SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

[Stage Direction]
Sir HERBERT AMES (St. Antoine) presented the second report of the Special Committee appointed to consider the matter of the development in Canada of seien-, tifie research.

Mr. R. C. HENDERS (Macdonald) moved:: That the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, relating to the printing of evidence taken 'before them during the current session of Parliament, be concurred in, in accordance with the recommendation of the committee in the said report.


Mr. ROBB:: Does the report involve any recommendation? If so, I should like to know what that recommendation is:


Richard Coe Henders: The report recommends simply the printing of evidence concerning certain matters that came under the consideration and review of the Committee. That is all that is involved in it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

I

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 168 respecting Electric and Power Companies.
Mr. McKENZIE:: Explain.


Mr. J. D. REID:: The House will remember that the other evening when we passed the Railway Act I promised to introduce a separate Bill embodying clause 374 of that Act, and also to strike out the words " including compensation, if any " in the telephone clause. This Bill is merely to carry out that promise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the first reading of Bill No. 115 (from the Senate) to amend the Judges Act:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: I notice that a proposal has been made to strike this Bill off the Order Paper. I do not wish to champion the Bill but as an act of courtesy to the Senate I think we should give it a first reading, and for that purpose only I beg to move the first reading the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's).
1.	How many tons of coal were purchased and delivered to the Government Railway in Prince Edward Island in 1917 and 1918?
2.	Prom what coal mine was this coal purchased, and from what port was it shipped?
3.	How many tons of the above coal were delivered at the ports of Charlottetown, Sum-merside, Georgetown and1 -Souris, in 1917 and 1918?
4.	What was the means of transportation used to carry this coal to Prince Edward Island in 1917 and 1918?
5.	What quantity of coal has been contracted for, for 1919, for the Government Prince Edward Island Railway?
6.	From what coal mine?
7.	How is the coal to be carried to Prince Edward Island in 1919?
8.	Has the transportation of this coal begun yet?
9.	What number of tons will be delivered at Charlottetown, Summerside, Georgetown, and Souris in 1919?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	26,777 tons in 1917, 25,036 tons in 1918.
2.	26,226 tons purchased from the Intercolonial Coal Mining Company, shipped from Pictou. 551 tons from Dominion Coal Company, Springhill, shipped from Point Duchene.
3.	In 1917 in Charlottetown 17,069 tons. Summerside 6,452 tons, Georgetown 1,920, Souris, 1,336. In 1918, Charlottetown, 16,209. Summerside, 6,641. Georgetown 745. Souris, 1,441.
4.	Chartered schooners.
5.	Order for 6,000 tons placed.
6.	From the Anglo Coal Company.
7.	In schooners of the company shipping or to be chartered.
8.	No.
9.	Approximately the same as in 1918.


CLElRK OF WORKS OF NEW R.M.C.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Who has been appointed as supervisor or clerk of works, in connection with the new R.M.C. building now being constructed?
2.	What salary does he receive, by whom was he appointed and when?
3.	What is the record of his military services overseas?
4.	From whom were applications received for this position and what is the record of overseas service in each case?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	A. E. Beswick.
2.	$250 per month. Appointed by the Civil Service Commission, June 5, 1919.
3.	Enlisted in Canadian Expeditionary Force, October, 1914, and served for three and one-half years as machine gun officer, including 17 months in France, and was returned to Canada as a casualty and honourably discharged in June, 1918.
4.	The following other applicants were returned soldiers:
Balderson, Thomas William-Enlisted in 32nd Battery, C.F.A., November 12, 1915. Proceeded overseas December 16, 1915. Served in France and returned to Canada April, 1919.
Birkett, Edmund Hooper-Enlisted August, 1914, as sapper. Proceeded overseas with First Division. Landed in France February, 1915 . Commissioned lieutenant December 1, 1915; promoted captain February, 1916; promoted major May, 1918. Decorations, M.C. and bar. Service with 1st F.C.C.E. and 2nd F.C.C.E. Wounded June, 1916.
Bolton, A. A.-Enlisted in August, 1914, and went to France as a corporal in the 1st Field Company Canadian Engineers.

Spent 43 months in France and was given commission as lieutenant in January, 1917, and promoted to captain in 1918. Was wounded once and awarded the Military Medal. Was invalided home in December, 1918.
Borrow, Alfred John-Transferred from Second Field,Co. Canadian Engineers after declaration of war to Third Canadian Railway Troops, B.E.F. Served with this battalion whole period of its existence; 22 months in France.
Burnham, Benjamin-Enlisted April 3, 1916, with 118th Battalion, C.E.F. Transferred to the 256th Railway Battalion in February, 1917. Proceeded overseas with 256th, March 22, 1917, with rank of Sergeant of Construction. Crossed over to France June 17, 1917. Gained commission on the field January 6, 1918.
Craven, James C.-Served with the 2nd Field Co. Engineers, 1st Division, C.E.F. in France and Belgium over 31 months. Was discharged medically unfit November, 1918.
Donnelly, Harold Higman- Enlisted with overseas with 1st Auto Motor Machine Gun Brigade August 22, 1914, proceeding overseas with 1st Canadian Contingent October 1, 1914; in England with 1st Canadian Motor Machine Gun Brigade October, 1914, to May, 1915; ini France, same unit, June 1, 1915, to February, 1917; commanded Eaton Machine Gun Battery September 27, 1916, to February 5, 1917; wounded at Lens January 9, 1918; returned to Canada for treatment as medically unfit April 1, 1917. Service in Canada to date. (6-5-19).
Earnshaw, Philip-Enlisted August, 1914. Served in Signals all the time in 1st, 2nd, and Canadian Corps Signal Companies. Commanded his unit since January, 1917, and holds the rank of Major, Canadian Engineers, D.S.O., and M.C.
Hawkins, Stuart Schofield-Wen,t over with 78th Battalion, May, 1916; Served in France from end of April, 1917, till wounded at Bourlon Wood, September 27, 1918; Discharged at Ottawa, February 3, 1919. Captain.
Henderson, John Francis-Left Canada November, 1916, with draft from 71st Battery, C.F.A. Left for France June 7, 1917. Served with 7th Canadian Siege Battery till January, 1919. Returned to England January 15, 1919, with Reserve Brigade, C.F.A. Returned to Canada March 26, 1919.
Hensher, William-No particulars of service.
King,	George-Enlisted at Valcartier
Camp September 22, 1914. Proceeded overseas with 1st Contingent. Served in France
[Mr. Burrell. 1
with regiment "Lord Strathcona's Horse." Returned to Canada April 5, 1919.
Lewis, William Llewellyn-Enlisted in Canada. Served in England, France and Belgium.
Lynn, Patrick Wm.-Enlisted January 23,
1917,	with 257th Battalion Railway Troops. Went overseas early in February and was wounded by shrapnel in left arm in July. Was sent to England and invalided to Canada in April, 1918.
McDonell, L.-No particulars of service. O'Higgins, Denis-Enlisted in Ottawa August 10, 1914, with G.G.F.G., afterwards No. 3 Co., 2nd Battalion. Wounded in France April 23, 1915. Discharged March 19, 1918.
Paget, Archibald E.-Enlisted with Canadian Railway Troops. Granted commission in France 26th May, 1917. Appointed Captain in command of company 16th March,
1918.	Appointed major 18th October, 1918. Parry B. Evan-Two years overseas. Phillips, Charles Silvester-Enlisted April
14,	1916. Sailed for England April 4, 1917. Proceeded for duty in France November 15,
1917,	to 16th C. Machine Gun company until April 15, 1918. Transferred to 4th Battalion Canadian Machine Gun Corps, August 16,
1918.	Transferred to R.A.F. in England to train as pilot. Demobilized Toronto, March 27, 1919.
Richardson, Albert Angus-Received commission in the 93rd Battalion, C.E.F., in March, 1916; went overseas in July, 1916; went to France in October, 1916, to 4th Canadian Infantry Battalion. In the spring of 1917 men with engineering experience were withdrawn from infantry to form Canadian company's tramways and he was included in these. Was later transferred to Canadian Engineers and was promoted to captain. Received O.B.E. (Mil. Div.) for work in final advance and was mentioned in despatches once. During the time was directing the work of about 2,000 men. Returned to England in February, 1919, and to Canada in April, 1919.
Rounthwaite, Francis George-Enlisted with McGill Siege Battery as gunner May 1, 1916. Received commission in same May
15,	1916. Proceeded overseas September 18, 1916. Loaned to Imperials for instructional purposes in Royal Garrison Artillery January, 1917, to November 1, 1917; four months' service in France 1st Canadian Heavy Battery, November, 1917, to 1st March, 1918. Returned to join new battery being mobilized 12th Canadian Siege Battery; went to France May, 1918. Wounded at Amiens August 14th, 1918; hospital till November 22, 1918. Adjutant with Borden

* Regimental Depot Group December 1, 1918, to January 31, 1919, then adjutant Canadian Artillery Regimental Depot February 1, 1919, to March 21, 1919. Arrived in Canada for demobilization 1-4-19.
Stagg, J. W.-Enlisted 26th October, 1914. Spent thirty-nine months in France with 4th Canadian Infantry Battalion, rising from junior lieutenant to junior major and was twice wounded.
Stimpson, Edgar Daniel-Eleven months in infantry and eleven months in engineers in France. Date of attestation September 15, 1915. Date of discharge April 22, 1919.
Tetu, S.-Four years' overseas' service with Canadian Engineers, holding the rank of sergeant, having been specially mentioned in despatches and awarded the DjCJM.
The following were civilian applicants: Robert Archibald, Harry Bagg, William Barr, Arthur M. Brydon, Clarence James Burritt, John H. Byrne, IM. M. Campbell, W. H. Clarke, iSr., J. B. S. Coates, Thos. A. Conner, W. Cornery, Benjamin Dillon, C'olin G. iC. Drever, E. F. Elliott, Jas. J. Enright, Donald Fraser, John 'Gordon, William J. Gregory, 'Chas. P. Harrison, iC. E. Hobart, William Hood, George Wesley Lakins, Charles Henry Lavender, J. N. P. Lindsay, John W. Litton, T. A. McGinnis, George Alexander Mowat, John J. Murphy, lW. F. Noonan, William Rae, Robert Reynolds, Frank Sheppard, Harvey A. Smail, R. Wallace, H. C. Wotherspoon (Major), Eric C. Walker.
Mr. J. R. FORSYTH.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to increase the salary of J. R. Forsyth, of the Finance Department, before the end of the present session of Parliament?
2.	Are there any reasons for declining such request?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: The intentions oi the Government respecting the matter of increase of salary to officials are shown only in the Estimates when brought down to -Parliament, or in other measures affecting the Civil Service.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1. What is the name of each of the so-called experts who have prepared, under the Civil Service Commission of Canada, the re-classification recently laid (before Parliament by the Hon. Mi*. Maclean, Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce?
2.	(State the detailed qualifications, legal and technical competence, university graduation, certificates of expertness filed with the Civil Service Commission of Canada by each of the so-called experts, before being appointed as classifiers of the Civil Service of Canada.
3.	Is there any of the so-called experts specially qualified to authoritatively determine the duties, qualifications, scope of class, lines of promotion and range of compensation of, amongst others,
(a) the advisory counsels and justice officers; (b) actuarial staff; (c) agricultural specialists; (d) architects ; (e) archaeologists, anthropologists, palaeontologists, pathologists, zoologists, geologists, biologists, and similar graduated scientists; (f) chemists; (g) ceramists ; (h) archivists ;	(i) astronomers ;	(j) analysts;
(k) medical officers; (1) marine, naval service and fisheries officials and specialists; (m) militia and defence officials and specialists; (n) printing and stationery officials and specialists; (o) land and forest surveyors; (p) editors, interpreters and technical translators;	(q)
electrical, geodetic, dredging, hydrographic and mining engineers;	(r) trade commissioners;
(s) external commissioners; (t) grain examiners; (u) customs appraisers; (v) weights and measures inspectors; (w) Indian agents; (x) colonization and immigration agents; (y) railway officials and specialists; (z) parliamentary officers? If so, what are their special qualifications in every such branch?
4.	Have'the so-called experts been supplied by the Government with special data leading to the restoration of normal conditions oi living in order to base their re-classification upon past normal conditions of living, as mentioned in the " Foreword " of said re-classification?
5.	Is it on the base of normal conditions of living that they have determined the maximum of Civil1 Service Commissioners and Secretary to $8,000 and $'5,4>0'0, respectively, thus granting them an increase varying from >
per cent to 60 per cent, whilst they have reduced lower salaries by the same percentage?
6.	Are the same co-called experts entrusted with the ranging of the so-called " war bonus " which, nearly a year after the war is over, is still promised to civil servants to relieve them from the onus of the war time?
7.	What is the salary per day, living allowance, travelling and other expenses of each of said so-called experts?
8.	From what date have they been working for the Civil Service Commission of Canada; and when are they expected to finish their work ?
9.	What is the estimated total cost of the
re-classification of the Civil Service of Canada by the so-called experts, including (a) the salary of various officials, stenographers, typewriters and other departmental employees who have helped them from the beginning of their undertaking; (b) the cost of stationery furnished to the above-mentioned experts; (c) the cost of renting, lighting, heating and furnishing the rooms they occupy from the commencement of their working for the Civil Service of Canada; (d) the cost of printing done by Canadian Government Printing Bureau for the experts' purposes:	(e) all incidental expenses
incurred in connection with such re-classification of the Civil Service of Canada?


THE VACANT POSITION OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: The other day I asked the right hon. gentleman if a successor *would he appointed to the late Mr. MeDougald, Commissioner of Customs, and if so, whether the principle of promotion would be followed. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position to give the House any further information?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I cannot add to the information which I gave to my hon. friend the other day; I thought at the time it was quite satisfactory.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have received inquiries from different parts of the country with reference to the Health Department in connection with which we passed a Bill last night. May I ask if that department or branch of a department has been created, and if so, who is the minister in charge?


Robert Laird Borden: The department has not yet been organized but steps are being taken to that end.


THE NILE VOYAGEURS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I have received a letter from a veteran of the Nile expedition, complaining 'that the veterans of that expedition, the Nile Voyageurs, have received no consideration from the Government in the way of pension or land script.


Mr. BURRELL:: What was the date oi the expedition to which the hon. gentleman refers?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1884 or 1885, if I mistake* not. I should like to know whether their case has ever been considered by the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend is alluding to an expedition which was organized, I think, by the British Government and foT which volunteers were obtained in this country, I can only say that the subject has not been brought to the attention of the Government recently, so far as I am aware.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Acting Minister of Justice) Bill No. 160, to amend the Criminal Code, was read the third time and parsed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 153, to amend the Canada Grain Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Disposal of surplus.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I move to amend this section by striking out certain words after the word "if" in the twenty-second line, so that the section will read:
If the total surplus of grain is found in excess of one quarter of one per cent, etc.
That is the only amendment I have to make. It is in accordance with the suggestion made by many hon. gentlemen in the House the other day. It had the recommendation of the Board of Grain Commissioners and I am disposed to accept it.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.


OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) Bill No. 165, to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the Ottawa Improvement Commission-the Minister of Finance-was read the second time, and the Houise went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Annual grant authorized:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice in the press this morning that the city of Ottawa and the Government have not come to terms as regards their mutual relations. Will the Minister of Finance tell us what is the state of the negotiations and if there is any expectation of a fair settlement?


William Thomas White: My colleague the Minister of Public Works will be better able to make a statement on the matter.


Mr. CARVELL:: A great many conferences have been held between the representatives of the city of Ottawa and the Government regarding the amount that should be paid Ottawa for services rendered by the city to the Government. I think it will be unnecessary, and probably it might be improper, for me to go into a long detailed recital of the whole transaction, because I find it exceedingly difficult 'to bring myself to the conclusion that the city is entitled

to anything. If it were not for the Government, Ottawa would be only a by-town with a few saw-mills; there would be no city of Ottawa. It might not be prudent for me to state exactly how I feel about the matter. In the outset, the city wanted between $600,000 and $700,000 from the Government for the services they say they have rendered. They talk about maintaining hospitals for the benefit of the Government-


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are needed.
Mr. CARVELL-and they want thousands of dollars for the maintenance of those hospitals. They even fight about the intersections at street corners, because where we pay our improvement taxes along the side of the street they say that there is a little square in the corner that we do not pay for. Indeed, there is nothing on earth that the human mind can conceive which they do not want. I am speaking pretty plainly, but it is time I spoke my mind. It practically amounts to this:	Every man and
every woman in Ottawa are drawing something directly out of the Dominion Treasury and now they want to draw something collectively. I have concurred in a proposed agreement the substance of which is contained in to-day's Order Paper in the resolution on page 9. That proposes that we will pay to Ottawa for the next ten years the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars annually for the services which they allege they are performing for the Government. I use the word "allege" advisedly, because I do not think there is anything to it at all. The whole $75,000 is a clean present from the people of Canada to the city of Ottawa.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A "greed' present.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, a clean one.


Mr. BELAND:: A neat present.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Possibly. In addition
to that, we have agreed-and this, I admit, is business; in fact, it is my own suggestion and I think it is the proper method- to pay the city of Ottawa for the water service which we receive the same as any other person would pay for that service. I think the rate is a very generous one. We agree to Ray 13 cents per thousand gallons supplied, for the first 200,000,000 gallons, and 10 cents per thousand gallons for the water supplied over that amount in any one year. The price, I think, is extremely generous; yet, it is a service which the city of Ottawa is performing for the Government and for which we should
pay it. I am not disposed to split hairs about the amount but I think it is very generous.


Mr. MORPHY:: Have they always been paid for that service?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, we have been paying $15,000 a year and I think it has been put on the ground of fire protection. Yet the city of Ottawa is entitled to protect the buildings of the Government just as it would be the buildings of any one else; that is what you pay taxes for. We are under no obligation to pay them because they have a fire department which would go out in case of trouble; that is their business. But, the water service is .entirely on a different basis. I have always contended that the city of Ottawa has not been fairly treated in so far as the water service is concerned. We are using a great amount of water-a greater amount than I think we should use. If one of those employees out on the street wants to wet the street he would use as much water as would be required for twenty-fiye streets. But it has been on a flat rate and it did not make any difference how much was used. I think that the city of Ottawa has contributed to the Government more than it should have contributed in the way of water.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the city get the water by gravitation?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the city pumps it out of the Ottawa river. Then we propose that all buildings now leased by the Government shall pay the water tax the same as any other private party. In the past the moment the Government leased a building the water tax ceased. That is not fair to the city. They have what I have always considered the most terribly antiquated system of assessing water taxes in this city but it suits them and I suppose . it should suit us and as long as we have property in this city we could comply with the laws which they see fit to adopt. Instead of asking people to pay for the water they consume, they require them to pay on the basis of the taxation of the property. If a man has a vacant lot without any building on it and if he does not use a drop of water, he pays on the taxation of the property. If he has a little piece of land and a million dollar building upon it, he pays according to the taxation. It is a very antiquated system but if it suits Ottawa it suits me. If we rent a building from any person in Ottawa, the city is entitled to the water rates according



to the law whatever it may be and that is what we are providing for here.


Mr. EDWARDS:: When the Government rent a building what is the basis upon which it goes; is it on the basis of so much per square foot of space or so much per cubic foot?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the basis is that the landlord gets every cent that the traffic will bear. '


William Cameron Edwards: I have no doubt of that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That has been my experience in the city of Ottawa. Now, to answer my hon. friend, we try to come down to a square foot basis in reference to the matter and. the rents run all the way from fifty cents up to $1.10 and $1.15 per square foot. But after all I do not know that I have been long enough at it to get at the bottom of it. There is a great deal of juggling going on in my judgment about leasing public buildings in Ottawa. If a man has a building in Ottawa that he wants to rent to the Government he will always find somebody who will recommend that the Government ought to rent it and he will always find some official to recommend that the rent be placed at a rate that is high. The Public Works Department has to get that down as far as they can and it is a see-saw until we come down to a final conclusion. I hope the time will come when the Dominion Government will own their own public buildings in Ottawa and I am sure it would be a good investment, if the Government can find the money, to erect public buildings in this city and get rid of some of the conditions which we have to face now.
In addition, we are carrying out an old agreement that has been in existence for many years regarding the maintenance of what is now called Connaught Place, formerly Dufferin and Sappers bridges, over the Rideau canal, the bridge over the Rideau canal at Laurier avenue and the maintenance of the sidewalks and streets on Wellington street. The agreement used to go from Connaught Place to Bank street; now that the Government have bought all the land westward to the Perley Home, so called, we are extending the contract to cover Wellington street as far west as the Perley Home.


Mr. MURPHY:: All east of the Perley Home?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have bought all the land on Wellington street and we are extending the agreement westward , to the

western boundary of the Perley Home. We also agree that we shall be subject to bylaws regarding local improvements. If it be the law that a property owner shall contribute the whole or a portion of the cost of a sidewalk or a street opposite his land, the Government agree to put themselves in the same position and will pay their full share of the taxation whatever it may be.
Finally, it is proposed that an Order in Council passed a great many years ago by which, for a certain consideration, the city of Ottawa did not tax the income of civil servants, shall be discontinued. I see no reason why the Civil Service should not be liable to the ordinary laws of the land the same as anybody else is. Therefore, I am doing all I can to put the city of Ottawa in the position where it can legally tax civil servants. If they do not want to do it, that is their business and not mine, but I do not feel like being a party to preventing the city of Ottawa from assessing the ordinary income tax upon civil servants according to the law whatever it may be.


Mr. M. CLARK:: That is very necessary in view of the fact that the Civil Service bids fair to be half the population of the ci*y of Ottawa.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Large or small, I am a great believer in taxation, and I do not believe in exemption from taxation. I have upheld that principle all my life and I would not be associated with an industry that would go to any municipality and ask for exemption from taxation. I have never done that in my life and I never will. If a business cannot pay its fair share of the municipal taxes, it had better go out of business, or if an individual cannot pay his share of the municipal taxes he had better leave and go some place else.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend
apply that principle to Victory bonds?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I would. I am the only man in the House of Commons who is on record publicly up to within the last six months as opposing exemption of income from Victory bonds, if that ds any satisfaction to my hon. friend. I am afraid that some of my hon. friends did not agree with me in that but if my hon. friend will look up Hansard two years ago he will find what my views were then in reference to the exemption of Victory bonds.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Did they follow you on the other side?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, they did not. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve was with me on that view-I will grant that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, I was.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If I have spoken with a great deal of frankness on this subject, I will say that I have intended to especially as the hon. member for Maisonneuve wanted my views upon the question. I do not know whether the city of Ottawa intends accepting the proposed agreement or not. I was notified yesterday that they had declined to do so but that they were willing to accept an agreement for five years. They thought the agreement was fair but they wanted a chance to come back again at the end of five years and get another bite. Not with my consent. That is all I have to say about it. If the city of Ottawa will sign the agreement I will ask Parliament to adopt this resolution and also pass a Bill simply confirming the resolution. That is the position in which the matter stands this morning.


Mr. PROULX:: What would be the
probable increase over the former allowance?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will put it in this way. For the past ten years the Government has been giving $100,000 to the Ottawa Improvement Commission and paying $15,000 a year to the city of Ottawa for fire protection. The new arrangement proposes that $150,000 a year be given to the Improvement Commission, and the city will get $75,000 cash by way of a grant in payment for certain claimed services. The city also will get water rates on the basis of thirteen cents per thousand gallons, up to 250,000,000 gallons, and ten cents a gallon thereafter. It is pretty hard to form a correct opinion as to what the payment for this service will amount to. I have tried to estimate the amount, and my judgment is it will be about $25,000. That, however, is only an estimate, because they do not have meters in this city; they do not seem to know anything about it, and they cannot tell how much water would be consumed in an ordinary building. I have some knowledge of the matter from my business experience in other parts of Canada, a very considerable knowledge, in fact. I think the amount of water consumed in this case would be the same per thousand of population, and from my own business knowledge I put $25,000 as being practically the maximum which the city will receive. Then in addition to that


Mr. NICKLE:: What is the cost per thousand gallons for pumping, exclusive of overhead charges?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know; I cannot get from the city exactly what it is; but I would say that, exclusive of overhead charges, a couple of cents a thousand .gallons would be a very large charge. I am speaking now from my own business knowledge of conditions elsewhere in Canada- in fact, I know that the company with which I am connected is pumping water at a cent and-a-half per thousand gallons. That is exclusive of overhead charges, and we are not losing any money on it, either.
To finish the answer to the question of my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx), I cannot tell exactly what the city will receive from water rates on the leased buildings, but my estimate is $7,500. That is only an estimate, and the charge made for the purpose will really depend upon how the Public Works Department watches this thing, and sees that water is not wasted, and that the consumption is carried on, as it ought to be carried on, on business principles. If a watch is maintained the charge will not exceed $7,500. If no charge is kept, one does not know what will happen. No, I beg pardon, that statement does not apply to the leased buildings because the payments for those buildings are upon a taxation basis. It does apply, however, to our own buildings, to Rideau Hall grounds and to the Experimental Farm. Just here I may say I am told that they irrigate land out on the farm with water pumped from the city of Ottawa. That may be necessary, but I do not believe it myself; and when the meter system is installed, as it is going to be if this proposition goes through, I hope there will be somebody to see that they do not irrigate the land at the farm with water pumped by the city. In other words, I hope we can get this thing down to a business basis.
Now, Sir, I have said all that I ought to say on this subject, although I have not said half as much as I would like to. This is a matter the members of the House ought to know something about and to take a hand in, because it affects not only the city of Ottawa but the whole of Canada. Therefore, it is something which members generally ought to take into consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We enjoy these rows with the city very much, and I am glad to see there is somebody who can stand up for the House of Commons. What we are

really concerned about, however, is as to the nature of the old agreement and the provisions of the new, and did the Minister of Public Works win out in any way in this contest?	[DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have already given the information. The old agreement provided for $100,000 and $15,000. The new agreement provides for $150,000 and $75,000. I estimate $25,000 will be paid for water rates and $7,500 for water supplied to Government properties, and in addition to that -and this is something that I do not think we need to consider at all as a government, or as a House of Commons-a revenue which will be derived by the city from the imposition of income taxes uipon civil servants. By an old agreement, the city of Ottawa did not assess the incomes of civil servants. I am trying to provide that that shall be annulled, when we shall leave the Civil Service to the tender mercies of the city council of Ottawa to tax or not as they have a mind to. I do not call that giving the city of Ottawa anything, it is none of our business; we are just leaving the city to look after its own people. It seems to me that under the circumstances we are making a pretty generous offer to the city.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: On what ground does the minister justify the increase of $50,000 a year in the payments to the city? Why 'should the city have that increase?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is very largely the Ottawa attitude-they want it. That is the Ottawa mentality. They want it, and they look upon the Government as being in a sense a source of supply 'from which they can dig up the gold. The gold is there, and they want it-that is all I can say about it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Is the city entitled to it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The city is entitled to be paid for the water consumed by us, and they are entitled to something for the sewers, because our main sewers empty into theirs, and therefore they are entitled to be paid for that convenience. They are entitled possibly to something for the lighting of the streets in front of our property, wherever they do it, although with respect to the Parliament Buildings we pay those bills ourselves. There are some things like that, some such services, they are entitled to be paid for, and possibly they may be entitled, I think they are, to something for

fire protection'because they may say " Well, we have to keep a larger fire-fighting plant than we otherwise would have to, or even if it were no larger it is at the disposal of the Government-it is a ' ready to serve ' charge-and therefore we should be paid something for ithe fire service." Now, outside of that, I fail to see anything that we owe the city of Ottawa.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think $150,000 far too much .for the payment of these services.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is plenty big enough, anyway.


Mr. BOYCE:: The Minister of Public Works seems to be in a very pleasant mood this morning.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


George Boyce: Am I out of order, Sir?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, speak louder.


George Boyce: Well, possibly I will speak louder by and by.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I do not like to call the hon. gentleman to order, in fact, I did not rise for the purpose of doing so. I think he should be allowed to complete his answer to the hon. minister, but I would point out ito the committee that this discussion is certainly not in order on the present Bill. There is a resolution on the Order Paper standing in the name of the Minister of Public Works covering the agreement made 'between the ci'ty of Ottawa and the Government, and the discussion with respect to that resolution should be deferred until it is before the committee. The Bill we are now considering relates entirely to 'the Ottawa Improvement Commission.


George Boyce: I merely desire to correct a statement made 'by the minister in regard to the city of Ottawa. He said that but for the Government's being established here the city would still be Byltown. I want to draw his attention to the fact that for quite a number of years before Ottawa was chosen as the seat of the Federal 'Government, the city was established here. The minister also stated that the Government is charged too much for water supply. Now, I have no brief for the city of Ottawa, but regard myself as a good neighbour, seeing that I live in close proximity to it. I know a great deal of the -service that is rendered to the Government by 'the city in respect to water and fire protection services and other conveniences. The minister stated there was a good deal of water wasted in

washing the streets. I draw his attention to the fact that Ottawa is an up-to-date city. It is one of those communities which likes to have its thoroughfares kept clean.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon>. friend will pardon 'me, hut I made no such statement at all. I was balking about the water that was wasted by Government officials and not about what the city of Ottawa does with its water. That is no business of mine.


George Boyce: You said we were charged too much.
Mr. iCAEVELL: I did not say that.


George Boyce: I say again there was some kind of arrangement a few years ago under which they charged a certain rate, and it was stated that we should not be charged that rate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think my hon. friend should misstate things. There never was any agreement at all to charge; they simply furnished water and fire protection at a flat rate and got $15,000.


George Boyce: Would any man think $15,000 was enough for that?
Mr. OAEVEIiL:	No, I say it is not.
iMr. BOYCE:	It is not quarter enough.
If they were getting $75,000 they would not be getting too much, and I am sorry that the hon. member for the city of Ottawa is not here, to tell us where the Government stand and where the city stands. I say if you give them a great deal more for both water and fire protection you would not be giving them half enough, and I think the city of Ottawa are only standing on their rights when they say they should get more. What are the Government buildings here worth? At least $8,000,000. Let a private individual put up buildings of that value in the city and he would have to pay three times what the Government are giving to the city. I do not like to see Ottawa hit harder than it should be. I would like to see the city get justice and fair play, and as far as my vote goes it will be to that effect.
Mr. PEDiLOW:	Would the Minister of
Public Works give us information-


The CHAIEMAN:: That certainly would
not be in order.


Mr. PEDLOW:: You do not know the
question I want to ask, Sir. I would like to know from the minister the net difference between the new arrangement and the old.


The CHAIEMAN:: The question has
nothing to do with this Bill; it will be perfectly in order when the resolution is under discussion to-morrow. This Bill is in charge of the Minister of Finance and has nothing whatever to do with the Department of Public Works.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, referred the committee to the Minister of Public Works, and when that happens I think it is fair that we should get the information from him.


The CHAIEMAN:: The Minister of Finance referred the Committee to the Minister of Public Works to secure an answer to a question put by the- hon. member for Maisonneuve. I allowed the question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was the culprit.


The CHAIEMAN:: But when I allowed the question which was clearly not in order, I thought it would be a question and not a discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Number of commissioners and tenure of office:
Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are these commissioners paid any salary or anything under any other name?


William Thomas White: No, the appointments are honorary.


Mr. VIEN:: Would it not be advisable instead of having this Improvement Commission to have a federal district organized for the city? Have the Government considered the matter?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows that that is a very large
12 noon, question indeed. The matter has been brought up from time to time, but really has not been under serious consideration, and I do not think it is likely to be in the near future, at all events.


Edmond Proulx: What is the number of the commissioners?


William Thomas White: Eight. I gave the names the other day. They are: Sir Henry Egan, Mr. J. D. Fraser, Mr. Gilbert Fauquier, Mr. B. Slattery, Mr. E. J. Laver-dure, Senator Casgrain, the mayor, and, I think, another representative of the city.
Mr. MeCREA: As I understand it, the Government in lieu of taxes pays the city of Ottawa $150,000 and $75,000. Is the Government paying more under this arrangement or less than it would pay were the property subject to taxes collected in the ordinary way?


William Thomas White: I think this discussion would arise more properly when the resolution, which is in the name of the hon. Minister of Public Works, is before the Committee. But, answering my hon. friend briefly, I may say that the Dominion Government by the terms of the British North America Act is entitled to exemption from municipalities in respeet to its real property within their boundaries So that that question really does not arise. I suppose if the properties of the Dominion Government within the city were assessed at their cost to the Dominion, and the general municipal taxes were levied upon them, the amount collected would be very much larger than what the Government will pay under the agreement; 'but I submit that that is not a fair ground for increasing the amount, for the reason I have already stated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Commissioner and secretary not to have interest in works:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this commission
subject to any particular department of the Government?


William Thomas White: The commission reports to the Department of Finance, but it is an independent commission, not influenced in its administration or policy by the Government, so far as I know. During the- past eight years I have not interfered with their administration in any way. The men in charge are leading citizens of Ottawa who can be depended upon to faithfully carry out their trust.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
AIX>
TO PROVINCES EOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways), Bill No. 152, to encourage the Construction and Improvement of Highways, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-definition:
Edmond Proulx: Under the Provincial Highways Act, bridges are included in highways. This definition does not seem to include bridges,


John Dowsley Reid: It includes only culverts and small bridges, not large bridges. For

instance, it would not include such a bridge as the bridge across the Ottawa river between St. Anne and Montreal.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: There are small bridges of various sdzesi, and if the minister thinks that small bridges are included it seems to me that the clause should provide where to stop.


Edmond Proulx: Why not state in the Bill that the bridges to be included in the highways shall be of a length of one hundred feet or two hundred feet?


John Dowsley Reid: It is not the intention to include bridges unless- they are culverts or small bridges which -are really parts of the road. A bridge of any considerable size would not be included.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-grant of twenty millions:
Michael Clark: Before this section carries, without the least desire to delay the House at this period of the session, I want to enter as strong a protest as an individual member can against this legislation. I do that, in the first place, because the legislation, according to legal authority in this House, is a breach of the constitution of this country. The roads are given for the care of the provinces under the British North America Act, and I protest against this as a breach of the Constitution. I object to it, in the second place, because, being a breach of the Constitution, it is an unparalleled and indefensible expenditure of public money on the part of this Government at a time when the finances of our country are strained to the breaking point. I need not elaborate to what extent they are strained; I have dwelt upon it again and again, and the patience of men who have nothing but the good of the country at heart has been strained to the breaking point also by the actions of this Government within the last few days. Money is flung here by the million, there by the ten million, on one day and on the other day; and the next day the Minister of Finance comes before us and in three minutes or four minutes or four hours, as the case may be, gets a -Bill through this House to borrow another hundred millions. We are told that this fall a domestic loan is to be presented to the people. I expressed my opinion in the Budget debate upon the merits of these domestic loans. Let me tell the Government that there are citizens in this country, who have not the same objection in principle that I have to the domestic loans, but

who, nevertheless, purpose abstaining from subscribing to them because they are encouraging this Government to waste money. The Government may like it or not, but the facts are as I state: That citizens all over 'Canada are threatening in private to refuse to subscribe to these loans because the Government is not fit to handle the money that is so raised. Let it be understood, Sir, if I need to explain it, that I have no objection to the improvement of roads; I should be next door to an uncivilized person if I had. Macaulay points out, in the well known portion of his history which deals with the condition of England under Charles II, that the advancement of a country may be estimated roughly by the condition of its- roads, but Macaulay never advised the Imperial Government to do the work of county councils in the matter of roads, and never would have condoned it, and no other English statesman would. I need not say any more. The two objections that I have already raised would be absolutely insurmountable in the minds of a Government that had not divested themselves, apparently, of all public responsibility in the matter of the financial condition of the country. I object, I repeat, to this legislation because in the first place it is unconstitutional, and in the second place, being unconstitutional, it is absolutely reprehensible and utterly indefensible in view of the present condition of the country's finances.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I am in entire accord with the statements so eloquently expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Clark). I had hoped that the Government, realizing as they must have done before now, the very strong dissent of a number of their supporters on this side of the /House, would have refrained from attempting to advance this legislation at this stage of the session, but apparently, for reasons which no doubt appear to them good, they have determined to force this legislation through, and the only course that remains for me is to express my very strong dissent from the purpose and principle of this legislation.
When the question of Dominion participation in the building of highways was before this House in 1913 and 1914, I supported the legislation. The situation then was very different from' what it is now. On that occasion we had an overflowing treasury, and, comparatively speaking, few demands upon it. The Provincial Governments, relatively speaking, were hard up, and it did seem to me quite reasonable that inasmuch as the Provincial Governments
had not successfully and completely dealt with the problem of good roads, the Federal 'Government might well assist the provinces in this particular work. The proposition made by the Government* at that time provided for the money being expended by the Federal Government; the Opposition took the view that the money should not be expended directly by the Federal Government but handed over to the provinces to expend. The House divided on that question, and the minister who is in charge of this Bill voted with me against the proposition advanced by the Opposition and in favour of the Federal Government expending the money directly, out of the moneys it had received directly from the people of this country. The minister the other evening attempted to show that I should support this resolution because I had voted for the same principle, he said, on two or three other occasions. I contradicted his statement then and I say now that I never voted for any such legislation, and more than that, the minister never voted for any such legislation. We voted for a principle exactly the opposite, and if my .attitude is to be compared with his, so far as consistency is concerned,
I do not think mine will suffer by the comparison. To-day the situation is entirely changed. On previous occasions when this House expressed itself in favour of legislation looking toward the improvement of highways, the Federal Government had an overflowing treasury, and relatively speaking, the Provincial Governments were poor. To-day the positions are exactly reversed. Since the war a great many calls have been made on the Federal treasury, calls greater in magnitude than any one previously supposed could have been borne, and very few calls of an exceptional character have been made on the Provincial Governments. The result is that, relatively speaking, our position is very much inferior to that of the provinces at the present time. Last year this Government floated a loan free of Federal taxes at a higher cost to the Government than five and-a-half per cent. The other day the little province of Nova Scotia was obliged to borrow money, and their ten-year five-per-cent bonds were eagerly snapped up within a point and a fraction of par, or at an interest cost to that province of less than five and one-fifth per cent. I ask any sane man in this House what justification there can be for the Federal Government stepping in at this time and, as my hon. friend (Mr. Clark) has so eloquently said, breaking the constitu-


Mr. McMASTEB:: I am strongly in favour of good roads, and I know itbat there are many hon. members in the House whose desire for good roads is possibly paramount in their minds. But I cannot, having attacked the Government for extravagance, allow criticism of this Bill to come merely from their own side of the House and from the cross benches while I remain silent. I regard this Bill as nothing more nor less than a programme for joy riding Ito bankruptcy. What sort of Toads do we require in. this country above all things? Not large trunk roads for automobilists to enjoy themselves on. They have their value and under another condition of finance in this country they might be permissible. But the roads which are required in this country above everything else are roads that are not more than reasonably expensive and reasonably maintainable, leading from the home of the farmer to 'the cheese factory, the station and the church. These roads are essentially a matter for the rural townships. If you take a road which goes through heavy clay country it will be more expensive than one which goes through gravel country; but the heavy clay country will produce crops far greater than those produced in the light gravelly soil, and therefore the disadvantage in the expense of the one will be offset by the advantage in the greater fertility and strength of soil. It is eminently unfair therefore to place roads on too wide a basis. Another strong point is this: It is essentially unsound for one governing power to raise money and another governing power to spend it.
Confederation imposed that system upon us, but it should be kept within the narrowest possible limits, and I am absolutely opposed to the Dominion Government raising money and handing it over to the provinces to spend. It means one of two things. Either the Dominion Government has to leave the provinces to their - own sweet will in distributing the money, or it will have to see that it is properly distributed and spent. If they take the latter alternative they must duplicate departments; we must have a department of roads for the Dominion and one for the province. In this country, it seems to me, the first necessity is to develop one system of transportation. In the Western Provinces,, I understand, they are much more anxious to have railways than highways at this time, and it is important that public money should be spent on giving means of communication to the whole country before the Dominion Government assists in duplicating means of communication in Eastern 'Canada. We have railways in Eastern Canada, and if we subsidize great arteries of highways they will more or less duplicate the railways. Highways have their value and I trust that no hon. member will accuse me of being ignorant or unappreciative of the fact. I value them in a high degree, but I say that for this Government to spend any money that is not absolutely required, when we have to borrow for everything but the bare cost of administering the affairs of the country, is essentially unwise. I do not wish to repeat what I said in my remarks on the Budget, but I drew attention of the House to this fact, that one of the greatest causes of the high cost of living in Canada was inflation of credit. Borrowing will continue the inflation of credit, and it is a matter which deserves severe condemnation for this Government, in order to please some . people who largely belong to the automo-bilist class, to borrow money, and thus increase the cost of living to the poor widow, the poor workingman, and those who are suffering possibly more than any one else from the high cost of living-the clergyman, the teacher and the man with a small salary which has not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living.
There is one argument that might be brought forward; you say that this will give employment to the people. These gr^at roads will have to be built through the rural districts. There is no lack of, employment in the rural parts; on the contrary, there is a tremendous scarcity of employment there, and it will be a poor benefit to

Canada if you take men from the fields to haul and crush stone for roads when they would be better employed raising wheat, milking cows and doing other such work. On the whole, I believe that this legislation is a mistake. I know that I may incur some unpopularity with some sections of the people by opposing a grant of money for roads, but you can pay too high a price even for a good thing and I wish my protest to be registered against what I consider as a mistaken step by the 'Government in connection with the expenditure of money that is not warranted in the present financial condition of the country.


George Boyce: I regret that at the very first opportunity this Dominion gets of giving a little assistance to the rural population the proposition has met with such opposition. I think the people of this Dominion are well entitled to a grant of this kind, because whenever appropriations have been required 'for railways, harbours, and other public works the representatives of the people of the rural constituencies have always voted for them. When an opportunity comes to this Parliament to vote for a grant of money to improve the roads, a work which is most essential at the present time, the proposition is met by what I might call the small men in the Opposition. If it was proposed to erect a public building in a city it would be all right with them, but when anything is proposed for the general good of the rural population these gentlemen are against it. Talk about the cost of living! There is nothing that will bring down the cost of living to a greater extent than good roads, and there is not a mah throughout the country but who will agree with me as to the great necessity at the present time of improving our highways. There is a little thing I heard outside of this Chamber and that is that there are some politics in the opposition that these hon. gentlemen are offering to this good roads proposition. We ought to get out of that way of looking at a question of this kind; we ought to be bigger men than that. We ought to get it into our heads that the taxes of the Dominion which are spent for this purpose are spent for the general good of the country. We are asked the question: What have we done to build roads? The townships in my county have been building roads for the lasit sixty years and the county which I have the honour to represent is spending $20,000 a year in building roads. The provinces are spending thousands and millions of dollars for roads all over the Dominion. You talk 
about the war. Who contributed to the winning of the war? Did we not all contribute to the funds that were necessary to win the war? My county took the first $50,000 of the Victory Loan. We did not care about roads; we wanted to win the war. The war is now won and we say: Give us good roads. We are not asking for charity; we want to pay our share and we can do it. We have voted for railways, harbours, canals; now we want good roads, and I regret that there should be any objection made to this first grant which the people of the rural constituencies have ever asked to be made for the purpose af assisting in the building of good roads.
iMr. BALDWIN: No man in this House is more interested in good roads than I am. For about fifteen years I have worked for good roads in my county, and I contributed $5,000 from my own pocket to help build eighteen miles of provincial roads. I wanted to spent $1,000 or $2,000 of my own money for the construction of a road in my own county, but the municipal council did not approve of my offer, and therefore the road was not built. I considered that the money would have been well spent because it would have resulted in more traffic with less horsepower, less breakage of wagons and harness.
But owing to the position in which this Dominion stands to-day I must protest against the proposal which is now before the House. In the first place, we have not the money. This is an inopportune time to undertake this project. It is unconstitutional, and besides labour is very scarce in the country. This $20,000,000 would go but a short distance in building roads throughout this Dominion. It has been proven that the Provincial Governments can get money at a lower rate of interest than the Federal Government and so long as this burden is upon the people let us get money from the cheapest source possible and apply it in our own way and under the direction of our own provincial engineers. In so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, it has every facility through its engineers for building good roads without having attached to it any leading strings from this Parliament. There are many reasons for not voting this money when our people are overburdened and when the load is being added to by almost every enactment of this House. I regret that I must protest against this Bill, however much I am in favour of good roads.


Avard Longley Davidson: I wonder if the minister in that peculiarly lucid manner of his, would now be good enough to explain to

us what he expects to gain financially by having this Dominion borrow money for provincial purposes at a higher rate of interest than that at which the provinces can borrow it for the purpose of extending provincial roads.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not wish to be discourteous to the hon. member. If the hon. member would have looked at the time he would have seen that hon. members stood up and I did not have an opportunity of answering him. I had no intention of not replying to his question. I shall do so now. As to his question: What would be gained by the Dominion borrowing money at a higher rate of interest than the provinces will pay? Any person-the hon. member himself-knows that a question of that kind is one that can be easily answered. I cannot see any object to be gained by the Dominion Government borrowing money at a higher rate of interest. But it is my opinion that it will be of great advantage to the people of Canada as a whole to have good roads. I believe that and, believing that, I have put this Bill on the Order Paper. I believe it is the duty of the Dominion to assist the building of good roads throughout the country. Believing that we should assist the building of good roads, then, I believe that we should provide the money, and if we have to borrow it or do it by taxation, whatever the rate of interest is, we have to pay it. Let me say in Tegard to the claim of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), that this is unconstitutional, that he did not say it was unconstitutional when the Dominion Government gave assistance to agriculture, such assistance to be distributed by the local governments. I was only too pleased to vote that the money should be distributed by the local governments subject to the supervision of the Dominion Government in so far as agricultural and technical education is concerned.
As to this measure being unconstitutional neither the legal advisers of my department nor of the Justice Department have given utterance to any such opinion. I do not believe myself that it is unconstitutional to assist in the construction of good roads. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davidson) knows that in regard to provincial railways for which charters were granted by the provincial legislatures and over which this Parliament had no jurisdiction at all, federal subsidies have been granted for years. If it is unconstitutional to assist in building good roads throughout the Dominion it is equally unconstitutional for this Parliament to vote subsidies for the purpose referred to. My own view is that we should give assistance to these undertakings, regardless of whether they are provincial or federal, so long as they are in the interests of the people as a whole, and good roads are undoubtedly of that character.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does the minister
think, for example, that a road leading from a country town in Ontario to some remote district in the country would be a benefit to the farmers in Saskatchewan?


John Dowsley Reid: I believe that a similar road from a city or town in Saskatchewan would be an advantage to the people of that province. In the same way, it i3 my opinion that a road leading from a town in Annapolis to a remote part of the county would be of advantage to the people of that county. Now in the United States the situation is similar to the one we have here in so far as granting aid towards the building of roads is concerned. In the ad. joining republic the ownership of roads is vested in the several states, yet we find Congress voting $260,000,000, or $300,000,000 to be appropriated among the various states for the construction of good roads.


Michael Clark: They can afford to do that.


John Dowsley Reid: But the United States are borrowing the money for the purpose and it involves taxing the people as a whole. As regards the Canadian situation I am optimistic enough to believe that we can satisfactorily solve our financial problems and provide the necessary money for this purpose. I wish to endorse the statement made by an hon. gentleman in this ddbate that if we are going in for increased production, proper facilities for transportation should be provided. I believe this Bill to be a good one. It is legislation which this Parliament should pass and more than that, the people of the country have already voted in favour of it. They endorsed it in 1911, and in the general elections of 1917 which resulted in the return of the Union Government. The proposition we are asking the House to support was a plank in the Government's platform


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Dowsley Reid: -and it was endorsed by the people of Canada.
An hqn. MEMBER:	It is highway robbery.


John Dowsley Reid: Furthermore, the Bill
was promised in the speech from the

Throne and has been brought up on several previous occasions this session. Personally, I want to hear the views of members with respect to it, but I am not trying to force through a measure unless public sentiment favour it and I certainly consider we have the public behind us in this matter.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: We are not.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not want any such legislation except it will be in the interest of the people as a whole. Believing that, and holding the view that it will result in improved transportation in every constituency, I submit the Bill for the consideration of this committee.


Ernest Lapointe: It is very
late in the session for such legislation.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has reminded
us that this legislation was promised in the speech from the Throne, yet he only brings it forward in the dying hours of a somewhat long and tiresome session.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill has been up before; it has been considered two or three times.


James Alexander Robb: Merely as a matter of form. Mr. J. D. REID:	No, it has been discussed by the House on several occasions.


James Alexander Robb: The first to speak upon the Bill, after it was presented to us, was an hon. gentleman who has loyally supported the present Government. He tells the Government he has reached the conclusion, or that many people throughout the country have reached the conclusion, that the Government is not fit to expend the public money, that it is not to be trusted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are unfit.


James Alexander Robb: The next speaker was the
assistant chief whip, who opposed the resolution in a lengthy speech. Have we therefore not reason to ask ourselves whether the Government is serious, and what the conditions are throughout the country, when two of the most active supporters of the Administration from the time the Union Government was formed, get up this morning and condemn this legislation? I submit it is high time the country should have a statement from-the Prime Minister in order to ascertain whether the Government is serious in respect to this legislation.


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: My hon. friend has said that this Bill has been left over until the closing hours of this session.


Mr. BUREAU:: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend must recall the fact that the minister has presented the measure to the House on two or three previous occasions, and each time a lengthy discussion took place upon it. The House has had full opportunity of discussing the matter at much earlier stages of the session than the present.
However, I rose for the purpose of speaking on one or two aspects of the matter. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) spoke very strongly against the Bill and expressed his surprise that the Government should introduce such a measure. Let me tell him that one of the reasons it has been introduced is that it formed part of the platform and policy of the Union Government when that Government was formed. The fact was so stated and announced to the people of Canada by the Prime Minister when he published the basis upon which the present Government was formed. Let me read a paragraph from the statement which was issued by the Prime Minister on the 18th October, 1917, outlining the policies which the Union Government was created to put into effect. Paragraph 7 of that statement reads as follows:
7. The development of transportation facilities; the co-operative management of the various railway systems, so as to ensure economy in operation, to avoid unnecessary construction, and to secure the widest and most effective use of existing railway facilities;
That has been carried out, so far as is practicable at the present time, by the creation of the board to manage all the railway systems under Government control, and will be carried out further when the Government secures the Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific railways .


Jacques Bureau: It will take some money.


Newton Wesley Rowell: the encouragement and development of the shipbuilding industry and the establishment of steamship lines upon both oceans and upon the Great Lakes;
The Government has implemented that pledge, in order that we may have not only railways,, but steamships to make a complete Government transportation system.
co-operation with the various Provincial Governments for the improvement of highways.


Michael Clark: Are all the provincial governments prepared to co-operate?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I know.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is what I understand from my hon. friend the Minister of Rail-

ways who is in charge of this matter. My recollection is that the matter came before the Interprovincial Conference held at the close of last year, and I understood that all the provincial governments were anxious for co-operation, although I have hot been personally in touch with them.


Michael Clark: There ought to be absolute information.	*


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Minister of Railways can no doubt give that.


Michael Clark: He says " so far a9 he knows."


Newton Wesley Rowell: Then oomes the fourth proposal:
The investigation of the possibilities of the air service for important national purposes.
The Union Government, recognizing that transportation was one of our largest and most vital national problems, decided to give special consideration to all aspects of the question, including railway transportation, water transportation, highways and air service.


Jacques Bureau: Good roads are secondary so far as that is concerned.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have already carried out two of those proposals. This Bill is to carry out the third. We have passed this Session an Air Bill in order that we may carry out the fourth.


Jacques Bureau: That was subject to the money being available.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so. The Government is but implementing the pledge it made to the people of Canada when the Government was formed.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Newton Wesley Rowell: When the committee rose at one o'clock, I had just concluded a reference to the statement issued by the Prime Minister at the time of the formation of the Union Government indicating the policy which tfhe Union Government proposed to follow. In introducing this Bill, therefore, the Government is but carrying out the pledge it made ito the country at that time.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) raised a question as to the constitu-' tionali'ty of the proposed measure. I do not. know upon what basis my hon. friend questioned its constitutionality. It is quite clearly within the competence of the Federal Parliament to pass an Act of this
kind and to render assistance to the provinces in the construction or maintenance of good roads within the provinces. I can see that there might be objection on the grounds urged by my hon. friend if the Government proposed, against the wish of the provinces, to construct highways within the provinces. But that is not proposed by this Bill; no action can be taken under the Bill without the full consent and approval of the province. Since the committee rose I have ascertained that at the interprovincial conference the question was considered and my information is that there was no dissent; indeed, those present ' were heartily in favour of the proposal.
My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) has raised the general question whether one Government should raise moneys for another Government to spend. That subject was discussed prior to Confederation, and a great deal may be said in favour of the suggestion that one Government should not raise moneys and turn them over to another to expend. But whatever our views may be on this question, the Fathers of Com federation have settled this matter for us. It is too late for us to attempt to decide matters on that basis. By the British North America Act large revenues received by the provinces prior to Confederation were turned oveT to the Dominion and provision was made to compensate the provinces by subsidies paid from the Federal Treasury. From time to time these subsidies have been received and the amounts increased in order to enable the provinces to carry on the various branches of the public service which are committed to them under the British North America Act. Therefore, I think we must approach the consideration of the matter absolutely on its merits, irrespective of any constitutional objection such as the member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) has raised, and irrespective of the objection urged by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). The question, therefore, if considered on its merits, is this: Is it in the national interest that the Government of Canada should assist in constructing and improving and maintaining the highways of Canada? If it is a matter of purely local and domestic concern, it might be fairly and strongly argued that the Parliament of Canada should not take up the proposition. But I think it is difficult to argue successfully that the matter of good roads is one of purely local and domestic concern. I submit the matter of good roads throughout the country is one of the most important

that we can be called upon to consider in the interests of the general improvement and development of the whole country. These roads connect up with our railway systems of transportation; they are the only means of communication between the homes of thousands-yes, of millions-of our people and the various centres of population; therefore, a good system of highways throughout the country is of great national moment. Moreover, good roads will contribute to the public welfare by increasing the comfort and convenience of the people in our rural sections and, I venture to say, will help to keep the people on the farm and therefore increase production. In a word, good roads would generally improve the conditions of rural life in Canada, as they have improved the conditions of rural life in every country where good roads have been built. I submit, therefore, that the matter of good roads is one of national concern in which the Federal Government may properly take an interest, having regard to the welfare, progress and prosperity of all the people of Canada. The Bill, therefore, can be justified on that ground.
Then, we come to the last point which was expressed so strongly by the member for Red Deer, and that is the question of spending the money at the present time. To my mind, that is really the one serious aspect of the question. On every other ground, the proposal is so obviously in the public interest that its merits should secure the unanimous endorsation of the House; but I quite agree that it is a fair matter for debate whether, in view of the conditions arising out of the war, we should expend so large a sum of money on good roads at this time. While recognizing the important considerations which the member for Red Deer has presented to the Committee, the Government reached the conclusion-which was announced in the speech from the Throne and which is implemented by this Bill-that it was in the public interest that assistance should be given to the good roads movement as part of the plan of national development. There are two things which we must keep in mind. Our large debt constitutes a serious burden upon the people. The only way we can successfully meet the situation is by increasing national production. We can contribute toward this end by improving the conditions of rural life and thus offering larger inducements for the people to stay on or return to the farm. Any increase in national production makes us 
more capable to bear the national burdens. I agree that we should not embark upon unproductive expenditures at this time. There is necessity for economy and for thrift; the Canadian people will probably have to learn a good deal more of thrift and economy before we are relieved from the burden of debt which this war has put upon us.


Michael Clark: And the Canadian Government.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, that may be a matter for debate, too. But I submit that any proper expenditure that increases the productive power of the people increases also our ability to carry the burden of debt and ultimately pay it off. On that ground I think we can justify this public expenditure, as well as on the further ground, which was an important consideration in a number of the proposals the Government has made this session,-that it is wise to provide employment during the period of reconstruction following the war. The Government felt it incumbent to adopt such measures as were within its power to promote the construction of public works and undertakings of a productive character in order that such employment should be provided. The building of roads at this time should assist in providing that necessary employment. For these reasons I submit that the Bill introduced by the Minister of Railways is not against the public interest, but is in the public interest and is deserving the support of the House.


Avard Longley Davidson: Before sitting down will my hon. friend apply himself to the solution of a problem which I propounded, with somewhat indifferent success I am afraid, to the Minister of Railways, namely: How can he justify on the grounds of good business the Federal Government borrowing money at a higher rate of interest than the provinces pay, to be handed over to the provinces to be expended by them on a purely provincial matter.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend must certainly have misunderstood what I said. I did not say the constitution must take second place. I said that this legislation was not contrary to the constitution, But quite within the constitution.


Jacques Bureau: I say that it is quite without the constitution; that is where I take exception to my hon. friend's argument. We know that one of the planks of Toryism is centralization. You begin by saying: We will grant money to the provinces, or we will loan them money. Then after you have inserted the thin end of the wedge you will run the whole thing. When the question of technical education was before the House we pointed out the dangers of the Federal Parliament touching such subjects. I claim that every matter which has been made a subject of exclusive provincial legislation ought to be left to the provinces. My hon. friend (Mr. Rowell) says the provinces will expend the money. But the provinces have to enter into an agreement with the Dominion Government, and that is the stick this Government will hold over them. This Government has the right to say what kind of a road shall be built, what the specifications shall be, and in what part of the country Che road shall be built. It is all very well to say that it will be done by agreement, but if one of the parties does not consent to the agreement there will be no agree-


Ernest Lapointe: As they should be.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) says " as they should be," and I share his view. I do not see why they should be exempt, because I am in favour of imposing a tax upon every kind of income, no matter from where it may come. What interest can he put on these bonds that will not prejudicially affect them upon the market?


An hon. MEMBER:: Five per -cent.


Jacques Bureau: Five per cent? It will more likely be six or seven per cent. If the bonds are taxable the response of the true patriot is going to shrink in direct ratio to the reduction of the benefit he is going to get from the bonds. It has been said, and rightly said, in this House that to-day these Victory loan bonds are finding their way into the hands of the man who has the capital. That man will get up and sing patriotic songs but he will try and get as much of his income behind the Victory and the Liberty bonds as he can member of this Parliament, say "no." The fortunate enough-no, it is not my misfortune-to belong to the millionaire class and therefore my income tax does not come from Victory Bonds because I cannot buy them. But if the people are going to ask the question: What are you going to use [DOT] this money for, and if the Government are going to take the ground that they are going to use the money they have to borrow for the simple purpose of trying to throw a bait out to the provinces, because the provinces want to build roads, I, as a member of this Parliament say "no." The provinces are well able to build their own roads. I do not think there is a province in the Dominion that has not as good credit as the Dominion has and if the people of those provinces are so anxious about building roads, if they have to pay back the money to the Dominion, because they will have to be taxed to pay it back, let them go down in their own pockets, pay the tax to the province and let the privileges, rights and powers of the various provinces and of the Dominion be respected as defined by the constitution.
I do not see any good reason for bringing in this Bill at this time, but, on the contrary I see every reason for protecting the credit of the country, helping along the business of the country, and giving the country confidence that we will be able to legislate seriously and that we will not do anything that will mean throwing away the money that we have to borrow to meet the deficit. Let us show by the legislation that we pass in this House that we do not want to do anything but that which is absolutely necessary and of primary importance to the welfare of this country.
I admit the desirability of having good roads all over the country not only for transportation purposes but for many other reasons. My reason for favouring the construction of good roads extends beyond the mere question of transportation. If we 
have good roads all over the Dominion we will have harmony and good feeling. Good roads mean travel and travel permits intercourse between individuals. I am satisfied that if we had good roads between Three Rivers and Toronto the people of Toronto would motor down to Three Rivers and see what nice people we are.


Ernest Lapointe: You might have an Orange lodge there.


Jacques Bureau: We might have an Orange lodge there and there is nothing to prevent it. I am quite willing to learn all the good that there is in other people. I speak from the bottom of my heart when I say that I am wholly and entirely in favour of good roads and that I think good roads are essential to the welfare of the people. But I think a man makes a mistake who builds a $20,000 house when he has only $10,000 because if he goes bankrupt upon it those who are depending upon him and those who come after him will get no benefit from it. The reasons advanced by the President of the Privy Council in support of this proposal are not sufficient to convince me. The work which will be given to the soldier will not last for more than a month, winter will set in and the work will be over. Another reason why I oppose this vote is that I do not want my hon. friends on this side of the House, after the next election, and when they go over to the other side, to be saddled with this $20,000,000 and, if they are saddled with it, I want them to be able to explain it and to give good reasons for it. That is one of the reasons why I do not want to support this measure. It does not appear to-day that we have the means to carry out this proposal and therefore I oppose it.


William Cameron Edwards: If the last reason advanced by my friend (Mr. Bureau) were the only reason, it would not be necessary for any person to take up the question further. I do not think he need worry about 'the responsibility which will fall upon him and his colleagues on the other side of the House when they are sitting on this side of the House because I do not think it will be in the very near future.


Ernest Lapointe: It will be in the new buildings, not here.


William Cameron Edwards: According to the last reports, the progress is not rapid on the new Parliament Buildings so that anyhow it will be some time in the future before gentlemen opposite have to assume responsibility for Government. My hon. friend has accepted the constitutionality of

this Act, and if I caught his words correctly, he said: "No conditions would make him ignore the Constitution." It seems to me that if we were to hand this money over to the provinces to be expended by them as we would stipulate for the building or improvement of roads, it would be open to the same objection from the constitutional standpoint as if we gave forty per cent and. had a written or some other kind of agreement with the provinces as to how the money should be expended.


Jacques Bureau: I admit that but it would not have a political string to it.


William Cameron Edwards: If my hon. friend admits that handing it over to the province is open to objection which he raises from a constitutional standpoint-


Jacques Bureau: For the specific purpose of roads.


William Cameron Edwards: -for the specific purpose, certainly, of improving the roads, then my hon. friend is in the position a little later on of saying that he is willing to hand that over to the provinces.


Jacques Bureau: As an increased subsidy.


William Cameron Edwards: As an increased subsidy for a specific purpose.


Jacques Bureau: No; not for a specific purpose.


William Cameron Edwards: That specific purpose being the improvement of roads. My hon. friend is on record not only to-day but he is on record several years ago as voting in favour of handing money over to the provinces for the specific purpose of improving or building roads.
Back in 1912 my hon. friend put himself on record on this question, and he did the same in 1S13. On both occasions my hon. friend, when he supported and spoke in favour of the amendment proposed by the Senate-which amendment did not oppose the Federal Government giving the money to the provinces bu't desired the handing of it over rbo the provincial governments to be used for the specific purpose of building and improving roads-had with him the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) and many others, who were members of Parliament at that time and still occupy seats in this House. On the occasion referred to, the hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Clark) did not raise the question of the unconstitutionality of the policy. Neither he nor the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) objected to the principle of the Federal Government spending money for
27&i
the purpose. On the contrary, the former was very strongly in favour of the policy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Michael Clark) said:
We would like these roads, There is no reason why the Government should not accept the amendment.
That was the amendment of the Senate which proposed to hand the money over to the provinces. To-day, one of the strong arguments of the hon. gentleman, advanced with a good deal of vigour, is that the policy is unconstitutional, and in that respect he is backed up by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson). Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not raise the question of the policy being unconstitutional in 1912 or in 1913. I have glanced over the debates in both years and I do not find that any person on either side raised such a question. There was a difference of opinion then, as there is a difference of opinion now, as to whether the money should be handed over to the provinces, permitting them to use their own judgment in the matter so long as it was expended on roads. That position was- taken in 1912 and 1913 by a number of hon. gentlemen who still sit in this House. Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not then, object to the Federal Government assisting the provinces in regard to the building and improvement of highways. He wanted the money handed over to>
the provincial governments without the Federal Government having any voice in the matter further than to say that the money voted by this Parliament must be expended for the purpose designated. I supported the Bill that, was introduced in 1912, and again in 1913, for the building and improvement of highways. That Bill provided that we should have a say in the expenditure of the money, and I have on previous occasions maintained that 'that is a position we cannot afford to recede from. I say that if this Parliament votes money for technical education, or for agriculture, or for good roads, or for any other specific purpose, and certainly for a purpose which may be regarded as purely provincial, we are responsible for the voting of that money, and we should have some say as 'to what is being done with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: And we should follow up our vote in the manner indicated. I confess to you, Mr. Chairman, that I entertain some doubt in regard to the Bill as it is now. Let me repeat, I am strongly in favour of federal assistance for improving our high-

ways. I believe that can be justified and justified up to the hilt. I believe it is in the general interests of Canada that money should be spent in assisting the provinces to improve the highways. But what causes me to have some suspicion is that the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) remains silent while this matter is going through. The leader of the Opposition also remains silent, and I am suspicious of the silence of both hon. gentlemen.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, the question of politics has come up in connection with this matter, and I want to confess that I for one am suspicious of the silence of those hon. gentlemen. If their acceptance of this Bill means that the various Provincial Governments are to have control of the expenditure of the money and the Dominion Government will virtually have no voice in it, I say that is something which would be regrettable.
Speaking on the matter the other night, I made a suggestion which I think is worthy of consideration. Different hon. gentlemen have raised the question of politics. The hon. member for Three Rivers was suspicious that this money would be used for political purposes. I contend, Sir, that in voting this money it is the duty of Parliament, as far as it possibly can, to safeguard its expenditure in order to prevent the money being used by any Provincial Government for political purposes, and T believe that can be done.


Mr. McCREA:: How can it be done?


William Cameron Edwards: The money which we propose to' vote for the construction and improvement of highways should be spent on the higher class of road, a standard road, a road which will be decided upon by the provincial and Dominion engineers as being of a certain class. Very well, let that be stipulated, so that the money shall not be devoted to the improvement of back concession lines. Let it be specified that these highways must be of a certain standard. Having fixed your standard for them there should likewise be a guarantee that the contract would be let by tender. When you are building fifteen, twenty, or fifty miles of road, it is a very simple matter, if your engineers have agreed upon the standard of road to be built for that distance, to let, for.example, five miles by tender, and the lowest bidder will get the contract. When that happens the contractor is going to

secure his labour wherever he can get it regardless of how those people vote, and I believe that is something provision should be made for in this Bill. To illustrate my point further: Where the money goes to the province of Ontario-and there we have a government in office which we know would not abuse its rights, which would deal properly with this money and would not use it for any ulterior purpose-in view of the fact that the federal authorities are contributing forty per cent of the money, going towards the construction of' a highway, we have a right to say to the Government of Ontario: " Bring on your engineers now and we will have our engineers consult with them as to the standard of road to be built, and you must agree to let the contract for that piece of road by tender "-not hand the money over to the province and let it carry out the work by day's labour. I can see that if the money were handed over without conditions there might be a very great deal of danger, no matter in what province the money may be expended. Every member who has spoken on this subject agrees that we want good roads in the general interest of the country. There is no question about that. Every one here, it seems to me, should be willing to agree that so far as this money is concerned there should be no suspicion of its being used in any province for political purposes. I repeat, we can avoid that by making it a part of the contract that the building of the road must be let by tender, and in that way we will take the matter entirely out of politics.
One hon. gentleman asked of what benefit would it be to the farmers of Saskatchewan or Alberta to build a piece of road in the province of Ontario. We might put the question in this way:	Of what benefit will it be to the farmers of Ontario to build the Hudson's Bay railway; or to build a line of railway out to a settlement in the West which at present is forty or fifty miles away from a railway? I contend, Sir, that it would be a benefit to the farmers of Ontario that the producers in any part of Saskatchewan should have a better opportunity to get their goods to market. I contend that it would be to the interest of the farmers of Saskatchewan if by building good roads and improving the transportation facilities of the farmers of Ontario we add to the wealth of those farmers-and we certainly will-for that is something which is for the general benefit of the Dominion.
I am very strongly in favour of the Federal Government assisting the provinces, and especially the older provinces, in re-

gard to the building of highways. The older provinces have played a big part and have -made big sacrifices in the development of the newer portions of the country. The people of the eastern part of Canada rejoice in the prosperity of those of the West. But we have difficulties to face here, and one of the heaviest burdens resting upon the farming community of Ontario is the keeping up of their roads. Twice the money that was used ten or fifteen years ago in maintaining out roads in fairly good condition will not suffice to-day; it is an utter impossibility. Not only is this consideration justly due to the rural districts of Ontario, but I repeat that, in my opinion, an improvement in our roads in Ontario or Quebec or in any other province is not merely something for the welfare of the province in which the money is spent, but something which will be for the welfare of Canada as a whole.
Let me repeat once more before I sit down, that I do thjnk this Bill should contain a stipulation that the money voted by this House is to be voted on the understanding that it will be spent in the way I have suggested-by letting the work out to tender instead of handing the money over to the provinces to spend on day work.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, the Committee has had a speech from my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council of very great moderation. I could not help thinking that his moderation was in proportion to his own consciousness of the weakness of his case, because I have heard my hon. friend speak with very much greater vigour-always with courtesy, I admit, but with very much greater vigour -than he did in the speech which he has just delivered. On the question of the constitutionality of this measure, I am afraid I should display very great temerity if I entered into a legal argument with my hon. friend, who is not only a member of this Cabinet but a lawyer of ability. However, I have been reading the section of the British North America Act which deals with this question, and I have come to the conclusion that this procedure is of very doubtful constitutionality. We should settle a question of constitutionality, usually, I think, in the first place, according to law, and in the second place, according to precedent. I think I should be on sound ground in thinking that the constitutionality of our procedure would base itself upon those two considerations.
With regard to the law, I am prepared to contend, until some legal authority corrects me, that the only highway which would come under clause 10 of the 4 p.m. section of the British North America Act which deals with matters exclusively within the rights of the provinces, would be a highway connecting one province with another; in other words, an interprovincial or national highway. Because, while railways and telegraph lines and other things are mentioned specifically, the only possibility of getting highways within that clause is under the phrase " other works connecting one province with another." Now, I want to put a question to my hon. friend (Mr. Rowell): In his support of this Bill does he contemplate an interprovincial highway? I do not need to wait for the answer, because he has told us specifically that the highways in his mind are the highways within the province which would be of use to the farmer in getting his stuff to market, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, nay, in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand, those would not be highways leading from one province to another.
. As to precedent, I am surely on very strong ground. Confederation reached the fifty-second anniversary of its birth yesterday, and the fact that this legislation is before us is conclusive proof, if proof were needed, that for the whole period of Confederation our highways have been exclusively attended to by the provinces. So that on the ground of the law itself, so far as a layman may dare to interpret it, and certainly on the .ground of precedent, I venture to put my opinion very, very humbly and with very much diffidence against the opinion of the hon. the President of the Privy Council.
- Now, my hon. friend from Frontenac (IMr. Edwards) has advanced an argument by which, I think, he endeavoured to fasten a charge of inconsistency in regard to this very matter upon myself and upon other hon. gentlemen sitting to your left, Mr. Chairman. Well, Sir, I may be very obtuse upon the point, but it seems to me that the facts adduced by the hon. gentleman prove exactly the opposite. The Senate amendment, devised in consultation no doubt with the great constitutionalist and the great statesman who at that time was leading the Liberal party, was devised for the very purpose of meeting the constitution. No one has argued that money cannot be given to the provinces by the Federal Government. We give it for a dozen purposes; the whole matter of provincial subsidies proves that. After the

money has been given to the provinces, unless it is especially ear-marked, they can use it for any ourpose, and, as a matter of fact, I presume they do in some cases use it for roads.
There is no contention about that; the contention is aJbout the right of the Federal Government to go into a province and look after what is a provincial work, what has been a provincial work during the whole of the period of Confederation, and what is contemplated as a provincial work by the British North America Act. That is the case so far as my hon. friend is concerned. With regard to that matter, I might say that as to what was proposed to be done five years ago and what is proposed to be done to-day, the whole thing depends upon the method of the doing of it so far as the constitution is concerned. But so far as common sense policy is concerned; so far as a decent national policy is concerned, the whole thing depends on whether or not you have the money to do the thing you are proposing. At that time, owing, of course, to the fact that we had been pursuing a normal course of development and wealth production in this Dominion and had not the obligations of a great war upon our shoulders, it was well within our financial ability to spend the money. But I do not think the most optimistic Canadian will stand up to-day and say that it is well within our ability to follow such a policy now.
Now, why is it essentially a local work and why is it so contemplated? For the very purpose of avoiding the trouble that will arise under this measure. For what does the measure propose? It proposes a double control in regard to a provincial work. That it is still regarded by the Government as a provincial work is demonstrated beyond all possibility of contradiction by the fact that the money is to be given provincially in certain amounts and that the provinces are to be asked to cooperate. The constitution and the precedents followed in this country have been wise constitutions and precedents because they have avoided that double control; they have avoided the interlocking of machinery which would be extremely awkward in practice. It is because of these difficulties that we are opposing this legislation. Under what was proposed by the Senate amendment, to which my hon. friend has referred, there would have been no interlocking of machinery; there would have been no double control. Each province would have done what it has done at all

times-looked after the roads within its own borders, having accepted its share of federal help for the purpose.
We are told by the President of the Council that, the Government does not propose to do anything without the consent of the various provinces. Very well, I am going to put a case, not upon constitutionality, but upon a question of justice. We have not had the information, I contend, that we should have had from the minister in charge of this Bill; and that is one of the reasons why I think we should vote against it if it comes to a vote. We have not had the information which we should have had as to the exact attitude of the Provincial Governments. The Minister of Railways, before he introduces a departure from the practice of Confederation from the beginning up to the present time, should be able to give us exact, tabulated information, on paper, concerning the arrangements that he is proposing to enter into with the various Provincial Governments. We ought to have had information by letter of the consent of these Governments, but we have not that information
I am going to suppose a case. I am going to suppose that some of the provinces do not avail themselves of this Act. The point has been made before, but it is so important that I venture to make it again. Is it not contrary to the spirit of common justice that, at this time, when every part of the country is bearing its own burden, the provinces which, for reasons best known to themeselves, do not take advantage of the supposed benefits of this Act, should be taxed to pay the interest on money which is borrowed to carry this Act into effect for the sake of other provinces? That is travesty on common justice, and I am surprised at that situation being viewed with comparative calm and apparent self-complacency by ministers and members from the "banner" province of Ontario. In the absence of exact information we can only guess, or depend upon inexact information, as to what is the attitude of the provinces. A number of members from the province of Quebec tell us that roads are getting on very well in that province; that the Provincial Government is making a splendid job of its roads; and travellers in that province tell us the same thing. I venture, with very great humility, to offer my compliments to the province of Quebec on setr ting an example to the rest of the Dominion in that particular.
Nova Scotia is in a splendid financial position, according to the evidence of the member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson)-

thanks to the efforts, in no small degree, of the member for iShelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), who, I think, every one down there admits did an immense . work before he came into federal politics for the financial position of Nova iScotia. Well, if Nova Scotia is in that splendid position and some of the most prominent members from Nova Scotia, one of them being a Government whip, do not approve of this legislation, on what principle can we conclude that the province of Nova Scotia is going to come to this Government and seek this help? If they are, it must be in accordance with their Scottish origin; they must not like to pass a good thing, even if they do not need it; they must be imbued with the quality of the Scotchman who keeps the Sabbath and everything else he can lay his hands on. Nova Scotia, therefore, is financially in a good condition; they are doing their provincial business in a good way, and ' I do not think there is any great outcry from that province.
As to New Brunswick, we have a minister from that province who, perhaps, may be heard from in this debate. According to the votes of the last few days, I should say that New Brunswick has a considerable appetite for public money and I should not be surprised to hear that they are ready to receive a little help in regard to their roads.
In the West there has been no great outcry for the expenditure of this money. If It is considered that there has been an outcry in British 'Columbia . that [DOT]conclusion is not, in my judgment, based upon a very careful consideration of their political history; it has rather sprung from what I would call political habit. British Columbia has a history in regard to the building of roads. There was an administration in that province which did very little else but build roads and which was returned to office again and again on its roads policy. In fact, they carried their policy of good roads and their building of roads so far that it was an exceedingly difficult thing to beat them for a great many years; people who went through that province told us that the Government had almost a majority of the voters employed upon the roads-. But the time came when the money would go no further for that sort of business; they rather ran out of the funds that were necessary to carry on that particular line of politics and provincial development -and we know what happened to the Administration in question. Well, I should mot think that that history is one which
would incline hon. gentlemen from British Columbia to be too strong in their advocacy of a roads policy.
In regard to the Prairie Provinces, I think we stand to benefit the least of any, because our roads are not permanent; they are not macadamized; they are mostly made by the farmers on routes contiguous to their own farms. They are trails rather than roads, and I do not suppose that under this Act there is any prospect of their being very rapidly made otherwise. Well, it comes to this: That the main support of this proposition is from Ontario, which is a very great province and rejoices in being known as the "banner province'' of the Dominion. But if Ontario comes to us urging us strongly to pass a roads Bill for its special benefit -what one might call an "Ontario Roads Relief Bill"-then I should really be inclined to follow up the attack upon titles by removing that term "banner" from the title of the province of Ontario.
The President of the Council made his first argument in favour of this scheme upon the policy upon which he alleges- and I think correctly, according to what he read-that the Dominion Government was returned to power. But we in this House are not dependent upon the printed copy of something that was said by the Prime Minister in the last election for our knowledge of the policy upon which the Government were returned to power. If you ask the people of this country what was the policy of this Government that won at the last election, they would answer that, so far as they followed public affairs, the Union Government was returned to power on a policy of winning the war by contributing our last man-yesi, and our last dollar. That was the policy upon 'which 'the Government were returned to power. Even if we admit that good roads were included, a sound financial thing from the point of view of fulfilling the programme of the last election would be *o get after that last dollar before we begin to build roads on borrowed money. I put it to my hon. friend that one of the main planks in the Government's platform had better be carried out before we borrow money by the hundred million to fulfil what was a very minor promise of the Prime Minister and was not in the minds of the people of this country to any great extent at the last election.
I never heard of it in Alberta; I am confident it was not much heard of in Quebec; it might have been vsed in some of the constituencies of Ontario. That is all I have to say about the redemption of


Michael Clark: My hon. friend says,
" hear, hear." Let us see. Roads lead off the farm as well as on to it, and supposing that the men in the cities and the returned soldiers have no great taste for roadwork; who is going to do it? Many hon. members in debating this question have made themselves responsible for the opinion that returned soldiers will not go on the roads. .Well, if they don't, and if they won't- and I rather agree with the opinion-then iwho will go? There is only one answer. It will be the men who otherwise would be working on the farms, and I want to draw that consideration to the attention of the acute mind of the President of the Privy Council. I am not content to base .myself upon an opinion in this matter. In a very excellent Sunday newspaper, the *Toronto Sunday World, which I suppose gives a general support to the Government, .and which my hon. friend knows well, there *appeared an article last Sunday headed '' Exodus from the Farms," or words to that effect, in which the writer went on to say that one of the results of the housing scheme and the roadwork that this Government is proposing was that it was taking men from production, and not sending .them to it.
That is a very serious statement, made in a journal of repute and only on Sunday last, and I think it is worthy of my hon. friend's consideration. As a matter of fact, if there will be good money going on the roads, instead of the making of good roads helping to increase production it is calculated to have the opposite effect. It is calculated not to form the last step of the country-bound traveller going to agricultural pursuits, but'the first step of the man who is already in agriculture going to the larger wages in the different classes of pursuits and finding himself at last in the over-congested areas of our great cities. I put that to my hon. friend seriously, and give him the source of my information. That article expatiated upon the fact that the rural population of Ontario has been diminishing because of the attractions that there are in the cities for agricultural people.


Mr. COWAN:: Would you not have exactly the same result if the province did the work without Federal assistance?


Michael Clark: That would not be in my purview. I am not speaking in a Provincial Legislature. I am dealing with the policy of the Government. My hon. friend knows that in the province of Saskatchewan, as well as in Alberta, a great deal of the road work is done by men on the farms for their own convenience under the old system of road making.
I have dealt, I think, with every argument that has been advanced by the ministers in defence of this case. I have dealt with the supposed inconsistencies of myself and others, raised by my hon. friend from Fron-tenac, and I only want to repeat in conclusion that I think that the Government that proposes this expenditure and this borrowing of money at the present time is almost lost to all sense of financial responsibility. I believe the policy is unconstitutional. It is not calculated to increase production, and will not afford employment for returned soldiers. In fact, if I ransacked my intelligence, such as it is, for a single argument by which I could support the proposition, my cerebral tissues would not supply that argument.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from Red Deer seems anxious to know what the Minister of Public Works thinks about this matter, and what the views are of the people in the province of New Brunswick. 1 can tell him in very plain language where I stand upon the question. I am more in favour of this vote for the improvment of highways than for any other Bill which has been submitted to the House of Commons during the present session, and when I say that I am representing the people of New Brunswick to the extent, I believe, of nine-tenths, or perhaps a greater proportion. My hon. friend has paid me a very high compliment in the assertion that he thinks I have tried to realize the financial situation and to face it. I hope I have done so. I have referred to the financial situation a number of times during the present session, and I think I view it as gravely as he does. Nor have I forgotten the somewhat backhanded compliment he gave me in regard to the money being voted for New Brunswick. I shall not enter into the question of constructing public buildings in small or in great localities. Probably that matter will be discussed when my Estimates come down and when there will be an opportunity for discussion. I want to say, however, that as regards any money that has been voted by this Parliament for New Brunswick during this session or last session, I have no apologies whatever to offer. Apart from moneys for the development of the second greatest

seaport in Canada, moneys which are absolutely justifiable under any circumstances, there have been only a few thousand dollars, a mere bagatelle, devoted to that province. My hon. friend says that his own constituency has got nothing, and it may interest him to know that although I have been Minister of Public Works for nearly a year and nine months there has never been one dollar expended in my constituency. I have not asked for a dollar during the year. I endeavour to keep the question of the expenditure of money entirely divorced from any personal feeling, and I know that- there are members who have felt that they have not received what they would like to get for their constituencies. It has been a very unpleasant task for me, but I have tried to deal with every person absolutely upon his merits, regardless of the province or portion of Canada he might represent. My hon. friend submitted a long argument-and what I am about to say replies also to the hon. member for Annapolis-concerning the question of constitutionality. He said that this grant is unconstitutional. I cannot agree with that proposition for a moment. It is true that the British North America Act provides that local works are to be relegated to the provinces. I have not the Act before me, but I am familiar with its provisions, and I would point out to my friend that it is an easy matter to get around that Act. All you need do is to declare a work to be for the general advantage of Canada and you come within the provisions of the Act. So that if it is only a question of constitutionality, that is a trifle. Perhaps my hon. friend is not aware that works of all kinds in the Dominion since 1867- roads, bridges, and everything else-have been declared for the general advantage of Canada, and" the moment that is done they come within the purview of section 92 of the British North America Act.


Michael Clark: Except roads.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, roads too. Money has been expended upon roads: and there are members from the province of Quebec who probably may vote against this:-I do not know-and who have been most insistent during the last year that I should bring down appropriations to build roads in Quebec. I had dozens of letters from them, and I have had delegations before me from Quebec of forty or fifty men who have travelled three hundred or four hundred miles for the purpose of convincing me that the Federal Government should build roads in Quebec. This Government

has spent $400,000 in building a road right outside the city of Montreal and we have to. spend a great deal more on it before it is completed. I refer to Laprairie Dike.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Did that road not traverse Government property?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No it went over private property. I may tell my hon. friend that representatives of the late Lieutenant Governor of Quebec want me to pay them a very large amount of money they have taken from that estate. It is just as well for us to have a show-down on some of these things sometimes. No one has been so persistent for the expenditure of money on roads as have been many of the members from Quebec. I will not say all of them, but a great many. I do not think, therefore, that I need spend more time on the constitutionality of the question, because I do not think it enters into the- discussion. It is purely a matter of policy whether or not, under present conditions, Parliament is justified in voting $4,000,000 a year for the next five years to assist in the construction of roads in the various provinces. My friends might sustain an argument on constitutionality if - the proposal were that the Federal Government should go into the province and build a road such as we have done in the case of Laprairie Dike and such as we have done in the eastern por- . tion of Quebec in years gone by. But that is not the proposal. The proposal is that the Government should grant to the provinces forty per cent of the cost of permanent roads which will be built by the provinces according to plans and specifications, the locations to be approved of by this Government. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways this morning answered as completely as any one possibly could the argument in regard to constitutionality when he asked if this be unconstitutional, how it was that we have been granting subsidies to railways for the last forty years- local railways, created by the provinces, which are absolutely local matters. No one raised a question and we can do it again in the case of highways, and nobody can legally or successfully raise a contention. It is a question of policy, I admit, and the question is: Is it good policy or not? I realize that there has been a great change in the financial condition of the country in the last four years, and I take it as a compliment from the hon. member for Red Deer, when that gentleman says that I realize-the fact. I do realize it, and I know that we could do things four years ago that would be rather serious matters

to-day. As I say, I realize our position financially, and also that of the provinces.
I do not agree with some members on the other side of the House and possibly not with some of my colleagues. I do not believe the provinces are in the splendid financial condition that some members seem to think they are. I know the credit of the provinces is good as I know the credit of the Dominion is good. I am glad to learn that the good old province of Nova Scotia was able to float five per cent bonds at a little better than par but that does not say that the Dominion of Canada can float five per cent bonds at better than par. When the provinces came into the Confederation they were given a certain proportion of the total revenues of this country, somewhere about, I think, twenty or twenty-five per cent. Somewhere about twenty-five per cent of the revenue was handed over to the provinces as a subsidy because the provinces gave up to the Dominion their rights to collect revenue from excise and customs' which were the two principal sources of revenue at that time. Things have gone on and these subsidies have been increased only to a very small extent. Instead of getting twenty-five per cent of the total revenues of the Dominion the provinces are not getting five per cent of the total revenues. While the Dominion of Canada has been able to multiply its revenues over and over again the provinces' revenue from the Dominion has practically remained stationary. While the demands on the provincial treasury have increased just the same as the demands on the Dominion treasury have increased the provinces have been compelled to resort to all sorts of methods of levying taxation. Some of the provinces have taken up the question of a direct income tax and now the Dominion Government has been forced to invade that field. I say "forced" advisedly because the Dominion Government cannot do anything else but invade that field. We are taking away a certain measure or taxation which has been open to the provinces and I say here to-day and I say it seriously that the Dominion income tax is here to stay. All that makes it harder for the provinces to finance. I do not agree with many of the members when they say that the provinces are in a much better position to raise financial assistance to construct their roads than the Dominion is.
We had a gathering in this city in the month of December last in the shape of an interprovincial conference. There are no minutes of the conference because the conference did not take votes or come to conclusions as some meetings might. But that conference was attended by all the premiers of Canada, many of the governors of the various provinces and also by representatives of the Dominion Government. The question of furnishing assistance for roads was one of the questions which was discussed and it was a question that was put forward by the representatives of the provinces as one of the methods by which we might tide over the reconstruction period. At that time we were discussing it from an entirely nonpolitical standpoint. I had never seen the time when men representing all shades of political thought in Canada got together, or sat around a table and discussed how best we could work together to get out of this difficulty than I saw on that occasion. We discussed a dozen different things and among them the question of assistance to highways. Some of the premiers stated that they could not agree to any policy by which the Dominion would invade the provinces and take possession of their roads. I think they were quite right in that. All the provinces were anxious that the Dominion should pass some sort of legislation by which they could assist in the construction of highway roads. This Bill was brought down. It was mentioned in the speech from the Throne, and it was brought down very largely as a result of the conference to which , I have referred.
As to the question of the value of highway roads, I am not going to take up any time over that, because I am talking to gentlemen every one of whom knows the value of highway roads as well as I do. Some hon. members say that you will not employ labour in the country. I do not agree with that at all. We are all too prone to argue these things from the conditions existing in Winnipeg, Toronto, and, perhaps, Montreal. They are important parts of Canada, but they are not the whole of Canada by any means. In my judgment they are a very small part of Canada. It is not a question of whether you have 10,000 or 20,000 men in the city of Toronto who are out of work, but who will not go out into the country and seek it. It is a question of what-we are going to do with the great body of labouring people in this country in the rural district small towns and villages and most of us represent that class of the community. We have hundreds and thousands of men in these small towns, villages and rural constituencies who want to work and who do not want ten hours' pay for a six-hour day, but who want

to give ten hours of labour and get ten hours' pay for it. We have people who are willing to work ahd this is the class of people who would be employed if this work goes on. The construction of good macadamized, but not concreted, permanent or semi-permanent roads through the country produces the greatest asset that it is possible to have. It is not a question of a man drawing his grain to market. That is a very small part of it in my judgment. It is a matter of dollars and cents as to how much it is going to cost a man to get the produce of the farm marketed, but away above and beyond that is the great part that good roads play in making the people contented. If this country is ever going to get out .of its financial troubles, if this country is ever to be made the home of a happy, contented people, if it is going to keep the people in the country districts, villages, and small towns happy and contented, it must give them goqd highway roads. Give the people of any community good highway roads that they can travel pver and use, give them telephone communication with the cities, towns and villages and you will have a happy and contented people. I know of no way in which .you can expend a sum of money in order .to get this country on its feet again, to get .ahead and to make ourselves believe that we are not bankrupt than in the way that is proposed in this measure. Nothing can .conduce to that happy condition of affairs more than by helping towards the construction of highway roads. I believe that my attitude on this question is absolutely consistent with the ground that I have taken on the question of economy in this House and I am going to take the consequences. I believed then that it was the ground, I believe it now and if this becomes law I am sure that nothing that has been done by this Government will do more to bring about peace and harmony and get us back to normal conditions than will be done by the adoption of this Bill the purpose of which is to provide for a better transportation system.
, Mr. DAVIDSON: If the Minister of Public Works is consistent and in favour of this principle, may I ask him why he did not support the legislation for good roads as it was introduced under the Good Roads Act of 1913-13?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is six years ago
and I have too much to do to look up the debates of that time. But my memory is pretty good and unless I am very much 
mistaken I supported exactly the principle which I am advocating to-day, although it is six years ago, I opposed a Bill which meant that the Federal Government went into a province and built highways. I think that if my hon. friend will look up the statement which I made at that time he will find that I said that under clause 6-
I think it was-the Minister of Railways could go into my constituency and build a highway or a culvert. I opposed that part of the Bill. I did vote, however, for a federal grant so long as it was handed pver to the provinces, without invading their rights in any way, and that they had the handling of the money. I stand on that ground to-day.


Michael Clark: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A long time has elapsed since, then and I have not in the interval read the Senate amendment, but I know what I stood for in the House of Commons:
I stood for the granting of federal aid to [DOT] highways, so long as the money was expended by the provinces and not by the Dominion.


Michael Clark: This is a different proposition. This proposes expenditure and operation by interlocking and double machinery.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I cannot agree with my hon. friend at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have very little to say on this question. Like the Minister of Public Works, I was in the House when, the subject came up in 1912. I then took exactly the same position as did the Minister of Public Works of the present day. We were willing to give aid for building roads in this country provided the money was expended under the control of the provinces.
I stand in the same place now. There is this difference between the former policy and the. present one, as I understand it, that this expenditure is, to all intents and purposes, to be under the cohtrol of the different provinces. If the question were coming up to-day for the first time, without any preliminary arrangements having been entered into, and everybody having a free hand, I am not going to say, in view of the financial conditions of the country, what attitude I would take. But I do not feel

that conditions which have developed for some montihs past can very easily, and without consideration, he set aside. In the views which I express, I am speaking largely for the province- from which I come. I know that some time last December the Premier of Nova Scotia, with other premiers, met in a conference in this city and a certain policy in respect to aiding the construction of roads was agreed upon. The Federal Government announced in the speech from the Throne last February what its policy, was, and that it was going to implement that policy by bringing down a Bill. I am in a position to know that the Government of Nova Sco'tia, acting upon the arrangement or agreement entered into, made provision for the meeting of the stipulated conditions by putting itself in a position to furnish tihe sixty cents for every forty cents that is to be expended Iby the Federal Government. Now being aware that the Premier of Nova Scotia and his government are to-day waiting to carry out the fulfilment of the arrangement referred to; knowing the mind of the Premier of Nova Scotia on the point and what he has said to me about it; knowing that the people of the province are agreeable to this policy and to this scheme, and that they are awaiting the carrying out of the whole programme as a result of the action of this House; knowing what has already been done by the local legislature and what will be done by the Government, I would not feel justified at this stage in obstructing in any way a policy which I think is approved of by the people of my province and by the Government of the Hon. Mr. Murray. For these reasons if a vote is taken I shall vote in support of the Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I will occupy only a very brief period of time; I merely rise for the purpose of speaking in favour of the proposition. I shall not have the pleasure of voting for it, if a vote takes place, because I am paired, but I wish to 'be distinctly understood as supporting this scheme. It is a measure which, in my judgment, is for the general advantage of Canada, and it can be classified under that heading. The improvement of the roads of Canada will bring about, as the Minister of Public Works has very well illustrated, good results. It will produce' good results to the farming community and place them in a much better position than they would otherwise be. In that respect I consider it is a proposition for the general advantage of
the countey, and were I voting I would record my vote in favour of it.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I wish to offer a few observations before this discussion closes about a certain phase of the matter. I am advised that the minister who is in charge of the Bill has intimated that it is brought forward in fulfilment of a pledge made prior to the election of 1917. I did not know of the pledge at the time, but that does not make any difference. I would be the last person in the world to say a word against the fulfilment of pledges, but I would respectfully suggest that priority in, pledges should have priority of fulfilment. I could mention a number of pledges made by members of the present Government, pledges made long before this matter ever came up, which have not yet been carried out in their entirety. I referred to one of these pledges during the Budget debate a short time ago. Prior to 1911 a solemn pledge was made that if the Conservative party were returned to power the national resources of the western provinces would be handed over to those provinces. This pledge has not yet been carried out, and there is no intimation that it is likely to be fulfilled at an early date.
I also wish to mention the matter of the Hudson Bay railway. In 1896, Sir Charles Tupper, then the head of the Conservative party, promised if his party were returned to power the construction of the Hudson Bay railway would be immediately undertaken and brought to a conclusion at an early date. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Mr. Laurier, made a similar promise. The latter was returned to office, and somewhat late in the history of his administration I admit, along toward the end of the Liberal term of office, the construction of the Hudson Bay railway was begun.. If I remember correctly, the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Government also promised at certain times that if he were returned to power he would see that the Hudson Bay railway was taken up and carried to completion as soon as possible-in fact I do not know of any public undertaking in the whole of the Dominion that was so universally supported as the Hudson Bay project.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is not discussing the Bill.


John Archibald Campbell: Yes, I am.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. M. Douglas):: I think the hon. gentleman is wandering rather far afield in his argument, and I

would therefore ask him to confine himself more closely to the clause under discussion.


John Archibald Campbell: 
Michael Clark: I am sure my hon.
friend would not wish to misrepresent anything I said. I did not state that the people of this country had no confidence in the Government. I could not possibly state that, because I do not know the opinions of the people. What I did say was that I had met a great many people who strongly supported Union Government at its formation and at the last election, but who would not subscribe to another domestic loan because they had not confidence, from the way this Government are handling the finances of the country, that they would spend another loan wisely.


Francis N. McCrea: That is about the same thing.


Mr. CAHILL:: I would like to ask the Government how they reconcile their actions with the financial condition of the country at the present time. I understood from the Government that we are something like $100,000,000 short of our carrying charges. I could understand the Government borrowing money to expend on works that were regarded as of a capital nature, for instance, railways or public works that would be expected to return something on the money invested in them, but from what the Government have told us I gather that the country is not able to pay its way. If a private concern were in the position that the Dominion Government say they are in to-day, it would be considered as bankrupt. If the business, was losing money to the extent that it was necessary to borrow fresh money to pay interest on its outstanding obligations, and it was not able to get in enough revenue to pay its rhnning expenses, it would be considered bankrupt. If that is the position of the Dominion Government to-day-.and I think the Finance Minister will agree with me that it is- while we have greater facilities for borrowing, we are in no different position than a private concern would be so far as sound	financing is concerned.	I
[DOT]want to put this question to the Government: Do you hope next year you will be able to collect enough money in taxes to pay the current expenses of the country? If you do, why, you must resort to some heavier form of taxation than the present, and there is no reason why you should not have resorted to it this year,
because if you are going on borrowing to pay for current expenses you will ultimately get deeper in the hole. In the face of that condition, why should you borrow money to give to the provinces when they are not asking for it? There was the argument in 1912 that you had a full treasury,-thanks to the good administration of the Liberal party which left you in that position the previous year. But that is not the state of affairs to-day. You have no money to give away, you must go out in the market and borrow not only the money you propose to give to the provinces for this work,' but the money to meet the ordinary running expenses of the country, and you must add interest on top of the money you are borrowing.
You are borrowing money and paying interest and must continue to borrow in order to pay interest on the interest. Naturally, therefore, we are facing serious conditions' in this country. Of course, while we are spending money lavishly there is apparent prosperity; money is flowing freely and values are inflated. But there must be a time of settlement, and surely it is not good business for the Government to continue to pile up this debt and increase the obligation which the people must eventually settle.
The argument is used that this work would be advantageous in that it would find employment for returned soldiers. Six months ago, or a year ago, that might have looked like good business; it appeared to be necessary to take steps to find employment for the soldiers when they returned. But apparently that is not the condition to-day. I am told by farmers that they have great difficulty in finding farm help. As several members have pointed out, the labour that will be employed on these roads will be the kind of labour that would otherwise be employed on the farm. There is no question about the value of good road's. Everybody is agreed as to that, but as I pointed out a few days ago, the people of my constituency want the good roads there, if they are to pay for them; they do not want good roads to be built in some other constituency at their expense. I am sure that the same feeling prevails in many other constituencies. In my constituency we are trying to get good roads and we are trying to build them with our own money and to pay for the work, as far as possible, as we go along. But the conditions under which this money is being handed over are not such as to enable any municipality or any district in a given province to get a portion of the money if they


Ernest Lapointe: Let them build them.


William Thomas White: Give the people of Quebec and Ontario and of the other provinces of this country good roads, and you immediately increase the profits of the farmer, even if he sells his products at the same price, because the cost of haulage would be so much less. There are farmers in the Canadian Northwest, thousands of them, twenty miles and more from a railway. With the roads as they are, the haulage of a load of wheat twenty miles to the elevator will amount to 10 cents a bushel. If the farmer can haul twice as much over a better road you have reduced the price to 5 cents a bushel. There is no policy that the governments of this country, provincial and Dominion, can carry into effect of more national benefit to the people of Canada than the improvement of highways. The citizen who is immediately benefited is the farmer, but he is not the only one benefited. Good roads, as the Minister of Public Works has pointed out, will make farming more agreeable; it will make life on the farm more comfortable and enable the farmer to get much-needed recreation, and in that way it will relieve the monotony of his life upon the farm. If there is one thing this country needs to-day more than another it is a policy that will make life upon the farm more attractive, in order that those now on the farm may be contented, and that the sons of those now on the farm may, if they have a liking for farming, remain upon the farm, and that others may be attracted to it.
So far as the general question is concerned, there is no policy that should appeal more to the farmers of this country than a policy respecting the improvement of highways. Towns and cities immediately dependent upon the country will also be benefited, and so it goes all the way up the line. Whatever you do to improve agricul-



ture and benefit the farmer inures to the benefit and advantage of the whole of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: So say we all.


William Thomas White: Yes, you do, but you don't vote that way.


Ernest Lapointe: We build our own roads in Quebec.


William Thomas White: We will see how you vote on this. If you want to help the farmer, support this Bill. My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) speaks for the province of Quebec. He is a representative and able man, but I submit that he is no more representative and no more able than the Premier of the province of Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: They are not acting in the same capacity. We represent the whole Dominion in this House.


William Thomas White: The Dominion Government is interested in the welfare of every part of the Dominion. Last December we called a provincial conference here. It was a proper thing to do. All these Provincial Governments are properly interested in the development of their provinces, and the question before us was the question of re-construction. It was a live question then, and it would be more live to-day but for what the Government has done. No Government ever gets credit for what it prevents. Look at the situation in this country to-day, the best in the world, I believe, outside of the United States, and I am not sure that it is not better than that of the United States. Instead of giving the Government credit for what has been done, and for what we have prevented, it is all taken for granted and we are criticised because we expend money. Why, it has been the expenditure of money that has kept us going. I do not mean to say that it can continue indefinitely, but I do say that until demobilization is complete and the immediate consequences of this war are over, this Government would be derelict in its duty if it did not have the courage to take the measures necessary to keep the people of this country employed so far as we can. They have suffered much, and the country owes them a great deal.
Coming more immediately to the question of provincial jurisdiction, local works, under the British North America Act, are under the jurisdiction of the province. But is there anything to hinder the provinces coming to us, as they have done since 1910, and asking us to increase their subsidies? There

is no hon. gentleman who will say that the Dominion Government would not be within its jurisdiction in increasing the subsidies to the several provinces. What are we proposing to do? We are not taking away from the Provincial Governments of this country the control of their roads or the administration of this work. What we are doing, by giving them what is virtually a subsidy, is enabling them to carry on road building on a scale that they could not and would not do otherwise. That is the point. It is idle to say that the provinces have the credit and will do this work themselves. The provinces will do nothing of the kind. If the Dominion Government does not assist the provinces by these subsidies, because, practically they are subsidies to the provinces, it means that this country will not have the good roads; that is all.
* Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


William Thomas White: Yes. Some hon. gentlemen have said that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have floated loans at a certain rate; but how big a loan? A province can put out a loan of $1,000 000 or $2,000,000, but hon. gentlemen know that they could not float a loan of $25,000,000 or $50,000,000 or $100,000,000. The volume of your borrowing has to be taken into account. It is one of the most important things.


Jacques Bureau: The $20,000,000 would not have to be raised by one province but would be divided among nine.


William Thomas White: I am not stating that any one province would have to raise $20,000,000. I simply used the illustration of $25,000,000, $50,000,000 and $100,000,000 to show that it did not necessarily follow that because a province could raise a million or two they could raise five or ten million or more. I say this and I know it from talking with the provincial treasurers and with the premiers of the several provinces. I know perfectly well that if the Dominion Government does not assist them in the way we are now proposing by subsidizing road building in the provinces, those roads will not be built; that is all. The provinces will build to a certain extent undoubtedly.
Mr. MoCREA:	Quebec has spent over
$20,000,000 on roads and is spending more than she will receive under this scheme.


William Thomas White: Quebec is a great province, but it is not the only one. Quebec and many other provinces will not do anything like the amount of road building that will be accomplished if this legislation goes through. We know what we are

talking about because we have been in consultation with the prime ministers and treasurers of these various provinces. I am aware of their financial position, and what the Minister of Public Works has stated is correct. They are pressed financially because we have invaded the field from which they would ordinarily derive revenues, and they have very many expenditures upon them which have greatly increased during the war. Hon. members say that soldiers will not work on the roads. Let us assume that that is so. One would think that one part of the industry of the country was in no way related to another. The business of the country as a whole is built up upon the basic industries connected with our natural resources. Will any hon. gentleman say that if we have a large road building programme being carried out all over Canada, employing hundreds and thousands of men, the results of that expenditure will not be felt in the villages and towns and cities? Will not the soldiers and others in those places who are not immediately engaged in road building have the benefit of the re-active effect upon business derived from that road building and founded upon it, and the expenditure oi money that will take place? I am the last man to say that a nation should attempt to lift itself by its boot straps, but I am profoundly interested in this question: What is going to happen in the country next year? What about next winter? Hon. gentlemen, including the hon. member for Red Deer, criticised the better housing scheme. Yet this Industrial Cbmmission that brings down its report is in favour of better housing. The provinces could not raise the money for that purpose and the Dominion lends it to them, and if that money is wisely expended in building houses 'and providing the material for them, it is going to go a long way to relieve unemployment during next winter, which will be a critical winter. This fall, if this legislation goes through, they will get Teady and proceed with the work to a certain extent and employment will be provided for men in the towns and villages and the countrysides, and this will keep families from distress. If we do not pass this legislation they will not go ahead with the work in the provinces. The leader of the Opposition himself indicated how important it is to the province of Nova Scotia. Premier Murray at the Provincial Conference said that years ago he used to consider carefully whether a matter was within provincial or Dominion jurisdiction, and as to whether the province would be justi-2804
fled in accepting a grant from the Dominion with respect to something that did . not appear to be in the letter of the constitution. But, he said, he had got over that; and he is a wise man. He said that it is a question of what is best in the interests of Nova Scotia, and if the Dominion Government can assist them in a better roads programme that would furnish employment there, improve agriculture in Nova Scotia, and have its general beneficial effect on the business of the province, he is in favour of it. These are the general considerations upon which ihe Government have reached the conclusion that we should assist the provinces in improving the highways in this country.
Another aspect of the question I may touch upon. I have spoken to-day only from the domestic standpoint, but this country should be a great pleasure resort, so to speak, for the people of the south, and there is nothing that will bring tourists here and bring a circulation of money on a scale we do not realize, more than the improvement of our highways. Consider the development of the motor within the last ten or fifteen years. There are thousands of them in every section of the country, and the tourist is not to be disregarded. In Europe a great deal of importance is attached to the tourist traffic because it brings so much money to the country. Now, Sir, you can brush aside the matter of constitutionality, for the question resolves itself into this: Having regard to the fact that we are practically in a war period-the re-construction period following war, and having regard to the possibilities of unemployment on a great scale during the coming year and the fact that this legislation will very largely assist the agriculture of the provinces and promote business generally, the question is whether the Dominion Government is justified in raising money for the purposes of assisting the provinces in this matter. If we reach the conclusion in this House that the Government would have been justified in November last in shutting down and taking the position that we would not spend another dollar and would let things go, then the House should deny the vote. But if, on the other hand, this House intends to be constructive in this period, as I believe the people of Canada require them to be, then, in regard to a vote such as this for productive purposes' that will give employment to the people who have suffered greatly during the war, and prevent distress on a wide scale, it should sup-

port the Government in the proposal it has brought down.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Michael Clark: Just one word-
Some hon. MEMBERS': Question.


Jacques Bureau: Go on.


Michael Clark: We are in committee
land it happens to be a rule of the House of Commons, probably not familiar to some hon. members, that in committee we may speak as often as we are fortunate enough to get the opportunity. There is no hurry; (we are in fine weather. However, I shall only keep the committee for a moment, iwdth a benevolent purpose in view. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister must, I am sure, be impressed with the extraordinary facility of speech which his Minister of Finance has developed during his prolonged absence. His facility of finance and expression is so great that my hon. friend really appears to deceive himself. He gives you many figures'-500,000 returned soldiers, the number of people who have gone into employment who were previously out of employment, and so on, and sums the situation up with the facility and dexterity of a conversational conjurer, concluding with the question:	" If
we had shut everything down what would have happened in the country?" He has improved a little in recent years in regard to the use of the personal pronoun. He does not say:	" If I had shut down," but
" if we had shut down." Now the delusion I want to remove from my hon. friend's mind is this. He is under the impression that every returned soldier who has gone back to work has been provided with that employment by his extraordinary management of the finances of the country and Jais absolute carelessness as to the amount of money he borrows., I want him to dwell upon the fact that from the Atlantic to the Pacific, in this very large country, the farmers' sons in every province and in every district of every province have returned from the war ;by the facilities afforded by the Government and have been only too glad to get back to their homes on the farms and enter into the operation of those farms, without the minister having had anything whatever to do with it, except in so far as the (Government has provided the means of transportation. In every city in this coun-

try, from coast to coast, large employers of labour have been busying themselves from the middle of the war, the very moment when our men began to come back, in getting employment in their works for their men who had gone overseas. They have been placing those men 'back at work and have not been borrowing money to spend on roads in order to do it. In every village in the country the same thing has been going on, and I want my friend to be reasonable in the claims he makes upon the support and regard of this country, because I venture to say to him, with respect to the men who have gone back to work, that his borrowing schemes, his shipbuilding schemes, his housing schemes and his road-making schemes have had no more to do with the matter than the man in the moon.


William Folger Nickle: I have listened with considerable interest during the entire day and on previous occasions to the debate on this subject. I had also the privilege in 1912 and 1913 to be a member of this'House when a similar discussion took plaoe. Perhaps it will not be amiss to recall that discussion so that new members may realize something of the history of this legislation and perhaps, in passing that history under review, be enabled to reach a conclusion this afternoon as to how they should vote. It is my intention particularly to direct the attention of the House to the constitutional aspect of the question because the hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), with characteristic energy and force, has placed that side of. the argument in the forefront. In 1912, if my memory serves me correctly, the question of highway assistance was first introduced in this House. The principle that underlay that measure was that the Dominion Government should supply the money and should undertake the construction of the Toa'ds themselves when approved. When that measure went to the Senate for concurrence, concurrence was denied on the ground that it was an interference with provincial rights and that if the Dominion Government granted assistance towards the construction of highways it should 'be by direct vote to the provinces and not by undertaking the work themselves. The result was that in 1912 the legislation became of no effect due to the fact that the concurrence of the Senate could not be obtained.
In 1913 the subject was again brought before the House of Commons for consideration, and I should like to read to

the House one section of the Bill because it casts considerable light on the constitutional question. If any hon. gentleman has in his hand Bill No. 152, that we are now considering, and will be good enough to read paragraph (a) at the top of page 2 he will see the remarkable similarity between what was section 4 of 'the Act of 1913 and section 2 of the present Bill. Section 4 of the Bill of 1913 reads as follows:
Any highway or bridge for which aid is granted to a province shall toe improved or constructed, as the case may be, according to descriptions, conditions land specifications approved toy the Governor in Council and on the report of the minister, and' specified in each case in an agreement between the minister and the government of the province, which agreement the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make.
That laid down the principle, as between the Dominion and the province, that the Senate did not object to there being an agreement provided 'the money was spent by the province. In sustaining my position, let me read what Senator Beique said, page 622-3 of the Senate Hansard, 1913:
I am not aware that a single member of this hon. House quarrels with this fourth clause of the 'Bill. It is worded as it was amended by this House last year, and It was approved toy. the House of Commons, and I take It that we are unanimous in favour of that section.
When the House of Commons objected to the reception of 'the Senate amendment by which the money was to be paid to the province, a message was sent back to the Senate insisting that the money must be spent by the Dominion Government. In reply to that message the Senate sent hack the following message:
That the Senate adheres to the seventh amendment for the following among other reasons-
The seventh amendment being that the money should be spent 'by the provinces:
1.	Because section 6 of the Bill empowers the minister to undertake the construction or improvement of highways in any province, which would be a contravention of the letter and spirit of the British North America Act, 1867, and of the uniform practice under that Act, for which contravention no sufficient cause has been shown.
2.	Because the said amendment affirms in effect that it is undesirable that the minister or the Dominion Government should usurp the functions of the provincial administration in the building and maintenance of highways and bridges.
And I would particularly direct the attention of the House to what I am now reading:
3.	Because the said amendment will not hamper the administration in carrying out its policy in supplying the funds placed in the Estimates for that object under conditions and regulations it may deem just and1 proper to make, sufficient provision being made in earlier clauses of the Bill for co-operation between the Federal and provincial governments.
What does that mean? It means that the Senate, in 1913, and the Liberal Opposition of that day, accepted the principle that, provided the money was paid to the province to be expended by the province, it would not be unconstitutional and 'that an arrangement should be made as to the method of construction as to specifications and descriptions of highways provided such au arrangement could be made between the province and the Dominion.
I therefore submit that the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) are inconsistent in contending that what the Government is asking us to do is unconstitutional when they voted for exactly the same thing in 1913. Why do I say thait they voted for exactly the same thing in 1913? In 1913, by clause 4, provision was made for the setting aside of certain highways and the entering into oE certain agreements between the Dominion and the province as to the spending of money. The Senate agreed that that was right and proper and the members of the Opposition accepted that position as against the contention of the Conservative party that the money should be spent by the Dominion. Let us turn for a moment to Bill No. 152, the Bill that is before the Committee this afternoon. Clause 3 points out that a- certain amount of money shall be used for highway purposes and that the payments shall be- made on the " following conditions." What are the following conditions? Clause (a) reads as follows:
Any highway for which aid is granted1 shall be constructed or improved, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of art agreement to be made by the minister with the government of the province, which agreement shall contain such provisions as to cost, description, specifications or otherwise a-s the Governor in Council may approve;
Exactly the same terms as are set out in section 4 of the Bill of 1913 and for which the hon. member for Red Deer, the hon. member for Three Rivers and other hon. members voted.
There has been no man in this House who has taken a stronger stand in the past few years in favour of economy than has the member for Kingston. But certainly I think this Highway Improvement Act is in a totally different position from a proposal

that means the spending of money for something that is not productive. I stated a few nights ago in this House that I saw various advantages that would result from the improvement of our roadways. One was that it would bring into this country many tourists who would leave a large amount of money in the Dominion and whose coming here I felt would be of great advantage to Canada. But far and beyond that is the improvement that would result to rural life in Canada. I know something-not a great deal because I am an urban rather than a rural resident-of the disadvantages under which the rural population in Ontario live, particularly in the early spring and the late fall. I do know that with the advent of the motor car, which is in very general use now, the farmer enjoys a measure of comfort which was previously denied him. But he is at a great disadvantage in that the full enjoyment of the motor car is not possible to our farming community because our roads are not constructed to carry a motor car over them with the minimum of wear and tear. Our macadam roads are breaking down, a great many have become impossible, and I believe that nothing will contribute more to the improvement of the conditions of life in the rural parts of Ontario than a substantial improvement in our roads.
And, Sir, I am not going to urge that the construction of trunk lines should be the only consideration. It is aboslutely essential that the side line roads should be improved as well as the main thoroughfares. If there is not sufficient money at the present day to improve the main roads how are the Governments of the provinces going to improve the side line roads? But, if this substantial grant proposed under this Bill is made to the provinces, it will relieve them of some of the burden incidental to main line construction and will make further sums of money available for the purpose of side line betterment. On rising I said that I should endeavour to confine myself largely to the constitutional question, and I think I have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that the constitutional argument, as raised to-day, was brushed aside in 1912 as not worthy of consideration, and that the Bill in the form in which it is drafted this afternoon had the approval of the 'Senate and of the Liberal party who then were His Majesty's loyal Opposition.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. member for Kingston has pronounced hon. members opposite who voted for the Senate amendment in 1913 inconsistent because they do

not support the present measure. Will he tell the House what he thinks of his own consistency in now supporting a proposition which he voted against in 1913?


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member for
Kingston in 1913 wanted the construction of good roads and was prepared to assume the responsibility of those roads being built by the Dominion Government. In the year 1919 the hon. member for Kingston still wants good roads, and if it is impossible to secure legislation by which the Dominion may build them, he is prepared to support legislation that will ensure good roads being built by the provinces.


Mr. CANNON:: I have listened with great attention to the speech which has been made by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He has accused the member for Red Deer (Mr. 'Michael Clark) and the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) of being inconsistent. I have listened to The speeches in question, and I do not think the hon. gentlemen who delivered them can be considered inconsistent. On both sides of the House we accept the principle of good roadis; there is not a man in the House who is against the building of good roads in any province of the Dominion. If the Bill only provided for good roads if the Government had the money to build those roads and if the country could do what the Bill contemplates doing, without increasing our indebtedness, which is huge already, there would be no trouble. When the Bill was first introduced, as remarked by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nickle), the Liberal opposition at the time said they did not want to vote in favour of the measure if the Federal Government proposed to interfere in any way with provincial autonomy. That was the position taken by the Opposition at that time, led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But the present Government has improved the good roads measure as originally introduced, and I congratulate it upon having done so. The Government has accepted the attitude taken by the Opposition at the time referred to, and in that respect has made it their own. Provincial autonomy is respected by this Bill and now the only question is, can the Government to-day make, in addition to its already very large outlays, a further expenditure of $25,000,000 for this purpose. We say we do not think the time is proper to do so, and therefore I nan see no inconsistency in the attitude taken by either of the two hon. gentlemen who have been criticised. The Minister of Finance delivered a very elo-

quent speech; the hon. member for Bed. Deer has given an answer which is very fit,
I understand and believe. But I would remind the Minister of Finance of one fact, that the province of Quebec throughout the war has kept down its public undertakings and its public works, and has kept down its financing, and never during that period did it come to beg from the Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman seems to believe that if it had not been for the Federal Government none of the provinces of Canada could have survived the period of the war. I do not wish to speak for any other province than my own, and I say that the province of Quebec has gone through that period and constructed public works that were imperatively needed, and notwithstanding that fact our financial standing to-day as a province is away above the financial standing of Canada as a Dominion. Moreover, when the provincial treasurer submitted his last budget speech to the Legislative Assembly he could say without being contradicted that there was a surplus for the year of $2,000,000, and more than that, Sir Lomer Gouin's Government, during the war period, has met all its liabilities and its obligations and has hardly borrowed any money.
Now, as regards good roads, the Minister Oif Finance says if the Bill is not passed the provinces will not be in a position to construct these works. I take issue with the minister, and I say that that statement is not in any way in conformity with the facts.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: In 1912, without the aid of the Federal Government in any way whatsoever, the Government of Quebec inaugurated a good roads system, and what was the result? From the year 1912 to the year 1919 the sum of $12,000,000 was spent by it in that province. I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, the total expenditure for the purpose was $20,000,000, and the Premier of Quebec is in no way seeking the help of the Federal Government to continue his progressive policy. During the provincial contest recently ended, Sir Lomer Gouin said that not only would he continue his policy of building good roads, but that he would increase it. If the province of Quebec has done that much, why is it the other provinces cannot do the same? My opinion is that they can do just as well. The Western Provinces are not asking for the help of the Federal Government, neither are the Maritime Provinces. I heard the Minister of Finance say that the premiers
of the different provinces came together in a conference in this city and declared they were in favour of this Bill. Mr. Chairman, we have not the official proceedings of that conference before us. During another discussion I heard the President of the Privy Council assert, as regards Dominion aid to agriculture, that the premiers of the different provinces had made declarations to the same effect. It may be so, but I maintain that we, as the representatives of the people are not here to vote for the reckless expenditure of public moneys; we are here to safeguard the rights of the people whom we represent. It is about time that a stop was made to the extravagant expenditure of money in Canada. The Federal Government has expended millions and millions of dollars, and when the members from this side ask the Finance Minister where he is going to get the money for those expenditures, his usual answer is: "We will borrow." We have had enough borrowing in Canada, we do not want any more of it. This is not only the feeling of gentlemen who sit on this side, but similar declarations have been made in another branch of this Parliament, and throughout the country as well. We want those who are governing this country to return to their normal senses. We must not forget, Mr. Chairman, that Canada is a country of but seven millions in population. I heard the Minister of Finance say in respect to England, that it was floating an enormous loan; but, Mr. Chairman, before comparing loans made by the United Kingdom with loans made by Canada, the resources of the two countries should be compared. Is Canada in the same position in point of wealth and resources that England is? We have been imitating England too much in this country. We have forgotten that England is an old country with enormous and unlimited resources, whereas we are only a young country, and the best advice I can give to the Finance Minister is to come off his financial stilts. Let him come right down to the common basis of financing that is adopted in normal times. Let him stop talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, when the total revenue of Canada is only $270,000,000, and when out of that sum we require to take $150,000,000 to pay the interest on our debt and the pensions to our soldiers. That is the situation, and the people are appalled at the way things are being run by the Government. It is about time that they were stopped.

I may say to 'the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, that he is not the first man who has attempted to run a country by these financial means. Let us go hack in history. Let us see, for instance, how Law and Necker ran the finances of France for a while and how the Duke of Choiseuil ran the finances of France for a while. The duke, whenever he needed money, did like the Minister of Finance-he borrowed it. It was always easy to borrow, but it was sometimes very hard to pay back, and when the time of.accounting came the Duke was in this awful financial position: He had borrowed so much money that it was impossible to pay it back. What was the result? The overthrow of the Government and the Revolution, with all the terrible things that happened during that period.
The Minister of Finance says that the farmers want good roads. I am very much surprised to hear of the hon. minister paying such an awful lot of attention to the farmers. Not very long ago he paid very little attention to them, and, when they wanted something more than good roads, he denied it to them. Instead of giving good roads to the farmers, let the hon. minister give them a lower tariff. That would be far better philosophy, and the country would be in a much better position.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Lucien Cannon: One of the weak points in this Bill is that if one of the provinces does not wish to take advantage of its provisions, that province will nevertheless be taxed for expenditures made in other provinces. For instance, if Saskatchewan does not take advantage of this legislation and Ontario does, or Quebec does, a portion of the money spent in Ontario or in Quebec will be paid into the federal treasury by the taxpayers of Saskatchewan. The principle is unsound; the people of one province should not be taxed for works which, under this legislation, are carried on in another province. I said this afternoon that the province of Quebec had already spent on highways the sum of $20,000,000. Is it fair to Quebec that, commencing this year, money should be given by the Federal Government to other provinces which are building highways and that Quebec should get absolutely nothing in respect of the roads which that province has already built? Under this Bill any province which 
spends one dollar on highways is entitled to receive forty cents from the. federal treasury; on that basis Qubbee, in respect of the $20,000,000 already spent, would be entitled to receive $8,000,000 from the federal treasury. Because Quebec was the pioneer in highway building; because Quebec did more than the other provinces did. is Quebec to be placed in an inferior position? If all provinces are to be fairly treated, Quebec should receive something for the work which she has already done.
I heard, with great surprise, the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) say that this Bill had been approved by the electors of Canada in the election of 1917. I do not wish to raise in this Committee the old issues of 1917, but when the President of the Council points to the result of that election as an argument in favour of this Bill, he is using what was used in France to deceive the Germans-camouflage.	The
1917 election was fought on one issue, and on one issue only; that issue is well known to all members of the Committee. There was no question in 1917 of giving moneys to the provinces, especially of giving money to the province from which I come, because any man who at that time proclaimed in Ontario that the Federal Government, if returned to power, would give millions of dollars to Quebec, -would not have been well received on the hustings of Ontario. To add further strength to what I say, may I remind hon. gentlemen of certain declarations that were made by members of the Cabinet at that time? I do not wish to repeat them all; I simply recall what the Solicitor General said in several constituencies of Ontario, when he thanked God that in Australia there was no province of Quebec. During the elections of 1917, therefore, there were certainly no appeals to the electors of Ontario in favour of giving money to Quebec for the construction of highways. Moreover, the Government has certainly no endorsation from the people of this measure.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Car-veil) said that members from the province of Quebec had made many demands upon his department for the building of roads in that province. I do not know what the other members from Quebec on this side of the House did, but so far as I am concerned, I never made any demand upon the minister for the building of roads in my county. The roads in Dorchester have been built by the provincial government, and we are satisfied with the work that has been done. What the minister said

may be right or may be wrong as regards members from other parts of Quebec, but so far as my constituency is concerned, his statement is altogether unfounded in fact.


Mr. TRAHAN:: Mine also.


Lucien Cannon: The Minister of Public Works said that the province of Quebec had asked for money for the Laprairie road, and that the province had obtained several hundred thousand dollars from the Federal treasury for the building of that highway. I have sat in the provincial Legislature, and while there I heard mention of this road, which ever since 1910 has been maintained by the federal Government, and which has always been considered as a federal road. When the federal Government, therefore, gave the province of Quebec money in respect of this road, they were only continuing a course which they had been following for nine years, ever since 1910. I do not wish to be misunderstood, we in the province of Quebec are as much in favour of good roads as anybody else in this country.


Jacques Bureau: Allied countries, perhaps we could afford to spend millions; hut the Prime Minister has 'been bach a month now, and he has not had one word to say in this House in regard to tihe Peace Conference, although he was over there six months. I infer from his silence that we are not going [DOT] to get one dollar. Therefore, we ought to have very strict economy in this country, and the stricter the economy the better satisfied will our people be. One last word.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, (hear.


Lucien Cannon: I am quite sure these gentlemen are pleased I am going to finish my speech, but I warn hon. gentlemen who say " Hear, hear," that when they get home they will find the people saying just what I have said here to-night. According to the Minister of Finance, another Victory Loan is to be floated in this country very soon. When the last Victory Loan was floated the Minister of Finance appealed to the members of this House to help the Government to obtain as much money as possible from the people of Canada. I, like all the other hon. members from the province of Quebec, did my best to promote the Victory Loan, and I think the results obtained in my constituency were very satisfactory. But if the next Victory Loan is to be a success, this Government, as my hon. friend (Mr. Clark) has said, will have to be very careful. People certainly will not give money to the Government unless they feel assured that it is not going to be squandered, but spent as it should be spent. We received $700,000,000 from our last Victory Loan; I do not know what the Minister of Finance will ask for next fall, but if he wishes to make it a success, and it is important that it should be a success, the policy of this Government should be one of prudence. Otherwise, the Victory Loan will be a failure. I do not think this Government intends curtailing expenditure. They wish now to spend $20,000,000. We have done our best to show that this expenditure should not be made at present, so .whether the Bill passes or not we on this side of the House will have the satisfaction of having performed what we thought was our duty to the people of this country.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: 
Jacques Bureau: I would emphasize the remarks made by my hon. friend from Red Deer with regard to the effectiveness of the argument put forward this afternoon by the Minister of Finance, who contended that if this money were not voted the provinces could not and would not build their roads. The minister went on to show what a good thing it was for the Dominion Government to help all the provinces build these roads, and said that the provinces would not do the work without assistance. That is the greatest fallacy that has- ever been advanced heTe. The provinces can and will build roads irrespective of any aid which may be given by the Federal Government. I shall not answer the arguments of the minister, because I think they were very well met by the member for Red Deer, but I would ask the Minister of Railways a question, to which I desire an answer. How are you going to pay the $80,000 each year to the government of each province?


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill provides that $80,000 shall be set aside to the credit of each province, and then the amount left will be divided up in proportion to population according to the last federal census. That is done in order to give the smaller provinces a fair portion. We put up forty per cent and they put up sixty per cent when it is agreed to do any work. Now, perhaps I might refer to some of the remarks made by one or two other gentlemen. In the first place, the hon. member for Edmonton-


Jacques Bureau: Before the minister proceeds, does he consider that an answer to my question?


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps I have not answered the hon. member very fully.


Jacques Bureau: Go on. I do not consider that you have.


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie), the Government feel that in connection with any amount of money advanced we should see that we get full value, and for that purpose the Bill provides, in clause 5, that the Governor in Council may make such regulations as are necessary for giving effect to the objects and purposes of the Act. With regard to the other point, as to the agreement that must be made between the minister and the provincial government, that is for the purpose of keeping supervision over any road that may be built, and of seeing that in the matter of lo,cation the road is laid out in such a way as to ensure that the money will be expended to the best possible advantage and in the best interests of the public.


Henry Arthur Mackie: The paragraph I
read a moment ago distinctly says what the agreement shall be, and I would like to know the meaning of the word " otherwise."


John Dowsley Reid: It might have reference to just what I stated-as regards location, for instance. However, if the Committee feels that this clause is not wide enough I have no objections to an amendment. I am not wedded to the wording of the clause as it is now, if anything better can be suggested.


Henry Arthur Mackie: The work can be
done otherwise than by tender.


John Dowsley Reid: Possibly there might be some road on which the work could not be done by tender but would have to be done otherwise. But the Government, in view of the feeling that the Committee believes that the work should be done by tender, would in every case endeavour to carry out that policy. If you put that provision in the Bill, however, a case might arise where it would be necessary and advisable, if tenders were considered too high, for the Dominion and local governments to come to an agreement to do the work on force account or by days' labour temporarily, under the supervision of engineers of the Dominion and of the local governments to see that it was done properly and economically pending such time as tenders might be received. Some hon. gentleman suggested that we should provide that the work should be done under the supervision and subject to the approval of an engineer or other officer appointed by the Governor in Coun-
"i

oil. I have no objection to anything of that kind. If there is any way in which this clause can be improved so as to safeguard the expenditures and ensure that they are not used for political purposes by either the Dominion or the Provincial Government, I am quite willing to have that provision made, so that it might not be said by any one that a dollar had been allowed to be expended for any other purpose than that for which it was intended. Personally, I would insist on our being protected in that or in any other way. This Bill originated this year at the Interprovincial Conference, and it was thought at that time that it would provide work for the returned soldiers. It has been contended that employment has been furnished so many returning men now that the necessity for which this Bill is to provide no longer exists. I can only express my own opinion, but I am afraid that possibly next winter we may have a very large number of unemployed men.


Avard Longley Davidson: Do you intend to build roads in winter time?


John Dowsley Reid: Well, the best time in the year to get out the stone required for good roads is in the winter. I am informed that it is necessary to have a very large quantity of stone for the purpose of drainage in connection with the roads.
If it is required to be crushed, it has to be drawn out and crushed in the winter or in the spring. Therefore, any expenditure on good roads will be largely spent in wages. Some hon, members from the province of Quebec have been telling us what has been done in tha't province. There is no doubt that they have done good work in the province of Quebec but they require more good roads, and I believe they will proceed with their construction if this Bill goes through. In Ontario they have spent a large sum on good roads. I believe the figures of expenditure 'there would probably be as large as those in the province of Quebec. They wish to proceed with the construction of good roads at a faster pace than in the past. I believe that if this Bill goes through it will be of great service to the unemployed, or those who may be unemployed during next winter. This is not only .for the returned soldiers; there are many men who are being employed at the present time upon railway construction and other works but who next winter will be out of employment. The amount that would be expended would not exceed $4,000,000 per annum. There would not li'ke-
[Mr. J. D. Reid.}
ly be that amount of expenditure on the part of the Dominion Government the coming year. It is good policy to have this work ready in case of it being necessary. I do not believe that any provincial government will spend one dollar on good roads or on any other work that it can avoid until t'mes are more normal. Work upon good roads is being carried on now in a number of provinces for the purpose of furnishing employment and to prevent the unrest that we might have had perhaps much more than we have at the present time. It is not for the purpose of spending money that we are asking the committee to pass this Bill. I think we are all agreed that we should not be asked to borrow, or furnish any more money than we can help. I believe that we should provide money for those who may be suffering during the coming year. Therefore, I would ask the committee to give this Bill their favourable consideration. I am prepared to put into any clause in this Bill anything that may be necessary to protect the expenditure and to ensure that it cannot be used for political purposes by any government, Dominion or provincial. I think the expenditure should be protected in every way so that we shall get full value for the amount'tha't is expended.
Mr. C. MARCH,: I voted two years ago against the expenditure of money by the Dominion Government on the proposal that was made by the then Minister of Railways. But the conditions are now entirely changed. I understand that the proposed agreement that will be reached under this resolution is acceptable to the governments of the provinces and the Dominion as well, therefore, this is a great improvement on the measure introduced into this House five or six years ago. I must say, in justice to my constituents, that in April last a large delegation came, at their own expense, all the way from Bonaven'ture and Gaspe, led by the Hon. John Hall Kelly, member of the Legislative Council of Quebec; M. Fabien Bugeaud, the local member for Bonaventure, and Dr. Gustave Lemieux, representing the county of Gaspe in the local legislature, and by leading men of Gaspe constituency. They came here, called upon the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) and asked for the construction of a highway through the Gaspe peninsula. The Gaspe peninsula is probably one of the least-known parts of the province of Quebec because of its remoteness from the large dities, bnt there is a grealt future for it. There is open navigation in the Baie

des Chaleurs at the entrance to Gaspe bay for ten months in the year. The port of Gaspe is the nearest port to Liverpool, and some day, I hope before many of us have passed away, this port will be utilized very extensively. In the meantime, highways are being built from Matapedia, crossing the Matapedia valley, connecting up Baie des Chaleurs points with Gaspe Basin and all around the coast to Stp. Anne des Monts and Cape Chat. Under these circumstances, I am sorry that I cannot cast a vote for the measure, being paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), but if I had a vote to cast I would vote for the Bill, because if T failed in that I would not be giving expression to the request made by my constituents. In the Matapedia valley there is twenty miles of unorganized territory through which the highway is impassable. That is the missing link between Quebec and New Brunswick. This Parliament authorized the construction some years ago of an interprovincial bridge over the Restigouche river between Quebec and New Brunswick. That place cannot be .reached now because it is necessary to pass over this twenty miles of unorganized territory to get to it. Mr. Boulay, the late member for Rimouski, succeeded in getting a grant from this Government of $10,000 to connect up the road systems of the two provinces by constructing a road through this unorganized territory. Repeated requests were made to the Minister of Public Works to build that road. Seeing 'that it had been an undertaking of the Federal Government, as it was properly a federal undertaking, to construct the bridge, it having been undertaken by the Federal Government with the assistance of the Provincial Governments, and as this road was needed to supply the missing link between the province -of Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, the Minister of Public Works gave the deputation that waited upon him a very favourable hearing, but he raised the point that ii these moneys were to be voted by Parliament the work might properly be continued by the provincial governments. Realizing the necessity for the construction of highways, particularly in that remote part of the province of Quebec and feeling satisfied that the government of Quebec, fresh from the hands of the people with a majority which is the largest in the history of the British Empire, will make an agreement with this Government that will be * satisfactory to the people I represent, I am of the opinion that this measure should pass.	I


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: This proposed grant in aid of highways not being class legislation or political in its character, it seems to me that the benefit of it would be enjoyed by all classes. Road improvement will do much towards settling the unrest now prevailing throughout Canada. A fair sharing of the cost by the federal, provincial and municipal authorities will permit the carrying out of well considered legislation and comprehensive plans for road building and maintenance by the provinces and municipalities. We have heard a great deal, and we have boasted considerably, about what the province of Quebec has done in the matter of road building. True, we ought to be proud; Quebec has 2,500 miles of improved road. '	.
The province of Quebec has spent $20,000,000 already, but the demand for good roads is growing and further assistance is desirable, it seems to me. Reference has been made to the possibility of politics intervening in this matter and of influence being exerted to secure the construction of particular pieces of road in .a certain municipality or a certain county. Doubtless efforts may be made in that direction, but according to sub-paragraph (a) of section 4:
Any highway for which aid is granted- shall be constructed or improved, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be made by the minister with the government of the province, which agreement shall contain such provisions as to costs, descriptions, specifications or otherwise as the Governor in Council may approve.
For my part, I do not see why some hon. members from the province of Quebec are opposed to this Bill. In the paragraph I have quoted there is a guarantee, and in accordance with its terms an agreement must be made by the Federal minister with the Provincial Government. I am going to resume my seat by asking this question: " Have not our friends from the province of Quebec faith in our great and progressive premier, Sir Lomer Gouin"? I am not afraid to depend upon him in preference to any member of this Government. Let this legislation pass, and the agreement arrived at with the province of Quebec will be such as to please the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), the hon. member for .Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), or any other hon. gentleman who opposes it.


Mr. BEST:: I want to know before I cast my vote-because iny desire is to support this Bill-whether the intention is to construct a trunk road through the country or

to let the money go to the different provinces for the construction of county or other roads?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no intention on the part of the Government to insist that this money shall go to the construction of a trunk road extending from one end of the Dominion to the other. The intention is that we shall consult with the Provincial Governments as to what they propose to do. They will submit their plans to us as to where roads in the interest of each province should be looated. The representatives of the Dominion Government will look over those plans, and there will be an agreement as to the particular roads upon which the Federal appropriation would be expended. It would not be fair to insist that all this money shall be devoted to the construction of one trunk line; the expenditure will be distributed through the provinces in the best interests of all concerned and not for the advantage of particular localities in a province as: it would be if we insisted upon the building of a trunk line. What we wish to ensure is that the money shall be expended in the best interests of the people in the province concerned. If we agree to the construction of a particular road, an engineer will be placed on the work to see that the contract is carried out and the money honestly expended and in the best interests of the public. If our engineers report that the contractor is not carrying out his work honestly and ' doing it in the best interests of the community, the attention of the Provincial Government will be drawn to the fact. If, as a result of that, no changes followed, we need not continue paying the money provided for in this Bill. In my opinion the Bill protects the provinces as well as the Dominion, and we will all be able to work together harmoniously. There is no desire except to make the expenditure in the public interest, and I believe that no province in Canada, bearing in mind especially the possibility of unemployment, but will be glad when next winter or summer comes, that they can take advantage of the provisions of this Bill.


Michael Clark: If my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) understands the reply of the minister, would he kindly explain it to the committee?


Jacques Bureau: Some time ago I put a question to the minister which he has not answered, as to how the $80,000 was to be expended. Now that the Minister of Fi-

nance is here, he may be able to assist the Minister of Railways in that regard.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend seems to be somewhat critical in his observations. The provision with respect to the $80,000, is intended to apply in respect of allotment. The provinces will spend so much money on highways in the course of a year, and then comes the allotment to each province of the amount which the Federal Government must pay, under the agreement. In the first place, the sum of $80,000 is to be placed to the credit of that province; then as to the rest, the proportion of forty per cent and sixty per cent is applied.


Jacques Bureau: How is the money paid?


Robert Laird Borden: Paid by cheque, in the ordinary course.


Jacques Bureau: I admit that, but under what terms?


Robert Laird Borden: Under the terms of the agreement entered into.


Jacques Bureau: And what will that agreement contain?
, Sir ROBERT BORDEN:	That is what
is to be settled between the Government pf the province and the Government of the .Dominion.


Jacques Bureau: There is the trap, and
.that is what I object to. My reason for objecting to section 3 is the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the whole Bill which will prevent the Minister of Railways or the Governor in Council, under its regulations, holding up any province. A particular province may say " we do not accept the agreement," and then the Federal Government may turn around and make an agreement with another province which .will accept it and which will have the allotment. What is to be the nature of the agreement? We know nothing about it at all. How are these roads to be standardized? Where are they to be located? What specifications will be required? There is nothing in the Bill which affords information on any of these points, but when we are asked to vote money for this purpose ,we ought to know exactly to what extent the Government is likely to go. I am willing to trust the Prime Minister of Quebec, as my hon. friend from St. James division of Montreal (Mr. L. A. Lapointe) said, but at the same time I am not here as the servant of that Prime Minister. iWhile I am here as the representative of the constituency of Three Rivers, I repre-

sent the whole of Canada and I have to pay regard to the interests of the entire people.
I am not so provincial that I am going to shut my eyes to anything in order to get a few dollars for the province of Quebec if I do not get them fairly. I am not here to praise or criticise one province or the other, but if we are going to pass legislation, let us know what we are passing. There is not a word said, in spite of the explanation given by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) as to how the money will be paid out. He said, " The money will be paid by cheque." What a childish answer. The money will be paid by cheque! Who does not know that? We know that on payment money has got to change hands.


Robert Laird Borden: What did the hon. gentleman mean?


Jacques Bureau: When the Government is going to pay $20 000,000, and a man asks how it is going to be paid, he who answers as the responsible head of the Government ought to know that the question means: Under what terms and conditions and at what times are you going to pay the money. If my right hon. friend does not give me credit for intelligence enough to know that he is going to pay the money by handing it over to whoever is to receive it, one of us has got to be pitied- and I do not pity myself at all in this game. What I want to know is: Under what conditions are you going to pay the money? If the Chairman will permit me I will go to the other section and discuss it. Section 3 says that the money shall be paid as follows:
For the purpose of constructing and improving highways in Canada the 'Governor in Council may authorize the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada of the sum of twenty million dollars during the period of five years from the first day of April, one thousand, nine hundred and nineteen.
Subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned.
What are the conditions?
Any highway for which aid is granted shall be obstructed or improved, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be made by ithe minister with the government of the province, which agreement shall contain such provisions as to cost, description, specifications or otherwise as the Governor in Council may approve.
That is as to location, I suppose. We ought to know what standard of road the Government are going to require from the province, anyway, if we are going to agree to that. As I said, they may make any agreement they please; there is no uniformity as to that. They may make one agreement with
the province of Alberta; tney may make another agreement with the province of Saskatchewan; and they may make still another agreement with the province of Manitoba. In spite of the confidence of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in me borrowing possibilities of this country, we want to know what we are doing when we pass this Bill, we want more information. What kind of roads are we going to build? This is a matter we are entitled to know.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? Does he think the provincial authorities would waste their sixty per cent for the purpose of wasting the Dominion's forty per cent on some roads that were worthless?


Jacques Bureau: Where is the provision in the Bill that says the money shall be paid when they have wasted sixty per cent?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is not an answer.


Jacques Bureau: Where is there anything in the Bill that says that? The other day when we passed a Bill to grant aid to technical education, we said that when the amount shall have been expended
9 p.m. by the province for technical education the Dominion Government will refund it to the province. But here you can make any agreement you please. If the province does not like the agreement it does not enter into it; if it does not enter into it it does not get the money; and if it does not get the money it pays taxes for the good of the provinces that enter into the agreement and get the money. There is the difference. Then you say that the aid so given shall be forty per cent, but there is nothing as to how you are going to give it. You are giving aid under conditions that the House knows nothing about. It is very easy to' say that this money is to be paid for roads which are standardized in the various provinces. We know that the provinces have adopted good roads policies. They know what they ' are about, and it is easy to ascertain what standard of roads they want to have and to grade them. But no, we are called upon to vote $20,000,000, to be expended under an agreement with the Minister of Railways and the provinces, and if any province does not make an agreement it does not get any money. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways was describing just now the work that can be done in the winter time in regard to crushed stone. I do not know how they build roads where he lives, but let me tell my hon. friend that in our province the stone is crushed at the quarry and teamed

or taken by railway to certain parts and spread along the roads as they are built. They do not pay twice for transporting the stone by making dumps and then carting it to the point where it is needed. I see my hon. friends from the Prairie Provinces, and I imagine they would have a long way to haul their stone or gravel for their roads, and it might take them a week or a month in some cases. I see my hon. friends from Winnipeg. How far would they have to go from Winnipeg to load stone? I guess the closest point would be Stony mountain, and in the winter they would hardly make a trip in two days. That argument does not stand. But if I may believe the rumours I hear in the corridors, although the other ministers may be acting in good faith when they say they want to help the soldiers and remove the unrest by having a few loads of stone hauled in the country where probably a road will not be built, the object of this Bill is to permit my hon. friend-I do not blame him, but I am not ready to say I would do the same if I were in his place- to redeem a pledge he made for election purposes that he would see that forty per cent of the cost of a first-class highway between Prescott and Ottawa would be paid by the Government. I do not know whether that is so or not. I see him smile, hut it is the smile of assent, I take it. I do not want to be in his way, and if I knew that to be the case I would be inclined to let the whole thing go through. I have no grudge against the hon. minister, and I admire the way he likes to make his election pledges good even at the expense of the Dominion.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member states that in the province of Quebec stone is crushed at the quarry. At any place where I have seen good roads under construction a large quantity of ground stone is thrown in to widen the old road, and crushed stone is then drawn for the top dressing. I am not finding fault with the hon. member making the statement about my trying to get this Bill through on account of some election pledge, but let me say that this Bill originated at the meeting of the provincial premiers last fall. It was at their solicitation that we proceeded with the policy of encouraging the construction of good roads. So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, either the deputy or minister or the commissioner of Good Roads interviewed me several times with reference to proceeding with this Bill, and assured me that the provincial government was very anxious that we should go ahead with it. It was brought before the committee, and I

discussed the matter with Sir Lomer Gouin when he was in Ottawa some months ago, but only for a few minutes.
I was certainly under the impression that he was satisfied that this Bill should go through. Perhaps he is not satisfied with the clauses as they now stand in the Bill, but I have never had any complaints from him so far as I can remember. After all, there will be no serious difficulty in making satisfactory arrangements with the provinces as to what roads the money shall be expended upon.
The1 hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau) asks why we do not lay down specifications showing the kind of roads that the Dominion Government intend to insist upon. But it would be impossible to submit specifications that all the provinces could agree to. One province might want to build a permanent road costing $10,000 a mile; another province-say, Alberta or Saskatchewan-might want to spend the money on a number of roads which would not cost anything like $10,000 a mile. So that it would not be practicable to say that the money shoo US be. spent on roads costing $7,000, $8,000 or $10,000 a mile. The farmers of Alberta and Saskatchewan would,,t in my opinion, receive greater benefit from road-building if roads were built which, though costing very much less, perhaps, than those built in Ontario or Quebec, would be suitable for all their purposes for .many years.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend does no1! answer my suggestion with regard to standardization. A standard for each province might be agreed upon.


John Dowsley Reid: We could hardly have one standard for Ontario, another for Saskatchewan, 'and so on. The people of New Ontario might want to build roads through country which is being opened up, at a cost of only $1,000 a mile. Why should we not agree to that, instead of laying down a standard specification for Ontario under which $10,000 a mile would have to be the cost?


John Best: The member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) has asked me to explain to the committee the minister's reply to the question that I put. I do not think it would be possible for either the minister or myself to explain to the satisfaction of some members of this House the meaning of what the minister said, because I do not think they want to know. All hon. gentlemen who have spoken to-day have said that 'they are in favour of good

roads; yet very many of them opposed the Bill. Now, the answer made by the minister was as plain as I could wish it to be. I simply wanted to know whether it was the intention of the Government to build a trunk road across the continent, or whether it -was the intention to build branch roads where the provinces were building. He made it very clear to me-I do not know whether it is clear to the member for Bed Deer-that the intention was to build branch roads where the provinces needed them. I know that the province of Ontario is building branch roads-not altogether trunk lines1-which are very satisfactory to the farmers. I was surprised to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) say that specifications should be laid down stating what kind of roads are to be built. I point out to him that one mile of road might require one kind of material and another mile, another kind; in one county, one kind of material might be required and in another county, another; and no doubt one province would want one kind of road and another would want another kind. But if we let every one say where he wants these roads located, if we sat in this House until twelve months from to-day we would be just as far on as we are now, because every one would want the roads at their back doors. The proper way is to have the Provincial Governments locate the roads through the county councils and municipalities; then the road's will be built where they ought to be and where the people want them. I am surprised that the answer of the minister was somewhat vague to the member for Red Deer, for whom I have the greatest respect; to me, it was perfectly satisfactory.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I think it is very important that the decision as to what particular kind of road should be built shall be left largely to the provinces. For instance, in British Columbia it would be almost impossible to set any particular standard, because in the valleys of the range country, which consists largely of open land, a dirt road would be satisfactory, but another kind of road would be necessary in the mountain section, and another through the heavy timber land on Vancouver island and on the coast. It is possible that only a pack trail would be required in a new mining section. British Columbia is a large province which is very little developed, and roads are 'required in all sections of it. We have large areas of rich mining land, timber land and farming land
-	REVISED
that are not yet supplied with roads. It may surprise you, Mr. Chairman, when I tell you that one-third of Vancouver island has not yet been explored. We know the value of good roads in British Columbia; they have assisted development to a great extent. Once a road is built through a new section-if it is a mining country, we have trails branching off in different directions from the roads-great development takes place. In the coast sections it would be quite possible to build these roads in the winter season. It is very important, in view of the fact that a number of Government works which had been carried on during the war have been discontinued, that during the next few months we should carry on a certain amount of work to furnish with employment during the coming winter the men who had been engaged in these other works.
If we do not do this, we may have bread lines established in some of the coast sections of British Columbia. I think it is rather wide of the mark to talk of this great country being bankrupt on account of the size of our debt. Having regard to our vast resources and to our comparatively small population, we are practically in a better condition now that the war is over than any other belligerent country. I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.


Frank S. Cahill: If the province does not enter into an agreement with the Dominion Government, will it get any part of the $80,000, or will it not? Will a province have to spend $160,000 before it can get ,the $80,000 that is alloted to each province?


Robert Laird Borden: It will have to spend $120,000.


Frank S. Cahill: I ask again whether the Pominion Government will interfere in any iway in the matter of the location of the roads? That is, will they approve the construction of any road that the Provincial Government wants to spend this money on, of will they reserve the right to approte only such roads as they may see fit to approve?


Robert Laird Borden: Since 1912 this Government, as well as the Government which preceded it, has had to work out agreements of this character year by year with the nine provinces of Canada in connection with the Agricultural Aid Act. During all that time we never had any serious difficulty in reaching a reasonable conclusion which was accepted by both sides. It is perfectly true, as a very eminent British


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
4430.
[Stage Direction]
constitutional writer once said, that if all authorities in any State exercised their powers to the full, you could not carry on Government at all.
People must he reasonable; people are reasonable. We would have no desire to impose our absolute will upon the province, and I trust the province would have no desire to impose their absolute will upon us. If we had some suggestion to make we would sit down and discuss it with them; if they had some suggestion which at the first did not commend itself to our judgment they would sit down and discuss it with us. I have not the slightest apprehension that there will be any serious . difficulty, or indeed, any difficulty, in working out these agreements to the reasonable satisfaction of both governments and to the great advantage of the people of the country.
Frank S. Cahill: What I want to know is what the policy of this Government would be in regard to the location of the roads, whether they would regard it as their businfess to say where the roads shall be located, or whether the provincial governments would be allowed to build wherever they liked; and whether they would receive the forty per cent provided the road was built to a certain standard. Will this Government quarrel with the provinces over the location of the road?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not expect to quarrel with the provinces at all. But if, for example, the provinces should undertake to spend this money in the construction of a trunk line across the continent, and we did not think that was for the best advantage of the people of this country, we would be at liberty to take the matter up and discuss it with them, and, I hope, convince them that that would not be the best method of carrying out the proposals contained in this Bill.


Avard Longley Davidson: Would the minister be gbod enough to lend a sympathetic ear to the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) that some provision should be made in the Bill that neither the provincial governments nor the Dominion Government shall use these large expenditures of public money for political purposes. I would suggest to the minister that inasmuch as we have already sat for a considerable time on this Bill we might now report progress and this evening or tomorrow morning he might take up with the hon. member for Edmonton and other members interested the question of amendl Sir Robert Borden. 1
ing the Bill so that one of the serious objections to it may be removed. There is no doubt about this, that td be consistent, if the Government is abolishing patronage in jts expenditure of public money, it is bound to insist that in the expenditure of any moneys it hands over to any provincial government there shall also be no patronage. If it is a crime for the federal Government to recognize patronage in the expenditure of public money and a great many people hold that view, certainly it would be less corrupt for the federal Government to hand over these moneys to the provincial Government to be used for patronage purposes. As far as I know, no provincial Government has taken the advance step this Government has taken in regard to the abolition of patronage. Would the minister agree to the suggestion I have made?


William Cameron Edwards: When I suggested this afternoon that some provision should be made in the Bill as a safeguard against this money being used for political purposes I had in mind inserting in clause 4, after the word "contain" in the fifth line of page 2, the words:
a proviso that road construction or improvement shall be let toy tender and
The clause would then read:
Any highway for which aid is granted shall be constructed or improved, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be made by the minister with the government of the province, which agreement shall contain a proviso that road construction or improvement shall be let by tender and such provisions as to cost, description, specifications or otherwise as the Governor in Council may approve.
My intention was to move that amendment when we reached clause 4, and 1 mention it now because of the direct bearing the clause under discussion has on clause 4.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that in the proper place, which I think is in clause 4, there might be an amendment to this effect. Paragraph (a) now reads as follows:
Any highway for which aid is granted shall be constructed or improved, as the case may toe, in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be made by the minister with the government of the province, which agreement shall contain such provisions as to cost, description, specifications or otherwise as the Governor in Council may approve.
I have prepared rather hurriedly an amendment, to the exact language of which

I am not wedded, but which I will read as a suggestion to the Committee:
Any highway for which aid is granted shall be constructed or improved, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be made by the minister with the government of the province; such agreement must be approved by the Governor in Council and shall contain such provisions as to location, cost, description, specifications, time and method of construction, supervision and other necessary particulars as are essential to protect tne public interest. Except for reasons set*forth in such Order in Council, and except with the consent of both governments, all expenditure under this Act shall be by tender and contract.
That is to say, if the money is not to be expended by tender and contract, then the reasons why that course is departed from must be set forth in the Order in Council, and more than that, the expenditure shall be made by tender and contract unless both Governments consent to some other course.


Avard Longley Davidson: Will the Government not consider my suggestion that the committee now rise and report progress? This is a very important matter and one that cannot be dealt with without a great deal of difficulty. If we had time to consider if we would be in a better condition to deal with it.


Robert Laird Borden: We will take up clause 4 for any necessary amendments and then consider my hon. friend's suggestion.


John Dowsley Reid: I move to strike out clause (a) and substitute the following:
Any highway for which -aid is granted shall be constructed or improved, as the case may toe, in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be made by the minister with the government of the province. Such agreement must be approved by the Governor in Council and shall contain such provisions as to location, cost, description specifications, time and method ot construction, supervision and other necessary particulars as are essential to protect tne public interest. Except for reasons set forth in such Order in Council, and except with the consent of both governments, all expenditure under this Act shall be done by tender and contract.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is very much involved and is not very clear. It is absolutely impossible to build very many of our roads in Nova Scotia by tender and contract. I do not know how it will work in other provinces, hut the character of the country there is such that I fear it will be extremely difficult to build by tender and contract. Some hon. gentlemen seem to be afraid that politics will creep into the construction of the roads. In Nova Scotia we have a Road Board, an absolutely non-political body. Some of the best Con-
281 l
servatives in the province are on the board, appointed by the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia, such men as Colonel Cantley, an out-and-out life-long and leading Conservative of Nova Scotia. There is also a gentleman named Black. I do not know the man, but he is a leading Conservative in the county of Cumberland. There are four men altogether on the board. The Minister of Roads in Nova Scotia, Hon. Mr. Wickwire, whom the Prime Minister knows very well, directs the affairs, but the board is absolutely non-political. There need therefore be no fear of any road expenditure in Nova Scotia being used for political purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member will observe that provision is made in the amendment for cases in which the work cannot conveniently or with avantage to the public interest be carried out by tender and contract, but it is desirable that the reasons should be stated in eacji case, and each Government should consent. If it is a fair case, there is no difficulty about stating the reasons and there need be no apprehension that both Governments will not give their consent.


Ernest Lapointe: This will render still more difficult an agreement between the province and the Dominion Government. In-Quebec, in most -cases, the roads are built by the municipalities under agreement with the Provincial Government. Either the municipalities borrow money from the Provincial Government under a special law which has -been passed, the money to be paid back within forty years; or they build the ro.ad and the Provincial Government pays fifty per cent of the cost of construction. The ratepayers work on- the roads under supervision of the officers of the municipal council. How will the new clause work in such a case?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not nearly so familiar as my hon. friend is with the arrangements in Quebec, tout I venture to think that no_ arrangements ought to exist in any province which would prevent large public -works such as are contemplated in this Bill from toeing constructed under: tender and contract. That is the practice in Federal affairs. It is, I think, the practice ordinarily in- provincial affairs, andi there is no reason why the construction of a series of public highways should he made an exception to that rule.	.


Ernest Lapointe: Not only the Provincial Government hut the municipalities will he at the mercy of this Government, be-<

cause the roads are ibuilt by 'the municipali-i ties-, which will have to agree to give corn tract by tender. I am not speaking against. this mode of proceeding, I think it is the best mode; hut wha't I object to is the principle 'tlhat is involved in the whole maf^ ter, that the provinces, for a work which is within the provincial jurisdiction, will have to submit to the will, or even the whim, of the Minister of Railways as to, the way in which a provincial work shall be carried out.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not the
whim of the Minister of Railways. The matter is under the disposition of the Governor in Council, because it is the Governor in Council that must finally determine the terms of the agreement. The minister will, of course, in the first place enter into negotiations with proper minister representing the Provincial Government, but in the final1 analysis, so far as the expenditure of this money out of the Federal Treasury is concerned, the responsibility and determination will be with the Governor in Council. I appreciate all that my hon. friend has said about conditions in Quebec, but I should venture to hope that any practice existing there might be so moulded as to conform with the reasonable requirements of this Bill.


Michael Clark: 
Robert Laird Borden: I have not considered very attentively the details of administration under this Act, but naturally, if there is to be supervision and an inquiry about location, the Federal Government must have the report of some officer in whose judgment it will repose confidence, and that officer must either be resident in British Columbia or be sent there for the purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the Prime Minister tell me wherein he thinks is the material difference between; the clause as it appear in the printed Bill and as now suggested in the amendment?


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend is quite right in one respect if I understand what he has in mind. The Governor in Council, under the section as originally drafted1, can make it a condition of the agreement that the money should be expended by tender and contract. My proposal sets it forth explicitly and defines it; that is all.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not anticipate the difficulties of coming . to an agreement which some hon. gentlemen suggest, as between the Provincial and the Federal authorities. On the contrary, I anticipate every desire on both sides to make an agreement. But while I favor the idea of tender and contract generally in public works, I am somewhat doubtful whether you can construct roads in this country to any great extent by tender and contract system. I am a little afraid that the motion that the hon. gentleman has made with the best purposes may complicate matters and make it more difficult. It seems to me that the clause as it stood gave the Government power to put in the agreement, if necessary, "tender and contract" where the conditions would allow. The very purpose of this Bill is to allow some degree of elasticity. If it were possible to have a standard road for the whole Dominion, I presume the minister would have inserted that provision. It is because conditions are not the same in the different Provinces that he has wisely, I think, provided for some measure of elasticity in order that he may adapt himself to the conditions of ea<Jh Province. I am very much afraid that by insisting upon tender and contract here yon may be creating difficulties which will1 not be helpful.


Robert Laird Borden: I hardly feel
that the point which my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) makes has the significance, or will involve the danger, which he appears to apprehend. He very correctly points out that it would be within the powers of the Federal Government to make that a stipulation in every agreement. Perhaps I was a little hasty a moment ago when I said that there was no material distinction between the subsection as originally proposed and my amendment. There is this distinction, that in any case where tender and contract is departed from the reasons for such departure must be set out in the Order in Council. My hon. friend will remember that that is a practice which is pursued in regard to public works. In the ordinary course of administration in federal affairs, where tender and contract is departed from the reasons are set out in the Order in Council. When I framed the Order in Council establishing the War Purchasing Commission some four years ago last spring I inserted in that Order in Council a provision which has been in force ever since, that goods and supplies must be purchased by tender and contract except for reasons set forth in the report of the War Purchasing Commission and embodied in
\

the Order in Council. I am bound to say that we found that a very wholesome practice.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case of a public work such as a building, a canal or the construction of a section of railway, there is not much difficulty in providing plans and specifications upon which tenders may be called but with the construction of a road, and still more with the repair of a road, it is not by any means such an easy matter. The object is all right-I do not wish to oppose it-but it seems to me that the same purpose could be effected by leaving the Bill as it stood.


Avard Longley Davidson: While this amendment as proposed by the Prime Minister does not remove by any means all the objections I have to the measure, I think it improves it in a 'substantial degree. It will perhaps free the proposition from some of its most objectionable features. I think it will reasonably ensure that the money will be actually expended in road-making and that such a number of flagrant acts of partisanship as characterized the administration of roads in certain provinces may be eliminated under the Bill as amended. I have strictly refrained in the remarks I made previously from saying anything at all about the administration of road moneys in the province of Nova Scotia.	I thought
that hon. members opposite, being thoroughly	seized	of the	facts and
in consideration of my quiescence on the subject, would have thought it best not to refer to the matter. But the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) has gravely assured this House that there was no need of such a provision in reference to the province of Nova Scotia, and that the moneys of that province were administered in a perfectly non-partisan manner. He stated that the moneys are expended on roads by a road board composed of five members of which Mr. Black, of Cumberland, was a Conservative and consequently that was a guarantee that there was no partisanship in the road moneys of the province of Nova Scotia. Mr. Black, I believe is a Conservative and a member of the road board, but I wish to say that the county of Cumberland, is the only county where any moneys are allowed to be expended through the hands of Conservatives. The county of Cumberland is the only county where the highway inspector is a Conservative or may he presumed to be anything else but a strong advocate of that partisanship to which my hon. friend refers. In the county of Annapolis last year,
out of something like $40,000 ihich was expended, less than $300 was expended through the medium of the Unionist or members of the Union Government, and any supporter of the Unionist party at the last election was not regarded as eligible even to contribute a horse or a cow to the work of constructing roads. In other counties the proportion is worse still. In Pic-tou out of some $60,000 that was spent less than $50 was expended through the medium of supporters of the Union Government. When the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition made the statement he did he was either saying something which was intended as a joke or something which was contrary to the facts.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Colonel Cantlie, who
was selected by this Government as one of the ablest representative gentlemen in the whole Dominion of Canada to sit on the Munitions Board or to act in connection with the handling of munitions in times of war was a member of this board. I do not think that the hon. member for Annapolis would regard him as a joke upon any' board upon which he was placed in that province. Colonel Cantlie is one of the captains of industry in this country, a man who has made his mark not only in the province of Nova Scotia but in the whole Dominion. I do not know who Mr. Black is, but as I understand it he is a representative Conservative. Mr. Walter Crowe of Sydney, who cannot be classed as a wild Liberal, is a third member of that board, a man who supported the Union party in the last election. I understand, mild politician that I am, that the whole Government of Nova Scotia at the last election unanimously and enthusiastically supported the Union Government and the Union party. They have a very live, active, capable opposition in the Legislature of Noya Scotia. It is a pity for the Conservative party in Nova Scotia that my hon. friend for Annapolis cannot be in both Houses at the same time. He no doubt regards Mr. Hall, leader of the Opposition, and such men as Mr. Hector Mclnnes who represents the city of Halifax, and other men of that calibre, as very bright gentlemen.
I would ask my hon. friend, if within the last ten .years, he has at any time heard any serious complaints from these gentlemen of how Premier Murray has handled the moneys of the province of Nova Scotia spent on the roads. Those are the men who are entrusted by the people of Nova Scotia with authority to look after their affairs. I do admit,

of course,-it is a sad. fact-that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davidson) cannot be everywhere ' and represent the whole business. He has to be here, and as the Irishman said, "A man cannot be in two places at the same time unless he be a bird."


Jacques Bureau: He would have to be a "bird" to do that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is a "bird," with nice plumage. I do not wish to labour the point, but only to give sufficient explanation to put the mind of my hon. friend at ease, and to give the assurance that in the province of Nova Scotia we are too busy with lots of other industries, as the hon. gentleman himself knows, to resort to any dealings to get a few days' work on the roads. The problem at the present time in Nova Scotia is to get men to work on the road. The problem does not consist in getting the work to do, but to secure the men to do the work. There was a time, some twenty or thirty years ago, when a few days' work on the roads was a matter of some importance to people who were in need of a little money. But conditions have changed, and to-day the farmer and the miner are too busy in their respective occupations to give their services to this work, and the trouble is to get anybody to do it. I am anxious that this money shall be placed at the disposal of the very excellent committee I spoke of, under the direction of the Minister of Roads and Bridges for the province of Nova Scotia, and under the general supervision of the Murray administration. I might say that the hon. gentleman himself has to-day borne testimony of the highest kind to the Government of Nova Scotia. We had fourteen years of Liberalism in that' province under the direction of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), and since he has stepped out [DOT] of the provincial administration, tiwenty-three years of Liberalism under Premier Murray. And my good friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson), says that in these difficult times of financial storm and stress our bonds sold on the market the other day at 103, a premium of $3, instead of selling below par. That sort of testimony comes from a source that is not prejudiced in favour of the government of Nova Scotia. During those two periods of 14 years and 23 years- of Liberal government there has not been one black mark against anybody who had anything to do with the administration of the affairs of that pro-

vince. The provincial administration will therefore not think it worth while to sully that splendid reputation by looking for any little advantage it -might possibly make out of the expenditure of this money.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR:: How far will this agreement apply in the improvement or construction of highways-? The clause we are considering says that a highway shall be constructed or improved in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be entered into. Does that mean that the money can lie spread over a great portion of a highway without building any real permanent thoroughfare?


John Dowsley Reid: What that means is this: There may be some existing highway, or old highway at present in use, and the provincial authorities may deem it proper to spend the money on it and bring it up to standard rather than to build a new highway. In that event, the representatives of the two Governments would confer and come to an agreement as to how much should be expended on that particular road in order to make it a good passable highway.


John Ewen Sinclair: I will give a further illustration, in order to get a true understanding as to what the minister means by the provision. For example, we will say there are in the province of Prince Edward Island 8,000 miles of road. I do not know what the cost of the upkeep of a road is per mile, but we will say that it costs $10, and the money to be voted under this grant amounts to $25 per mile. Would the minister, or the Governor in Council, agree to expend $25 a mile on the old roads for improvement?	.	,


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that in Prince Edward Island there is a road commissioner who supervises the expenditures upon roads. The commissioner for the Dominion would consult with the provincial commissioner and the former would submit a proposition to the latter as to where and how the money should be spent. I have no doubt at all the commissioners could come to an agreement. Then we would pay our proportion of forty per cent and the province its proportion of sixty per cent of the total amount to be expended on such road.


John Ewen Sinclair: Or on the improvement of any road?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: The question of improvement is covered by the definition in section 2 of the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Mr. BUTTS:: The leader of the Opposition spoke of the membership of the provincial highway board. It is true that Mr. Black is a Conservative, but where did Colonel Cantlie get.his Conservative principles? Was he not the strongest friend E. M. Macdonald had in the county of Pictou every time he ran? 1 ask my hon. friend if during the time Colonel Cantlie was General Manager for the Nova Scotia Steel Company he can point to one incident of importance as showing him to be a Conservative? If he can, will he please give that information?


Mr. DENIS:: I would like to know to
what section the hon. gentleman is speaking.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the point of
order is well taken. It is true that two hon. gentlemen a moment ago engaged in a discussion respecting political affairs in the province of Nova Scotia. I thought it only fair to allow one hon. gentleman to answer the other, but I do consider that a genera] discussion along such lines would be entirely out of order, and I must so rule.
% Mr. BUTTS: I am answering some statements that were made to the committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: And if some hon.
member answers the hon. gentleman who is now speaking there would be further discussion on a subject that is entirely irrelevant. The line must be drawn somewhere, and I draw it now. I therefore declare the hon. gentleman out of order.


Mr. KAY:: I would ask if the proposition to grant forty per cent to the provinces has been submitted to them and if it has been accepted? I understand that the provincial premiers when they were here in conference were willing to accept aid along these lines from the federal Government. But have the actual terms since been submitted to them?


John Dowsley Reid: The terms have not
been submitted tc them, but several of the provincial representatives have been in Ottawa since this Bill was placed on the Order Paper, and as far as I can learn every representative was quite satisfied with the proportion provided for in the Bill. At all events, no objection has been raised by any province.


William Frederic Kay: The minister has received no suggestion that the provinces would prefer receiving the whole amount?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 5.-Regulations.
Jacques Bureau: May I renew my demand that these .regulations which are deemed advisable for giving effect to the Act shall be published so that people may know about them?
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN:	I see not the
slightest objection to that being done.


Jacques Bureau: Why not put it in the
Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: I move to insert after the word "regulations" in the first line of clause 5 the following words "to be published in the Canada Gazette".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 177, to amend the Judges Act.
Jacques Bureau: Before the Bill is read a second time, while I do not want to be understood as objecting to the increase of salaries of the various judges, I do certainly object to this departure from the principle we have always heretofore followed, namely, that the salaries of the judges of one province should not be adjusted unless the question was dealt with for the whole Dominion. I want to state that the line of conduct followed by the Government this year of adjusting the salaries of the judges in the several provinces with the exception of the province of Quebec, should serve as a precedent for future years and that if ever we want to adjust the salaries of the judges of Quebec it will not be taken as an objection that the salaries of the judges in the other provinces are not being reopened. I do this because I have asked the successive Ministers of Justice to remedy the
10 p.m. evil which I have pointed out on previous occasions when this question came before the House, and the ansvper that I invariably got was the one which I have just stated-that if the thing was done for Quebec it would have to be

done for the whole Dominion. But to-day just the reverse happens: it is done for the whole of the Dominion and Quebec is ignored. I just want to register my protest, but I will not go any further for the present.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee on the Bill. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 11-Judges not to retire on pensions after 15 years' service or for infirmity unless retirement in public interest, present judges excepted.
William Stevens Fielding: The hon. the Acting
Minister of Justice is aware of the point that was raised as to the conditions upon which a judge may retire. I do not think it is reasonable that a judge should be at liberty to retire at his own sweet will. I think a judge or any other public official might reasonably claim superannuation when he has- reached an advanced age, or when he is disabled by physical or mental condition. I cannot imagine any other conditions on which a judge has a right to retire on a pension. The point was raised the other day and I had hoped the hon. minister would deal with it in his Bill.
, CMr. MEIGHEN:	I think the point the
hon. member raises is covered by section 11 of the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Hitherto the Act in this regard read that the Governor in Council may retire a judge of a Superior Court after fifteen years service on a two-thirds pension. I have not the Act before me, but I know the word. " may " is used. It is very strongly argued, and I believe the argument has been conceded in the past, that though the word " may " is used, the effect is to give an absolute right of retirement on the two-thirds pension after the fifteen years, irrespective entirely of public interest. The amendment therefore in section 11 is to the effect that no such absolute right shall hereafter accrue, but that in determining whether or not retirement may be permitted after fifteen years the Governor in Council may decide on the question of public interest alone. The public interest would be served, I should imagine, should the applicant for retirement be in such ill-health as to prevent the proper discharge of his duties, or should it have been demonstrated, through an act of impeachment or otherwise, that he was unfit for the post he occupies. I am asking the House to continue the provision, hut to

give the right of retirement only on the condition that it is deemed by the Governor in Council to be in the public interest.


William Stevens Fielding: The difficulty is in determining what is the interpretation of the phrase "deemed to be in the public interest." I do not want to be personal, but would it be in the public interest that a judge who is in the best of health and strength should retire on pension and immediately proceed to engage in the ordinary affairs of life? That has happened; worse than that has happened, to which I do not wish to allude. If the hon. gentleman can give us the assurance that no judge will be permitted to retire unless he is infirm, physically or mentally disabled, then I shall accept that provision; but it has not been the practice of the past.


Arthur Meighen: It has not been the practice of the past, beoause, I understand, the wording of the clause as it has read in the past gives the absolute right of retirement, the Governor in Council having no discretion in the matter; that is, the judge himself can say whether or not he chooses to retire after fifteen years. This amendment gives discretion to the Governor in Council, based on the public interest. Of course, I could not in any way bind the Governor in Council in respect to the present Administration, much less in respect to a future Administration. But by this Act the duty will be placed upon the Governor in Council to find affirmatively that it is in the public interest that the man retire, before he can choose to retire and succeed in doing so. Wlhat would govern the Governor in Council in that matter is for the Governor in Council, of course, to say, hut if the judge was capable, physically and mentally, of discharging his dutiesi, it could not be in the public interest to retire him, unless there were more judges in the court in question than were necessary.


William Stevens Fielding: That is one phase of the question; I ask my hon. friend's attention, then, to the other point, upon which I think there is very strong opinion in the House. Need I again speak about the question of exemptions?


Arthur Meighen: No reasonable objection can be made to repealing the clause as to exemption so far .as it is applicable to. judges whose salaries are raised by this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend propose such an amendment to this Bill?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Is there any provision in the Exchequer Court Act that one of the judges of that court shall he conversant with both official languages of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: I could not answer that question without having the Act before me,
I scarcely think that there is such a provision in the Act, because until very lately there was only one judge of the Exchequer Court; an assistant judge was added five or six years ago. Of course, the assistant judge does understand both , languages.	*


Jacques Bureau: But would it not be wise to provide for the future? There are to be two puisne judges, besides the President of the Court. Why hot insert' an amendment to provide that one of these judges shall be conversant with the two official languages of Canada?	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: That might be wise, and might not. The purpose of this Bill is not to. deal with the constitution of courts or the character of the men to be appointed, but to deal with the remuneration. If that *end ought to- be achieved, it might be better to do it by amendment to the Exchequer Court Act.


Jacques Bureau: You are amending the Exchequer Court Act to the extent of making provision for an additional judge. [DOT]


Arthur Meighen: We are simply providing salary for an additional judge by an amendment to the Judges Act.


Jacques Bureau: How are you going to appoint a third judge unless you provide that the constitution of the court shall be three judges? [DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Unless the Exchequer Court Act enables the Governor in Council to appoint a third judge, he cannot be appointed. This merely provides a salary for him when he is competently appointed.


Jacques Bureau: And the Governor in Council does the rest?


Arthur Meighen: It is very probable that that is the way it is done.	[DOT]


Andrew Ross McMaster: Why is the senior judge of the Exchequer Court designated as "The President of the Exchequer Court" while other senior judges receive the name of " Chief Justice"?


Arthur Meighen: That is the title given to the head of the Exchequer Court in England; it is believed by a judge of the Exchequer Court to be the appropriate title.
Section 11 agreed to.
On motion of Mr. McKenzie the committee reverted to section 10-salaries increased $1,000 each.	*


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I directed the attention of the minister last night to the fact that he was adding $1,000 to the salaries of County Court judges. The County Court judges of the districts of Halifax and St. John receive $3,500, and, as the flat rate seems to be established by this Bill at $4,000, these judges would not, under the Bill as it stands, get an increase of $1,000. If that was an oversight, I trust the minister will put it right.


Arthur Meighen: There was no oversight at all. It is true that in certain cities the senior County Court judge has been receiving a salary of $3,500; in such cases the addition to the salary under this legislation will be only $500. I do not know that I can give with certainty the names of the cities in which these judges receive $3,500, but they include, I think, St. John, Halifax, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, and perhaps one or two others.
But the city of Winnipeg was not such a place, Regina was not such a place, Calgary was not, and so forth. Usually the capital of the province was the city where the extra $500 was given; but that was not always so. Nor, indeed, were it so, could it be held to warrant its discontinuance, for the reason that there were other cities, in some cases as large, or even larger, than the capital of the province in which it would be- inequitable to deny the senior judge the additional salary he would receive in the capital of the province. Consequently, I thought it would be better to make a round salary of $4,000 applicable everywhere, and then to endeavour to meet inequalities that might exist by a rearrangement of jurisdictions such as is now being provided for in Ontario, and such as I think should be provided for in every province. Hereafter every county or district court judge will obtain exactly the same salary from the treasury of Canada, $4,000. That means an increase of $1,000 almost universally, but in some cases it means just $500 increase. I believe the average county court judge's salary in Ontario from the Dominion was $3,006. That will illustrate how very few there were who were getting over $3,000. To give effect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's

(Mr. Fielding), I beg to move that section 13 be added to the. Bill to read as follows:
13. The provisions of subsection 3 of section 27 shall not apply to any judge' whose salary is increased by this Act.


Edmond Proulx: Is the definition of "income " in the Income Tax Act broad enough to include a judge's salary?
Mr, MEIGHEN: As I recall it, the Income Tax Act provides that it shall apply to the salaries of all judges appointed after the passing of that Act. The effect of the amendment will be to make the Income Tax Act or any other tax or deduction imposed under any Act of the Parliament of Canada applicable to all judges whose salaries are increased by this statute.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does subsection 3 of section 27 read?


Arthur Meighen: As follows:
The salaries and retiring allowances or annuities shall be payable by monthly instalments and shall be free and clear of all taxes and deductions whatsoever imposed under any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
The amendment I moved provides that that section shall not apply to any judge whose salary is increased by this Act.


William Stevens Fielding: By this amendment will not my hon. friend be depriving these judges of their monthly instalments? .


Arthur Meighen: That is correct. My amendment should have read:
The provisions of subsection 3 of section 27 as to taxes and deductions shall not apply to any judge whose salary is increased by this Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is not the minister
going further than was suggested either by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) or my hon. friend ifrom Precott (Mr. Proulx)? I understand that their contention was that only the amount to be added to the judges' salaries should be subject to taxation, but that we should stand by the bargain we made with the judges. The minister is abandoning that idea altogether and making the whole salary taxable. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) will remember that his contention was as I have said.


William Stevens Fielding: I am bound to say that the minister has given effect to my views.
I can see no reason why we should tax one part of the salary and not the other. What we are doing is this: We are recognizing what somebody has called a contractual arrangement; we are recognizing a vested right on the part of certain judges; we do not disturb that right, but we say that as

respects judges whose salaries will be affected by this Act we will remove the exemption. The Income Tax Act also declares that there shall be no exemption as regards judges appointed in the future. The net result will be that a few judges who are not affected by this legislation will enjoy the exemption, and until something happens by which we are doing something for them I am content they should have the exemption.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The discussion we have had goes for nothing if we are going to take away the exemption. What we said the other day was that we should stand by the statute which exempted the salary of a judge from any imposts of any kind. Everybody will agree to that, particularly the hon. member for Kingston, who said that a contract was a contract and we had to stand by it. Now we are breaking that contract, arid we are making the whole salary subject to taxation because we are giving the judges a slight increase. We must know exactly what we are doing. We are absolutely repealing the exemption which judges are supposed to have. If it is distinctly understood that we are going back on our contract, I have nothing more to say, except that we did hold out in a most virtuous manner the other day that we should stand by that contract, and that there would be no "scraps of paper" in this country so far as we are concerned. But now we are absolutely scrapping that statute so far as its exemption provisions are concerned, and we are making the judges whom we have exempted for the last fifty years liable to taxation; We are breaking the contract we made with them. If that is the will of this Committee all right, but we must understand exactly what we are doing.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens just as he states his own understanding is to-day, nor do I consider the reasoning of the leader of the Opposition good, that this involves any breach of contract - whatsoever; it has not even the colour of it. The statute contained a provision that when any judge was appointed he should receive a salary of $3,000, let us say, and that that salary should be exempt from taxation. So long as we do nothing which takes away from that man's salary of $3,000, surely we cannot be said to have broken any contract with him. The total effect of our action is to add to his salary. So far from breaking the contract we have added to the contract in his favour; that is all we

, are doing. Certainly the taxation that would be imposed on the whole salary would be a .mere fraction of the increase we are giving now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, hut a salary is a salary whether it is $3,000 or $10,000, and we -made a contract with the judges that their salaries would be exempt from imposts of any kind. Now we propose to give them an increased salary, not free from taxation. We are therefore changing the condition.


William Stevens Fielding: If we take away an exemption worth $200 or $300 and give him $1,000 instead, I cannot see where we are doing any harm.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is mere bargaining to which the judge is not a party.
Mr. MeMAiSTER: If you take away the exemption, no one can say that the increase you are giving the judge will always be suffiicent to take care of the taxation which you may impose upon citizens earning an income equal to his. If you take away the exemption he holds bn $3,000 and give him $4,000 not free from taxation, it is possible that in the future he may be taxed at a rate which will take away, say, $1,500 from him, so that his salary would be really less by $500 than before you increased it. I do not say that that is a probable case but it certainly is possible, and I think that in principle at least the member (Mr. McKenzie) is right.


Arthur Meighen: That will be the time to reconsider this.


William Stevens Fielding: How would it do to insert a provision that no judge is obliged to avail himself of the privileges of the Act?
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.


PURCHASING OF DEPARTMENTAL AND OTHER SUPPLIES.
[Stage Direction]
-On motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell (President of the Priviy Council), the House again went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:	.
That it is expedient to provide in the proposed Act respecting the Purchasing of Departmental and other Supplies and 'Materials for His Majesty (Bill 46), now before the House, that the Chairman of the Purchasing Commission for Canada shall he paid an annual salary of seven thousand dollars, and each of the other commissioners shall he paid an annual salary
of six thousand dollars, and that such salaries may he paid monthly out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Jacques Bureau: A Bill was introduced
concerning the War Purchasing Department, and when it came up for second reading-I think it was on a Friday-I asked that it be postponed because a good many members desired to speak on the subject. All the legislation that we have had at this late hour is very important, and this resolution is among the most important measures that have come before us, because I think it is sapping responsible government at its very basis. If I understand the reso- * lution correctly the President of the Privy Council wants- to appoint -a commission to purchase all supplies that are required for the administration of government, and it is his intention that the gentleman to be appointed by the Governor in Council shall not be removed except by a joint address ot the House of Commons and the Senate. After the debate that previously occurred on this resolution I took the trouble to read Hansard, and I discovered that there was strenuous opposition to the system which was going to be inaugurated by the Bill for which the resolution is now introduced, because there had been abuses in the system that was established for the purposes of the war. It has been well said in the discussion on the Bill that it might have been all right to have such a commission during the war; but we are not now legislating for war conditions; but for peace. I understand that the various departments have purchasing agents, men with years of experience. The purchasing agent in a department is under the control of the deputy minister, who also has experience. Furthermore, at the head of the department, there is the minister himself who is responsible to Parliament. It is all very well to say that this Bill does not take away governmental responsibility. Technically it does not, but practically, I say, it does. We do not know what this commission is doing, and we will not inquire into its operations. Another objection is the fact that you will either duplicate the existing staffs of the departments thereby increasing the expenditure of the country, or you will put out of business many men who have been a long time in the service of the Government, and who have acquired experience in the business of purchasing various supplies required for the departments. If the object is to save money, I do not see where the saving is to be effected and I would like to be informed who were the people that asked to have this

War Purchasing commission continue to shoulder responsibility which the minister and his colleagues ought to assume. The only department that is excepted from the operation of the commission is the Department of Railways.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Department of Railways is not excepted.	.


Jacques Bureau: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. gentleman was not in the House, as he himself has intimated, when this subject was up for discussion before, but all the questions he has

raised to-night -were debated on that occasion-


Jacques Bureau: They were not; I read the debate.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -and answers were given to all the questions he has asked to-night. I have not appointed any commissions in the past, and I have no commissions to appoint now. This is not my Bill, this is a Government Bill, and the commission for which it provides reports tp the Prime Minister. I am in charge of the Bill only because the Prime Minister was absent when it was necessary to present the measure to the House. It is the Government's proposal, the Prime Minister being particularly interested in it, because the War Purchasing Commission comes under him.
The reason for introducing this Bill is that the Government has found, as a result of the experience of the past four years, a very real gain in the public interest from having a War Purchasing Commission. It found the practical gain from it was so great that it decided the commission should be continued, and as the other commission was only appointed temporarily for the purposes of the war, it was necessary to have legislation in order that a new commission may be appointed which will continue and take up the enlarged duties which this Bill entrusts to it.
My hon. friend has spoken about the commissioners not being removable except upon the joint vote of both Houses of Parliament. Would he prefer that the commission should be removable by the Governor in Council for cause? If my hon. friend prefers that course I personally, subject to what the Prime Minister might say, would not see any substantial objection to that course being. adopted. That is the provision we have made in the case of the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Jacques Bureau: I want them removed
by the people.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I want to see how far
my hon. friend is prepared to go. If it is upon that point I have no particular objection.


Jacques Bureau: I will tell you at once
I want those who are responsible for the purchases made by the Government to be removable by the people.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, this commission
would be removable by the people, acting through the excutive government of the country, for cause. We do not want them

removable on political grounds or for political considerations, because back of this whole proposal is the determination of the Government to eliminate patronage in the purchase of supplies. That is the basis of it, and that is one of the important reasons for it.


Frank S. Cahill: That is hard to believe.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is nothing in the world would convince my hon. friend that "any good can come out of Nazareth",- that any good can emanate from this side of the House.


Jacques Bureau: It is impossible to
realize.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We are not responsible
for the mental or moral obtuseness of my hon. friends which debars them from realizing the fact.


John Best: The minister had better not
think that all on this side of the House are in favour of it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not responsible for anybody's opinions except my own, and, in so far as 1 can express them, the sentiments of my colleagues in the Government.


Mr. COPB:: Do you really believe that
yourself?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do, and I know it is so.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think the minister voices the sentiments of all his colleagues.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend has asked one or two questions, and I shall answer them again, although I replied to them the other evening. The hon. gentleman has asked: What will you do with the existing staffs? The Bill provides for the absorption of the existing staffs in this new branch of the public service, which would mean the consolidation of the purchasing staffs in the various departments in one central purchasing department. I quite agree with my hon. friend that an employee who has been rendering faithful and efficient service to the country for many years should not be turned adrift because of some Change in the form of administration. In so far as they are not required in this centralized purchasing board, they would be drafted info other positions in other branches of the service. It is not contemplated, and it is not expected, that there will be any increase in the number of employees in connection with the work of this department. On the contrary, as soon as the department is organized and working efficiently it follows as a natural consequence

that you can do the work in one office with one set of officials with a smaller number than when the work is done with many sets of officials. Common ordinary business sense will show us that is the case, and that is the policy pursued by business men in the large business concerns of Canada.
Another very important consideration-one of the most important, in fact,-is that Government supplies can be purchased to better advantage if they are bought in large quantities and under the conditions mentioned in the Bill, than if they are purchased in small quantities to meet the needs from time to time of a particular department. The Bill contemplates all departments anticipating their needs and presenting their recommendations to the purchasing Commission; and where there are several departments requiring the same class of supplies the Commission will be able to effect a large saving, jusit as any for all branches of the Government at the best possible terms at which they can secure those supplies, and thereby should be able to effect a large saving, just as any merchant when purchasing in large quantities is able to do so at a lower rate than the man who has to buy only in small quantities.
Now let me mention another important
aspect of this question that I did not refer to before, and when the Bill goes back into Committee I intend to move an amendment to give effect to it: One of the important recommendations of the Joint Industrial Committee in Great Britain was, in the case of the British Government, that the Government should purchase its supplies through one central purchasing department under such conditions as would tend to provide against unemployment. In other words, it should so place its orders as to ensure, so far as the Government could in any way ensure, employment under conditions where otherwise there might be unemployment, that is, place its orders at such a period of the year, and under such conditions, as would help to mitigate the dangers of unemployment. Let me read to my hon. friend from the report of the Industrial Relations Commission in Great Britain, a paragraph in reference to this matter:	.
3. Stabilizing Employment.-In order to provide against the fluctuating demand' for labour, the Committee think that the Government should undertake the definite duty of stimulating the demands for labour in bad times by postponing contracts of a non-urgent character until it is necessary to promote a demand for labour owing to falling trade. For this purpose, in allocating Government orders, consideration should, of course, be given to the circumstances
of the industry concerned. The Committee are of opinion that much more effective action could be taken if all orders for particular classes of commodities were dealt with by one Government department. It would further be an advantage in order that the policy which they have indicated should be carried out, that all Government contracting should be supervised by one authority. Local authorities should be urged to adopt a similar policy with regard to work under their control.
This covens more than the purchase of supplies, it covers the totting of Government contracts. It embodies this important principle that the Government, as one of the chief business organizations of the [DOT]country, should so place its orders for material and supplies as to guard, so far as any large institution can do so, against unemployment by providing employment, at the period when it is most needed.


Jacques Bureau: Is that operated by a
commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They say the Government should do its purchasing through one central agency,-I am talking now of the principle of one central agency which they recommend in England. It has been represented. to me, and I propose to submit an amendment to the Bill, that through t-his commission we should apply that principle so far as possible in the purchasing of Government supplies. Every one recognizes that there are great practical difficulties in the working out of such a proposition, but still you are able to make a large step towards a solution if you control through one central agency the purchasing of your supplies at the period of the year when that commission may deem it to be most in the public interest, having regard to the possible conditions of unemployment. It is impossible to do this under the more or less incidental method inevitably pursued by the various departments separately arranging to meet their different needs. So when the Bill goes into Committee I propose to submit an amendment providing:
That in purchasing supplies for the puDlio service the commission shall have regard, so far as reasonably practicable, to the general state and prospects of the labour market, with the object of reducing unemployment due essentially to periodical fluctuations in industry.
Men interested in labour problems attach considerable value to that amendment.
The advantages of the Bill are fourfold. First, the elimination of party patronage in the purchasing of Government supplies.


Jacques Bureau: Tut, tut.
\


Newton Wesley Rowell: Second, concentrating
the purchasing in one central body will reduce the expense of purchasing. Third, the purchasing through one central body of all supplies required by the different branches of the Government will enable purchases to be made under conditions and in quantities which should mean a saving of many thousands of dollars to the country. Fourth, it should enable the commission under those conditions, to make, to some extent, and as far as the Government can, provision for employment during periods when there may be unemployment. For all these reasons there are great practical advantages in the public interest in the course proposed by the Government.


Mr. NESBITT:: Wherein would it reduce the cost of purchasing?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In this way, that if you have twenty different staffs purchasing for twenty different departments, each, complete in itself, it necessarily involves greater expense than when all the purchasing is done through one central organization for all the departments. It is just for the reason that you can do business cheaper in a large aggregation than in small units.
It is the principle that enables you
11 p.m. to do business cheaper in a large combination than in separate corporations acting as independent units. In fact, .the very reason why large combinations have been made is because it is more economical to handle the situation under those conditions.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister say he will decrease the number of officials by this Bill ? .


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said that would be the result. In the meantime we must take care of the men who are in the existing departments, but so far as they would not be required by the Purchasing Commission they should be drafted into other departments instead of our taking on new employees as vacancies occur.


Jacques Bureau: And efficient officials at that.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We would keep the efficient officials. It is in the public interest to do so.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What obligation is the country under to these men? They are temporary employees. They knew that when they accepted their positions.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have not been discussing the temporary employees. The men
[Mr. Bureau. 1
in the different departments of the Government purchasing supplies are permanent employees.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Were not the employees of the War Purchasing Commission under temporary engagements?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have not been discussing them.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is it not the purpose of this Bill to continue the employment of those men?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have not been discussing those men. The question was: How about the purchasing staffs in the different departments? I have been dealing with them.


Jacques Bureau: Deal with the others.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Bill provides also that such of those as the new commission desire, and as the Civil Service Commission may approve,, may be transferred to. the new department. It will only be such men as the commission feels should be transferred in the public interest who will be transferred. There is no obligation to transfer them and they will not be transferred unless the public interest so require. There is only one consideration, the public interest, which would determine who should be transferred to this new commission. Lastly, so far as the Government is concerned, this is carrying out a pledge made to the country and I feel it is incumbent upon the Government'to redeem its pledge.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE. In what way was the pledge given?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will read a paragraph from the Prime Minister's address to the country on November 10, 1917, which followed the announcement of the general election and the appeal to'the country:
But there are other reasons why the Union Government should be entrusted with power. It has pledged itself to the extirpation of old abuses, and to a wise and bold policy of constructive reform. The system of patronage in the distribution of contracts and offices which has prevailed in Canada for generations has been the root of many political evils. It has fostered local and sectional interest incompatible with the national welfare and injurious to the efficiency of the national services. It has troubled representatives of the people, permitted the ascendancy of organized minorities in the constituencies, and affected the independence of Parliament itself. It may be that these evils should have been overcame long ago. Censure may lie upon successive governments which have tolerated the system, but inveterate diseases succumb only to heroic treatment-and heroism has not distinguished Canadian parties in dealings with patronage. Generally, govern-

ments have lived long in Canada, and when for many years distribution of patronage has been confined to the party in power there is a natural disposition to adjust the balance when at length the other party succeeds to office. Once committed to the system, influences are recognized and interests created that are not easily resisted or dislodged. It is believed that a government derived from both political parties and strengthened by special representation of agriculture and organized labour, can act with greater freedom and independence than a government which held office under the old conditions. Hence the resolution to abolish trading in patronage, to fill public offices by merit and not by favouritism, and to establish honest and open competition in awarding contracts and buying supplies.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear. By members on both sides of polities.


Newton Wesley Rowell: A government formed of members from both sides of politics is in a better position to deal with this patronage evil than a party government under the old system. And the Prime Minister points out that both parties under the old system had failed to abolish the patronage evil, and one of the hopes he had was that Union Government might be strong enough to abolish the evil, and that statement formed part of his appeal to the country.


Jacques Bureau: Did he ever imply from those remarks that it meant abdication by the Government of its power by creating commissions and giving them authority to represent the Government in any dealings?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That policy enunciated by the Prime Minister might be carried out in two or three different ways.


Jacques Bureau: It implied courage on the part of the ministers to carry it out themselves and take the responsibility.


Newton Wesley Rowell: But the Prime Minister in discussing that part of his policy before the country repeatedly in my hearing explained what he had in view was to make permanent the War Purchasing Commission, because, he stated, the result had been a saving of thousands of dollars to the country in the purchasing of supplies. He believed that the results had been so satisfactory that lit was in the public interest that the commission should be continued. That is the method Which he intimated to the electors would be adopted in carrying out the policy set forth in the statement which I have read to the committee.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it the intention that the Civil Service Commission shall appoint the members of this commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Frank S. Cahill: In supplementing their promise, the 'Government will still maintain the patronage principle.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This commission will be appointed by the Governor in Council who will be responsible for the appointment and for the acts of the commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am surprised that my hon. friend has brought this measure forward this evening. I had thought that the project was cremated and buried, but it seems that new life has been injected into it. I opposed this legislation the other evening, and I rise to oppose it again. My hon. friend has stated that the proposal to create this commission was the result of an election pledge.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; if he so interpreted my remarks, he misunderstood me. I said that this was carrying out an election pledge. The idea of the commission grew out of the success of the War Purchasing Commission, the operations of which were so successful that the Government decided that it should he continued, and so- pledged themselves to the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is not much difference between the interpretation that I placed upon my hon. friend's words and what he has just said. He contends this evening, as he did the other evening, that this commission is the outcome of an election pledge given in 1917 by the Prime Minister when he and his party went to the country. Let us not deceive ourselves with words, if you please. It has been stated here to-day, and no one can gainsay the assertion, that at the last general election the one cry, the one slogan, was " Win the war.' The (Government carried the election on that cry, on that slogan, and on no other. No one in the many audiences which were addressed by my hon. friend during the course of that campaign


Ernest Lapointe: Even in the churches


Rodolphe Lemieux: No one in the churches or in the public halls, will recall that the Government sought to impress the electors with the necessity of creating this commission. To the people of the country this proposal is a novelty. True, the people understand perfectly well that during the war, commissions might reasonably be created in order to assist in carrying on the war successfully. As I stated the other evening, I have nothing whatever to say against the gentlemen who were the members of the



War Purchasing Commission. I happen to know one of them, Sir Hormisdas Laporte, for whom I have the highest regard. In carrying out the work assigned to him during the war period, Sir Hormisdas Laporte has rendered valuable service to the country. But the war is now over; we are living under conditions of peace, and the country is faced with a huge national debt. If my hon. friend wishes to live up to the expectations of his friends, he must accustom himself to rigid, economy during the next few years; he must even do some cheeseparing, because the country is not in a mood to maintain in office any Government that will play with the national finances.
The creation of this new commission will entail the organization of a large personnel and will involve the country in a very large expenditure. Remember that when I say "large expenditure," I do not mean millions; we must stop counting millions as lightly as we have counted them during the war period. In the normal times of a few years ago, a few hundred thousand dollars meant a great deal to this country, and I submit that under present circumstances a few hundred thousand dollars will count for a great deal in the administration of our national finances. The Government must face stern realities. The Minister of Fin-ancte cannot now expect to obtain millions out of domestic loans with the same facility that he obtained them during the war, because now that peace has come, the people expect the Government to call a halt on large expenditures.
I do not oppose this measure because of any desire that patronage should not be abolished. It is my sincere hope and wish that patronage be abolished. I freely grant that it has been the curse of the land. But let the ministers first reform themselves. Alphonse Karr, the famous writer, speaking on one occasion against the abolition of the death penalty, coined a phrase which since has often been repeated: "Que messieurs les assassins commencent eux- memes"-let the murderers themselves begin first to secure the abolition of the death penalty. If the Government is so anxious to abolish patronage, let the ministers of the Crown begin by reforming themselves. They did not take their oath of office to maintain or to facilitate patronage; when they were sworn as ministers of the Crown, they promised faithfully under the eye of God, that they would be fair, that they would be honest, that they would have more regard for the finances of the

country than for their own personal finances.
A minister of the Crown is not selected by the Prime Minister, does not enjoy the confidence of the majority in the House, because, forsooth, he can deliver academic orations. The people expect a minister of the Crown to be an administrator, to be given the direction of a department, and it is his duty to look after the business of that department. He must not run about the country from one end to the other, except on occasions when his presence is needed in order to carry on affairs of State. If he knows how to practice economy, when he travels in this democratic country he should travel like the rest of us mortals travel. There is nothing, for instance, in his oath of office which compels a minister of the Crown to use private cars, and to delay or block ordinary passenger traffic. A minister of the Crown must administer his department faithfully and as economically as possible in the best interests of the people; The very name of "minister" signifies administration. It comes from the Latin "ministrare" to administer, not from "orare," to pray, or deliver academic orations. My hon. friend has not a spending department, but let us take his colleagues, the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of Militia and Defence, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Minister of Public Works-they are at their office every day looking after the administration of their respective departments and receiving the requests that are made by the people. They must consult with the officials of the department and with the deputy minister, and when any expenditure has to be made, the requisition, O.K.'d by the deputy comes before the minister. If he is anything like a minister he does not require the services of three highly-paid commissioners in a different building surrounded by a host of officers, also highly paid, in order to pass judgment on the purchase of desks, paper, and the several articles that are needed in his department.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: How does the hon. gentleman apply that in connection with the Civil Service Commission, and in the appointment of officials?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The report which the Civil Service Commission have had prepared by an American firm is such a muddle -I don't say model-that it has been discarded by the Government and will not be submitted to the House this session. It

will probably be buried and we shall never hear of it again. That commission was to reorganize and improve everything in connection with the Civil Service, and what has it accomplished? Let us consider first things first. I say that an honest minister has in the Act governing his department all the machinery necessary to conduct honestly and efficiently the affairs of his department. And here is exactly the point I wish to impress upon the House. We are living in this country under British methods of government, but I say that we are departing very widely from those time-honoured administrative methods. During the war they had several commissions in England. They had to appoint commissions, as we had to, in order to carry on the business of the country, because the war created a pressure of business that no ten or twenty ministers of the Crown could possibly undertake. But do you believe that Mr. Lloyd-George will maintain during the peace period which is now opening any of the commissions which were specially created during the war? I daresay that not one of them will be maintained now that peace has been signed. The British people would not stand for any such departure from the principle of government.
My hon. friend stated a moment ago that the commission which presented the famous Witley Report recommended to the British Government that the purchasing of all supplies be concentrated in the hands of one body, so as to allay as much as possible the unrest caused by unemployment. My hon. friend made there exactly the point which in my judgment should condemn the very legislation before us to-night. The system of government in England is quite different from ours; I do not say that the administrative methods are different, but that the system is. England has only one central government for the British Isles. It is, relatively speaking, only a narrow fringe of territory, and the British Government looks not only after Imperial works, not only after national works, but even local and municipal works. That is one of the reasons why to-day in conservative England, much to my pleasure, they are advocating the decentralization of power. You may read in the press-I read of the scheme many years ago in some historic letters published in the London Times and emanating, if I mistake not, from one of the leading constitutional authorities in England-that possibly within the next few months a radical plan of decentralization will be presented to the Parliament of the
282i
United Kingdom. There will be one local government for Wales, another for Scotland, another for Ireland-be not afraid, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to introduce the Home Rule question in this debate. The tendency in England to-day is to decentralize government. I can quite understand that in the Old Country, considering the variety and magnitude of the work to be accomplished, it is necessary to centralize the purchasing activities of the Government under one authority. My hon. friend forgets that there is a standing army in England and a navy unequalled in the world. It means several hundred millions of expenditure, and I can understand that under these circumstances the British Government should think of centralizing the purchasing power of the Government. It is a small country, territorially speaking, with a large population and with one central Government, a system which is obsolete. But here, in Canada, the conditions are quite different. It is true we have the Dominion Government at Ottawa, but we have a large territory. We have to deal with half a continent, comprising nine provinces. Will my hon. friend undertake to convince me that when the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department in British 'Columbia requires some instruments for his officers, or possibly some steel or timber for some of the government works, he will have to apply to Ottawa in order to receive his directions from that extraneous body? If he had to consult any one, it would be first the Minister of Public Works or the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, or the Deputy Minister. No. Conditions are not parallel as between Canada and Great Britain,	and	the argument	of my hon,friend in	that	regard falls to	the ground.'My hon. friend in referring to the report on the industial conditions of the country, said that he would insert a section in the Bill to meet the suggestion concerning purchases which. is found in the Witley Report. But he has not said that the Government had accepted the report of the majority. There are two reports. There is the report of	the	majority and	there is thereport of	the	minority. Which of the two
will the Government accept? I know which of the two I would accept, but I must say that the report of the majority covers a very large order and before taking a portion of it and inserting it in the Bill, my hon. friend should first of all-state the policy of the Government as regards the whole of the report. .

I oppose this measure because, first, the country cannot stand any useless expenditures, and, second, the pledge referred to by my hon. friend is no argument at all. The pledge given by the Government during the last campaign was to carry on and to win the war, and the people never understood that once the war was won the Government would continue in operation the various commissions which had been created especially during the course of .the war for a specific purpose. Many people whom I have met of late, belonging to both sides of politics, and many who practically have no politics but are simply business anen, have opened their hearts to me on many occasions since the beginning of the session. Let me say in all sincerity to the right honourable gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) that there are many thousands of people who sympathize with him in his thankless task. Many people sympathize with him and with the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and I may say frankly, speaking on behalf of those who sit on your left, Mr. Chairman, that not many envy the lot of the right honourable gentleman, or are anxious to take the seals of office during the	present
period of unrest, because we know the	heavy burden which	weighs
on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. We know that from day to day he must ask himself:	How shall we carry on?
What will be the outcome of this great crisis? Is not the credit of Canada very seriously impaired? Our national debt has reached the enormous figure of two billion dollars. We have to provide for the payment of the interest charges. Are not the business men who support the Government .afraid of the heavy responsibility with which the country is being saddled at the present moment? It seems to me that the right honourable gentleman should be firm, staunch and stern, and should turn away from him all those who are importuning him for the creation of new sinkholes of expenditure. Is not the Government going a little too far when, besides an enormous national debt, it has taken over the Canadian Northern and is about to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway .Company? Does this not involve many more millions? And why should the Government strain another point and put on the shoulders of the tax payers such a useless expenditure as is entailed by the creation of this new commission? It is unfortunate that a man like Sir Hormisdas Laporte is not in the Government. If he were, I would say: " Appoint 
him Minister of Purchases, because he is an able business man and an honest man, but let him be responsible to the people." What I do not like about the Bill is that you are creating an irresponsible body. One of the chief functions of Parliament is to control expenditures. Suppose this commission is in existence and a minister of the Crown is charged by members of this House with scandalous expenditures or with corruption. Under this new system the Prime Minister will simply shrug his shoulders and say "We are not responsible; you have created a commission which controls all expenditures, therefore we are not guilty." Is that the British method of Government? Surely not, Mr. Chairman. And for that reason, with many others, I say that the President of the Privy Council should not press this legislation.
There are many Unionists and, I am told, many Cabinet ministers who are bitterly opposed to this legislation. They have no love for this legislation because they fear it will be too costly. I hope that my right hon. friend will, after the discussion that we have had on this measure, postpone it, sleep over it until next session, and consider if there is no other legislation more useful, more pressing, and more in the interest of the country.
Major-General MEWBURN: I have listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) which, I think, would sound very well in an election campaign. But, let me say that the public of this country are anxious that this Government, or another Government, should get away from the antiquated political method of purchasing supplies. As Minister of Militia my experience has been that the War Purchasing Commission, as constituted, has been the means of effecting the very greatest savings to this country. In that department it is true we have most efficient contract branch and inspection branches, but all war supplies, equipment, clothing and other things that have been needed for the soldiers have been purchased .through the War Purchasing Commission, and I am satisfied from the experience I have had that their efforts have resulted in an enormous saving to the country. Since the armistice was signed we have been taking stock in the ordnance department with a view to salvaging, or realizing upon, the surplus supplies on hand. I think I am not overstating it when I say that the War Purchasing Commission have done wonders in this way. I believe that the creation of this

proposed purchasing commission will be in the interest of economy because it means that we are getting down to a proper business basis in the purchase of supplies for the different departments and that they will be properly controlled. Any gentleman who has had any business experience must admit the soundness of that view.
I do not think there is any more efficient organization in the country than the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and one of its most efficient departments is the purchasing department. It is the same with the big department stores and the steel companies; the purchase of supplies is all controlled through their purchasing departments. I quite agree that the minister must not shirk his responsibility to Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is responsible to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific- the board of directors or the purchasing office i
Major-General MEWBURN: The president is responsible to his directors, but the time of the president is too valuable to waste in checking over supplies. He has trusted employees who purchase these supplies and I venture to say if it were left to the president the purchasing would not be as well or as economically done. That is the record of all large business enterprises and corporations. I am satisfied that if this commission could do the purchasing for all the departments a great many of these branches that we now have under different departments of the Government could be eliminated and the work could be taken care of in the way that is here proposed. I cannot see why we should have in every department a contract and inspection branch. Instead of having fifteen or twenty of such branches you might have one efficient purchasing commission and the faithful employees who are now in these departments could be absorbed into other departments, while those men who are not useful to the country would be better out of the Government service.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not wish at this late hour to detain the committee unduly, but there are a few aspects of this question that I would like to treat for a few moments. We are met by this Bill with a proposal to make a very specific change in 'the manner in which purchases are made for the Government. Up to this time I understand a great number of the departments have had their separate purchasing departments.
or purchasing agents. The suggestion is that these should be centralized into one department. I freely grant that that might be an advantage. I am willing to accept the .statement made by the Government that in their opinion it would be an advantage. That is a proposition to which I have no objection ito offer. With the method by which the Government proposes to carry out this proposition I have no serious quarrel. I am not opposed to the idea of a commission; but I say that if it is necessary -and I am inclined to believe it would be advantageous to have a purchasing department-that department should be under the control of a minister having a seat in. this House and that the man who did the actual purchasing should be a civil servant, trusted, honoured, well paid, who would be under a minister in the same way as any other civil servant would be. The minister in introducing this Bill stated that the object of it is to remove from the public Life of this country the curse of patronage I am absolutely in accord with him as to the desirability of .such a change in the condition of affairs being brought about.
The minister has said that he proposes to do this in pursuance of a pledge made at the time of the formation of the Union Government that patronage would be abolished, and he goes on ito read from a manifesto issued by the Prime Minister at that time stating that neither of the political parties had up to that time displayed much heroism in dealing. with patronage, and that was the time for heroism to be displayed. But Mr. Chairman, heroism is not displayed by the pursuit of a fugitive, cloistered virtue. If the ministers wish to show heroism let them organize the department that is proposed and let that department be run without patronage. Do not multiply commissions and do not endeavour to remove the responsibility for purchases from the Government. Do not appoint a practically independent commission. I think the minister who is in charge of this Bill (Mr. Rowell) has been rather affected by the arguments along this line because he suggested his willingness to make a modification. As far as I am concerned, if he will eliminate the idea of a commission, and merely ask for power to create a purchasing department which will be conducted as other department are under our Canadian constitution and in line of British traditions and policy, I will agree to the proposal. But I say that this measure is objectionable. Do not endeavour to cure one evil by starting another. I believe the
COMMONS*
members of this House will be with me when I say that one of the greatest dangers of democracy is the creation of a bureaucracy. This will be just a little bureaucracy. I should not say "a little bureaucracy" because it would be the beginning of a very important bureaucracy. The minister who introduced this Bill or resolution was not exactly annoyed but somewhat affected by the imputations cast from this side of the House upon his desire to eliminate patronage.
The minister said that we on this side would expect no good to come out of Nazareth. I would not like to say that hon. gentlemen on this side regard him as a Messiah sent for the salvation of the Canadian people; we will leave that to admirers of the President of the Privy Council who sit close to him. But let me say this : The minister may feel a little hurt at our attitude; he may regard the Union Government as a fine flower of disinterested patriotism. He shakes his head in mild and humble deprecation. He is right. He should deprecate any such idea, because that is not the view that the Canadian people have of Union Government. They regard Union Government-not all those, of course, who supported it, but the institution itself-as having its origin in the greatest electoral fraud that was ever consummated on the Canadian people, the War-time Elections Act. They regard it as an institution which has been nourished in hyprocrisy, under the pretence that patronage was eliminated when it was not eliminated, and they regard it as having been consummated by a great breach of faith towards the two historic parties of this country. Because I may remind the minister, and others interested in Union Government, that when that Government was formed it was solemnly stated that it was a mere temporary joining of forces for the prosecution of the war in the manner which those persons thought best, but which other people thought not best. And when those who obtained a mandate under such conditions took advantage of the position in which they found themselves to form a party distinct from either of the existing political parties, I assert humbly, and I trust without discourtesy, it was a decided breach of faith with those two great historic parties. If, therefore, we take advantage of the condition as we find it, and if the situation as it presents itself to us to voice our views, the minister must not be surprised when we take his protestations of superior political virtue with a certain accompaniment of salt.

Now, let the minister amend his Bill. I do not believe that he is altogether deaf or altogether unaffected by principles which I am sure were inculcated in him in his youth. I think he can see it is a desirable thing that in a great department of government any person or persons carrying on the public business of the country should be represented by an individual sitting in this House to whom the responsibility for the action of that person or persons may be brought immediately home. I believe the minister in his heart of hearts is with me in that contention, and I would just say this:	-Let him follow
that principle; let him eliminate the idea of a highly-paid bureaucratic independent commission, and let him substitute for it a pur eh; sing department run by a responsible minister with properly paid officials trusted by that minister and whose reputation will make them acceptable to the people, and a great deal of the opposition which he finds to this Bill will disappear.


Mr. J. A. STEWART (Lanark):: When
the resolution upon which this Bill is founded was originally submitted for consideration, I was opposed to the appointment of this commission. That resolution was introduced by the President of the Privy Council, and I was reluctant to criticise the provisions embodied therein. I have listened to all the arguments that have been advanced in support of the appointment of the commission, and I am still of the opinion that this is unwise legislation. Our position on this side in respect to this matter is somewhat embarrassed by the President of the Privy Council reading to us to-night from the Union platform in the elections of 1917, and in the statement which he made, when the matter was last before the House, in order to demonstrate that the legislation has been introduced in pursuance of a promise made at that time, and that it establishes a principle which was approved of by the electors in the elections of that year. My own view is in accord with that of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) and the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), that in the elections of 1917 the Canadian people were not bothering themselves very much about a purchasing commission. I myself was not a candidate in that election. Nevertheless, I was more or less active in the support of the candidate for Union Government in the constituency which I now have the honour to represent. During that campaign I took part in many meetings addressed by members of the Government and

members of this House; and I must confess that when it was stated here by the President of the Privy Council that the appointment of this commission was an issue in the elections of 1917, it was my first intimation that such was the fact.
While I oppose the legislation which this Bill seeks to enact, and the resolution upon which it was founded, I desire to dissociate myself from much that has been said by those who like myself are opposed to the measure. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) suggested that if the Bill were adopted the commission for whose appointment it provides would be used for political purposes. _ My own view, of couse, is the exact opposite from that. I also desire to go on record as expressing the opinion that the work done by the War Purchasing Board during the period of the war was very valuable work and in the best interests of Canada. Furthermore, I feel that the criticism of that board which has been indulged in is entirely unwarranted, and that the board's work will be commended by all those who have had any occasion to look into what it has done. But while that is so, we must consider that the work performed by the board was done under abnormal conditions. It would be unreasonable to suppose that the purchasing machinery of this Government prior to the war which started in 1914 would have been adequate and sufficient for the purpose of carrying on the purchasing needed under war conditions. But it does seem to me entirely unnecessary that we should attempt to carry into peace time Government machinery necessitated by the abnormal conditions which have existed during the last four and a half years. With reference to what has been stated, not only to-night, but from time to time as this matter has been under discussion in the House as to the general rules of business, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in business there is no general rule governing a matter of this kind. I do urge, though, that to-day efficient methods in all lines of commercial and industrial business lead to decentralization and to departmentalization.
Whether it be a. Government or whether it be a manufacturing or industrial institution, the tendency to-day is towards departmental responsibility, and if we take most of the large institutions we shall find that to be the case. The hon. Minister of Militia referred to the Canadian Pacific railway, and undoubtedly the Canadian Pacific railway is the outstanding example in Canada to-day of centralized buying.
But those who are in a position to know will bear me out when I say that the purchasing department of the Canadian Pacific railway reflects the genius of one man, and in all human probability will pass out when he passes. There are other institutions, such as the Massey-Harris, where they have centralized buying; but I would urge that the tendency is towards departmentalization and away from centralization. Reference has been made by the Minister of Militia to the department stores.
I submit that what he states to be the fact there with reference to purchasing is the exact opposite to the practice that actually obtains. There is not a department store to-day in which the purchasing is not done by the head of the department who is responsible for the selling, and I am sure that those who are familiar with business management will realize the necessity of just such a plan. Otherwise it is passible for the man who is responsible for the selling end to pass responsibility over to the purchasing department and say, "I cannot sell your goods because they were poorly bought." It is undoubtedly a fact that in all the department stores in Canada, as well as in the United States, there are as many purchasing heads as there are departments. I can tell the hon. minister that a textile manufacturer will go to-day with a line of samples to the largest department stores in Canada and will sell the same goods to six different men in the institution; and that is the condition in reference to boots and shoes and in reference to almost every line of commodity in which a department store deals. The tendency is exactly in the same direction in manufacturing industries. I admit there is no general rule. There are possibly just as well managed institutions which have centralized buying as there are institutions which have not; but what I do submit is that the tendency of efficient purchasing to-day leads towards departmentalization and away from centralized buying.
This Bill provides for a very elaborate purchasing department-a department which will apparently equal many of the present departments of the Government. It provides for three cpmmissioners, for a director of purchasing, for experts, and for clerks. It is apparently the intention that there shall be continued in peace times as elaborate an organization for the purchasing of what this Government requires as existed during the war. I am not going into the question of ministerial responsibility and the parliamentary view of it. I would hesi-

tate to do so in the presence of so many members who have devoted their lives to parliamentary procedure; in fact, I would regard it as presumptuous on my part to deal with this question from the standpoint of parliament responsiblity. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the principle involved in this Bill creates a tendency to get away from ministerial responsibility to Parliament. At the present time, as a result of the legislation which was passed last session, if any matter arises on the passing of Estimates dealing with the staffs in any of the departments, the minister holds up his hands and says, and quite rightly: " I have nothing to do with the appointment of the staff in my department, as we have now canonized the deputy ministers, and they alone have to do with the recommendation for dismissal." So we have taken the service entirely out of politics, which may or may not meet with the views , of many hon. members. If the purchasing is now taken out of the hands of the heads of the departments, and if the ministers in this House are no longer responsible for what their departments purchase, then we are again getting away from ministerial responsibility. As has already been said, I think by the hon. mem-
12 m. ber for Maisonneuve, all the amounts that will be required to run the national railways are beyond the control of this House, as they have been passed over to a board. So I submit it would be well that something should be kept within the control of this House. When the matter was last before the House, a very strong argument was advanced in support of this commission by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harold). He went very fully into the details of what had been done by the War Purchasing Commission, having apparently investigated the activities of the commission for the purpose of supporting this Bill. He told us that he had had an opportunity of looking up the files of the commission, covering, I think an aggregate expenditure of some $200,000,000, and he gave to the House details of certain savings that were effected as a result of the work of that commission, savings ranging in the seven instances he gave from $328.86 to $3,142.80. But I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfair to take the highest tender and the lowest, and then give to the War Purchasing Commission the credit of having saved the country the difference.


Mr. HAROLD:: I am afraid the hon. gentleman made a mistake. I was only showing the necessity of calling for tenders.


John Alexander Stewart: I did not so understand the hon. gentleman. But I can see very little difference between what he now states and my statement, for the simple reason that it brings you back to the point that the House is asked to assume that it is necessary to have a commission in order to insure that the lowest tender will be accepted which, I submit, is a promise that we ought not to be asked to accept. It has been urged that i't is necessary to appoint a commission in order to get away from the patronage evil, which it is claimed has heretofore existed in the purchasing for the different departments. I feel that that is a reflection on many honest and capable men employed in the different departments, and if it should be felt that there is some necessity for certain co-ordination in purchasing supplies for the different departments, then I submit, Mr. Chairman, it should surely be possible to work out such co-ordination without establishing practically a new department of Government. This Bill as it stands has certain defects. We were told by the President of the Privy Council when' the matter was last before the House that it was the intention to retain in each department certain purchasing experts to do the requisitioning and that it would be necessary to retain also a number of the members of the purchasing staff in each department for the purposes of inspection after the goods were received.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend must have misunderstood me; I did not so put it. I said that it would be necessary to retain a portion of the staff to make requisitions, but, as I recall the statement I made, I did not say that any portion of the staff, or any experts, should be retained for purposes of inspection.


John Alexander Stewart: As it appears in Hansard, a certain number of the staff were to be retained for the purposes of requisitioning and inspection. I took what I said from Hansard; if it is wrong, I withdraw it. But if a certain number of the purchasing staffs of the departments are retained for the purposes of requisitioning, the position will be this: Those who are so retained will be purchasing from the commission and the commission will be purchasing from those who supply. It has been stated that the policy of this Purchasing Commission will be such that when a requisition is sent from a department to

the commission, the precise article that is requisitioned must be purchased. That was explained by the case of the waste paper basket to which reference has already been made. That is, if a two-dollar basket were requisitioned, a two-dollar basket would be purchased; if a forty dollar basket were requisitioned, a forty dollar basket would be purchased. If a wooden desk were requisitioned, a wooden desk would be purchased, and if an iron desk were requisitioned, an iron desk would be purchased. I wish to point out that the whole policy of the manufacturing trade to-day is toward specialization. It is impossible to find any manufactured article, anything that is put up-even if it could formerly have been considered as a staple article- in connection with which the manufacturer does not specialize in some way in order to give to the article or to the product a "talking" or advertising value. The result is that in respect of practically every article that the Government will require, the product of one manufacturer will have certain special features and that same article, turned out by another manufacturer, will have other special features of a different nature. The whole policy of the manufacturers is to adopt something that will make their article just a little different from what anybody else has to sell. If, then, the requisition must be literally followed, the real purchasing in the majority of cases will be done by the man who issues the requisition, and that man will have no responsibility in the matter at all, because he passes on the requisition to the Purchasing Commission, and that requisition can, perhaps, be filled only by one manufacturer or by one commercial house. It seems to me that in this regard our last condition will be worse than our first.
It is urged that in the appointment of this commission we shall be getting away from patronage. I submit that as the requisitioning has to be done by the purchasing agents who are left in the departments, and as the requisitions must be complied with literally, we are depriving the Purchasing Commission of practically the only usefulness that they could have. I am entirely new in public life, and I can only surmise how patronage has entered into govermental purchasing. I take it that the practice, if it ever existed, must have been that the manufacturer or dealer worked through the member, that the member worked through the minister and ' that favours were thus given to party friends.
But in this case the purchasing agents in the different departments, who come under the Civil Service Act that was passed by this House last session, are as free from political influence as will be the commissioners to be appointed under this Bill, for the simple reason that the purchasing agent in the department is not subject to the minister. His position is just as safe, so far as the influence of the minister is concerned, as would be the position of any member of the commission. Reverting to what I said a moment ago about the requisitions, the fact remains that if there has been patronage, the present Bill provides for a condition worse than that from which we are trying to get away. It will give to those in the department who will do the requisitioning an opportunity so to requisition goods that those goods will have to be supplied by the people whom the purchasing agent desires shall supply them, and there will be no departmental responsibility for their action, If the experience of the Government and of the departments has been that co-ordination is necessary in connection with certain purchasing, that coordination can be brought about without creating a department with such an elaborate staff as it is evidently the intention that this department shall have.
Mr. MeKENZIE: It is after twelve o'clock, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that the committee rise. A great many members wish to .speak on this resolution, and we have to be at work early this morning. I think we have done very well.


Robert Laird Borden: The hour is somewhat late, I admit. A great deal of the discussion to which I have listened with much interest seems to have been not very relevant to the matter we are discussing. It is a question of the salaries of the commissioners in case the Bill should pass. I would suggest that the resolution might be passed in order that it may be referred to the committee on the Bill, and then we can take up the discussion in committee on the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: This is the only chance we have to discuss the question of salaries.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall not have the slightest objection to allowing the discussion to range over the whole Bill.


Jacques Bureau: But how about acquiescing in this?


Robert Laird Borden: Asqui'escing in what?


Jacques Bureau: If we pass the resolution we admit the principle that there ought to be a chairman with a salary of $7,000, and two commissioners at $6,000 each.


Robert Laird Borden: In order to save my hon. friend's consistency, we will pass it on division.


Jacques Bureau: The division would not help things any.


Frank S. Cahill: I gathered from the minister that it was the intention to continue the personnel of the War Purchasing Commission in the new commission. Is that right ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: As my hon. friend is aware, I have answered that question before. I said, no, that one of the members unfortunately had died, and that the other two were not able to continue.


Frank S. Cahill: The Bill provides that the Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be called the Director of Purchasing for Canada. It seems to me he is all that is required if you insist upon the principle of one purchasing department. I listened to most of the debate this' evening, but did not hear anything that would justify the appointment of a commission.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will realize that we could not very well amend the main resolution on the discussion of this resolution, but we will give every consideration at the proper time to anything that my hon. friend desires to urge.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	I really think the
Prime Minister had better think over this matter. It is getting very late in the session, and there is determined opposition to this proposition. I need not explain to the minister that it is not because he is in charge of it or anything of that kind. The opposition to it is not confined to what is called "the Opposition." The very best speech that was made against it was made by my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Stewart), and ' other hon. gentlemen on that side of the House have made very strong speeches against it also. There is a very strong feeling that further consideration should be given to the matter, and we are at a stage of the session when we should not be kept here unduly over a matter that can very well stand.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any objection to having the resolution pass under the very reasonable conditions which I have

just now mentioned? The discussion can be as free as you like on the main resolution, but I should like to make a little progress.


Michael Clark: I think there are two courses, and two only *fohich we ought to be asked to take. If we are to carry the resolution I see no reason for stopping this debate. It is possible to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that we report progress. There is a great deal of force in his other request. This is very contentious legislation, opposed very strongly by a large number of members-if they take the attitude in the House that they take in conversation-on the Unionist side of the House. ,1 wish to endorse what the leader of the Opposition said about the able speech of my hon. friend from Lanark. I think it was a complete answer from a man of very large business experience-a man who has the power to form very clear views based on that experience, and the power of expressing those views very clearly. However, I do not wish to make a speech at this time of the morning, but I do not think the Committee should allow the resolution to pass. We had better go on with the debate.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not answered the argument against the expense. The establishment of a new department is a serious matter. Any one who wishes ito satisfy himself on that score has only to look at the Estimates for the present year and see the enormous increase that has taken place in the expenditure on civil government. The expenditure has grown very rapidly indeed during the last three years, and the great increase is quite unjustifiable. Now it is proposed to add another department. It will be an expensive department, with experts and expensive men, if it is to be any good at all. The minister has not satisfied me, and I do not think he has satisfied the Committee why this very large expenditure should foe undertaken at the present (time. As to the cost of civil government, I find by the Public Accounts for the year 1911 the last year for which the late Government was responsible, civil government cost $4,774,678, and in the year 1918 $6,890,952.45, an increase of 50 per cent during the administration of my right hon. friend. The question is, what have we got for it? Are we better governed? Has this enormous increase brought greater efficiency in the departments that we had before? We are multiplying departments all the time, year after year. If I remember

rightly, at the time my right hon. friend came into power we had fourteen departments and fourteen ministers, and now we have twenty-one, I think. The increase in the number of ministers is 50 per cent, and the increase in the number of departments is enormous. Now it is proposed to create still another department, with a staff of expensive officials, typists, accountants, and so on. To my mind the principle is unsound. We now have purchasing agents in different departments-in the post office department, in the Department of Militia and Defence, in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and perhaps in some others. These purchasing agents are specialists for their own departments, but no man can be a specialist in everything. A man who is a specialist in buying post office supplies cannot be a specialist in buying supplies for the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I think we are better off with the specialists we have now; I think they will give us greater efficiency than we should have under this new organization. Hon. gentlemen would not propose such a centralization in other matters. We have engineers, for example, in the Department of Public Works, in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and in the Department of Railways and Canals. Would my hon. friend think it would be a good thing to combine all the engineering departments of the Government? It would not. On the face of it it would be a bad move. I think the principle that all the purchasing of the Government can be successfully combined under one head is unsound. It would not produce the results my hon. friend expects.
Those are the two objections I have to the proposal-the enormous cost, and the fact that it relieves the minister of responsibility. It will involve the same old troubles that we have always had. mistakes in purchases, and graft. We will have irregularities and no one will be responsible, for the minister will be able to point to the commission that this House of Commons has organized, and to throw the whole blame on it, disclaiming any responsibility. I have also mentioned the question of expense, and this commission will not add to the efficiency of the public service. The minister has not shown us how it is going to put an end to the patronage abuses by the fact that it is one large concern instead of the smaller ones in the different departments. A few years ago the printing and advertising of the different departments was placed under one head in the office of the King's Printer.
That matter was investigated this year in the Public Accounts Committee, and we discovered that this officer was simply a figurehead, doing what some official in the departments told him. He received advertisements from the department for insertion in the papers, and he got a list of the papers in which he was to put them. He swore very positively that he had no patronage list, but when we asked him how he managed to distribute the advertisements among the various newspapers he told us that he received a list of newspapers in which to put the advertisement. We asked him if that was not a patronage list, and he said, no, it was not a patronage list. He gave it a new name; he called it a " selection." We took his " selection " and read it over, and in connection with my own province he was asked if he found on the list the Acadia Recorder, the Sydney Record, the Eastern Chronicle, the Lunen-bury Progress, in regard to each of which he said, no. I went over the names of all *the newspapers I knew of in my province that were Liberal, and none of them was on the list. I asked how it happened that the Liberal newspapers in Nova Scotia were omitted from his selection, and he said he did not know; he said " I cannot tell." That is the way myhon.friendhasabolished patronage, and nothing has been said in this discussion to convince a reasonable man that we will get rid of patronage by the establishing of this commission.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not going into the statistics that have been alluded to by my hon. friend, but I am going to make this assertion, based on the experience of four years, that during that time there has not been, to my knowledge, the slightest attempt to exercise political patronage in respect of the work of the War Purchasing Commission. More than that, I firmly and sincerely believe that I am well within the bounds of moderation when I say that during the past four years that commission has saved to the people of the country more than would be expended in the maintenance of this proposed commission during the next fifty years. I have not the slightest doubt, speaking with most earnest conviction, that I am well within the bounds of moderation in this statement. I am perfectly desirous of giving every reasonable opportunity to discuss this measure. Hon. gentlemen have convictions upon it, and I hope that none of them will forget that I have some convictions on it also. It really does seem remarkable that when a Government is making a most earnest attempt, according

to the best light of which it is possessed, to rid itself and future governments of the evils of patronage, of which I have had some experience both while in opposition and while in office, the attempt should be met with such resistance on both sides of the House. I think that upon reflection we all shall be disposed to agree that the elimination of political patronage, whether in the appointment of public servants or in the purchase of public supplies, is eminently in the public interest. I am quite willing to be instructed if I can be instructed on the subject; but I do not know-and I have devoted a great deal of thought to the matter-of any other means by which that evil can be eliminated in this country than by some such action as is suggested in this Bill. If any hon. gentleman in this House, or any one out of the House, can suggest to me some better method in the public interest by which that very desirable consummation can be reached, I am perfectly ready to consider it; and, if after the best consideration we can give to such method it would seem to offer a better means 'than that provided in this Bill, I should be willing to accept it. It is as to the purpose and not the particular method provided by this Bill that I am in earnest, and more than that, in deadly earnest. The hour is rather late. I should have been glad if hon. gentlemen who are opposed to the Bill could have seen their way clear to continue the discussion upon the main resolution under what I thought was a very reasonable offer, namely, unlimited discussion upon that resolution. But under the circumstances I will not insist, and I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that a Message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate doth concur in their message of the 27th June, ultimo, and also to the amendments made by the House of Commons to the Bill " A ", intituled: " An Act to consolidate and amend the Railway Act ", without any amendment.
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. (Thursday).
Thursday, July 3, 1919.