertaken. I notice he has not given the details of any scheme.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have none.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then it is just a sort
of accident insurance the minister is taking out, possibly also against political accidents.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the item carry?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, Mr. Chairman. There is one large amount concerning the Richelieu river which will require some discussion and as to which some information will be asked. It is now eleven o'clock, and I would suggest that the committee rise. The minister has made pretty good progress.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 1, 1939