PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Before the orders of the day
are proceeded with, I desire to deal with one or two matters that were mentioned last evening as a question of privilege.
First, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that in my statement made in the chamber on Friday that there had been a delay in reading certain bills because of the desire of members of the opposition to speak to them, I could not have meant any member of the opposition, and not having spoken myself to any member of the opposition with respect to the matter I at once assumed that I must have been wrong in my memory because the right hon. gentleman was so certain. To my surprise I find that not only was a member of the opposition spoken to, but a member of the opposition spoke to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and asked that he do not proceed with one of the bills standing in his name until after his return on Wednesday next. That was spoken in the presence, or in the hearing at least, of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). I, not remembering the source from which I had learned it, made the statement to the house, having first spoken to the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), who was then leading the opposition, the leader of the opposition not being in his place; but not desiring to assert my memory, with the many matters that have to engage its attention, as against the very positive statement of the right hon. gentleman, I accepted his statement last evening without question. But on investigation I find that not only did a leading member of the opposition make the suggestion and the request, but I find that it was my right hon. friend's own deskmate, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who made the request of the present Minister of Justice. So I think I am within the judgment of this house when I say that what I said in the House of Commons on Friday last is abundantly supported by the evidence to which I have now alluded and which can be established not only from the word of the former Minister of Justice himself and the present Minister of Justice, but it was also stated in the hearing of the Minister of National Revenue. I think that disposes of point number one.
41761-15i
The second point raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition is one that I think must have arisen from some misunderstanding on his part of what was said or else a failure to appreciate the statement made by me in the house some few days ago.
I complained, and I think properly, of the language used by the right hon. gentleman in London, Ontario, when he was speaking with reference to the Beauharnois transaction, and at page 141 of Hansard I made this statement, after having read what he had said:
That is what the right hon. gentleman said at London, not Winnipeg-that money had been paid to the representative of the Conservative party and at my instance returned.
My complaint was that the right hon. gentleman alleged that money had been received and returned at my instance. 1 then followed that up on the same page of Hansard by saying:
I am now dealing with the evidence. I say that the right hon. leader of the opposition went to London and made a speech which he either knew was false or he should have known was false, and he therefore was wilfully negligent in the discharge of his duties, for he had the hardihood to say that this sum of money was received and returned at my instance. That was what he said.
Whereupon the right hon. leader of the opposition said:
What I do say is this: what I am speaking of is the contribution-my right hon. friend has just referred to it-being made by Beauharnois, and all along my understanding has been that Beauharnois did make a contribution to a member of the Conservative party, which was to have gone into the funds of the Conservative party and would have gone there but for the fact that the present leader of the government indicated that it should not be done.
That, Mr. Speaker, is not the matter about which I was speaking. In the press report of the speech delivered by the right hon. gentleman at London, and as I understand it there is no question as to the accuracy of the report of his speech, the part about which I particularly complained was that portion in which he alleged in definite and positive terms that a contribution was made to the Conservative party by the Beauharnois company and at my instance returned. Now the evidence was considered in this house. I have the speech of that time of the right hon. gentleman himself, and it was not suggested at any time that any money had been returned at my instance. It was stated that I had declined to accept any contribution from Beauharnois for the general fund of the Conservative party, but no one for a moment who has read that evidence or heard it will say that there was any statement that money
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

had been received and at my instance returned. I desire again to direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman to his own words. He said:
The next point to note is that contributions were made by those associated with Beauharnois to both political parties, to the Conservative party and members of the party in the federal field, as well as to the party or members of the party in Ontario and Quebec, and that the return of the contribution made to the general fund of the Conservative party was on grounds of party expediency and not of public policy.
"The return of the contribution made to the general fund"-that was the allegation of the right hon. leader of the opposition. He stated in London, Ontario, that that contribution made to the general fund was, at the instance of the now leader of the government, returned. That that is not borne out by the records, of course, it is not necessary for me to do more than mention. But last evening- I really find it difficult to understand the mental attitude of the right hon. gentleman- the right hon. leader of the opposition endeavoured to use illustrations of payments made to General MeCuaig, treasurer in Montreal, it was said, as applying to the general fund as used by him in the language of his speech at London. I said that clearly that was not borne out by the evidence, and the proof of that is what was said in this chamber last evening. In my address the other day I referred to Mr. Sweezey, whose statement I bad not seen until this morning, who, in an interview with the press, denied the correctness of the statement made by the leader of the opposition. Here are his words, taken from the newspaper, dated October 30:
Sweezey Denies
King Statement
Says Opposition Leader Wrong in Allegation About Tory Funds (From Yesterday's Late Editions)
No contribution whatever was made by the Beauharnois Company to the funds of the federal Conservative party before or during the last election campaign and for this reason no money was returned by the Conservative organization on the grounds of party expediency. The emphatic denial was given to The Star this afternoon by R. 0. Sweezey, President of the Beauharnois Company, in an exclusive interview.
"Absolutely and emphatically no such contribution was made," said President Sweezey. "You may deny it from me finally and completely. Whoever informed Mr. Mackenzie King that such payment was made and it was returned is in error either maliciously or through ignorance."
The article proceeds:
The suggestion was made by Mr. King at the recent Liberal convention at London that a contribution of $200,000 was handed to General 
McRae, accepted by him on behalf of the Conservative party organization and subsequently returned to the Beauharnois company. The statement made by Mr. King created some surprise and considerable interest and it was only on the return of General McRae to Ottawa that the matter was put clearly before him. General McRae intimated that Mr. Sweezey was the best source of information on such a point, and it is Mr. Sweezey's emphatic denial which is now published.
I should think, Mr. Speaker, that without in any sense entering into any discussion it would be sufficient for me to direct attention to the record itself, to the statement from which I read, and suggest to the right hon. gentleman that having assumed what he did he should now do as he did the other day, not endeavour to justify his position which is incorrect and unsound, but to say frankly that he built up his case at London upon a statement which is unwarranted by the evidence and untrue in fact. I suggest to him that would be a proper course to pursue in the matter. I think that summarizes the position in a nutshell, and I cannot yet believe that the right hon. gentleman would have taken the course he did take unless there had been some confusion of fact or failure to recall just what he had said at London. I have not taken up the time of the house to read at length his London speech and indicate the argument he made up from that false premise. I made up my mind when I read that report that I would do nothing until this house met, or ask anybody else to make any statement so that those who last year heard the speech from the right hon. gentleman with respect to Beauharnois would be able to recall, or would be in a position to look at Hansard and ascertain, what was then said, to place it in contrast with what was said at London and to realize the extent to which his memory had failed to respond to the demands made upon it or, in the alternative, to conclude that he had made the statement deliberately, knowing if to be untrue.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that hon. members of this house give the same attention to what I have to say as they have given to the remarks of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett).
At the outset my right hon. friend referred to the statement he made at the time of adjournment on Friday last to the effect that-owing to requests of opposition members bills had not been proceeded with that day. I intimated yesterday that I had not in fact discovered wherein my right hon. friend had

Privilege-Mr. Bennett
made any previous explanations on that point, as the record disclosed he said he had, or where any member of the opposition had requested that bills should stand that afternoon. My right hon. friend now says that he has since discovered that the opposition did make a request, and he says

to come to the point immediately-that it was the late Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who asked the present Minister of Justice to let a bill stand. The late Minister of Justice was seated beside me in the afternoon as the house was going through the various bills. The bills on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Justice were passed over, every one of them. The late Minister of Justice said to me, "If on Tuesday next a bill having to do with the Quebec judges should be called, would you kindly ask that it stand, as I shall be away that afternoon, and I am interested in it.
I said to Mr. Lapointe, that he had better cross over and make his own arrangements with the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who was in the house. Following my suggestion, the hon. member for Quebec east crossed the floor of the house, had a conversation with the Minister of Justice, came back and told me that if that particular bill were called on Tuesday afternoon it would not be proceeded with. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. The postponement had no reference to any measure that was before the house on Friday, because as I have said the ex-Minister of Justice was here hoping that those bills would be called last Friday afternoon so that they might be out of the way before he left for Quebec. Those are the facts and I leave it to hon. members of the house to judge for themselves the truth of the matter referred to.
In regard to the other matter to which my right hon. friend has just referred, namely what was said at London, may I first of all, read to the house the statement I was dealing with at London with respect to campaign funds. It was in reference to what the right hon. Prime Minister had said in this house at the last session of parliament, as set forth in the fourth volume of Hansard for July 31, 1931, at page 4399. After referring to the evidence taken before the select committee on the Beauharnois inquiry the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
All that appears there-and it is correct-is that I did decline to have anything to do -with contributions from the Beauharnois people, so far as my party was concerned. And it is not a matter for which any great credit is to be accorded to me. I never have claimed such credit. I merely took the view' any man should take, that as the matter had been raised in
parliament, and I had said that I thought a judicial investigation should be held, if I succeeded to power I was bound to provide that investigation. How could I do that if I had taken benefactions from them for the purpose of preventing my taking proper action? That is the question.
The point which I was making at London was that the motive of my right hon. friend in-I will not use the -expression "returning contributions," I will say a further word on that later, but let me put it accurately now-in refusing to accept contributions-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thanks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -was not one of the public interest but was, as therein stated by himself namely, that he expected if returned to power to have an investigation, and in the circumstances he felt it would not be wise for him to take any contributions.
May I direct the attention of hon. members to the statement my right hon. friend made

All that appears there-and it is correct-is that T did decline to have anything to do with contributions. . . .
He does not say "with offers of contributions" but he does say "I did decline to have anything to do with contributions from the Beauharnois people," and adds "so far as my party was concerned."-not "so far as I was concerned, alone," not so far as the Conservative fund, narrowly described, is concerned, but so far as my party was concerned. Those are his words. He said, "I did decline to have anything to do with contributions from the Beauharnois people, so far as my party was concerned." I certainly did not do my right hon. friend an injustice, but, rather, gave him credit for much more than I should have given him credit for. I assumed that his statement that no contributions to the Conservative fund, so far as his party was concerned, had been countenanced by himself, meant that where contributions had been made to the party fund they had been returned. I naturally gave credit to my right hon. friend for a full return when he said, as he stated in other words the other day in the house, that not a "damned cent" had been accepted, that he meant that his party had not received a cent from the Beauharnois people. What I should have said, I am quite free to admit at the moment, is that the Prime Minister had allowed $10,000 to be accepted by General McCuaig in Montreal, a contribution made to the Conservative party, a contribution made-in the terms of Mr. Sweezey who made it-to the Conservative organization and to what he understood
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

was the Conservative fund, and that that was not returned; but that the Prime Minister had refused to allow to be accepted an additional contribution of $200,000 for the reason that was mentioned. If my right hon. friend derives any solace from the fact that I did not confine my remarks simply to one phase, namely, to his refusing to accept only something, and gave him credit for having returned everything, when I should have said that he had not returned the $10,000 and knew that the $10,000 had not been returned, when he said that he had not accepted a cent from Beauharnois or had not permitted his party to accept anything-he may get what solace he likes from that source.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question, Mr. Speaker, now
becomes one of very acute privilege in view of the observations made by the right hon. gentleman. At page 122 of the proceedings Mr. White put this question to Mr. Sweezey: Q. And then who else if anybody?
To which Mr. Sweezey answered:
A. Well, still speaking of federal campaign funds, I do not recall of any specific-oh, yes, I contributed to General McCuaig, who, I understood, was the collector for the Conservative campaign fund in Montreal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman at London referred to the general campaign fund and said that money had been accepted and returned. I am not talking of the different funds, I am talking of the facts. I say further I knew nothing of General MoCuaig's receipt of that contribution from Beauharnois, or anything about Beauharnois contributions to any fund, until after this matter came up here. That is the fact, as can be established by General McCuaig. There will be opportunity in another place to have this matter disposed of finally.
_ Let us go a step further-I said, and the right hon. gentleman still slips away from the question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that at London he charged me with having accepted S200.000 from Beauharnois through General McRae, and that at my instance it was directed to be returned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend read from my speech in London where I made any mention of $200,000? My right hon. friend did not do that when he read from my speech; he read those words 
in a communication from Mr. Sweezey which statement is not correct. I made no such statement at London with reference to $200,000. My right hon. friend has my London speech in his hand, and I ask him to read it to the house,


Richard Bedford Bennett: To show how the right
hon. gentleman is now, as we say in law, hanging himself-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -I will read from page 4385 of last year's Hansard what the right hon. gentleman said in his speech on the Beauharnois report:
The following statement is made in the report, as appears on page 634 of votes and proceedings. I read this to bring out the difference between my hon. friend and myself in the way in which I think it should be understood. The report reads:
"There was also a suggestion with reference to a proposed contribution to the Conservative federal campaign fund through its organizer, General McRae. This, however, was not made. Asked if the reason for its not having been made was that Mr. Bennett would not accept it, Mr. Sweezey in his reply said 'I do not know that but I presume that may be so/ "
The evidence upon which that statement in the report is based will be found at page 823. The following are questions asked of Mr. Sweezey:
"Q. Was there any proposal indicating a contribution to the federal campaign fund through its organizer, General McRae?-A. Yes, a proposal came to me at one time to make a contribution.
"Q. Of how much?-A. Of $200,000.
"Q. Was it made?-A. No.
"Q. Why?-A. I do not know what happened.
Q. I understand that Mr. Bennett would not accept it?"
Those are the words read into the record of the proceedings of this chamber by the right hon. gentleman himself on the 30th day of July last. In the face of that knowledge this same gentleman goes up to London and makes a statement to the people of Ontario and to the people of Canada that a contribution was made to the general fund and ait my instance returned. I called him to account for having made that misstatement, and this house and the country have heard his endeavour to slide out of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same privilege as has been accorded to the Prime Minister in replying to this matter of privilege. So that there may be no mistake as to what I said in London, I ask the house to listen to what I did say; I will read the entire text of my speech in this particular. It is in these words:
The next point to note is that contributions were made by those associated with Beauharnois

Privilege

Mr. Bennett
to both political parties, to the Conservative party and members of the party in the federal field, as well as to the party or members of the party in Ontario and Quebec, and that the return of the contribution made to the general fund of the Conservative party was on grounds of party expediency and not of public policy.
When the general elections came on, Mr. Sweezey made a contribution to the campaign funds of both the Liberal and Conservative parties. Later the contribution given to the treasurer of the Conservative party was returned,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Allow me to
continue:
-he, according to Mr. Sweezey's statement of what he had been told, having had instructions from Mr. Bennett to return the contribution. Now what was Mr. Bennett's reason for directing the return of the amount contributed? Was it that contributions would not be accepted from corporations or persons associated with corporations which might be seeking favours from governments? Was it that the Beau-harnois company might be coming to whatever government might be in office after the elections -possibly Mr. Bennett's own-for wider rights and powers, and that it was therefore better not to accept a contribution? Perhaps the answer can best be given by Mr. Bennett himself.
Speaking in the House of Commons on July 31 he said that by his previous utterances in parliament he was committed to a judicial investigation into the affairs of the Beauharnois company, that if he were returned to power he was bound to provide that investigation. What does this mean? It means simply that had a contribution been accepted that fact would have been disclosed. It would have been shown in the investigation which Mr. Bennett said he was bound to provide, which, by the way, he did not provide as he said he would by a judicial inquiry, but by a committee composed mostly of members of his own party in parliament, that the Conservative party had, equally with their opponents, received contributions to their campaign funds from Mr. Sweezey. How differently the whole matter would look if upon investigation it were shown that the Liberal party was the only party to receive contributions from this source. Or even more, if it could be shown in addition that he, Mr. Bennett, had actually refused to allow the acceptance of any contribution from that source. If it could only be shown that the Liberals had received a contribution and that Mr. Bennett had caused to be returned the contribution his own organizer had accepted,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you hear that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will continue:
-that would be not only a black eye for the Liberal party, but he, Mr. Bennett, would stand forth in shining armour as the one knight of the table round who had made war upon the dragons of greed and corruption which lay in the path of purity in the political life of Canada.
Far be it from me to deny to the present Prime Minister any such lofty motive, or to thwart him in any such heroic task. I would
like the country to know that we had such a man in our midst. To this end, perhaps Mr. Bennett will tell us the amount of his own contributions to the party funds, whether campaign funds were solicited or accepted by his organizer-in-chief from other corporations or interests, and whether they were ordered by him to be returned. The refusal of one contribution in a campaign for fear of exposure is scarcely a sufficient title to knightly preferment in the order of political chivalry. I am anxious that our Prime Minister shall lose no honour to which he is entitled. Mr. Bennett s party is making very much of this act on the part of its leader, while I am being chastised and condemned for not having had full knowledge of all contributions that were being made to the campaign funds of the party, and not having acted as Mr. Bennett did with respect to any contribution from sources connected with Beauharnois. We are being told by the Conservative press that Mr. Bennett apparently took the trouble to find out who were contributing and offering to contribute to his party, and was particular about them. "Premier Bennett" it is said, "has been the exception among party leaders in turning the spotlight on the collection bag."
All that I ask of Mr. Bennett is, if the role he has chosen for himself is the one his party would have us believe it is, that he play it to the full. I ask him to come along with me and let us complete the job, by searching out, as respects the last three general elections, those who have made contributions to political parties. Let us show the public which the corporations were, what the interests were, who the individuals were that made contributions to the campaign funds of political parties, and what were the amounts of their contributions. Then the public will be in a position not only to judge between us, as to rights and wrongs of the respective political parties we have the honour to lead, but, what is of even much greater importance, they will be in a better position to know what is required in the way of remedying a situation with respect to campaign funds which has presented its problems to political parties at every election held in Canada since there was a dominion parliament.
That is the entire statement I made at London.
May I now come to the question as to whether I was justified in believing that moneys had been paid into the Conservative fund.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not it. The
charge is that moneys were paid into the general fund.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not going to quibble over the use of the words "general fund" or "Conservative fund"; I am going to, take the meaning of the words as they were understood by those who made the contribution. Whether that particular contribution of $10,000 was made in Montreal or in Ottawa is not significant in the mind of anyone in this country except those who are trying to conceal the fact that the contribution
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

was made to Conservative funds. Whether I was justified in believing that the contribution made by Beauharnois to the Conservative party was made to the Conservative general fund I will leave to the house to judge from the following extracts which appear in the journals of the house. I quote from volume 69 of the Journals of the House of Commons, 1931, appendix No. 5, page 822. Mr. Sweezey was being examined by counsel, Mr. White:
Q. And then who else, if anybody?
This was with reference to contributions to the federal funds; that was the phase of the matter with which the committee was dealing at the time these questions were asked, and the right hon. Prime Minister had that information before him when he made his statement later in the house.
Q. And then who else, if anybody?
A. Well, still speaking of federal campaign funds, I do not recall of any specific,-oh, yes, I contributed to General McQuaig, who I understood was the collector for the Conservative campaign fund in Montreal.
Q. How much?



A. $10,000.

[Stage Direction]
Q. Anybody else?
Then Mr. Lennox, who was a Conservative member of the committee, said:
You did not treat us very generously.
As I said last night the word "us" certainly means the federal Conservative party, and the 810,000 was a contribution to the funds of the Conservative party. Later I find the following:
By Mr. Lennox:
Q. Have you told us of all the federal contributions ?
A. Yes, sir.
As I have said; that was in reference to federal contributions. Then Mr. Griffith was called and these are the questions that were put to him:
By Mr. Lennox:
Q. I am speaking of the federal Conservative party. Were there any contributions made by the company to the Conservative party at the last election, or at any other time?
A. There was a total, I think, of $25,000 which was given, as Mr. Sweezey has testified, to the Conservative organization.
The Chairman:: No; he said to friends whom he had helped before, and he named one, Mr. Leslie Bell.
The witness: That is right. In our mind, I may say, they were regarded as a contribution to the Conservative organization.
By Hon. Mr. Mackenzie:
0- Was not there anybody else outside of Mr. Bell?
A. General Erie McQuaig and Mr. Cartier.
General Eric McCuaig was acting for the Conservative party, to receive funds which he

was transmitting to General McRae, or was distributing among members of 'the party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no evidence of that. This is another instance of my right hon. friend not stacking to the record.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then are we to assume that General McCuaig was taking the money for himself. Now, Mr. Speaker, so that this thing may be put right once and for all, let me give the facts exactly as I now understand them in the light of the explanation which has been made by the Prime Minister. I will use the words I used at London, as nearly as possible, saying what I would have said if I had then possessed -the information my right hon. friend has since brought forward, because certainly when my right hon. friend said, "I declined to have anything to do with contributions from the Beauharnois, as far as my party was concerned," I was under the impression 'that he was making it plain that if there had been contributions to the party to any extent those contributions certainly had been returned so that he was not under any obligation in any way. Let me make it clear; following the words of my London address, the position is this:
"Contributions were made by those associated with Beauharnois to both political parties, to the Conservative party and members of the party in the federal field, as well as to the party or members of the party in Ontario and Quebec, and the Contribution made by Beauharnois to the fund of the Conservative party in Montreal, 810,000, was not returned, though the Prime Minister refused a further contribution, on the grounds-" I will not go into that; I have already stated the grounds.
Then: "When the general elections came on Mr. Sweezey made a contribution to the campaign funds of both the Liberal and Conservative 'parties. Later the contribution given to a treasurer of the Conservative party was not returned, but the contribution of a further amount of $200,000 which had been asked for was not made by Mr. Sweezey, he having understood that Mr. Bennett had given instructions that no contribution should be accepted. What was Mr. Bennett's reason for not permitting the acceptance of the further contribution? Was it that contributions would not be accepted from corporations or persons associated with corporations which might be seeking favours from governments?" and so on, as. it appears in the London speech.
These are the facts, Mr. Speaker, in regard to that matter. I have no desire to take up the time of the house with differences between

Privilege-Mr. Bennett
the Prime Minister and myself. During the years I was Prime Minister, when matters of relatively small import, and .particularly those personal to myself, came u.p, I adopted the plan of quietly interviewing my opponent with regard to those matters so that the house might >be spared the trouble of having to consider them. I would suggest to my right bon. friend that as he is Prime Minister at present he is the one who must take the initiative in matters of this kind. If he desires my cooperation in the work of this house, and if he follows the course in public life that is followed in private life, I shall be only too happy to cooperate with him to the best of my ability. But I will say, that as a member of parliament, I will claim the same rights in this House of Commons as in private life, I would claim in dealing with individuals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman stopped at a very convenient place. At page 822 of the proceedings of the committee Mr. Sweezey was under examination, and he stated that these were personal contributions to General McCuaig and Mr. Bell. These were his words:
Q. Then who else, if anybody?
A. I do not recall anybody at the moment. As I pointed out before-I would like to add this, that those were personal contributions and they did not in any rvay come out of the company's $30,000,000 of financing.
Q. Which were?	.
A. I mean those contributions I have just spoken of.
Q. All of them?
A. They were personal contributions.
Q. Or are you speaking of the contributions to Mr. Bell and General McQuaig only?
A. Well, these are my own personal accounts. Now-, some of these may be reported by Mr. Griffith; there is a little bit of confusion in my mind; but whatever difference there is as between what Mr. Griffith may report and I report is comparatively small, and I am not quite clear on which side some of these small amounts sit. What I w'ant to say is, that all these contributions, like the contributions already referred to, made by certain members of the syndicate, came from friends entirely outside of the company. For instance, when I paid that money I paid for it with money of my own, which I had or acquired from friends.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not; this is a question of privilege. I have just read the conclusion of Mr. Sweezey's evidence, and I come back to this: Presumably this house heard the speech made by the right hon. gentleman last year, and presumably hon. members read his speech delivered at London. In the first he read from the evidence and therefore knew that no money had been paid or returned. In the second he deliberately charged
that a contribution had been made to the general fund and returned; 8200,000 was the sum mentioned in the report. That is admittedly untrue and I ventured in this house to point out this falsity and say that one of two things must follow. The right hon. gentleman was either reckless and recreant to his duty in making the statement or he knew it to be false when he made it. I have proved the latter by proving that he had the information before him and read it in this chamber last year. Later, when the right hon. gentleman rose in his place and said, "I assure you that I did not do it knowingly," I accepted his statement. I will leave it to those who may read Hansard, and read that explanation, to determine whether or not there is that frank, unequivocal, fair meeting of a difficulty when confronted with it, involving as it does a serious misstatement of fact, or anything but an effort to try to vindicate his own position at the expense of those who are his opponents.
I have only one more word to say and it is this. The right hon. gentleman has spoken of meeting in private and making observations that would clear up seeming difficulties. But it was in London on the broadcast that that statement was made, and it is in the House of Commons, on the floor of parliament, that I meet it. I know of no other place in which it could be met unless I held another meeting to deny it. I pursued the only course that could be pursued in view of that improper, incorrect and untrue statement, which I regret very much was made, because it enabled the right hon. gentleman to draw a conclusion which he could not draw unless he made that improper and incorrect statement.
That is the question of privilege I have raised here to-day. It is a privilege that touches, in my judgment, very acutely the position which I think any public man should have in mind; and if there be any doubt about this, then as I have said I trust an ample opportunity will be afforded in another place to clear it up once for all and leave no doubt-that no such contribution was made to the general funds of the party which I had the honour then to lead and of which I am now the head. The contributions made by Mr. Sweezey to General McCuaig and Mr. Bell were, as he says, personal contributions which he made from funds that did not come out of the Beauharnois 830,000,000. I merely leave it at that. I regret very much that such heat has been shown with respect to this matter. AVhat I desired to say I have said strongly. There is no reason why,
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

because the conduct of party chiefs drags the leader of a party with his party into the valley of humiliation, he should not be willing to leave others without endeavouring to drag them in too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister (Mr. Bennett) has referred to the Journals of the House with regard to a statement made by Mr. Sweezey to the effect that the contributions which he made to Mr. Bell and to General McCuaig were personal contributions and not from the funds of the corporation. He did not read to the house similar statements made by Mr. Sweezey in reference to the contributions made to Senator Raymond and Senator Haydon. Mr. Sweezey was careful to say-and the part to which my right hon. friend has made reference will show-that he was speaking of contributions generally and not merely-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so; he was
dealing with these contributions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, it will
be found that the remarks that were read by my right hon. friend himself to-day had reference to contributions as a whole, as made to both parties. But certainly the Prime Minister should have made it clear that the contributions which were made to Liberal senators were, with equal emphasis, stated by Mr. Sweezey to have been made from his funds personally and in the same way as he had made them to General McCuaig.
Now I am not going to try to follow my right hon. friend in his determination to have the last word; I know he is incapable of a gracious act and I will not follow him further.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to ask the leader
of my party-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -a question which-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -the leader of the government has refused to answer. My question is this-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is not
in order in putting a question to the leader of the opposition. The rule is quite clear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am asking my leader
to answer a question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member may not ask the question.


Mr. REID:: Before the orders of the day
are called, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask a question-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is out
of order.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has the floor.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: Before the orders of the day are called, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). In view of the information given to the house on Wednesday last, that the sum of $2,525,000 had been sent to the province of British Columbia in advance payment for unemployment relief purposes, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the matter in British Columbia so as to find out why employment under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 is not being proceeded with by that province, and to find out why the municipalities are experiencing great difficulty and untoward delay in obtaining financial assistance agreed upon by the dominion, such assistance having been sent by the dominion to that province. And further


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member
directing a question to the Prime Minister?


Thomas Reid: It is a direct question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This is not the time to
make a speech on the subject.


Thomas Reid: And further, if the moneys so
sent have been used for purposes other than that for which they have been sent, where have such moneys been so used?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. This is not the
time for the making of general speeches. I would quote to the house from Bourinot in this regard:

Unemployment Relief
When the orders of the day are called by the Speaker and before they are read by the clerk assistant, it is the practice sanctioned by usage but not by any positive rule, for members to make personal explanations or ask questions of the government, in reference to an inaccurate report of their speeches in the official records, or in the newspapers; or in denial of certain charges made against them in the public prints; or in reference to certain remarks which had been misunderstood on a previous occasion, and which they had not before had an opportunity of explaining; or in respect to delay in obtaining returns or to the incompleteness of certain returns brought down under the order of the house; or relative to the state of public business, or other matters of public interest. But these remarks should be brief as they are only tolerated, there being no question before the Chair when they are made. . . .
May says, at page 285:
The indulgence of a personal explanation should be granted with caution; for, unless discreetly used, it is apt to' lead to irregular debates.
I trust that hon. members will bear these authorities in mind.


Mr. DUFF:: The hon. member for New
Westminster (Mr. Reid) was set a very bad example by previous speakers.



EXPENDITURE IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday sessional paper No. 122 was laid on the table in response to a motion made by myself. My motion asked for a copy of the report of J. B. Carter, representative of the Department of Labour, in connection with the investigation made by him of complaints relating to the expenditure on unemployment relief work on roads and bridges in the county of Gloucester, as well as a copy of any evidence on which such report was made. The sessional paper does not contain the papers I have asked for; the only report produced by Mr. Carter is one which refers to work carried on in the province of New Brunswick by the provincial government and does not cover, as he states himself, any unemployment relief work. I asked for his report on the projects which he investigated in Gloucester county carried on as unemployment relief work, and I have not received it. Would the minister be good enough to call the attention of Mr. Carter to this matter in order that I may obtain his report on the East and South Bathurst roads, the roads at Mizzenette, Blue Cove and in the parish of Beresford. Mr. Carter investigated complaints made in this connection and I understand he has made a report.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member made a complaint about the method or manner of expending moneys in certain places in the province of New Brunswick, and that as a result of that complaint Mr. Carter was sent down to investigate. When he arrived in New Brunswick he found that the work complained about was provincial work with which we were not concerned. This is my recollection of the matter, but I will inquire further and endeavour to give more detailed information.


Peter John Veniot: If I am not out of order
I would direct the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to the fact that Mr Carter mentions the detailed statement made by myself. If, as he says, the work which he investigated does not come under unemployment relief, why did he investigate?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Because of the complaints
made by the hon. member.


Peter John Veniot: I made no complaints in
connection with that work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Someone did.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This is all out of order.


Peter John Veniot: Surely I am entitled to
put myself right in this matter. Mr. Carter has stated that his report is based on a newspaper item and not on any complaints made to the department. Why should he investigate a newspaper item when he had before him a detailed statement covering two pages of foolscap?



INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) advise the house if it is the intention of the government to bring in a new relief measure before the expiration of the present act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter is under consideration.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BELL (ST. ANTOINE)

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LESLIE G. BELL (St. Antoine): It was my intention, Mr. Speaker, ,to bring up to-day the matter which has received considerable attention this afternoon, particularly regarding myself. The bon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned, when dealing with the Beauharnois scandal, as he termed it, that Leslie Bell, Montreal, Con-
236	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
servative member, had received a special contribution of $6,000 from Beauharnois; at least it was intimated that it was from the Beauharnois corporation. Let me state explicitly to the house at the outset that personally I have not received, directly or indirectly, from the Beauharnois corporation, one single cent. The contributions which I -received in the campaigns of 1925, 1926 and 1930 have been personal contributions -from Mr. R. 0 Sweezey, whom I have known since 1909, a period of twenty years.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Leslie Gordon Bell: It is all right for hon. members opposite to laugh about this matter -but since it has taken on such a serious aspect let us be serious. The cheque which I received was signed by Mr. Sweezey -personally. Mr. Sweezey, as hon. gentlemen must know, is the president not only of Beauharnois but perhaps of a dozen other companies. How can anyone except the person who receives the contribution, judge whether it is given by the contributor personally?


William Duff: We did not object to it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The hon. member for East Hamilton insinuated that I received a contribution of $6,000 from Beauharnois.


William Duff: You started this thing, we did not.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are sorry the hon. member did not get more.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am satisfied, if the house is clear on that point, that this was a personal contribution -from Mr. Sweezey. This was published in the report which I, as a member of parliament, am supposed to make. It is also abundantly clear from the evidence which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has read this -afternoon that this was a personal -contribution and I think the hon. member for East Hamilton should correct his statement as published.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been advised that the house has been waiting for a statement with respect to the radio decision given a few days ago, and I will therefore make a brief statement.
Since January 18, 1931, the question of the constitutional authority to control radio [Mr. L. G. Bell.l
broadcasting has been before the courts and no effective parliamentary action has been possible pending the determination of the question. The judgment of the privy council, delivered on February 9, decides that the control of aeronautics rests with the Dominion parliament and not with the provincial legislatures. This government, therefore, is now free to take action leading to the establishment of such a scheme of radio broadcasting as may be deemed advisable in the national interests.
It must be agreed that the present system of radio broadcasting is unsatisfactory. Canadians have the right to a system of broadcasting from Canadian sources equal in all respects to that of any other country. Such a scheme can be established only after the most thorough inquiry and upon a program which will take several years to carry into effect. The enormous benefits of an adequate scheme of radio broadcasting controlled and [DOT]operated by Canadians is abundantly plain. Properly employed, the radio can be made a most effective instrument in nation building, with an educational value difficult to estimate. Only this morning I received a communication from Doctor Fox, president of the Western university and of the Association of University Presidents indicating that in May next they propose to discuss the educational value of the radio.
The government has before it the report of the Aird commission which contains very helpful information upon many phases of the radio situation. It is proposed to institute further inquiry in the light of present conditions into other phases of the situation, and in particular into the possibilities of a scheme which will ensure unexcelled radio reception from Canadian stations. The agency through which such a scheme can most satisfactorily be operated and controlled also must be determined by a committee of the house which will be required to prepare a scheme of radio broadcasting. For this purpose it is proposed to set up a special committee of this house to deal with the situation. The terms of reference of the committee will be broad and may be phrased as follows:
(1)	To advise and recommend a complete technical scheme of radio broadcasting for Canada, so designed as to ensure from Canadian sources as complete and satisfactory a service as the present development of radio science will permit.
(2)	To investigate and report upon the most satisfactory agency for carrying out such a scheme.

Radio Broadcasting
The committee will afford representatives of private interests and advocates of public ownership the fullest opportunity to place before it their several views.
I need hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not proposed to set up a large committee. It is hoped that among the members of the house there are those with sufficient general knowledge of the technical details of radio broadcasting to enable this committee to deal with the various problems with which it will be charged and to understand the technical evidence which will be presented. It is the intention to ask hon. gentlemen opposite to canvass their members for those most able to deal satisfactorily with this problem, and we will do the same. These problems will be referred to this committee which will decide, in the light of the evidence produced, the proper agency to be employed for broadcasting, whether it shall be publicly or privately owned. It is proposed that evidence may be submitted by memoranda from different bodies specifically interested, and so far as possible the widest latitude will be afforded to the communities generally to express their views with respect to this matter.



POLITICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. JEAN-FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Te-miscouata): Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. the Prime Minister advise the house as to the amount of a political subscription which would change a venial sin into a mortal sin?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Will the statutory increases be paid to the civil service during the coming fiscal year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman was good enough
to advise me that he proposed to make the inquiry this afternoon. The answer is no.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) in answering a question of mine the
other day relative to the time when the old age pension grant would be made said that it would not be made until the necessary new arrangements had been executed with the provinces. That is simply an answer in form.
I know that some of the provinces are anxiously looking forward to having the agreements drawn up, and I wonder if the minister could throw any light as to when the grant will be made, and why the delay..
Hon. W. A. GORDON ^Minister of Labour): The form of the agreement and the regulations thereunder have been approved, and there should be no delay now in having the agreements with the provinces signed. I do not anticipate any.



REPRESENTATIVE IN CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: In view of the conditions of war existing between China and Japan I would ask the Prime Minister if the government has taken under consideration the advisability of appointing a distinct and separate ambassador to China in order that the government will be represented there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is no.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
City of Ottawa Agreement

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement with city of Ottawa extended for one year.
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I assume that this
measure simply extends the present agreement in exactly the same form as it appeared last year.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: The hon. gentleman is quite correct. It does not in any way change the status quo, if I may so describe it, and permits payment for the current year on the same basis as that adopted for some years past.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply.
Public Buildings-Ontario: Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $125,000.
Hamilton - public building - renovation of heating plant, $9,500.
London armouries - government's share of cost of local improvements, $960.
London-tractor for postal purposes, $1,700. New Liskeard-public building-under contract, $9,000.
Parry Sound-public building-under contract, $49,000.
Penetanguishene-public building-under contract, $10,000.
Perth - public building - under contract, $47,000.
Toronto - custom house - under contract, $60,000.
Toronto-payment of instalment on purchase of armoury-under contract, $29,500.
Toronto - postal station "A" - mechanical equipment and improvements-under contract, $20,000.
Windsor-public building-under construction, $500,000-Total, $861,660.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman,
I presume that at this point I may make an observation concerning the public works estimates generally. They indicate that in comparison with the total of last year there has been a cut amounting to about $9,000,000, in all.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Approximately that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is important that the house and country should understand that, while that deduction appears here, it is very largely, if not more than, offset by the amount of public expenditures made on public works under the Unemployment Relief Act. For example, under the relief act of 1930 some $14,000,000 has been spent, and of course the largest part of the $70,000,000 contracted for between the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities has been spent on public works, and the commitments under the relief act for 1931 show equally large expenditures to be made on public works. I hope as we go along that the minister will indicate where, here and there, out of the public relief moneys, expenditures have been made for work being done in the different provinces. We would then have a better idea as to the total expenditures from the federal treasury on public works. If he is in a position bo do that, I am sure hon. members will find such information very helpful.


Mr. STEW  ART@Leeds: Replying to my right hon. friend, I can say only that during the year 1930 there was no direct appropriation for works or expenditures under the Public Works department, and any expenditures he has in mind were made in cooperation with the provinces. For the current year the appropriation, in round figures, was approximately $2,500,000, but I have not the details before me. Of that amount we have expended, or expect to expend before the first of March, in round figures, between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is that for the dominion as a whole?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, all the expenditures that are made under the direct control of the Department of Public Works, for which a return giving details will be tendered to the house.


Robert Gardiner: Does that include
amounts of money spent by the Department of Labour, or under the direction of that department? Are those expenditures only for the Department of Public Works?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. gentleman is quite correct; those are expenditures entirely under the control of the Department of Public Works for which we are directly responsible.


Robert Gardiner: Is it your intention. Mr. Chairman, to call the items as a whole or deal with them separately?

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In my opinion they should be dealt with separately.


Robert Gardiner: Are we dealing with the first section of item No. 115, or the whole item?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: I have called the item as a whole, but we can deal with each individual section if hon. members so desire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
would be the better course to pursue.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is it the desire of the committee that each item be called separately?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The practice
generally followed has been to allow considerable latitude on the discussion of the items as a whole. I do not see that there is any necessity to take up unnecessary time in discussions of individual items if we are permitted a full discussion on. the general item. There ought to be an understanding, however, that very considerable latitude will be allowed for discussion on whole items, if that course be pursued.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is fair.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And quite satisfactory to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings-Alberta: Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $15,000.
High River-public building-under contract, $7,000.
Thomas Reid: Are the public buildings here mentioned under the direct control of the Department of Public Works, or are they included in expenditures under the Unemployment Relief Act?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These are all
under the control of the Public Works department; they form no part of any unemployment relief.


Alfred Speakman: I have been requested
by the board of trade of Red Deer to pass on to the minister a petition which has already been sent to the engineer of his department asking that some attention be given to the improvement of the federal public building in Red Deer so that it may be in keeping with the other buildings surrounding the public square, these other buildings and the square itself having been very much improved by the city recently. Undoubtedly this request will come before the minister in due course,
and I take this opportunity of bringing it to his attention and asking that it be given favourable consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that to the extent funds are available the matter will be given consideration and attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings-British Columbia:	Atlin
public building-renovation of heating plant, $2,500.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $45,000.
Esquimalt-repairs and improvements at R.C.N. barracks and H.M.C. dockyard, $10,000.
Kamloops public building - renovation of heating plant, $1,000.
Vancouver armoury-payment of instalment on purchase of armoury, $14,000.
Vancouver-public building, repairs to roof, $7,500.
Vancouver public building-to meet one year's interest at 5 per cent on mortgage of $400,000, $20,000.
Thomas Reid: What is the purpose of the
$45,000 vote for improvements and repairs?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is the same amount as was available last year for making such improvements in and repairs to public buildings as may become necessary from time to time. The vote is not allocated to any particular building, or to any particular line of work.


Robert Gardiner: What is the explanation of the vote for $20,000-to meet one year's interest at 5 per cent on mortgage of $400,000 on Vancouver public building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is the
mortgage interest on a building known as the Winch building, which was purchased some years ago by the department.


Mr. NEILL:: What fuel is used in the
Atlin and Kamloops public buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The fuel used
is coal.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Considering that the
votes this year for public works in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia total approximately a quarter of a million, while the vote for Ontario is $861,000, I should like to know if the cut has been proportionate throughout these respective votes?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
will notice that the public building at Windsor accounts for a large amount of the Ontario vote. I think the proportionate reductions are fair. They are based upon the actual requirements and are in accord with the practice followed in previous years.
240	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was wondering whether the cut in the public works estimates for the western provinces and for Ontario was in proportion. The aggregate of the votes for the four western provinces is quite small, and as they are in the developing part of the dominion it is important that their public building requirements should be looked after.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All that has
been given consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generally

experimental farms-replacements, repairs and improvements, $22,500.
Flags for dominion public buildings, $2,500. Military buildings - repairs and fittings, $25,000.
Military hospitals-repairs, improvements and alterations, $60,000.
Public buildings-generally, $35,000.
Ottawa departmental buildings, fittings, etc., $50,000.
Ottawa-payment of final instalment on purchase of building for government workshops, $10,550.
Ottawa-government's share of cost of local improvements, $18,250.
Mr. BRADETTE:: Does the item of
$22,500, for experimental farms, replacements, repairs and improvements, include an appropriation for replacing the buildings destroyed last fall at the Cascade experimental station?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is to provide for repairs and improvements at the central experimental farm.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I hope that under this item it is possible for the hon. minister to advise me if it is the intention of the government to replace the buildings at the Cascade experimental farm which were destroyed last fall.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am of opinion
that it would be taken care of in the Agriculture department estimates rather than in those of this department.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: In regard to the
two items of military buildings and military hospitals, has the Department of Public Works taken over the repairs of these buildings from the Department of National Defence?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, the same
policy followed for years by my predecessor is still being followed.


Eugène Fiset: Is there also a vote in the National Defence estimates in conjunction with work of this kind, or is it wholly taken care of by the hon. minister's department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work is not all done by the Public Works department; armouries and drill halls are cared for by the Department of National Defence.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Will the minister kindly inform the house how he can consistently maintain the " Canada First " policy and at the same time reduce by half the appropriation for flags for dominion public buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We think that
for the present year the supply of flags on hand will be ample to enable us to keep the old flag flying.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I presume the minister
is referring to the empire flag, not to the Canadian flag, nor to the " Canada First " flag?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am referring
to the good old Union Jack, which I am sure will be acceptable to my hon. friend.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings-Nova Scotia: Canso public building-improvements and repairs, $6,000.
Halifax-repairs to buildings and wharfs at R.C.N. barracks and H.M.C. dockyards, $25,000.
Inverness public building-extension of sewer, $2,000.
New Glasgow public building-addition- under contract, $9,000.
Sydney Mines public building-improvements and repairs, $5,000.-Total, $47,000.
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: Before this item carries, there are one or two observations I should like to direct to the Minister of Public Works. I think these estimates gave us all a bit of a shock, and that is particularly so in my case because, owing to my eiforts when the previous government was in power, a vote was put through for a public building in the town of New Waterford. Last year the amount was revoted but not spent, and I had hoped that at least it would be in the estimates this year even if the government did not intend to spend it. May I hope it will be in the supplementaries?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say
to my hon. friend that we had quite a number of buildings in the same position last year. As an old member of the house he knows that these buildings are paid for from revenue and not out of capital, so when the revenues shrink we generally contract our program to keep pace as far as possible. If I had thought my hon. friend would be so easily satisfied, with having the amount in the estimates without having the work done, possibly I might have put it in. However

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
his request, together with others I have received since these rather limited estimates were brought down, will be filed and considered very carefully.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings - Quebec: Beebe - building for immigration and customs purposes, $16,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $120,000.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-improvements and repairs, $2,500.
Huntingdon-public building-under contract,
[Stage Direction]
Montreal armoury-payment of instalment on purchase of armoury, $15,140.
Montreal-Craig street drill hall-renewal of roof, $8,000.
Montreal-postal terminal building, $500,000.
Montreal 

 Stephens building - equipment - under contract, $7,500.
Quebec Citadel-improvements and maintenance, $15,000.
Ste. Anne de Bellevue-public building- under contract, $9,000.
Trout River-building for immigration and customs purposes, $26,000.
Westmount - armoury - payment of instalment on purchase of armoury, $13,000.-Total, $743,140.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: There is an
item in this estimate covering the renewal of the roof of the Craig street drill hall. Is that to be a complete new roof, or is that for the repair of the present roof? This is a very large building and I do not see how you could put on a new roof for $8,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, this is only
for the necessary repairs and renewals. The specifications are not prepared as yet; this is only an estimate of what will be required.


Paul Mercier: Have you
had a complaint that the roof is leaking. I pass there every day and see the roof, and it seems to be in good condition.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If it is not leaking we will not repair it.


Paul Mercier: Will the work be done by tender or by the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We will follow
the rule and call for tenders.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: What is the public building for Huntingdon?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A post office
building.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Did Mayor Houde of Montreal make a request for the construction of this post office?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not aware of it. Probably he has made many requests, but he has not asked me for it.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Is
that the same post office the Liberal government intended to build two or three years ago?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friends have not honoured me with their confidence as to their intentions in the past.


Mr. HOWARD:: In connection with the
public building at Beebe, in the county of Stanstead, I should like to know if the work has commenced, if the site has been purchased, or if anything has been done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Nothing at all?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Charles Benjamin Howard: And does the same thing apply in Huntingdon?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The building is under contract and pretty well under way.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am interested in that district and I should like to congratulate the minister on providing for these two public buildings, the one in Beebe in the county of Stanstead, represented by my good friend John Hackett, and the other in Huntingdon, represented by Doctor Moore.


Eugène Fiset: Since the minister seems to be so well disposed towards members on this side of the house, I wonder if he would give some consideration to the promise made by my opponent during the last election that a post office would be constructed at Mont Joli?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Do I understand that my hon. friend advocates the construction of the building?


Eugène Fiset: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I shall consider it on its merits.


Alfred Speakman: I notice an item of $15,000 included for maintenance and improvements to the Quebec citadel. This is a continuing item, $17,000 having been voted last year. What are the improvements to be made? Has this to do with the maintenance of the old walls or does it cover improvements to the more modern part, the Governor General's quarters?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is the regular annual charge for the upkeep of the Governor General's quarters.


Alfred Speakman: Not for the upkeep of the old walls?

242	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: We in Montreal are very much interested in the postal terminal, and I should like to know what this $500,000 included here is to be used for.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As my hon.
friend probably knows, proceedings were taken by the late government for the expropriation of the site for this building, and the matter is now before the exchequer court. This amount will be used in part payment, at least, of the compensation that may be awarded for that site.


Paul Mercier: About how
much will that building cost?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount
probably will not be sufficient to pay for the land. I should say the building will cost about $2,000,000; my recollection is $1,900,000.


Eugène Fiset: Would the minister tell us where Trout river is?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is somewhere on the boundary between Canada and the United States in the constituency of Chateau-guay-Huntingdon.


Paul Mercier: Is there a building at Trout river used for customs purposes now?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount is to provide for the purchase of a site and the construction of a building at this point for immigration and customs purposes. It is being pressed for very strongly by the Department of National Revenue as being necessary to enable them to take care of the increasing tourist traffic at this point.


Paul Mercier: But actually there is a very fine building there now?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We rent a building, which has been found unsuitable and inadequate for our requirements.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am heartily in agreement with that policy. I travel back and forth across the line and I know that it makes quite an impression on tourist traffic to have respectable custom houses at the ports of entry. Up until lately the accommodation all along the boundary has been terrible. I congratulate those interested on bringing about this amelioration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Mr. Speak man.]
Ottawa-National Research Council laboratories and equipment, $415,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will this sum be sufficient to complete the construction of the laboratories? Can my hon. friend tell us when the administration expects the building to be opened?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is fully expected that this appropriation will be sufficient to complete the building and to equip it, and it is believed that the building will be opened some time in July, about the first part of the month.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What has been accomplished in that building during the last year? I have always looked on that as one of the greatest organizations in the dominion and the one capable of the most good.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This department is responsible only for the construction and equipment of the building; its control and the activities carried on in the laboratories are under the Department of Trade and Commerce and the National Research Council. I do not know what their program is but I have great faith in the institution and I am sure it will prove of wonderful advantage to Canada in the future.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The grounds
around the building are in pretty bad shape and I have frequently thought during the winter that if my hon. friend had been trying to help the unemployed they might have been put to work getting some of this ground into shape. Even now there may be an opportunity for unemployed to work there.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The matter has
given us some concern in the department. We have entered into a contract for the filling material which is being placed but which is now more or less frozen. I can assure my hon. friend that at the earliest possible moment men will be put to work levelling it and we hope to have the grounds present an attractive appearance as early in the year as we can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia, $430,000.
Mr. JOHNSTONE:: Is the item of $3,000
for Bay St. Lawrence merely for the breakwater extension?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I
have not the information at hand; I have sent for it. I believe, however, it is for what it says, Bay St. Lawrence breakwater extension.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: There is no item for
Dingwall?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers - New Brunswick, $254,300.
Peter John Veniot: Is there anything in the estimates that will permit the minister to carry on dredging at Traeadie harbour this
year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have a general vote from which we can probably do some work, although possibly we cannot carry on at that point as extensively as we have done in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec, Rimouski river, wharf improvements, $2,800.
Eugène Fiset: Is this for the breakwater or the wharf itself?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is for the breakwater and to improve accommodation for the turning of trucks on the wharf.


Eugène Fiset: Has the work which was undertaken last year at Father Point been completed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: Has that part of the wharf which was carried away by the tide been repaired under this vote or under a special contract?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is under a
separate contract.


Eugène Fiset: Has that also been completed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: Has the dredging, so far as the harbour is concerned, been completed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: The only item this year for Rimouski is $2,800 for the breakwater.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Out of the general vote it -may be possible to make some needed repairs.


Eugène Fiset: Have any other requests been received by the Conservative organization in Rimouski over and above this special request?
[DOT]11761-165


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can safely say yes.


Eugène Fiset: That is ail I wanted to know.


Alfred Speakman: I notice that there is a list of what are called essential undertakings, a number of which are revotes and a good many new items. Are these new undertakings which are to be commenced this year as a result of a survey which has been made since this government came into power? The minister will notice there are a number of votes which are not accompanied with -comparative votes for previous years, and they would appear to be new undertakings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These projects
have been before the department, some of them for years. We are endeavouring to overtake them as quickly as we can.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: The wharf at Riviere
Ouelle was damaged last year-I am unable to state whether the damage is the result of the provincial elections or of a storm-and I am sorry to say that no provision has been made for its repair. Perhaps a change in foremen may have been responsible for the accident, because it is the first of its kind which has ever happened. There would seem to be something abnormal in connection with this wharf, and I wish the minister would inquire into the matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is nothing abnormal in wharves in this part of the country being destroyed by storms. The damage to this particular wharf occurred in December and it has not been possible to have it repaired. It may be possible to take care of it out of the general vote.


Alfred Speakman: Apropos of what I
said in connection with these new items, I assure the hon. minister that I was not referring to a political survey but rather to an engineering survey.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers-Ontario: under contract-Byng inlet-dredging, $6,000.
Collingwood-harbour improvements. $30,000.
Goderich-harbour improvements, $24,000.
Hai-leybury-breakwater, $45,000.
Key harbour-dredging, $40,000.
Kingston-dredging Little Cataraqui bay, $24,500.
Kingston (Little Cataraqui bay) breakwater, $73,000.
Kingston-wharf reconstruction, $15,000.
Michipicoten-dredging, $44,000.
Moose Factory-to assist in construction of wharf, $15,000.
Parry Sound-wharf reconstruction, $65,000.
Roekport-wharf-to complete, $3,500.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
, Silver creek and Castor river-balance of contribution towards dredging, the provincial government having contributed a like amount- revote from 1930-31, $2,500.
Essential undertakings-Blind river-dredging, $20,000.
Leamington-harbour improvements, $75,000.
Midland-harbour improvements, $40,000.
Oshawa-harbour improvements, $12,500.
Penetanguishene-dredging, $9,300.
Port Hope-harbour improvements, $21,400.
Saugeen river-harbour improvements, $5,100.
Sault Ste. Marie-harbour improvements,
[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers generally for maintenance of services; no new works to be undertaken, $200,000.-Total, $790,800.
Mr. HEENAN:: No doubt the hon. minister has received an application from the town council and the board of trade of Kenora in connection with the construction of a wharf at Norman, Ontario. The increased activities in mining in this part of the country have made a wharf at this point absolutely necessary, but I fail to see the item. It would cost only about $8,000, and I was wondering if the minister would not give consideration to this matter when bringing down the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assure my hon. friend this matter will be given consideration, particularly as it is not a large expenditure.
Mr. McMILLAN (Huron); What was the expenditure last year on the maintenance of the wharf at Bayfield?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. member made a previous request for this information and it is going through the mail to-day. I understand the expenditure was approximately $300 or $400.


Mr. GRAY:: Last year the minister was good enough to include in the estimates a sum for the completion of a warehouse on the public wharf at Sarnia. During the fall of 1931 representations were made to the minister that this work should be proceeded with as a part of the unemployment relief. The minister will remember that he called for tenders and I am informed that those tenders were within the estimates. Why was not the contract awarded for this work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This work was not proceeded with under the Unemployment Relief Act because of the position taken by the right hon. the leader of the opposition, that anything contained in the regular estimates must be carried on in that way. The hon. member has stated that tenders were called for and that those received were within the estimates. That is so, and had the revenue permitted there is no reason what-

ever why this work should not have been completed. I was not able to convince the council that it should be undertaken.


Ross Wilfred Gray: In view of the representations which must have been made to the minister by the steamship companies, and the fact that we have a fine public wharf with all facilities, will he not endeavour to have an amount included to give at least temporary warehouse accommodation? I do not ask for an amount as large as that voted last year, but I urge upon the minister the necessity of action before the shipping season opens in order that this wharf may be utilized to the fullest. Will the minister undertake to investigate this matter and endeavour to grant some temporary relief until the conditions warrant a greater expenditure?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have been
deeply impressed with the representations made by my hon. friend with respect to the need of additional accommodation at Sarnia. The circumstances certainly warrant the expenditure of some money and I shall endeavour to meet his wishes. Similar conditions exist at Windsor where wharf improvements and the construction of a warehouse were under contemplation but were not proceeded with because of the reasons already given.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Is the item covering a breakwater at Haileybury an entirely new one?
Mr. STEWART (Leeds); It is new in this sense; the work was commenced under the Unemployment Relief Act and this amount is required for completion.


Frederick George Sanderson: What was the original amount to be expended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the wharf cost approximately $25,000.


Frederick George Sanderson: That would make a total expenditure of about 870,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: About 867,000.
Mr. SANDERSON; In what constituency is this work being carried on?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The constituency of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon).


William Duff: What is the necessity for that work at Haileybury?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is to afford transportation accommodation into the mining district up there, which is developing very rapidly. This accommodation is very much needed.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


William Duff: Transportation from where?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: From the older
parts of Ontario.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Falling revenue does
not apply, apparently, when it is a question of expenditure in a minister's constituency.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would not say that.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is this work at Hailey-bury considered of national importance, or is the work being done purely to give relief to the unemployed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work was
started as an unemployment relief measure and is being completed by this appropriation.


Frederick George Sanderson: About how many hands are employed on the work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I
cannot give that information because I have not the particulars as to the unemployment relief, but I am going to let some items stand and I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend that information later.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the work being done by tender and contract?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Up to the present this work is being carried on, as is most of our unemployment relief work, by day labour.


Frederick George Sanderson: None of it is by
tender at all?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: None that has
been done. I cannot say how we shall carry on this work.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I notice under essential
undertakings Saugeen river harbour improvements. Where is this work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is at the
mouth of the Saugeen river, to give harbour protection to the fishermen.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In what constituency?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In North Bruce, represented by the Hon. Mr. Malcolm.


Peter Heenan: With respect to the
Haileybury vote, do I understand the minister to say that this work was first started to provide employment on a fifty-fifty basis with the province?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it is being
done entirely under this department.


Peter Heenan: I am very glad that the
federal government have seen fit to start some work on their own account somewhere in
northern Ontario, because you can look all through the estimates last year and find very little work that was initiated or proceeded with in northern Ontario by the federal government. If the minister will recall my words when his estimates were up last year he will see the importance of the federal government looking after purely federal affairs. We have in these estimates a curtailment of expenditure on public works of over $43,000,000 as compared with last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not on public
works alone. That is the total curtailment. There is a reduction of about $9,000,000 on purely Dominion public works.


Peter Heenan: I should have said the $43,000,000 was the total curtailment, and it is necessitated chiefly by the fact that the federal government had to assist the provinces. In other words, the federal government is contributing to the province on the one hand and curtailing public works expenditure on the other hand. That is not wholeheartedly giving out work to provide employment. I appreciate, of course, that it is a good thing to contribute to the provinces during this depression, but when the Liberals were in power we started to provide federal public works with federal money and left the provinces to follow suit and spend whatever money they could themselves. Because of the fact that we have had to assist the provinces we are now faced with this curtailment in the estimates of $43,000,000. I rose to say that I am glad the federal government have initiated some public work on their own account in northern Ontario for the purpose of relieving unemployment.


Frederick George Sanderson: With reference to the work at Haileybury, will this $45,000 complete the undertaking?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


William Duff: Will tenders be called for the balance of this work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That has not yet been decided.


William Duff: I understand that under the statute in connection with any work involving an expenditure of over $5,000 tenders must be called for, and I was therefore rather surprised to hear the minister say in connection with work that has already been done that tenders were not called for. It seems to me it is absolutely necessary when the work involves expenditure of $5,000 or over that tenders be called for in every case and the law be complied with, whether it is in this department or any other.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under the Unemployment Relief Act there is no such provision or limitation. In fact, the very foundation of the appropriation under that act was that it was t>o be administered in the way best calculated to relieve unemployment locally, and we find that the contract way is not the best w.ay for that purpose. But generally speaking my hon. friend is quite right regarding the provision of the Public Works Act, and we have followed it strictly. As my hon. friend will recall, however, there is a provision in the act that where the officers of the department certify that the work can be done more advantageously in the public interest by day labour than by contract, it may be done in that way.


Eugène Fiset: Not if it is over $5,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh yes.


Eugène Fiset: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: What representations
were made and by whom for this work to be done at Haileybury? Was it petitioned for locally?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The representation was made, I do not recall by whom, that there was unemployment in that area and that this work would grant a substantial measure of relief.


Frederick George Sanderson: May I suggest that it may have been a case of one colleague simply conferring with another colleague for the benefit of his constituency?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would always welcome representations that are in the public interest from any colleague or from my hon. friend.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am very glad to
hear that.


Jean-François Pouliot: We must give credit to the minister for that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is this the only work that is being undertaken solely by the federal government .to relieve unemployment in Canada? I thought that most of the work that was done to relieve unemployment was done by 'the provinces with the federal government contributing its share. In this case the whole contribution is from the federal treasury. Has that been done in any other instance?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps my hon. friend was not in at the outset when I made my explanation that following the passing of

the act the Public Works department submitted a program of work to be carried on in the different provinces entirely by the Public Works department. The total of that was $2,500,000, allocated among the .provinces in different amounts. About $1,500,000 has been expended up to .the present time in the carrying out of these works, which number approximately four or five hundred-buildings, harbour works, and other works undertaken wherever it was thought that it would substantially help to relieve unemployment in that area. As I have already said, the full returns of the expenditure on these works will be brought down in the near future.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was the money provided out of the votes for the Department of Public Works last year or out of the unemployment relief appropriation under the act passed last year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not in the estimates at all. It is provided out of the unemployment relief appropriation. It is supplementary to the estimates.


William Duff: Do I understand from the
minister that in the ordinary course of business in his department the law allowed him, on the advice of his officials, to do work by day's work instead of by tender when the amount exceeded $5,000, or was he referring only to works under the Unemployment Relief Act?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I referred first
to the Unemployment Relief Act. I do say, however, that the act still permits, on the recommendation of responsible officials, where because of the nature of the work it is difficult to ascertain the condition of a structure-as in the reconstruction of a wharf where it is difficult to tell the extent of the damage and practically impossible to procure accurate specification-the undertaking of works of that kind by day labour, even though they exceed $5,000. In the department, however, we prefer to follow the practice of asking for tenders, and do so in every case where it is at all possible.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I should like to follow
up the question asked by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) regarding the Haileybury breakwater. Did I understand the minister to say that this was being built as a relief measure?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was started
as that.


John Vallance: And is this vote to
supplement the moneys expended under the relief act?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This will complete the work which was undertaken as an unemployment relief measure. As the act expires on March 1, we provide this vote so that we may be able to carry on and complete the work.


John Vallance: I understood from the
minister that a considerable amount of the moneys voted for unemployment relief is still unspent. Why could not such moneys be appropriated to cover expenditures in connection with that work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Because the unemployment relief measure expires on March 1 and we cannot make further expenditures without authority from parliament.


John Vallance: A large undertaking has been started in the city of Saskatoon, and I have not been able to find any vote of a like nature to take care of that work. I refer to the bridge crossing the Saskatchewan river. How does the minister propose to deal with expenditures in connection with that bridge? Certainly there is no provision in the estimates to deal with it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no
undertaking in the province of Saskatchewan such as my hon. friend has referred to, under the auspices of the Public Works department. The work referred to by him must be carried on jointly by the dominion and the province.


John Vallance: Is this entirely a
dominion affair?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Peter Heenan: The discussion which has
taken place leads to another point. Inasmuch as the Unemployment Relief Act will expire on March 1, and inasmuch as this $45,000 is to be used at Haileybury to complete the work now under way up there, may I ask what the minister purposes to do with respect to promoting works to help the unemployed in the various districts of northern Ontario? Can he say that any unemployment relief measure will be brought down before March 1 to take the place of the one about to expire? Otherwise the only people I know who will be working in northern Ontario will be the people around Haileybury. Of course I appreciate that fact, and admire the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) for having work done in his own constituency; I congratulate also the government for acceding to his wishes in the matter. Had I been in his place I should have tried to do the same thing for my own riding. I am not in that position, however,
and as a member from northern Ontario I should like to know if the Minister of Labour, and the government of which he is a part, intend to do anything for the unemployed in other constituencies of northern Ontario, in view of the fact that the Unemployment Relief Act expires on March 1 and no public works have been provided for in that northern district, with the exception of those in Haileybury.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What will be
done is a matter of policy, announcement of which must come either from the Minister of Labour or from the Prime Minister. I am not in a position to state what the policy will be, but it is under consideration.


Mr. POUXIOT:: I have noticed that the
Minister of Public Works is one of the cabinet ministers most familiar with the affairs of his own department. When I make that statement I refer only to what happened in my own constituency, and am not attempting to take part in the discussion of what occurred at Haileybury.
Last year expenditures were made for public works from the unemployment relief fund, so that people who had no work to do were given employment without any consideration of party affiliations. Such action was surely right, because in times of stress all people in need should be helped. I notice now that the appropriations for the Department of Public Works have been considerably reduced, and I am wondering whether the moneys expended by that department will be given only to those of one party affiliation, and if people who belong to other parties-Liberal, Labour or any others-will have any work to do under the present scheme. I am wondering if the foreman oh public works will have to follow the strict patronage rules followed in times of prosperity. I ask my good friend the Minister of Public Works if he will be kind enough to throw a little light on this point.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can say only
that we will follow the usual custom of asking for tenders for public works, and on that score the acquaintances of my hon. friend will have just as good a chance as any other body of people.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking for myself, but for the people in need.


Peter Heenan: Will the minister tell us
what wages are being paid on the work at Haileybury, and whether or not the eight hour day is being enforced?



M8 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot give
the exact schedule of wages, but they have been fixed by the Department of Labour and we are following their schedule.


Peter Heenan: The Department of Labour might set a scale of wages which, I have no doubt, would be correct, but surely the minister should know the wages being paid on works undertaken by his own department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall be
pleased to get the information asked for by my hon. friend, and give it to him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers-Manitoba:	essential
undertaking - Kississing river - improvements, $4,500.
Harbours and rivers generally for maintenance of services; no new works to be undertaken, $50,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: Will all these works be
let by tender, and will the foreman receive instructions to employ only those in distress?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot say
they will all be given by tender, but certainly the larger ones will.


Jean-François Pouliot: Over what amount are tenders asked for?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On any work involving an expenditure of over $5,000 the act contemplates that, save in exceptional cases, there will be tenders. We have often asked for tenders where amounts have been lower than $5,000, if the work could be better carried out by so doing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan and Alberta-harbours and rivers generally for maintenance of services; no new works to be undertaken, $15,000.
John Vallance: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that this would be an opportune time to put a particular question to the minister and to the government. Representations have been made to the government from a portion of the constituency of the member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks), regarding the possibilities of the government giving consideration to the construction of a bridge across the Saskatchewan river at Outlook. Rosetown lies immediately southeast of my seat. Through that seat runs the Saskatchewan river. From the town of Outlook and district similar representations have been made to the government, and I think, also to the Minister of Agriculture, who is the minister from that province. I would ask the hon. minister

or any other member of the government if he can say publicly to the people of Saskatchewan whether it is the intention of the government to build this bridge. I know that the minister will probably tell me that this is a provincial public work; but bridges are being built in other parts of Saskatchewan that we think are not as vitally important to the great masses of the people of the province as is this bridge. All the people of my constituency travelling that way naturally have to cross on the ferry, and the accommodation it provides is simply awful. If the minister has not the information, I should like some other member of the government to tell the people in general, not the followers of the Tory party, what is to be hoped for in this regard.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where the proposed bridge is wholly within a province it is not usual for the dominion to make a contribution towards its erection; we do in some cases contribute to interprovincial and international bridges. I have not the facts before me in connection with this particular proposal, but, in any event the matter should be taken up in the first instance by the provincial authorities, and if they can make out a proper case for contribution by the federal government, it certainly will be considered. As to the other bridges in Saskatchewan now under construction, to which my hon. friend refers, I presume they are being built under the Unemployment Relief Act, in which case there is a joint contribution purely for the relief of unemployment.


John Vallance: Have any representations been made to build a bridge on the North Saskatchewan river at Outlook under the unemployment relief measure, the same as has been done at Saskatoon?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Those representations would first go to the province, and if the province approved of the work it would send those representations on to the federal labour department for approval under the Unemployment Relief Act.


John Vallance: Last year it was stated by the Prime Minister that immediately after the session each member, irrespective of where he sat in the house, would be asked to make suggestions to the government regarding relief measures. I do not doubt each member suggested to the government what in his opinion was necessary. I feel quite sure that the government must have been pressed, not only by the member for Rosetown, but

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
by other members whose constituents would use that bridge, to undertake its construction, but so far the matter has received no consideration. Why did not this proposed bridge receive the same consideration as was accorded to other similar proposals? I will be quite frank in saying that no recommendation that I made received any consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Recommendations for purely dominion works came to the Public Works department; other representations came to the Minister of Labour on the written invitation sent to each member to suggest w'orks which he thought might be undertaken to relieve unemployment. I do not know about the particular bridge that my hon. friend has in mind, because any recommendation with respect to it did not come to the Public Works department.


Mr. LOUCKS:: As Outlook is in my constituency I may say for the benefit of my hon. friend that I have had some correspondence with reference to the proposed bridge. I think my hon. friend is aware that this is a matter for the provincial government to deal with, and I am corresponding with the Minister of Highways in Saskatchewan with reference to it. I am glad to say he is giving the proposal his consideration at the present time. I might add that the bridge was recommended.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: With respect to what the minister has said in connection with the proposed bridge at Outlook, it comes to my mind that I recommended that another important bridge be built. I regret to say that the project has not yet been undertaken, and I do not know when it will be. As the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) has said, the Prime Minister stated in the house last session that hon. members after they went back to their ridings would be asked to make suggestions with regard to necessary public works that would help to a solution of the unemployment problem. In due course I received such a letter. I took up with the members in the provincial house the question of building a very * important bridge at Ceepee over the North Saskatchewan river. This is one of the most pressing public necessities in the province. As a result of that conference I made a recommendation to the Labour department at Ottawa, but the recommendation was turned down, although the proposal for a bridge at Saskatoon was approved by the government. I do not find fault with the building of the bridge that is now under construction at Saskatoon, but I
would impress upon the house that the bridge that I asked for had behind it the solid public opinion of my riding. Naturally the people of my riding want to know why the Saskatoon bridge was undertaken at a cost of about SI ,000,000, while the proposed bridge at Ceepee, which is so urgently needed was turned down.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When the report on unemployment relief is brought down I would suggest that my hon. friend put his question to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). The proposal to build the bridge in question did not come before my department, and therefore I am not in a position to give any information in relation to it.


John Vallance: Are there any items in the public works estimates to-day that were recommended by any member of parliament? For instance, I noticed the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) drew the attention of the minister to the fact that the member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) has got a substantial appropriation, as has also the member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore). Were those public works recommended at the time the invitation was sent out by the Minister of Labour, or were they under the control of the Public Works department? Are there any items in the public works appropriations that we have considered to-day that were suggested to the department following the invitation sent out by the Prime Minister through the Minister of Labour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The works to
which my hon. friend refers are not new to the department; some of the recommendations to which he has referred were made years ago. The customs accommodation at the border in Stanstead was asked for by the Department of National Revenue, and they have been pressing for it for several years.


John Vallance: They are not suggested by the members, then, as relief measures?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: I want to say just a word before this passes. While it is true that the government is contributing to the cost of a bridge at Saskatoon, the city is contributing a very large percentage of the cost of that undertaking. We are giving S360,000 towards the cost of that structure, and it is very important indeed that it be completed. The bridge to which my hon. friend referred would carry more traffic than this bridge, but he knows as well as I do

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
that the province of Saskatchewan is not in a position financially to build that bridge, even with a contribution from this government. The cost of the Saskatoon bridge is split three ways, with the province contributing only



SI40,000.

Mr. GERSHAW:: The minister said a few moments ago that where a bridge was built across a river on the boundary between two provinces the dominion sometimes contributed. 1 should like to ask if the province of Alberta or the province of Saskatchewan has made representations with regard to a bridge across the South Saskatchewan river at a point called Empress. This is on a very important highway, and there is a ferry in operation at the present time which is unsuited to the needs of those travellers. If a bridge were built it would be a great help to those in need of relief in that district. I should like to know first if representations have been made and, in case the government would consider giving a contribution, what proportion of the cost that contribution would cover?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say
that no representations have been made by the provinces since this government came into office. I do not know whether any were made before that time, but the impression of the chief engineer and the deputy is that no representations have been made by the province. The contribution is a matter of agreement; sometimes it is one-third and sometimes a smaller amount.


Frederick William Gershaw: Have representations
been made to the Department of Labour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would not be
able to speak about that.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: A part of the argument of the hon. member for Saskatoon, in connection with the Ceepee bridge to which I referred, was that the province of Saskatchewan, under its present government, is not in a position to put up the necessary money, in conjunction with the dominion government, to have this structure built. If that is so, and the provincial government cannot put up a dollar towards the cost of that bridge, why not make it a special improvement measure sponsored by the dominion government in order to aid unemployment in that part of the province?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: When I received that
letter from the Department of Labour asking me to suggest to the government what I thought should be done by way of public improvements in order to aid unemployment, 
I went to a great deal of trouble in going around my riding to get that information. I prepared the best report I thought could be prepared under the circumstances, and now I should like to ask the minister to get that report and keep it in the archives of the Department of Public Works, so that when times get better, or when world conditions are more stable, as the speech from the throne says, they may receive first consideration.


John Vallance: In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Saskatoon, I should like to direct a further question to the government. If the province of Saskatchewan is in such a financial position that it is not able to put up its share of the cost of that bridge, how does the government propose to take care of the unemployment situation in that province from now on?


Olof Hanson: I would point out to the committee that we are getting very far away from the item under discussion.


John Vallance: No, we are not.


Mr. Hanson  York-Sunbury@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I think we are; that is the ruling of the chair. We are discussing harbours and rivers.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Would the minister tell us what services are covered by this item?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This money is
used to keep the wharves in repair, perhaps to do some little dredging, and to keep in efficient operation the services which are being rendered the public.


Robert McKenzie: It does not include the payment of the men on ferries, or anything like that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


John Vallance: Would the minister tell us where the harbours are in the province of Saskatchewan?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a term we use in case there happen to be any.


John Vallance: We have an item here
of $15,000 for the maintenance of harbours and rivers in Saskatchewan and Alberta. I should like to know where the harbours are.
I know where some of the rivers are; I have been suggesting some ways of spending a portion of this amount in the rivers and over the rivers, but the minister does not agree with me. So I would like to know where the harbours are.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I asked the minister
what I thought was a legitimate question. It was this: Would it not have been as justifiable to build the bridge at Ceepee as it was to spend $80,000 at Haileybury, in the constituency of the Minister of Labour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I
cannot answer that question, because I have not the facts before me.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps the desk-mate of the minister, the Minister of Marine, could tell us where the harbours are.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I should
like to ask the minister how much of this amount will be spent in providing a very necessary breakwater on the Red Deer river at Drumheller.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think
you would get much of a breakwater for $15,000. This is the amount we had last year, and it is used for ordinary repairs. There are no new undertakings under this item; we could not apply any portion of it to a new undertaking.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have a
great admiration for the minister, and I hope that will stand me in good stead when he comes to make up the supplementary estimates. I assure him definitely, as I have already assured Mr. Hereford of the Department of Labour, that this work on the river bank is absolutely needed if the property of the city of Drumheller is to be protected from floods which occur every spring. I hope the minister will look into this matter and make the necessary provision in the supplementary estimates this year.


John Vallance: I might make one other observation. I see this amount is divided between Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I am even more disappointed. The item being so small and the territory so large, surely the minister can tell us where the harbours are and how he proposes to spend the money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the constituency of Prince Albert, in Prince Albert park, there are extensive harbours and there are also rivers. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) is present and he will bear me out that the navigation from that locality is most important. It is the route out to Hudson bay from the northern part of Saskatchewan. The amount, I think, is wholly inadequate.


Alfred Speakman: I can tell the hon.
gentleman who asked the minister a question which he could not answer that in one part
of Alberta, the part I have the honour to represent, we not only have navigable waters but we actually have wharves and breakwaters as well. If he doubts my word he can ask the Prime Minister of Canada, who comes from that province and who will tell him that he and I spent a very happy day on Silver lake opening a wharf which was also a breakwater.


John Vallance: If the leader of the
government also comes from this territory it seems to me the amount of this vote is an insult both to the leader of the opposition and to the government.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Before we leave this department, I understand that a contract was let for the Moncton public building but I do not see anything in the estimates. Does the minister know what stage this matter has reached?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not correct to say that a contract was let. We called for tenders but did not proceed with the work.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You are not putting anything in the estimates for it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; it is going the way of the others.


Mr. ILSLEY:: When item 122 was under discussion I happened to be called out of the chamber. What provision is being made for the completion of the work at Hantsport, Nova Scotia? There was a vote last year of $10,000 and an additional vote under the Unemployment Relief Act of $4,000 or $5,000, and only a small part of the money has been spent. The work is not finished; it has just begun and I cannot find any provision in these estimates for its completion.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The wharf itself has been finished but the railway siding requires some additional work. That is to be arranged through the railway commission, and unless we succeed in getting it completed out of the unemployment relief vote before the first of March we shall have to consider whether some provision should be made in the supplementary estimates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The total cost of the work
was to be about $15,000 and only about $4,500 has been spent. Are these figures correct?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A considerably
larger sum than that has been spent out of the unemployment relief vote. The work is finished except for the siding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Trade and Commerce

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-salaries, $554,310; contingencies, $40,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not rise at the moment to take exception to the calling of an item in Trade and Commerce, but I just wish to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that we understand why he is so suddenly passing from Public Works to Trade and Commerce. No doubt there will be an equally sudden transition from Trade and Commerce to Justice to-night,-


Mr. STEVENS:: Not necessarily.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -the object being to get as many departments into the arena for future discussion as possible. I see no reason to take exception to this but I want the minister to know that we understand what he is doing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suspect so.


Peter John Veniot: Can the minister give the
details of the reduction?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is due to a reduction in the number of employees. In some instances we are not replacing where vacancies have occurred, and as far as possible we are curtailing expenditures.


Peter John Veniot: I understand that the object of the government is to reduce expenditures wherever they are controllable. Contingencies are controllable; why is there no reduction there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are keeping that down as low as possible. No department knows precisely what may arise. The expenditures for the iast few years have been: 1928, 829,899.15; 1929, $33,810.94;	1930, $39,351.06;	1931-32,
S17,136.46. We purpose keeping these expenditures down.


Peter John Veniot: Until last year it had never reached $40,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not last year, the year before.


Peter John Veniot: What has brought it up to $40,000 now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has been the amount voted for some time.


Peter John Veniot: My objection is that it is a controllable expenditure; the minister will admit that. If you are bringing about a practical retrenchment why not retrench where expenditures are controllable? We should cut down the controllable expenditures rather than the salaries of civil servants.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already given the explanation. No one can anticipate precisely what will be spent under contingencies. I can give the details of expenditures in years gone by but I cannot give it for the current year. It is quite possible there may be some unforeseen demand on this vote. We are asking for the usual vote but we promise that as far as possible we will keep it down, and this is evidenced by the actual expenditures of the current year.


Peter John Veniot: That does not satisfy me, because there must be a method of meeting unforeseen expenditures. If the government is so anxious to curtail expenditures why not begin at this point? If you voted 830,000 this year and found towards the end of the fiscal year that something unforeseen had arisen there would be a way of meeting that expenditure. Why not make a reduction now and take your chances?


John Vallance: Does the item for
salaries include travelling expenses of the grain commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Vallance: Is it under contingencies?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The grain commission vote is separate.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. friend from Gloucester. I think we should congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce upon his decision not to reduce contingencies.


Mr. EULER:: An item of $3,420 for chief, census of manufactures, which was voted last year, is cut out entirely this year. Does that mean that the service is discontinued?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There will be some variations in the department and the one referred to is probably a movement in the staff requested by the chief statistician.


William Daum Euler: Will the census of manufactures throughout the country still be continued?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has been carried on.


Paul Mercier: The details
are shown on page 99. An item of $12,000 is allowed for clerical assistance and $14,000 for printing and stationery. WLiat is covered by the latter amount.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is to cover unusual printing which does not come under the general vote. There is a possibility this year

Supply-Trade and Commerce
that the department will be called upon to do considerable work in connection with the Imperial economic conference and we may have to call upon this vote.


William Daum Euler: What is the nature of the
work carried on in connection with the census of manufactures? Are the manufacturers asked to make returns at specific intervals as to the amount and nature of their manufactures?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have received many
letters during the past year highly commending the work being carried on by this particular branch. Questionnaires or forms are sent out to the various industries; the information received is segregated by the department and distributed to those interested or to those who may request it.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister find that
the manufacturers respond readily and completely to these questionnaires?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been surprised during the past year to note not only the willingness with which they respond but the praise which they give to the efforts of the bureau in compiling this information.


William Daum Euler: Do they respond in all
cases?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not in all cases; occasionally we find someone who demurs.


Peter John Veniot: In the details of the contingencies which appear on page 99, I note that 13,000 was allowed last year for telegrams and telephones, while the vote for this year shows an increase of $500.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My department has asked for the allocation of $3,500 for telegrams and telephones. The department has considerable cabling to do keeping in touch with the trade commissioners in all parts of the world.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Trade and Commerce - salaries, $554,310; contingencies, $40,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are there any
statutory increases?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice in
looking through the details that there are a number of increases. Evidently they are not statutory. Perhaps my hon. friend could tell us on what basis they are made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were a few readjustments within the staff during the year.
I cannot say exactly from memory what they were, but there were not many.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 assume that it is quite proper that these changes should be made, but what strikes one in looking at the list is that certain individuals have received an increase while the great majority have not. For example, the secretary of the commercial intelligence service has been increased, also the chief of the mining, metallurgical and chemical division. There has been an increase also with respect to statisticians. One head translator has been increased, also a sound projectionist and a publicity agent; one or two principal clerks, a senior photographer, the secretary to the executive, one draftsman, a stenographer and some other photographer have been increased. There has also been an increase for the electricity and gas laboratory assistant, for an assistant photographer, for some stenographer, messengers and office boys. These may not be a very large number, but they would seem to constitute a favoured few and I wish the minister would indicate on what special grounds all these individuals have received increases while the rest of the staff have been left just where they were.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were a few reclassifications, purely departmental and without design, I might say to the right hon. gentleman, within the department during the year. I presume I could give an explanation in each individual case if the right hon. gentleman desires that.


Peter John Veniot: Have these increases been
approved by the Civil Service Commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, in every case.


William Duff: Why has the deputy minister's salary been decreased from $10,000 to $8,000?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was a change in the deputy head during the year and the new deputy comes in at the minimum rate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice an
item under contingencies for printing and stationery. May I ask whether any of that is for the printing of the creed the minister published last year?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Herbert Stevens: Constantly we are receiving requests for copies of the creed, and I am very sorry that parliament has not been asked to vote an additional sum for that purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask if
any part of this amount is to be used for propaganda purposes in connection either with the Canada First or the Empire First movements?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can assure my right
hon. friend that there will be no propaganda.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There will be
nothing in the nature of advertising paid for by the department relating to Canada first, or made-in-Canada goods, or the like?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Speaking for myself, and
I think I can speak for my colleagues as well, we are strongly in favour of every effort that will promote Canada's interests industrially and in every other way. What I assume the right hon. gentleman is referring to is whether there will be carried on any advertising campaign of a general character under this vote. I 'think I can assure him that there will not be, not because we are opposed to such a publicity campaign, but we are curbing our expenditure to the limit this year and have not in contemplation such a campaign.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that all parties in this house are as much interested in promoting Canada's interests as are the members of the government. My hon. friend knows to what I refer, and that is the use of public moneys for political propaganda purposes, furthering the trade policies of the government in office. The Canada First campaign was a purely political campaign, and public moneys were used for that purpose in connection with the publication of the illuminated creed and in connection with advertisements inserted in innumerable papers. We do not want to have that story repeated in terms of Empire First while the economic conference is on, or before or after the conference, with hon. friends opposite seeking to make political headway by that method. I take it from the minister that none of the moneys from this vote will be used for purposes of the kind.


John Vallance: Might I ask the minister if the object of advertising the Canada first policy and printing the creed have been worthy of such expenditures. Is the minister in a position to assure the house that the results have been satisfactory?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite, quite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If they have been worth while, can the minister tell us why the administration is throwing over its old doctrine of Canada first and adopting the new doctrine of empire first?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did I understand my right hon. friend to refer to a decrease in the expenditures? In that regard, as I said a moment ago, we are merely economizing to the limit. We believe that to best serve the country we must as far as possible reduce expenditures.


Mr. JACOBS:: And I suppose the least useful is cut off first.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I see under the heading of contingencies an amount of $12,000 for clerical assistance, a sum over and above all the salaries paid to the various officials in the department. I should like to have the details of this amount.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is an item which has been voted for many years. Part of it is spent in respect of clerical staff in the minister's office, and part of it is for clerical assistance where, under emergent conditions, extra help is required temporarily. In recent years the expenditures have been as follows:
Year	Expenditure
1928- 29	 $ 9,583 84
1929- 30	 10,088 76
1930- 31	 13,716 22
For the current year expenditures up to the present time have been about $9,000. Hon. members must bear in mind, however, that the year has not yet expired.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are those amounts paid to persons employed by the department who were appointed by the Civil Service Commission? If not, how were they chosen?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some of them, of course, were chosen by the Civil Service Commission. Flowever there are a few appointees as my hon. friend no doubt knows, within the right of the minister; I refer particularly to a private secretary or an assistant private secretary.


John Vallance: I should like to ask a question, and if it indicates that I am labouring under a misapprehension I hope the minister will correct me. I find an expenditure for a "sound projectionist," and note that the salary of this official has been increased. I am wondering if the term "projectionist" should not be "protectionist"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The sound projectionist is connected with the moving picture branch of

Supply-Trade and Commerce
the department. Strange to say in these days the motion picture bureau must use a sound projector, and of course a person is required for its manipulation.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Some of these salaries are reduced; on the other hand some seem to be increased. For instance, the fallowing officials are to receive increased remuneration: chief of the mining, metallurgical and chemical division; head translator; sound projectionist; senior photographer; secretary to the executive; draftsman; electricity and gas laboratory assistant, and library assistant. Why have these salaries been increased? Do the increases arise through seniority, or what is the reason?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already explained
the reason. There are a few-comparatively few-increases in the department due to a reclassification by the Civil Service Commission during the past year.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What
are the duties of the publicity agent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chisholm, the publicity agent, was appointed some years ago. His duty is to direct the publicity of the department. Perhaps one of his most valuable services is the dissemination of ordinary news to which the public is entitled, emanating very largely from the researches of the Bureau of Statistics.


Peter Heenan: Has the minister any idea
what effects the reduction of 10 per cent in civil servants salaries will have, and has he estimated how Canadian industries will be affected if every other employer of labour in Canada follows the lead set by the federal government and reduces salaries and wages? How and to what extent will industries in Canada be affected?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I certainly have no information sufficient to satisfy the sweeping inquiry of my hon. friend. Due to general economic conditions there have been decreases in salaries and wages throughout the country We do not think that a reduction of 10 per cent in civil service salaries for this year is an unfair contribution to the balancing of the country's budget, and to assistance to the country in meeting this period of depression. Our contention, however, is of course open to argument and discussion. Whether or not a general decrease in wages throughout the country will reflect itself in a decrease in activity is a debatable point. This country, however, in common with all other countries is faced with imminent problems and we are
endeavouring to meet them in a manner we think most fair and equitable to all under the circumstances. I do not think I can add more than what I have said to the general query of my hon. friend.


Peter Heenan: Evidently the minister has not estimated what effect the reduction of 10 per cent in salaries and wages will have upon the country as a whole. Although the minister claims the authorship of the creed urging Canadians to purchase in Canada and to make Canada prosperous, the government of which he is a member now undertakes to take 10 per cent of the people's earnings from them so that they will be able to purchase 10 per cent less in Canada. The government, above all employees of labour, should set an example by maintaining the standard of wages and salaries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the item "editor, grade 1" refer to the editor of the Commercial Intelligence Journal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If I ask a number of
questions I hope I may be pardoned because, sitting in this privileged corner of the house I have been deprived of the benefit of hearing the discussion carried on in these academic terms. I should like to ask the minister whether in relation to his department the cut of 10 per cent as set out on page 98 of the estimates is final?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid I have not
clearly understood my hon. friend's reference to the cut as "final." What does he mean?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Is the cut of 10 per cent to be considered a horizontal cut applying to the salaries of all employees and at the rate of 10 per cent, or is it to be graded?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I can say definitely the final understanding is that there should be, as my hon. friend describes it, a horizontal cut of 10 per cent. I may add one further observation, because I apprehend it will be in the mind of my hon. friend:	there does
arise the question of contribution, and so forth, to the retirement fund. The whole matter is under the consideration of the government and a pronouncement in regard to it will be made in due course by the Prime Minister.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it right, Mr. Chairman, that we should pass these items involving decreases when the general principle has not been stated by the government? I think the government should have presented a bill with regard to the 10 per cent cut and

Supply-Trade and Commerce
then we would have had a chance to discuss the question; otherwise we have to take it up on each individual item. If it is to be understood that in passing these items we are sanctioning the proposed cut, I think some of us will have something to say at this stage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no question so
far as the government is concerned that the estimates show precisely what it is proposed to do, that is, to make a 10 per cent cut. It will be noticed that at the bottom of each total appear the words "less 10 per cent" in regard to each department. There will be no restriction regarding discussion of the whole question when later on the necessary legislation is introduced.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But are we not
definitely fixing the salaries of these particular men now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not quite. Of course my hon. friend fully understands that these estimates after they have been adopted by this committee must pass through the usual procedure of legislation; but undoubtedly so far as committee of the whole is concerned, passing each item means adoption of the resolution covering it.


Mr. HEAPS:: How will the bill be introduced?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There will be the ordinary supply bill. Maybe special legislation will be required to cover certain features, but as to that I am not able to make any pronouncement at the moment. Unquestionably the main supply bill must cover the subject.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Of course, the supply bill
covers all the estimates; but if the salary reductions are made in the estimates, those reductions do not need to be implemented by a bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All we do by passing the
estimates is to supply the money necessary to pay these salaries, and if we supply the money, less 10 per cent, obviously that is all that can be paid. Whatever is necessary to regularize that in regard to the statutory feature will be dealt with later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point
raised is a very important one. As the estimates stand, the committee is being invited to vote, for salaries of the trade and commerce department, a total of S554,310. As a matter of fact, if the salaries were to be what they are at present, plus the increases that are

being made for the purposes of readjustment, as the minister says, we would be asked to vote $615,900. I would suggest to the minister -this is done by way of trying to meet the difficulty-that he amend his estimates by moving to strike out for the present the words "less 10 per cent" and the figure that appears thereafter, and let us vote the estimates as they stand, up to the amount of $615,900. That will be voting for each individual or group of individuals the sum set out opposite the classification in the detailed statement. I must say that when I looked at the estimates last night I took it that the 10 per cent reduction was inserted as a guide to the house of what the total ultimate expenditure would be. Until the house has decided that it is going to cut down the salaries by 10 per cent, I think the minister had better adopt the course I have suggested or take up some other part of the estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly, if the house
desires to prolong the discussion on this particular resolution I would ask that it stand. But the facts are very clear. We are voting now the supply necessary to pay the salaries for this year at the regular rates, less 10 per cent; that is precisely what we are doing. Of course, if the right hon. gentleman and others object to the adoption of this resolution, we can let it stand and proceed with other items.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is
that the minister at the moment assumes that every hon. member on his side of the house is going to agree with the government, and that no matter what discussion there may be on the floor of the house the 10 per cent cut will go through. I hope the house has enough independence for a sufficient number of its members to assert their own minds in a matter of this kind, regardless of what the government may say in advance.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Like they did when you
were here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I always sought to get the view of the house, and I took good care not to move in advance into a position which I was not perfectly sure the house was going to take. I certainly think until this house has decided that the salary of every person, irrespective of the particular grade he may be in or what he may be receiving, is to be cut 10 per cent, we had better not vote any estimates on the basis of a horizontal ten per cent reduction.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. FACTOR:: So far as this cut of 10
per cent is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the members on this side of the house are prepared to vote such a reduction in a salary, say, of $1,380. The general principle of the 10 per cent reduction should be considered first before we are asked to vote a 10 per cent reduction in all salaries ranging from $8,000 down to $1,380. I think the item should stand until the general principle has been discussed.


William Duff: It seems to me before deciding the matter the government should take into consideration that there is a contract between the officials of this department and the government-a feature, of course, that applies to the officials of all other departments of the service. The officials accepted those positions on the distinct understanding that they were to get a certain rate of salary, and it seems to me that before we vote to make a reduction of 10 per cent in salaries the people interested should be consulted and their views placed before the government.


John Vallance: I would conclude from
the statement of the minister that the matter has been discussed by the government and its supporters, and that the latter are in favour of this procedure, that is, the 10 per cent cut is to go through in spite of anything the opposition may say.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I must repeat that I
have not had the benefit of this discussion; in this corner of the chamber I cannot hear anything that is going on. So far as I am concerned I would rather that the whole matter be left over so that those who are primarily concerned should be given the opportunity of themselves making to the proper authorities in their own way the representations which they may deem expedient. I believe that under our democratic system of government those who are to be mulct to this extent should have an opportunity of presenting their case to the proper authorities. If it is the consensus of opinion that we should proceed with this matter I am quite prepared to do so, but I would rather have the discussion stand over until those who have representations to make can bring them before those to whom they should be made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no desire to interfere with the most extensive discussion of the subject, and if any hon. gentleman feels that to pass this estimate to-night would be 41761-17
unduly committing the opposition to the principle, I would ask that the item stand, Mr. Chairman, and we can proceed with other items in my estimates.
Item stands.
The Hemp Bounties Act, 1923, administration of, $500.


Frederick George Sanderson: This is the same
amount as was voted last year. I wish the minister would tell the committee just how that bounty worked out last year, the amounts that were paid, and who were the recipients.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a small item for travelling expenses and incidentals in connection with the administration of the Hemp Bounties Act, The bounty paid during the calendar year 1931 was $2,189.95.


Frederick George Sanderson: Paid to whom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The only claimant for 1930 was the Manitoba Cordage Company.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: How much did they get?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They got $3,167.44.


James J. Donnelly: How was this paid, by the hundredweight?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year the rate was seven-eighths of a cent per pound.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think this matter of bounties does not work in the right way. As I understand it, the manufacturer is paid the bounty instead of the grower. Is it correct that there is no bounty paid to the grower?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing paid to the grower.


Frederick George Sanderson: I could understand
that it might be of some use to the agricultural sections if a bounty were paid for the growing of hemp, but when you pay it to the manufacturer it simply means a bonus to the manufacturer from which no one else gets any benefit. I think this is a time when such an item should be struck out. I would not reduce it by ten per cent; I would reduce it by one hundred per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I must confess that I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend, but I find that we are* bound by the act which was passed in 1923, and which expires in 1933. We are simply carrying out the provisions of the statute. I should like my hon. friend to note that the ratio of the bounty drops year by year. In 1926, the first year it was paid, the bounty was l\ cents. Then it be-



Supply-Trade and Commerce
came If, If, If, 1; last year it was seven-eighths and for the current year it will be three-quarters of a cent. In 1933 it will be f cent, and then the statute will expire and the bounty will cease.


Frederick George Sanderson: It makes no difference to me, as a member of this house, that the act was passed under a liberal government. At the time I was convinced that it was wrong.


James Dew Chaplin: You did not say so.


Frederick George Sanderson: You do not know
whether 1 said so or not. Sometimes my hon. friend from Lincoln has a long memory, and sometimes his memory is short. I am still convinced, Mr. Chairman, that it would be a good thing to wipe out this bounty completely, and I am inclined to think the minister agrees with me. This parliament, and especially this government, is all powerful. The matter of a mere act should not embarrass a government such as we have in power now, so I will move that this item be struck out,


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before my hon. friend
secures a seconder for thait motion I should like to indicate to him that this is contractual. We may not agree with all that was done previously or all that is being done at present by statute, but where a contract has been entered into, the country is duty bound to carry it out. Unquestionably certain industries were induced to carry on the work of manufacturing this hemp by reason of the bounty, and it would not be fair or equitable for parliament to pass an act authorizing the payment of a bounty for a period of ten years, secure the establishment of an industry under that act, and then, at some period during the existence of the bounty cancel it. Certainly parliament can do as it likes; but I submit to my hon. friend that the gesture he now makes is not one that will carry the judgment of the house, whatever may be his or my opinion with regard to the payment of bounties of this character.


James J. Donnelly: Is this bounty paid on the hemp before it is retted or after? Do we keep a man in the factory to weigh it or do we take the word of the manufacturer? How is the amount of hemp brought in estimated?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The act is administered under a contract, which I have before me. For the moment I speak subject to correction because I have not the exact details in my mind, but I believe payment is made on the hemp which enters into the manufacture of 
whatever is being manufactured by the concern, presumably after retting. I say I speak subject to correction, but I am quite certain that is right. The hemp that goes into the manufacture of the finished product is the hemp that carries the bounty.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the minister think that if the $21,000 paid to this industry were cut off now the effect would be to put the industry out of business?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not say that, but it would be a violation of a contract between the country and the 'Concern.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is the manufacture of hemp on the increase in Manitoba? Has this bounty helped the industry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From the information before me I would say there is a substantial increase in Manitoba. In 1926 there was none. In 1927 the output was 162,004 pounds; 1928, 631,388; 1929, 632,654; 1930, 316,744; 1931, [DOT]250,280 pounds.


Edward James Young: This hemp is all grown in
Manitoba?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Edward James Young: And I suppose the acreage devoted to that prior to this act was devoted to something else?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no doubt of that, even if it was only prairie grass. I was very much interested some years ago in visiting one of the farms producing hemp. It was not a ministerial visit; I went there as a private member. I was told by those who were growing the hemp that one of the advantages from its production was its usefulness in cleaning up land that had been fouled by sow thistle and other noxious weeds. Hemp has an excellent effect in that respect. I understand that it is usually sown on land that has lost its chief virtue as wheat-growing land, but I speak with reservation on that point.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister is not quite right when he says that all the 'hemp is grown in Manitoba; there is some in Ontario.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that.


Frederick George Sanderson: I beg the minister's pardon; I thought he did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was asked what hemp was grown in Manitoba and I answered that question.


Frederick George Sanderson: Hemp is grown in Ontario also.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I have much pleasure in supporting this vote, and not alone because the previous government introduced it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know where the applause comes in. Anyhow, I have always endeavoured consistently to support what was right even on tlhe part of this government. I have not that opportunity very often and I always embrace it when I have it. It was found during the war that owing to the great difficulty in securing raw material for binder twine we were in danger on the prairies of not having sufficient twine for our crops. Around Portage la Prairie the farmers conceived the idea of growing their own raw material-hemp

and this was strongly supported by the then member for Portage la Prairie, now leader of the Senate. When the government that preceded this came into power we took up the question where our predecessors had left off, with the result that this bounty was introduced for 'the first time. It applies to parts of Quebec and Ontario and to the western provinces, and the object was primarily to encourage the growing of raw material that goes into binder twine. In a country that had attained the importance we had of being the greatest exporter of hard wheat in the world, it was logical to aspire to the manufacture of binder twine with which to bind our crops, and that was the major purpose of this small bounty. It did not succeed as far as we had hoped, because the bounty was small; nevertheless something has been done. I have no qualms of conscience in supporting the minister in this small vote.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: Shall
the item carry?


Frederick George Sanderson: No; I move that the item be struck out.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I second the motion.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member cannot move to strike out the item. He has his recourse in voting against it.


William Duff: He can move to reduce it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I move that it be
reduced to $1.
Amendment negatived.


James J. Donnelly: Before the item carries-


Grote Stirling: The item was carried.


James J. Donnelly: I did not hear that
the motion was carried.


Grote Stirling: The
item was pronounced carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion
was that the item be reduced to $1. That motion was lost but there was not a subsequent motion put that the item be carried.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I had just asked the
question, "Shall the item carry?"


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not hear it.


William Duff: Even when items have been
declared carried, the custom in the past has been to allow an hon. member who wished to speak to go on.


James J. Donnelly: I want to ask the
minister this question. This bounty applies only to home-grown hemp, does it not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James J. Donnelly: Is there any way of
checking up on the amount of home grown hemp that goes into the manufacture of binder twine used in the different factories?


Henry Herbert Stevens: An official of the government checks every pound, not at the moment of weighing it but through the records, books and so forth of the company. He checks every pound that goes into the manufacture of goods.


John Vallance: Can the minister say
how much binder twine is made from Canadian hemp?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not those figures.


John Vallance: It is not made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
An act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal, administration of, $1,000.
Mr. RALSTON:: I wish to call the minister's attention to an item which appeared in the Gazette of February 13, in which the Shipping World, a trade magazine in England, was quoted with regard to a suggested exchange of trade between Great Britain and Canada whereby timber would be exchanged for coal. The item closes with this statement:
Timber importers and coal exporters can open negotiations through the Canadian government's representatives at London for placing a contract for wood and securing an undertaking from Canada to purchase an increased quantity of anthracite and bituminous coal.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Has the minister heard anything of these representations, or have any representations been made either to his department or to his representative in London?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


James Layton Ralston: The matter of the taking of British coal has come up frequently in the past and I presume it will be referred to frequently in the future. I desire at this
moment to reiterate the stand I have always taken, that before British coal is admitted every possible effort should be made to use Canadian coal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree with that statement.


James Layton Ralston: We should not consider that we have done everything when we take British coal instead of American coal; every effort should be made to replace American with Canadian coal. I am particularly fearful of this item when I notice that it suggests the taking not only of British anthracite but of British bituminous coal, and I hope the minister will give appropriate consideration to this matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend's anxiety for the stimulation of the use of Canadian coal is heartily reciprocated by myself and by the government. Everything has been done and will be done to stimulate the use of Canadian coal. As far as I know there are no grounds, either officially or semi-officially, for the statement which has appeared in the press. We have no hesitancy in saying that we have encouraged the importation of British anthracite to replace American anthracite, but no steps have been taken, as far as I know with regard to the importation of bituminous coal.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
operation of this act tended to increase the use of Canadian coal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot answer that
question offhand. However, I can say that every possible effort has been made to in-
1930-	31
1931-	32


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it the
act has been in force only two years.


Edward James Young: I think the committee should know what this equalization process is costing at the differeht points in Canada where there are large steel plants, as at Sydney, Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie. It may be possible that there would be discrimination against cer-

crease the use of Canadian coal. During the past year or two the consumption of coal has fallen and I would imagine that the data would show a decrease over that period.


Edward James Young: What would it cost per ton to put Canadian coal on a basis of equality with American coal, say, at Hamilton, Ontario?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not that information immediately before me.


Edward James Young: Could the minister give the committee an approximate figure?


Henry Herbert Stevens: To indulge in speculation of that kind would not be helpful. I should like to be accurate, and I regret that I have not the precise figures before me.


Thomas Reid: How is this vote being disbursed to put Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel on a basis of equality with imported coal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This vote covers the incidentals in connection with the administration of the act.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is any coal being brought in from Germany?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no recollection of any being brought in from Germany.


James Layton Ralston: In connection with the question asked by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Kir. Stewart) as to the amount of coal covered by the administration of this act-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can give that information, but that was not the question.


Charles A. Stewart: I asked if
there had been an increase.


James Layton Ralston: Has the minister the
amounts paid in bounties, and the tonnages? I believe there was a change in the bounty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: The only tonnage on
which bounty has been paid is that which I have indicated, and that was paid to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
British and foreign news service, $32,000.
William Duff: Will the minister explain this item?


William Daum Euler: I note this item shows no
decrease over last year. I was one of many objectors last year to this item. At that time it was claimed that full value was not being received for the money spent, and I am still of that opinion. I believe the reason given last year was that this was a contractual obligation; is that still the case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Daum Euler: I hope that when the contract expires it will not be renewed; how long has it to run?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I add my protest to that of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I recall on one occasion when the late Mr. Robb was Minister of Trade and Commerce that he withdrew this item but subsequently it had to be reinserted because it was a matter of contract. I do not think this country should be tied up over any long period with a contract of this character as I do not believe we are getting value for the money spent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This contract was entered into on March 31, 1930; it was to run three years, so that it will expire on April 1, 1933.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Cut it off.


Mr. CANTLEY:: At a time when we are
cutting all sendees I submit that this contract ought to be revised, if not cancelled altogether.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Electricity and gas inspection service, $211,000.
Peter John Veniot: Does this include salaries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Why does not the 10 per
cent cut appear there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a cut there.


Peter John Veniot: Where does it appear? At
the bottom of the details of all the other departments appear the words "less 10 per cent." But that does not appear here. It is not following out the practice that has been adopted with respect to the other items. There is nothing here to indicate that there is to be a cut in salaries. There is a cut in the amount of the vote, but it may be for anything else *but salaries. Let us have the details of the vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There will be a cut in the salaries just the same as in connection with the other items.


Peter John Veniot: Why is it not mentioned?
The amount last year was $236,000, and this year it is $211,000. Let us have the details.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The reduction will consist of a 10 per cent reduction in salaries. The estimate for salaries this year is $202,250, and there will be a cut of 10 per cent in that.


Peter John Veniot: What I would like to know is why it does not say at the bottom of the page "less 10 per cent." That is done in all the other cases, and I am a little suspicious about it. It is not carrying out the same practice throughout.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend need have no suspicions about it. The communication at the foot of the civil government list is merely an indication of the cut, but it will be observed that these votes include other things besides salaries.


John Vallance: If this item includes
salaries, why cannot we allow it to stand the same as we did the others until the principle of the reduction has been adopted?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will
understand that in practically every item that has been passed this afternoon there was a certain amount for salaries for the outside service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This afternoon we were dealing with the estimates of the Public Works department and I do not think they had any reference to salaries. There was no civil government vote for public works. The minister has rather surprised the house in the statement he has made to-night. If all these estimates have been made up on the basis of a 10 per cent reduction in salaries before this house has approved of the principle of a 10 per cent reduction, it simply means to all intents and purposes the disappearance of parliament and government by the ministry at its will. That is the significance of it. I do not believe it would be possible to have a more glaring example of the complete indifference of a ministry to the House of Commons than we have in these estimates as printed. Parliament is presented with a statement in bound form of the moneys that will be required to carry on the business of the country and these estimates are given in figures which assume and take for granted, before parliament has been asked to express its opinion at all on the matter, that there is to be a horizontal 10 per cent reduction

Supply-Trade and Commerce
in salaries in the public service of Canada, regardless of length of service of those affected, regardless of their grade, and regardless of whether the salaries are very large, whether they are medium or very small. We should not allow another item of these estimates to pass, Mr. Chairman, until this house has settled the question whether there is to be a reduction in salaries, and if so, to what extent the salaries are to be reduced. Otherwise we are simply abandoning the House of Commons as an instrument of control over public expenditure which is its primary function. We are leaving it entirely to the ministry to do what it pleases with regard to public moneys to be paid out for salaries in the public service regardless altogether of its own following, to say nothing of the House of Commons as a whole. That is a principle far too important to allow to pass unrecognized. I would ask the minister not to proceed with further items which involve reductions in salaries until it has been determined whether a reduction in salary is to be made, and if so, to what extent. If the minister attempts to do so, it will be our obligation on this side to see that the salaries of the public service are protected by the House of Commons as a whole before it is permitted to the ministry to decide for the house what is to be done with regard to them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the right hon. gentleman has done neither the house nor the government justice in his remarks. The Prime Minister came before parliament some days before the estimates were presented, and publicly stated that it was the intention of the government to place before parliament estimates which would contain a 10 per cent reduction in the salaries of the civil service as well, of course, as other reductions. In a perfectly constitutional manner the government presents the estimates to parliament. There is nothing here that seeks to delude the house in any way, shape or form. The house is told very frankly what these estimates contain. We are here prepared to explain any matter in connection with these estimates that is brought before the house. My right hon. friend says that we are depriving parliament of its functions. We are doing precisely the opposite. We bring to parliament the estimates, and no other power could bring the estimates before parliament-they could not reach parliament unless they reached it in this way-and we tell parliament precisely what we propose to do. It is within the power of the house to reject the estimates and reject the government; there is no question about fMr. Mackenzie Kintr.]
that. The government is now before the house with its proposals, and we invite the house to give them consideration and to adopt them. There is no justification either in the actions of the government or in the procedure followed to support the right hon. gentleman in the statements that he has made.
The question whether salaries shall be voted at the rate decided upon is now before the committee and we invite discussion and consideration of that matter-the widest possible discussion. I may add that in these estimates, as in nearly all our estimates, there is bound to be a certain amount of salary included in many items. The civil list, of course, is a different matter, being a separate salary list for the civil service in Ottawa. But frequently in the case of estimates for the Public Works department a certain amount of the item is made up of salaries for engineers, clerks of works, and so forth, provided out of these votes. The estimate before us for electricity and gas inspection service provides for service throughout Canada, and we are prepared to give all information desired in regard to it. Throughout the list we are providing for salaries as well as other expenditures, and we are not quarrelling with hon. gentlemen opposite; we are happy to hear their views and invite the fullest discussion. I do however resent the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman that we are acting in the slightest degree unconstitutionally or improperly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been no decision by this House of Commons to reduce salaries. True, the Prime Minister said that was the intention of the government, and that the government was going to reduce salaries by the amount of 10 per cent. Before he can have his way, however, he is obliged by the constitution to come to this House of Commons and get from it authority for his actions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, we are here now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And that
authority has not been given.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are asking for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If you are asking for it in this way, you are not asking properly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, this is not the way to ask for it. If there is to be a 10 per cent all-around reduction, the proper way to proceed is to pass a resolution in this house to the effect that in its opinion the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
salaries of the civil servants should be reduced 10 per cent. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGib'bon), or some other hon. member-I am not sure just who it was-had a motion on the order paper which, in so many words, took exception to the government's policy of a straight 10 per cent cut. The motion was to the effect that there should be a graded reduction in salaries.


An hon. MEMBER:: That motion has been withdrawn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear someone say the motion was withdrawn. It was on the order paper however, after the Prime Minister had made his statement that there was to be a 10 per cent reduction. When I looked at the motion I felt that to all intents and purposes it constituted a want of confidence motion in the administration because it set out a policy entirely different from and to my mind infinitely more sane than the policy outlined by the Prime Minister. This House of Commons has not yet decided upon any policy in connection with a reduction of salaries, and until one is decided upon the ministry is not justified in asking this House of Commons, by implication, to enact legislation which, after a full discussion here, may not be enacted at all.
The Prime Minister, and the ministry as a whole-if, as they do, my hon. friends the ministers of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and Justice (Mr. Guthrie) support him-have acted, it seems to me, in a very arbitrary manner towards the public service in respect to the 10 per cent reduction. The public servants have asked to be given an opportunity to present their case through representatives, a method of procedure which in this day and generation is eminently proper. Surely civil servants, who are to have their livelihood affected at a time when throughout the country there is general hardship, should be entitled to some hearing before this arbitrary cut is made. It appears however that the Prime Minister has stated they are not to be heard. A question was asked as to whether or not there might be a committee of parliament to consider the matter, and if I remember rightly the answer of the prime minister was "No"; that is all there was to it. I think we had better discover whether or not parliament has disappeared entirely and whether or not this country is being run by the will of a single individual surrounded by ministers who support him in anything and everything he does, regardless of how successful or unsuccessful they may be.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, is that
not a fact?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish some
member of the ministry would tell us one measure in connection with which he has opposed the Prime Minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is just nonsense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I say, the
time has come when the country should find out whether, apart from this little ministerial group, those who are assembled here as members, whether they sit on one side of the house, or the other, are entitled to have their voices heard in the shaping of policies and in carrying on the work of the government, generally.
I do not think I am expressing myself too strongly when I say that the form in which the estimates have been presented constitutes an insult to the membership of this house. The ministry have presented to parliament estimates in a form which takes for granted that regardless of whom a majority of hon. members may represent in this parliament they will without any discussion agree to the will and wish of the ministry.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
recall the actual words used by the Prime Minister when he made his announcement to parliament concerning the reduction in salaries. I quote from Hansard the following:
TFe have concluded that we will ask this parliament to pass a statute to reduce by 10 per cent the indemnities alike of the Senate and of the Commons, and of the compensation paid to ministers and to every branch of the public service.
In my opinion that was a proper procedure, so far as policy was concerned. To-night however they place estimates before us in which 10 per cent reductions have already been made without the pledge given by the Prime Minister being carried out. V e are, in other words, asked to vote upon estimates and to allow the 10 per cent decrease without having the opportunity of agreeing or disagreeing with the .pledge given by the Prime Minister himself when, the other day, he announced the policy to parliament.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
been told that legislation would be introduced providing for a 10 per cent reduction all along the line. I can understand that. We may be voting for a 10 per cent reduction in salaries of the outside service. To-night the minister is asking us to vote these estimates containing the reduction of 10 per cent. I

Supply-Trade and Commerce
do not know what the intention of the government is; we have not been 'taken into their 'confidence. I was assuming that the 10 per cent reduction was merely for the year 1932, but it is possible that the outside service will be placed in a position which legislation will not cure, and in that way the reduction may remain permanent so far as the outside service is concerned. If I am not right I should like the minister to make a statement.


Mr. RHODES:: I feel that some observations of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition cannot go unchallenged. I do not purpose to enter into 'the discussion as to whether a reduction of 10 ,per cent or any reduction is right or wrong. I leave the merits of the question aside for the moment, and direct my remarks to the constitutional phases of the matter elucidated by my right hon. friend. He has said that the house ought to have proceeded by resolution. As a matter of fact he knows the procedure of this house and knows also that a resolution would mean nothing. Under the rules it would not be competent for hon. members to deal with a resolution involving an expenditure of money except to the extent of giving an expression of opinion. My right hon. friend knows furthermore that were it not for the action of the government in bringing down these estimates the civil servants would not receive one cent of salary. That is a fact. He has said that in bringing down the estimates the government is insulting parliament. If that be so let me say to him that he and his government insulted parliament every year they were in office, because we are pursuing the same method he pursued. There is no other way by which in a British parliament a money vote can be submitted to the house except through the government, and then only upon message of His Excellency the Governor General. In bringing these estimates before the house we have acted properly and have followed the strict constitutional method; there is no other course open to us. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) suggests that an opportunity should be given to vote upon the question as to whether there ought or ought not to be a reduction of the salaries of the civil service. He has his opportunity now.


Peter John Veniot: When the Prime Minister promised to bring down a bill?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There will have to be a supplementary bill dealing with certain phases,
I have no doubt; for instance, the question 
of statutory increases this year and of the incidence of the superannuation fund having regard to this 10 per cent reduction. But that does not alter the circumstance that the only method whereby money can be voted for salaries is by a supply bill, precisely in the same manner in which we are doing it now, and precisely as my right hon. friend did it, and precisely as any succeeding government will have to do it unless the constitutional practice that has obtained since we have enjoyed British parliamentary institutions is departed from.


Peter John Veniot: Can the hon. minister give any instance where a government brought down a supply bill of this nature reducing salaries?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There has not been a year since the establishment of our parliamentary institutions when there has not been submitted by the government of the day estimates involving in some cases decreases and in other cases increases. In other words, the arbitrament as to whether there should be an increase or a decrease rests with the government upon the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General, and then it remains for parliament to deal with the bill. In that respect we are following precisely the same procedure as did my right hon. friend and as has been followed in all British parliaments. As a matter of fact the procedure must be followed under our constitution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with my hon. friend that the only way to have supply voted is to present estimates to the house and have the house pass on them. That is not what I was complaining of. I did not say it was any insult to the house to bring down estimates and present them. What I did say was this: to present your estimates in a form which assumes that the house is going to carry out a particular policy before that policy has been approved by resolution or in any other way, is equivalent to saying that the members of the house are so many automatons, that they are going to act just as the Prime Minister wishes them to act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of my right hon. friend, I should like to ask him a question: will he name one instance during the whole tenure of his government, or during the whole history of the parliament of Canada, where the government of the day has asked1 for a resolution of the house with respect to the procedure it should follow on a money vote submitted to parliament by way of estimates.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But this is something broader than, the question of a mere money vote for salaries; it is the important question of policy as to whether the public service of Canada shall at this time be required to accept, regardless of the grade in vvhich the individual may be, and all other considerations, a 10 per cent reduction in salary. Now the Prime Minister, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, did state at the opening of the house that the question would be settled by a statute. There was a definite pledge made. No notice has been given of any bill for the purpose, nor has there been introduced into this house any motion which would permit discussion of the broad question of policy. When I spoke of a resolution I had in mind something of the character which appeared on the order paper whereby it was declared to be the policy of this house that there should be a reduction. The only resolution to which I have referred spoke of a graded reduction. If the ministry introduced a resolution that there should be a 10 per cent reduction in the salaries of the public service this year, and the house had passed upon the resolution, it would be perfectly proper procedure to bring in estimates based upon the 10 per cent reduction. But no such resolution has been passed, no bill has been passed. We now discover that not only in this instance where it is obvious salaries are being cut 10 per cent regardless of grade, but that there are concealed throughout these estimates from beginning to close cuts in the public service of which we had no knowledge whatever. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that this afternoon we reduced a large number of salaries in the public service. I venture to say that there is not an hon. gentleman outside of himself and possibly other members of the ministry who had the slightest conception that we were doing anything of the kind. I venture to say that outside the ministers there is not an hon. member on the other side of the house or on this side who had any idea while we were voting supply for public buildings, that at the same time we were cutting down the salaries of persons in different parts of the country by 10 per cent. That is not a correct procedure, but that apparently is what we have done, according to the minister. If that is what we are now doing, I say let us stop it and regularize our procedure at once. I am not in any sense trying to embarrass the government, nor am I anxious to be overcritical. And while I am speaking, I wish to withdraw what I said a moment ago of the other members of the
ministry. I spoke hastily when I stated that I feared none of them had given the Prime Minister as much of their advice as they should have. Perhaps I should have said their advice is not as much heeded as it should be.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: You would be surprised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But I do wish t,o make it very clear that this dominion is beginning to be resentful of its legislation being formed so exclusively according to the whim and the will and the caprice of the Prime Minister, and that the time has come now for those in parliament who believe in parliament as an institution and in the rights of the people's representatives to have some say in policy, some say in legislation and some say in matters of administration to stand up for those fundamental rights.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce will forgive me for taking a moment or two of his time-I would suggest that my right hon. friend did not answer the question I submitted to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I put the question to him as to whether he could point to an instance either during the lifetime of his own government or that of any other government since confederation where the ministry had submitted a resolution to the house to take its sense as to what it ought to do with respect to a money vote, the responsibility for the bringing down of which rested entirely with itself. That is the question I submitted to my right hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would answer the question by saying that I think never since confederation has a ministry cut civil service salaries by 10 per cent. Let me add that I believe he will find that in any case where a ministry has attempted to take a course which was radical or exceptional, it has proceeded by statute or by a resolution governing the situation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, so far as
the principle is concerned, and so far as the constitutional practice is concerned, it matters not whether the estimate be reduced or increased, the responsibility in each case rests entirely upon the government of the day. That is the practice and has always been so. But my right hon. friend spoke of taking an expression of opinion of the house. If he was as keen to pursue the course he suggests as he is keen to make some capital against the min-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
istry-and with -respect to that I find no fault whatsoever-the opportunity was open to him this very day, because when we moved to go into committee of supply it was competent for my right hon. friend to have moved an amendment to the motion raising the whole question of the reduction of salaries by 10 per cent and debating it to his heart's content.


Peter John Veniot: On a bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On a motion to go into
supply it is competent to debate anything; there is absolutely no limit imposed on the opposition in that respect. So I say my right hon. friend has let go one opportunity. But there will be opportunities on other occasions when we move to go into committee of supply, and my right hon friend can *hen take the sense of the house in precisely the same manner as if discussing a substantive motion.
There is one other word I might say before my right hon. friend rises, and it is this: My right hon. friend has referred to the arbitrary methods of the right hon. Prime Minister and to his exercising his will and caprice upon his colleagues and upon the house and so forth. Let me say to my right hon. friend that he is taking entirely too much upon himself in assuming anything of the kind. My right hon. friend knows what ministerial responsibility means; he understands what the cohesiveness of the ministry is, and I say to him that the colleagues of the Prime Minister stand behind him one hundred per cent. When the Prime Minister speaks he speaks for the ministry as a whole, and we are very proud to have him for our spokesman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whatever may be the views of my hon. friend and his colleagues in regard to constitutional questions they are evidently as one on the old maxim, "United we stand; divided we fall." They are going to stand as long as they can, I have no doubt.
My hon friend has just said I might have taken the opportunity before going into supply to move a motion of want of confidence in the government. If I had done that I believe he would have been about the first to say that I need not have resorted to that extreme method. I purposely avoided anything of the kind so that hon. gentlemen opposite, who feel that the civil servants in their own constituencies and the civil service of Canada generally, should not be treated in the manner in which they are being treated at present, by the decision of the government, would have a chance to voice their views and opinions without being told by the minister that in so doing 
they were voting against their own party. I did not purpose to move on going into supply any want of confidence motion to enable the government in that way to get out of its difficulties. I think the government is entitled to give its own supporters as well as the opposition a hearing on this question.
My right hon. friend says I could do it tomorrow. In view of what he has said I am not going to wait until to-morrow; I am going to do it now. We will stay right with this matter as long as hon. gentlemen opposite try to put through these votes in this way.


Jean-François Pouliot: This discussion reminds me of a means taken during the war to divert the thoughts of soldiers on leave from the realities of the conflict. In the Paris restaurants they began inventing new dances-the fox trot, the hesitation waltz, and finally the Wilson dance, which consisted of one step forward, one step backward and one step aside. Last year the government increased the salaries of the ministers by S2,000, though they called it a special allowance instead of an increase in salary. I know the leader of the opposition was included, but he has the rank of a minister, and in any case the suggestion came not from him but from the government. In those times of stress, when the unemployed were becoming more and more numerous, each cabinet minister received an additional $2,000 a year. That was done in view of the decrease that was to come this year. Last year hon. gentlemen opposite, who had figures showing that unemployment was continually increasing, said, "We must have foresight," but that was the only way they showed that foresight. They had foresight for their own interests; they increased their salaries by $2,000. They had that in view; they saw these hard times ahead, and that was the reason for the increase, made under the guise of a special allowance, in order to induce the people to think the prices of cars were still very high. You can buy a new Ford car for about S500, and you can buy four street car tickets for 25 cents. Any man can attend to his parliamentary duties on six street car tickets a day, and that would not amount to much. For $100 a year any member of parliament or any cabinet minister can provide himself with the local transportation necessary to enable him to attend to all his duties. He can go to his office in the morning, go home for lunch, come back for the afternoon session, go home for dinner, come back for the evening session, and then go home to rest peacefully.
Last year the salary of a minister, including the indemnity, was $14,000. This year it is still

Supply-Trade and Commerce
$14,000, plus a special allowance of $2,000, which, if my arithmetic is correct, makes $16,000. If we take 10 per cent from that, he is still left with $400 more than he received last year. Members of the house lose 10 per cent of their indemnity, or $400, and in this way we pay for the increase received by the cabinet ministers.
I do not complain about the cut, but I think everything should be fair and that we should be all on the same footing. I should be on the same footing as a civil servant whose salary is reduced, and the ministers should be on the same footing as myself. They have larger salaries; that is only fair, but I am strongly against that special allowance. I am ready to accept a cut in my indemnity provided the government understands that throughout the country there is a general feeling of indignation because the special allowance remains while all salaries are cut.
That is not the only point I wish to make. In the estimates for 1930 very few increases were made, while last year there were increases amounting to thousands of dollars. Look at the estimates of last year and the estimates of 1930. There were discriminatory exceptions, and those discriminations should disappear before any cut is made. Everyone should be on the same basis, the Tories and the Grits, the poor and the rich. Then no one can complain; but if those who receive the most still get more than others and are left untouched by the cut, there will be a strong feeling of indignation throughout this country from ocean to ocean. People will ask, "Where is the fairness of a government which serves itself and does not give the poor labourers a chance?"


James Layton Ralston: I should like to ask the
minister whether or not there has been any recommendation from the Civil Service Commission covering the 10 per cent reduction which is suggested by this and other items?
Mr. STEVENS; Speaking for my own department, I should say no.


James Layton Ralston: Has there been any order
in council passed reducing the salaries and the classification referred to in this item?
Mr. STEVENS; So far as I know there has not been any such order in council.


James Layton Ralston: Then, Mr. Chairman, the situation is this:	We have the government
taking no action whatever up to the present to change the salaries of the civil servants. Salaries of civil servants are fixed by statute, as I understand it, first as provided in the Civil Service Act, and secondly on a recommendation of the Civil Service Commission
approved by the governor in council. When the Civil Service Act was passed it provided that the civil service, so far as practicable, should be "classified and compensated in accordance with the classification of such service dated October 10, 1919, signed by the commission and confirmed by chapter 10 of the statutes of 1919, second session, with any amendments or additions thereto thereafter made." Then any new classifications and any new rates of compensation were governed by section 12, which provided that from time to time, as might be necessary, "the commission should recommend rates of compensation for new classes that might be established, or might propose changes in the rates of compensation for existing classes."
The answer of the minister is that, notwithstanding the fact that there is a statute which says these civil servants shall be paid in accordance with the classification of 1219, notwithstanding the promise of the Prime Minister that a statute would be brought down in order to make a change and reduce salaries by 10 per cent; notwithstanding that the Civil Service Commission have themselves made recommendations and fixed the rate for each classification, and notwithstanding that these are the rates in force to-night throughout the Dominion of Canada, no action has been taken by the government, no action has been taken by the Civil Service Commission. These are the salaries to which the civil servants of the country are entitled at the present time; yet the government proposes to put upon parliament, in this lefthanded manner, the onus of cutting these salaries by voting 10 per cent less than the amount required to fulfil the obligation which exists in pursuance of these statutes and orders in council. In other words, they are just putting the cart before the horse. If they want to take the responsibility of reducing salaries let them do as the Prime Minister suggested-bring in a statute to change the Civil Service Act, which prescribes that civil servants shall receive the salary provided by the classification of 1919. If they want to change this, in view of that statute, let them pass an order in council accordingly and get the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, if they can, and then come to this house and say:	The salary of this particular civil servant is so much and we want the money to pay it. In that way we can have an opportunity of discussing the principle. But at the present time the onus is put on the house, in a clandestine vote, to cut down salaries, to make it possible for the government to say to the civil service, "We
26S

Supply-Trade and Commerce
are sorry we cannot pay you because the house has not voted the money," notwithstanding the fact that they are not taking the responsibility for changing the salary rate as provided by the act.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) who is not in his seat at the moment, suggested that if this house realized anything about the matter it would know that unless the government brought down these estimates the civil service could not get a cent. Well, no one will listen to such a threat. The civil service understands that it is not likely the government will hold up this vote or their pay because there is some discussion of a 10 per cent reduction. That is no answer to our contention that the government should first give an opportunity to discuss the principle in reference to the general cut. That is quite beside the question. The question is not a constitutional question as to whether a money vote can be submitted to the house in any other way than through the government. The question is a plain one whether you can change a statute by simply refusing to vote supply to the full amount which the statute requires, instead of the government going at it man fashion, reducing salaries, and coming to parliament with the statement, "That is all the salary we will pay and that is all the money we ask you to vote." The procedure is absolutely wrong in the face of the Civil Service Act and of the practice that has been followed. The government are employing these public servants and they are the ones to take the responsibility for bringing into the house a statute regarding the salaries so that it may be discussed and then asking for the vote that is necessary to pay them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend (Mr. Ralston) says that we are putting the cart before the horse; I submit that in his remarks he has placed himself in precisely that position. The resolution before the committee at the present time asks for the provision of a certain sum of money for the electricity and gas inspection service of the dominion. In presenting this vote to the committee I am simply asking the committee to vote that sum of money for that particular service. Incidentally I was asked whether it was the intention of the government, in the payment of the staff comprehended in this service, to reduce salaries to the extent of 10 per cent.
I replied that in harmony with the announcement made by the Prime Minister some days ago it was so intended. Now the question whether or not the whole civil service should 
be reduced 10 per cent in their salaries is not immediately before the committee. If my hon. friends choose in connection with this vote to combat the principle, very well; I am not objecting to that. But I do submit to hon. gentlemen opposite that what we are doing at the moment is presenting an estimate of the cost of running this particular department, this particular branch, for the year 1932-33.
As regards the alleged clandestine nature of this presentation, my hon. friend is neither fair nor accurate. The Prime Minister, as I have already intimated, stated plainly in his place as leader of the government that it was the intention of the government to present to the house the necessary legislation, whatever that might be, to give effect to the cut of 10 per cent. Unquestionably there will have to be certain legislation. So far as this resolution is concerned, it will be followed by the customary supply bill. This resolution, providing for supply for this particular branch of the public service, will be followed by a government bill in its proper course. In addition to that, regarding such things as statutory increases, retirement contributions, and the degree to which the Civil Service Act is interfered with, all these matters will be taken care of in the legislation referred to by the Prime Minister.


James Layton Ralston: That is not what the
Prime Minister said. He was not talking about superannuation and matters incidental to the Civil Service Act. He said;
... a statute to reduce by ten per cent the indemnities alike of the Senate and of the Commons, and of the compensation paid to ministers and to every branch of the public service.
That has nothing to do with superannuation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It includes all that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely; there is no
question about it. Whatever is necessary- those are the words I used a moment ago. Whatever is necessary to give effect to that decision will be brought down in the form of legislation. Now, if no estimates are to be granted until the question of the civil service cut referred to by the Prime Minister, the reduction in the cost of public service, is fully debated, then we shall simply have to address ourselves to the situation. We are inviting consideration of a special vote for a special purpose. There is nothing underhand about it, and it was not worthy of my hon. friend to suggest that.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Layton Ralston: I did not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, you did.


James Layton Ralston: Lefthanded, I said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member used the words clandestine and lefthanded; if there were other ways of describing it he would no doubt have used them. The announcement of the Prime Minister was a perfectly frank one and it has been before parliament for over a week. These estimates were laid on the table yesterday, and printed on the face of the estimates is the intimation, following the announcement of the Prime Minister, of what it was proposed to do. We moved the house into supply to-day, and notwithstanding what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said a moment ago about not wishing to take the opportunity, the fact is that we moved ourselves into supply to-day with these estimates 'before the house, full notice being given of just what the intention of the government was in the matter. I am not blaming the opposition for allowing the opportunity to pass, but it was there. The whole question could have been raised. I invite the consideration of the resolution now before the committee. This sum of $211,000 covers the gas and electricity inspection service of the Dominion of Canada.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And which contains a ten per cent reduction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question which was asked me an hour ago was as to whether or not there were salaries included in this vote and if so, would they be cut ten per cent. I replied that in harmony with the policy adopted they, in common with all other salaries, would be cut.


Peter John Veniot: The ten per cent cut was there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. minister has just stated that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) was incorrect when he stated that the ministry, in pursuing the course it was, was putting the cart before the horse. Immediately following that statement he made reference to the fact that in order to put this 10 per cent reduction into effect there would have to be an amendment to certain statutes. If my hon. friend will look at page 15 of the estimates, he will find under the heading of "Legislation" items covering the salary of the Speaker of the Senate, indemnity to senators, salary of the Speaker of the House of Commons, salary of the deputy speaker and indemnity to members, including additional indemnity to the Leader of the Opposition; all these items are preceded by an asterisk, and the explanatory note opposite the asterisk at the foot of the page is that these reductions will be authorized by legislation. What does that mean? That means that the government now is telling us and the country that not only with regard to this House of Commons, but with regard to the Senate, everything is settled and decided finally, that there might just as well not be a second chamber as far as the settling of the question of the indemnities of its members is 'concerned or the salary of its Speaker. In so far as the indemnity of members of that chamber and the indemnity of members of the House of Commons is concerned, everything is settled already before any hon. member has bad a chance to say a word with regard to his own indemnity. If that is not putting the cart before the horse, I do not know what is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the correct way to put it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the correct way. I ask my hon. friend: who can say these reductions will be authorized by legislation until they are authorized? I say that the instant a ministry asserts that anything will be done by legislation before His Excellency the Governor General has put his signature to a bill passed by both houses, that ministry is usurping the powers of parliament. Yet that is what appears in a document laid by the present ministry on the table of this house. We have here the declaration that in so far as His Excellency the Governor General is concerned, in so far as the Senate is concerned, in so far as the House of Commons is concerned, not one of these three branches of parliament count for anything with respect to what is to be done in regard to this 10 per cent reduction. A more glaring example of the usurpation by implication of the rights of parliament by a ministry has never been presented before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A more glaring example of persistence in refusing to recognize cold facts has never been exhibited. The right hon. gentleman says that we are defying parliament,-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Ignoring parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -that we are disregarding the Senate and disregarding the rights of His Excellency the Governor General. The resolution before the committee at this moment is but a forerunner of a statute which

Supply-Trade and Commerce
will not be law until it passes this house, passes the Senate and is signed by His Excellency the Governor General. That which is now resting in the hands of the chairman is simply a resolution offered to parliament to be passed before any statute can be enacted.
The right hon. gentleman is merely seeking to inflame public opinion and to turn the minds of the public against this government. The right hon. gentleman is indulging in the cheapest kind of claptrap. He knows that to cut salaries is an unpopular move at any time; he knows that that is not a pleasant thing for any government to do and he thinks he can appeal to the civil service because their interests in this instance have been immediately touched. However, I have greater confidence in the civil service; I feel that they will respond more readily to the appeal made the other day by the right hon. the Prime Minister when he said that among other efforts being made by the government to balance the budget in the coming fiscal year was an appeal to the civil service that they should forego for this year the statutory increase and submit to a reduction of their salaries. That was the appeal made the other day by the right hon. the Prime Minister; that is the appeal which this government confidently makes to the civil service of Canada. The right hon. gentleman has but one object in making the statements he has, that of trying to annoy and embarrass the government. I venture this statement, that his interest in the civil service, as far as this cut in salary is concerned, has not caused him one moment of sleeplessness; his one desire and object is to stir up a spirit of resentment against the government. All this talk and nonsense about the unconstitutionality of this and that and the statement that we are flaunting the Senate and disregarding His Excellency is the merest piffle. I repeat that what we have done is to present to this house a resolution as has been done from time immemorial; we are asking the house to consider a resolution for the granting of certain sums of supply for specific purposes, and we state frankly what those purposes are. This resolution will be followed by a statute which will not not be effective until it has been passed by both branches of parliament and signed by His Excellency the Governor General.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to make every allowance for my hon. friend's excited frame of mind, but I would point out that I am speaking of something much larger and more important than the civil service salary cut, I am speaking

of the rights of this House of Commons, the rights of the Senate and the rights of parliament as a whole with respect to all legislation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Another constitutional question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen opposite are going to be so rude as not to permit me' to have a hearing, they might just as well take the floor themselves because I am not anxious to pursue this matter any further. I have been doing so as much in their own interest as in the interest of hon. members on this side. Hon. gentlemen opposite will find out very shortly just where they stand on some of these questions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not worry.


Mr. GOTT:: We are going to be here a
long time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
has said that the government has come forward in a perfectly straightforward manner, and, so to speak, has put all its cards on the table. What was done when the announcement was sent out with respect to these estimates? Look at the press ol Canada and what do we see featured in the headlines? It is stated that as a result of these estimates presented to parliament there has been a saving to the country of something like $43,000,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite applaud that sentiment as the country has applauded it, -but do they believe the -country understood tha-t that saving included a 10 per cent cut in the salaries of the public service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
says "certainly."


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was stated the other
day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not believe one person in a hundred assumed that for one moment-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Everybody knew it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -that the total reduction in the estimates included this 10 per cent cut which was to go into effect after some statute had been passed by this parliament. It was an effort to make the reduction

Supply-Trade and Commerce
which the government is seeking to effect appear very much larger than it actually is. That is what it was so far as the government's presentation of the matter is concerned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolute nonsense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the
truth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Utter nonsense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister has got into such a petulant frame of mind that he cannot permit others to have the same hearing as was accorded to himself, he must take the consequences. I repeat to the minister that at the present time he is endeavouring to have this house commit itself to a flat ali round reduction in the salaries of the civil service regardless altogether, as I have said, of the grade, tenure of service and everything else pertaining to the position of the civil servants. We are not prepared to meet him in any action of that kind.
With regard to the cut in salaries, may I say that personally I would have been prepared to support the government to a certain extent so far as taking something off the higher salaries for a period of time is concerned. I would have been quite prepared to support the government in that. But I would not have been prepared to go right down the line in applying a 10 per cent cut, regardless of the grade or remuneration of employees, in fixing the amount to be taken from them. Far from seeking to make any capital out of the matter, I have simply been endeavouring to see that justice is done, so far as it is possible still to have justice done to those who have not yet been heard in regard to what affects the means of their livelihood.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: With what has been said by speakers on this side with reference to the manner in which this vote is now before the house I fully agree. I thought that we had reached a point about an hour ago when after asking a question of the hon. minister it had been agreed that this matter would stand over in order to afford an opportunity to those primarily concerned with the proposed reduc-. tion in civil service salaries to interview the proper authorities and express their views for the purpose of obtaining some satisfaction. I had understood that that was the understanding. I would like to know now from the minister whether that is so or not. If not I am quite prepared to go ahead with my remarks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend made no
such presentation that I heard. The point raised in connection with vote No. 29 for
civil government salaries was whether or not that vote should be discussed before the general question of a salary reduction was discussed in the house, and I said that so far as I was concerned I was quite prepared to let that vote stand until the question had been discussed, and the vote did stand.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Do I understand then
that there is no hope that the parties primarily concerned may themselves, not through any other medium, but by themselves, in any way appeal to the government in an endeavour to obtain some redress? Am I to understand that the door is closed in their face, that they are without the right of appeal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The hon. gentleman is not stating the case fairly at all. As far as I am concerned I shall never refuse to receive any representatives of the civil service -never; and my hon. friend has no right or foundation for insinuating that any such refusal was made.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I made no such insinuation. The minister has no right to make the statement that I have insinuated anything.
I did not. I want to ask the question now, whether on the behalf of the government the minister will say that those primarily concerned will be heard. If the minister will say that those primarily concerned will be heard before the final step is taken, I am quite prepared to take my seat now and leave the whole matter in the hands of the civil servants themselves. Will the minister give me the assurance that they will be heard?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not speaking for the whole government in regard to this vote. I am speaking for myself. The hon. gentleman should direct his question to the Prime Minister.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then I direct my question to the hon. gentleman who is now leading the house. So that there may be no misunderstanding I ask the Minister of Justice, who I presume is now leading the house, whether he will say that an opportunity will be given to those primarily concerned to place their representations before the government in an endeavour to obtain some measure of what they think they ought to get in the way of redress.


Hugh Guthrie: I personally think that
the request is a very reasonable one, and I know of no refusal. Certainly it has not been made by any civil servant in my department. If a request is made I shall be very glad to consider it.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not going to be
satisfied with promises of the kind made before August, 1930. This is no time for election promises. I want .a straight answer to my question whether the government will receive and hear a delegation from the people primarily concerned. It is not satisfactory to say that they probably will be heard. I ask the leader of the house now if he is prepared to say that the government will receive a delegation from the people primarily concerned and give them an opportunity to present their case. I have asked a straight question; 1 expect an answer, and I think under the rules of the house I am entitled to it.


Hugh Guthrie: My answer to the hon.
member would be that the government is at all times prepared to hear any representations made to it by any responsible body of people.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the government,
if a demand is made upon them by the civil servants themselves, if plans are made tomorrow or the day after to present their case to the government, receive a delegation from the civil servants with respect to this matter?


Hugh Guthrie: I would not as a member of the government be prepared to listen to demands. I said requests, and if a request is made by any responsible body of people to be heard in regard to any public matter, the government will hear them. If the civil servants of Canada want to be heard the government will hear them.


Edward James Young: We are being asked to vote money to pay 90 per cent of the salaries of the civil servants. When at the end of the month they receive cheques for only 90 per cent of their salaries they will be able to argue that they are getting the reduced amount, not because their salaries have been decreased by 10 per cent, but because parliament has not voted any more money, and that the other 10 per cent will still be due to them until such time as a statute passes this parliament reducing their salaries. The government say they intend to introduce such a bill, and all we are asking is that we be given an opportunity to see the bill and discuss it before we pass these estimates. Surely that is not an unreasonable request.


Hugh Guthrie: I can tell my hon. friend what will be in the bill. It will merely legalize whatever we do in the estimates. It will authorize the reduction of 10 per cent.


Edward James Young: Perhaps it will. From what the minister has said we do not know exactly what the bill will contain. It might be that

when the bill comes down we could agree with every clause in it. In any case, surely the government does not ask us to pledge ourselves to support a measure until we know what is in it. I think our request is reasonable. Tell us what you are going to do, and then if we arrive at a favourable decision we will be able to support the estimates.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not wish to interfere with the discussion any more than is absolutely necessary. If the manner in which these estimates have been presented to the committee has created inconvenience or embarrassment I agree that time should be taken to consider the whole question. I submit however that no embarrassment or inconvenience has been occasioned. This interesting document, this bluebook, sets forth the estimated amounts which the government purposes to expend in the ensuing year. Estimates-embodied in a series of resolutions are brought down at every session of parliament. The resolutions come before a committee of the whole House of Commons and are passed or rejected. Now is the time to discuss them. If we pass them here, however, we do not by any means effect a final disposition; our action is not conclusive. Before they are incorporated into a bill, they have to be read a first time, and if hon. members wish to discuss, modify or reject them they are afforded an opportunity. Upon second reading the same opportunity is open to hon. members in any quarter of the house. , Then there has to be concurrence, following which they have to be incorporated in a bill the terms of which must not conflict with any other act of parliament. If there is conflict it must be made clear that the bill which we have passed is the predominant measure and that there is nothing repugnant or inconsistent in it. That may be declared in the supply bill or in the act passed by this house and by the Senate of Canada.
Speaking to this question a few days ago the Prime Minister stated very definitely that legislation would be introduced to meet whatever emergency there may be. I can see myself that there may be a necessity to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act. There may be necessity for several amendments and the overriding of the Civil Service Act as has occurred time and again in connection with estimates presented in this house. Every year hon. members know we override the Civil Service Act, notwithstanding anything in it, and the supply bill when it becomes law supersedes it. Procedure which

Supply-Trade and Commerce
has been followed for the last ten or twenty years may be followed this year so far as the Civil Service Act is concerned.
If hon. members are prejudiced or inconvenienced in any way I should like to have them so state. The question of the uniform 10 per cent reduction can be discussed now, if hon. members so desire, or it may be brought up any day upon going into committee of supply, when a full discussion may take place and the sense of the house may be taken. There may be further discussion when any of these resolutions are brought up for first or second reading or for concurrence. In short, innumerable opportunities will be offered for discussion. If now is the most convenient time, let us do it now; if some other time would be more convenient, let us postpone our discussion until that time. It is unfair to say however, that the government, by its manner of proceeding, has sought any advantage. Here are the estimates, page after page of them, which will have to be confirmed by legislation. These reductions will have to be confirmed by legislation. Hon. members may criticize them now or when the legislation is brought in. The time is immaterial, except to the extent that it is a matter of convenience; that is the only question which now arises.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
receive an answer to my former question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was that?


Charles A. Stewart: The civil
government vote as set out in these estimates provides the same sums for each individual as they were drawing last year. Then, there is a footnote providing for a 10 per cent reduction on the total, which leaves the salary of that class intact, subject only to the legislation which will be passed, and the length of time the legislation will enforce the reduction. That aspect of the matter provides no difficulty, but I do find difficulty in the procedure by which the government through a vote of the committee seeks to validate a straight 10 per cent reduction of the salaries of the civil servants affected by these votes in connection with which there is no footnote.


Hugh Guthrie: This is only provisional
validation.


Charles A. Stewart: I wish to
consider carefully whether or not I am prepared to vote for a 10 per cent reduction in salaries of $1,000 or $1,100. If I acquiesce in this I am agreeing to a cut in that very salary which will be contained in the vote 41761-18
before this committee. I am not putting myself in that position with regard to civil government, but I take that stand with respect to the votes now under discussion and votes by which civil servants are paid out of a general expenditure such as that being asked for in item 288. I hope I have made myself clear. If I am correct, the government can avoid some embarrassment. By providing for the full salaries as they do under the items of civil government, they would obviate the difficulty, and we would be subjected to the legislation which is to be considered la'ter in the form of a bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I may be able to satisfy
my hon. friend on that point. As a matter of fact in this particular resolution there is no specific mention of a cut of 10 per cent in civil servants' salaries.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, I understood there was.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, there is not. But
when I was asked whether it was the intention of the government that a cut of 10 per cent should apply to such employees as are paid out of this vote, I replied that it was. If this vote of $211,000 is passed to-night, assuming that no legislation is passed and nothing in addition to this is done, it provides for the payment of the salaries current to-day.


Peter John Veniot: That is not what I understood. I asked the minister to give details, and he said the cut included the $211,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The item as a whole is
reduced by $37,600, which includes all that is in the item. To be fair and frank about the matter I stated that it was the intention to cut salaries 10 per cent, and I would not have been fair to the house had I intimated anything else.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That makes it so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, speaking technically
it does not make it so. Unless there is some other statute passed the salaries would remain the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
minister has overlooked the fact that we are discussing item 29.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh no, we are not talking about that; we are discussing item 288.


Peter John Veniot: In order to settle the
matter will the minister give us the details of the reductions in this item.



Supply

Trade and Commerce


Henry Herbert Stevens: The item is made up of
several factors. Estimates for salaries are $202,050.


Charles A. Stewart: What were
the salaries last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: $194,535. Travelling expenses of the director, assistant director, inspectors and other officers amount to $35,000; purchase of equipment, $6,000; general contingencies $5,550, making a total of $248,600.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What is the amount for salaries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: S202,050. From that has been deducted the flat sum of $37,600, in anticipation of the reduction to which we have referred.


Peter John Veniot: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing inherent in the resolution which cuts the salaries. I was perfectly frank with the committee, I told them what the intention was as to making this reduction. Undoubtedly we intend that the reduction shall apply.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, I do not
propose to delay the work of the committee, or speak about the so-called constitutional aspects of the question. My purpose in rising is merely to make a suggestion that seems to be the most reasonable and logical course of procedure in the matter. The question of this 10 per cent reduction is a very important one, and I think members of the house, as well as members of the civil service, would like some opportunity of considering it, and, perhaps on the part of the latter, of making some representations to the ministry thereon. That is one reason why possibly there might be a little delay before we finally settle the question. While I might be inclined to favour in the interests of economy-which I think is needed-some sort of reduction, I think the percentage should be graded in relation to salary-that a man receiving, say, $1,200 cannot be expected to stand a cut of 10 per cent, or perhaps even 5 per cent, as well as can a man getting a salary of $4,000 or $5,000. I mention that to emphasize the importance of giving the question further consideration. Although I am quite sure that my hon. friend the minister, who is usually very reasonable, did not anticipate to-night that the question of the principle involved in the 10 per cent cut would be discussed on his estimates, yet I submit, despite what he said, that if we accept some of these items as well as the totals, we are in effect recognizing the principle of the 10 per cent horizontal cut.
(Mr. Veniot.]


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily.


William Daum Euler: I think I am correct in that. Not only that, but if we accept it in some of these single items in which reductions of salary are involved, we are recognizing the principle generally. Later on when we come to other departments there will be again discussions along the same lines. I think the suggestion made is a good one, that if the minister and his colleagues would let their estimates go through without involving any 10 per cent cut at all, any individual items involving the cut being allowed to stand until such time as the bill which the Prime Minister has promised is introduced, then the whole question could be threshed out at one time, instead of the discussion being scattered over the estimates of each department. I make the suggestion with a view to saving time, and having the question settled in one general, full dress debate, if I may so describe it, instead of having it recur on every estimate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I point out to the
hon. gentleman that such a course is not now practicable. These are estimates of the requirements of expenditure for the public service during the coming year. When the treasury board and the government as a whole finally formulated these estimates they took into consideration the reductions, the total amounting, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, to some $40,000,000. Included in those reductions was the anticipated reduction of 10 per cent in the salary. Now, then, the whole of the estimates are based upon that expectation, and they are presented to parliament accordingly. The only way in which we could now make a change would be to introduce by resolution an additional estimate covering the amounts that are left out of the present estimates affecting the salaries of the civil service. In other words, it would require a supplementary estimate. I would suggest to my hon. friend so far as the resolution that is now before us is concerned-and the same argument will apply to many others-that its adoption does not in itself affect the salary of anyone. But when I am asked: Is it the intention of the government out of the vote to pay the same salary as that paid last year? I am bound to say: No, what the government intends to do is to make a cut, subject of course to parliament approving of such a procedure. The adoption of this resolution, I repeat, does not make a cut in anybody's salary at all.


William Daum Euler: We accept the principle of
it.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Herbert Stevens: The adoption of the
resolution certainly does not accept the principle in the face of the discussion we have had. Everybody now knows there is a sharp cleavage of opinion regarding that principle.
Mr. RALSTON. It means the ministry will not have enough money except to pay reduced salaries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We would have to cut
out travelling expenses for instance. Let me make it quite clear that the adoption of this resolution would not in any way affect the salary of a single person; we have enough money in the vote to pay the salaries of those employed on administration of gas and electricity.


William Daum Euler: With 10 per cent off.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With 10 per cent on. If
parliament does not by statute approve of what the Prime Minister has announced, then the only way in which proper effect could be given to these estimates as they are would be to bring in supplementary estimates to make up whatever reductions are contained in these estimates, because otherwise so far as this vote ' is concerned other parts of the service would be short of funds.


William Daum Euler: Could it not be corrected by passing the estimates under the old salary schedule, without the statutory increases, and then let the Prime Minister bring in his bill to provide for the 10 per cent cut?-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already tried to
make clear that so far as this resolution is concerned its acceptance does not affect anybody's salary.


William Daum Euler: But it is going to put them on that basis.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The appropriation for
salaries, travelling expenses, purchase of equipment and contingencies would raise the vote to what we think is necessary. To run the whole branch would mean a supplementary estimate. We could not run it on this vote.


Charles A. Stewart: To pay the
same salaries as last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, to carry out the
whole thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Having regard to what the minister has just said about it not being practicable to meet this involved situation in the way suggested, and having regard also to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) stated a moment ago, might 41761-181
I now ask the ministry if the shortest as well as the proper course would not be to bring in at once the bill which the Prime Minister has promised authorizing the 10 per cent reduction? The Minister of Justice said the bill would be a short one-that he could tell us at once what it would be; it would be in two clauses.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I said it would validate whatever it was necessary to validate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understood it there would be two main provisions, one, to use his exact words, to legalize what we do in the estimates, and the other to authorize the 10 per cent reduction. Those phrases are enlightening as well as interesting. "To legalize what we do in the estimates"-in other words, it is recognized that certain things we are being asked to do will later have to be legalized. I do not think we ought to be asked to do anything in the interim which is not strictly legal.


Hugh Guthrie: The estimates state that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whether or not it is so stated, I do not think it is the correct way for parliament to proceed. In time of war many things were done which were illegal. They were legalized later in time of peace, when parliament was asked to pass measures to that effect, but there is no need to resort to war measures in times of peace, and at a time like this, I think we would do well to make a special effort to 'hold to the constitutional method oif procedure. Why should not the government bring in that bill immediately? It will be short, and will provide an immediate means of settling this question.
The Minister of Justice suggested again what the Minister of Finance suggested a while ago, that the opposition might bring in a motion on going into supply and have the matter discussed at that time. I made it clear a short time ago that we did not intend to proceed in that way, for the reason that any motion brought forward on going into supply would be construed by the ministry as a want of confidence motion and, as such, would offer to the followers of the ministry an excuse for not asserting their point of view in regard to this matter. We do not intend to afford them that means of escape.
The simplest way is for the ministry to introduce at once the bill authorizing the ten per cent reduction. Let us discuss that bill and when it is passed, if it is passed, the ministry will have authority to do what they are now proposing to do in the estimates. If

Supply-Trade and Commerce
it is not passed, or if it is modified, the estimates will have to be altered in accordance with the will of parliament. That would be the quickest way and, I think, the only regular way of proceeding.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I had some rather extensive remarks to make on this subject. As the house has rightly assumed I am opposed io these cuts, but in view of the remarks of the Minister of Justice I will defer my statement until a later date. I suppose I shall have an opportunity on some of the other items. I am doing this because of the statement of the Minister of Justice, who at present is leading the house, that no requests have been received by the government for an opportunity for associations of civil servants to present their point of view. I desire to afford an opportunity to those vitally concerned in this matter to consider whether or not they desire to be heard by the government and to decide whether they will ask to be heard. When these items come up, if that opportunity has not been afforded them after they have asked for it, I will avail myself of the opportunity of saying what I desire to say in this regard.


Alfred Speakman: I do not propose to enter into a constitutional debate at this hour of the night. So far as I am concerned I believe the Minister of Finance, speaking for the government, stated the fact when he said they had proceeded in the constitutional manner, the manner which has been established as the regular procedure year by year. But it was also stated by the Minister of Justice that his object was to provide the most convenient method of disposing of this question, the method following the line of common sense and creating the least disturbance to the house.
I would suggest as a matter of convenience, Mr. Chairman, and in order to save as much time as possible, that we should decide upon this principle first. The principle of the cut is an unusual one, and while we are following ordinary rules of procedure at present we must admit that this is not a usual situation. Every item is predicated upon this 10 per cent cut, and we cannot discuss any item without also discussing this question, upon which obviously there is some difference of opinion as to the extent of the cut and as to the question of a graduated reduction in the lower salaries.
It does seem to me that it would save a great deal of time and avoid perhaps a hundred disjointed and sectional debates if we could decide first upon the principle upon

which these items are predicated and then, in the light of that discussion, consider the estimates with some degree of intelligence and coolness. The Minister of Finance stated that it would be a matter of some difficulty to provide a method by which this might be done, and he said this was the only method. I think he was not doing justice to the ingenuity, if not the wisdom, of the government itself. I am under the impression that if the government is desirous of ascertaining the opinion of the house upon this matter, and doing it before we enter upon the discussion of these items affected by the 10 per cent cut, it could be done very well either by adopting the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the opposition and introducing at once the bill which is to legalize the whole matter, or by way of a resolution asking the house for a free expression of opinion as to the principle upon which all the estimates are based, before the estimates themselves are considered item by item. I think that would be the fairest method, and in the end it would not only save time but also would save a great many tempers which had better be kept for some more useful purpose.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There is one point I should like the minister to clear up. The Prime Minister stated that the 10 per cent reduction would apply to all civil servants except the judges, who he said were in a somewhat different position. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are required to pay our judges, who get fair salaries and receive pensions and so on. If I vote in favour of a resolution which cuts by 10 per cent the salary of a civil servant receiving $1,000 or $1,200, and then speak and vote against the bill if it does not include the judges, in what position would that leave me?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In adopting this resolution my hon. friend is not voting for a cut in the salary of any employee. As I said on two or three previous occasions to-night, the amount provided here is in expectation of a cut, but by the act of voting this resolution no cut is made, and no cut can be made without further action or further measures.


Alfred Speakman: But the item is predicated upon the cut.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so; I have stated to the committee that the provision of the amount is predicated upon the expectation that there will be a cut.


John Vallance: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said quite often that by adopting these estimates we are not admitting the principle of a 10 per cent cut. Early

Supply-Trade and Commerce
in the evening he decided to allow the civil government estimates to stand because they had to do entirely with salaries. Looking through all the estimates I find the words "less 10 per cent" more frequently than I find anything else. If this discussion had not taken place I could imagine what the Prime Minister would have said when he presented his bill. He would have said, "Why, you admitted the principle when you passed the estimates that have gone through committee."
I could hear him say that, and deny us the right even to discuss the question because we admitted the 10 per cent reduction in salaries in connection with some of the public works estimates this afternoon, as the minister has said. Following the suggestion of my leader, I think we had better discuss the subject, and the government would be well advised to do so right now.


Peter Heenan: I think the minister himself is now convinced that he has approached this question in the wrong way. Hon. gentlemen sitting to your left, Mr. Chairman, went about the country a couple of years ago and told about the prosperous times they were going to usher in, but they are not standing up now for the working man; instead they are reducing salaries. The minister will agree that those of us who oppose this reduction in salaries and wages will have to scrutinize every item. We shall have to ascertain certain things before we can tell just what we are voting. We shall have to ask how many employees are affected under every item, how many years of service they have put in, how many of them are denied statutory increases, whether some are being affected to the extent of 10 or 15 per cent, and so on. I submit * that this is an occasion on which the Minister of Labour ought to be in his place to suggest a board of conciliation and investigation into the question. But there is one thing I want to ask the minister and the leader of the government. It is quite evident to me that the senior member for Ottawa has not the full purport of the answers given both by the Minister of Justice and by the minister in charge of the estimates. In effect, he asked whether time would be given for the representatives of the civil service as a whole to make their representations to the government before the reduction went into force. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he would never close his door to any in his department. Is that an answer to the senior member for Ottawa? The Minister of Justice also tried to evade that particular question. Where, I ask, is the national council of the civil service which was established in
1929? When we passed an order in council establishing the civil service council it was for the purpose of enabling them to discuss with the government precisely such questions as the one now before us. We provided in the estimates to bring representatives of the civil service from all over Canada, and this government has ignored that provision entirely. So that there is no civil service council in this country to-day, or else it is entirely ignored. What would you say of a private employer of labour who would attempt a reduction of from 10 to 15 per cent in the wages of his employees-because that is what it amounts to in many instances-without giving the representatives of the working men an opportunity of discussing the question with him? Yet that is what this government is doing. It is no wonder the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose with some heat a little while ago. I remember how solicitous he was, when on this side of the house, for the poor underpaid civil servants, charging the present leader of the opposition with an attempt to stir up heat and discontent in the country. One of the gentlemen who went through the country in July, 1930, stirring up strife and trouble everywhere made a laughing stock of the old age pensions legislation, misrepresenting the whole thing. Indeed, the party supporting him organized unemployed gangs throughout the country and put white labels upon them so that they would give an inkling to the people of how many unemployed there were in the country. They got them to attend meetings and cheer government candidates. Now the hon. gentleman gets up and tells the leader of the opposition that he is trying to stir up trouble, and when anyone tries to make a sensible suggestion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: -he sits snarling. Hon. gentlemen laugh; no one will suppose that those on the other side are competent to judge what is a sensible suggestion. When a sensible suggestion is offered to the other side or to the minister he snarls in his seat and yells, "nonsense." I should say, judging by the number of times that he has emitted that word "nonsense," he is not the best judge of what is sense. What I want to know is this: Is this government going to reduce the salaries of civil servants in Canada without giving the representatives of these people, men, women and girls, an opportunity' to present their views? That is what I want to know. Personally I am prepared to stay here until the snow flies next year rather than pass these estimates under these conditions.
27S

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Duff: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce made the statement at least two or three times that if the committee passed this vote of $211,000 and if afterwards, when the government brought down legislation providing for the reduction of 10 per cent, that legislation was not endorsed by the house, it would not affect the salaries included in this vote. The minister was asked to give the details of this $211,000, and Hansard tomorrow morning will show that he itemized the different amounts necessary to make the total of this vote, less $37,600. In other words, the minister's total for the different detailed items, if I remember correctly, was $247,000, or $248,000, which included, in addition to the $202,000 in salaries, certain other items. Now the minister comes along and says that if this legislation does not pass when it is introduced it will not affect the salaries included in this item. But he told us that in this $211,000 we are voting there are certain other amounts. Surely that $37,600 of a reduction means something, and the other items outside of salaries which we vote now in this item cannot be touched to pay salaries if the legislation is not passed. I would ask the minister for a detailed account of that $37,600, and I have no hesitation in saying before he replies that part of that $37,600 is the 10 per cent deduction from the $240,000 odd.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend perhaps
forgot or did not hear me say that unquestionably, if such legislation as I have intimated were not passed in statutory form, making the cut of 10 per cent, it would be necessary for us to bring in a supplementary to make up the difference. What I was trying [DOT] to impress upon the committee was this. I do not say for one moment that this vote provides for the present range of salaries and all other requirements of the branch. What I did say was that by the passing of this resolution you were not cutting salaries. I told the committee at the very outset on introducing the vote that it was intended that the vote should be sufficient, with the cut in salary. I made that statement frankly and clearly. We are providing in this vote for a certain sum of money which contemplates the cut of 10 per cent in salary. There is no question that by the passing of the resolution we do not actually make the cut.


William Duff: I cannot understand the hon.
minister's argument, because when we asked for an itemized statement he told us that this vote included other items besides salaries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely.


William Duff: The minister agrees. He then comes along and tells the committee that if the legislation to implement the cut does not pass the salaries will not be affected, that he will ask for an extra vote in the supplementary estimates. The minister forgets that he is asking the committee not only to pass this item of $202,000 for salaries, less $37,600, but also to pass several other items which go to make up that total. For instance, at the end of March not only will the salaries have to be paid but one-twelfth of the other amounts will have to be paid. Does the minister mean to say that he is going to pay the salaries and leave unpaid the other amounts should this committee defeat this item? The minister is not on solid ground. It is plain to everyone that the salaries included in this item will be reduced to the tune of 10 per cent.


Peter John Veniot: The Auditor General would not permit the conversion of one amount to the benefit of another.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend must
understand that before this vote becomes effective, which will not be until the end of March, the necessary legislation will have been introduced and passed.


William Duff: My hon. friend said in his
argument that it might not pass.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I did not.


William Duff: If it should not pass.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it should not pass. It has been stated by the Prime Minister and was stated to-night by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that unquestionably it is contemplated that legislation will be introduced. We recognize the objection of hon. gentlemen opposite to dealing with these votes until that legislation has been disposed of. That is a position which they are entitled to take and we do not quarrel with it. But what we have tried to do is to explain to the committee the precise grounds upon which these estimates have been prepared. They state clearly and frankly what should be and should not be provided for, and they have been offered to the house in that way. What has occurred in connection with this vote will occur in connection with many others. Perhaps I could pick out one or two votes in which no salaries are involved, but there would not be very many. These estimates have been prepared in contemplation of the cut in salaries, and it is intended that legislation supplementing that intention or, as the Minister of Justice has said, making provision to legalize the cut, will be introduced.

Questions


William Duff: Were the officials who come
under this vote appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There may be some who
commenced their duties before the Civil Service Act was passed.


William Duff: They have been blanketed in since?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Whatever may be the
view of others, I do not think the evening has been wasted. I believe that the suggestions made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie Ring) and by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) are worthy of consideration. If a discussion of the 10 per cent cut is to take place on every item, the debate would be interminable. The only object of the government has been to meet the convenience of the house, not to prejudice the position of any hon. member who is entitled to express his views and record his vote as he sees fit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with what the
minister has said, but I would point out that it was the Minister of Finance who said that this matter must be discussed right now.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Wednesday, February 17, 1932