PETITION

[Stage Direction]
Petition of A. A. McLeod and 8,219 others, praying that an embargo be placed upon the shipment of war materials to Japan.-Mr. MacNeil.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention of 1936 for the suppression of the illicit traffic in dangerous drugs (Geneva, June 26, 1936), signed on behalf of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, the subject-matter of t' e convention was considered by the house at the time the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) introduced his bill with respect to opium and narcotic drugs. That was in February of this year. The bill was to implement any obligation on the part of Canada which might be incurred under the terms of the convention. Its main purpose is to make more severe the penalties which have existed in the past with respect to illicit trafficking in opium and other drugs.
The convention was drawn up by the international conference for the suppression of the illicit traffic in dangerous drugs which met in Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations. The objectives of the conference were, first, to secure international cooperation in stiffening penalties for breaches of legislation implementing the earlier opium con-

Bank of Canada
ventions of 1912, 1925 and 1931, and, secondly, to strengthen police efforts to repress the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs.
The draft before the conference was the result of two years' preparatory work initiated by the opium advisory committee. A first draft had been submitted to all governments signatory to the opium conventions in 1934. Their observations and criticisms were taken into consideration in preparing a revised draft which was circulated in 1935. It was only after this thorough canvass of the competent national authorities had established the expediency of endeavouring to draw up an international convention that the decision to hold the special conference was taken.
The Canadian government was represented at this conference by Colonel C. H. L. Shar-man, chief of the narcotics division, Department of Pensions and National Health, who is also the Canadian representative on the opium advisory committee and who had taken an active part in the preparatory discussions of the draft convention.
The convention requires ratification. It will enter into force ninety days after the secretary general of the league has received the ratifications or accessions of ten states.
It has been signed on behalf of thirty-two countries and ratification has been completed, up to date, by India, China and Belgium.
When parliament has approved the convention the governor in council will authorize ratification.
I do not know that I need say much more. If hon. members wish to know the main provisions of the convention I can give them by quoting one or -two of its articles. The convention itself has been distributed among hon. members, and that may not, therefore, be necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (for the Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee of the whole at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act to provide certain annuities upon retirement, to judges of the Supreme Court of 51952-235$
Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada, and the superior courts, and for reduction in the salaries of superior court judges retaining office after reaching the age of seventy-five years.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Bank of Canada Act inter alia to provide for the redemption by the Bank of Canada of the 100,000 class "A" shares of the Bank of Canada of the par value of $50 each at the price of $59.20 per share and accrued dividends; to reduce the capital of the Bank of Canada from $10,100,000 to $5,000,000 divided into 100,000 shares of $50 each; and to authorize the Minister of Finance for the purposes of such redemption and reduction of capital to surrender to the Bank of Canada 102,000 class "B" shares of the Bank of Canada of the par value of $50 each, of which 2,000 shares shall be cancelled and 100,000 shares shall be exchanged for 100,000 new shares of $50 each to be issued by the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance and to pay to the Bank of Canada the additional amount necessary to pay the difference between the purchase price of the shares to be redeemed (excluding any amount paid by way of dividend) and their par value.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will be observed that
in to-day's orders of the day, under government orders, there does not appear the usual item, "House again in committee of supply." This is due to the circumstance that the committee of supply was compelled to rise yesterday for want of a quorum and consequently did not report progress nor ask leave to sit again. A motion must now be made
United, Kingdom Munitions

for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply and I therefore beg to move, seconded by Mr. Dunning:
That this house do now resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	I should like to state to the
house that I hope, all being well, to be able to bring down the budget next Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: In this morning's Gazette I notice the report of an announcement that United Kingdom war orders to the amount of $200,000,000 are being given to various Canadian industries. The dispatch indicates that this will mean the necessity of Canada making more definite decisions with regard to foreign policy and our relationship to the British commonwealth. I should like to ask the Prime Minister: Are the arrangements with regard to these orders for munitions made direct with the industries? Are they made with the sanction of the Canadian government, and does the program commit Canada to any supplementary or complementary arrangements?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly I had better allow the Minister of National Defence to answer the question. I am in a position to answer it but I should prefer to leave it to him.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence)1: I have seen the article referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and I wish to assure him at once that the Department of National Defence has played no part either directly or indirectly in these negotiations. With reference to any orders to be placed in Canada, we have no more information than is in possession of the hon. member who asked the question. I think that that is as definite as I can make the statement.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GOLDING RECORDING OF NAMES ON ADJOURNMENT ON JUNE 9 FOR WANT OF QUORUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: On a question of privilege, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the votes and proceedings in which are listed the names of members who were present last evening just before the house adjourned. I wish to say that I was in my seat when the count was taken and on looking over the list I find that my name is not there recorded. I do not know what the system is of recording the names of those present on such an occasion, but I do think that this house ought to have some system under which an injustice cannot be done to an hon. member who is in his seat when the count is taken. I wish to call attention to this matter and have it corrected.


Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: One of the most faithful in attendance in this house is the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding), and if it were necessary at all to vouch for the accuracy of his statement-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No!


Robert William Gladstone: -I can assure the house that I saw him in his place last evening.



GOVERNMENT HARBOURS AND PIERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: May I ask t'he Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) whether it is the intention of the government to appoint wharfingers for all the wharves throughout the dominion which are not directly under the control of the national harbours board. If so, to whom Shall such applications be made?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: The appointment of wharfingers is mandatory under the Government Harbours and Piers Act. It is quite separate from any legislation relating to harbour boards. The Government Harbours and Piers Act makes it mandatory for the Department of Transport to appoint wharfingers to all wharves placed under the department for administration and the department endeavours to carry out its obligations under the act in all parts of Canada.


Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: In view
of the reply given by the Minister of Transport, and realizing the fact that many wharves

High Commissioners Act
are incapable of producing revenue from the actions of any wharfinger, is it the intention to bring in an amendment to the Government Harbours and Piers Act this session?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A matter of government
policy is not usually discussed, but I may say that this department has no further legislation for the present session of parliament.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 106, to amend the Manitoba Natural Resources Act, the Alberta Natural Resources Acts, and the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Acts.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: The amendments made in
the Senate are really for the purpose of meeting what I conceive to be a valid objection as to the exercise of its powers by this parliament. Whether or not that is being done I am in doubt. The proposed amendments provide that this act shall be read and construed as one with the following acts: The Manitoba Natural Resources Act, the Alberta Natural Resources Acts, and the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Acts. The effect of that is to seek to remedy the difficulty to which attention was directed and treat the amendments now made as though it were part of the original agreement, so that they should be read together as one agreement. Whether or not that is achieved I have some doubt, but certainly it does give a semblance of authority to this parliament to deal with it by endeavouring to make it appear that the proposals now made were proposals that appeared in the original agreements. To that extent I am certain that it does greatly improve the situation; but I still have grave doubts as to whether it may not be considered an amendment of the constitution. That in itself requires the approval of the imperial parliament to give it validity, in view of the fact that we did specially reserve the water under the lands, and did not include it in the transfer of resources. But the amendment as proposed will at least have this effect: it will link the statute under consideration with the original agreement, making them read as one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 146, respecting the High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Appointment.
Mr. CAHAN:: Has the government considered, as a matter of policy, the expediency of Canada appointing high commissioners to one or more of the autonomous dominions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has been considering that matter. The committee I think may expect an appointment to be made before very long to at least one or two of the other dominions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would not legislation be required ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think it would.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to. .
On section 4-Officers and clerks.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that it was provided in the former act that the high commissioner shall:
(b) take the charge, supervision and control of the immigration offices and agencies in Great Britain, under the Minister of Immigration and Colonization.
That apparently is dropped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is dropped for the reason that there is no longer a minister of immigration and colonization.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is merged in
another department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Under the old act the high commissioner took his instructions from different ministers. Under the new section the governor in council determines the powers and duties to be carried out by the high commissioner, and it is proposed that he shall take his instructions from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it would be
adequately covered, except that it was specific in the one case. It will be recalled that there is a sort of immigration office attached
High Commissioners Act

to the high commissioner's office in London; they do deal with that matter under the Department of Immigration. The effect of the change will be to transfer it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, subject however to the provisions of the order in council that will enable it to be dealt with by the high commissioner there. As it stands now there is no doubt that there is a branch of our immigration department in the building, and that the high commissioner exercises his powers by virtue of the old statute. It is true that the name " the Minister of Immigration and Colonization " has disappeared, but the duties are performed by the Minister of Mines and Resources. Under the new bill, he has to carry out the instructions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and he also is to give effect to any orders in council which may be passed for the purpose of conferring upon him power and authority to do and perform duties which may be therein mentioned.
The only point I desire to make is that as it stands it will require, I conceive, an act on the part of the Minister, Secretary of State for External Affairs, or an order in council, to continue the position that obtains there at the present moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the right hon. the leader of the opposition has in mind is covered I think by subsection (c). He has been referring more particularly to subsection (b). Subsection (c) reads as follows:
(c) subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, supervise the official activities of the various agencies of the Canadian government in the United Kingdom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is broad enough to cover all the others.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The immigration office at the moment I understand is not in the high commissioner's office; it has been moved elsewhere. But under the order in council passed some time ago the supervision of the immigration office was placed under the high commissioner. The situation had therefore been covered in the past under the general order. The only change which in reality is being made is with regard to instructions of a specific kind making it clear that they will go to the High Commissioner through the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only reason I raised the question is that the general power was contained in a section of the old act in somewhat different language. It says that he may [Mr. Bennett.1
carry out such instructions as he receives from time to time respecting the commercial, financial and general interest of Canada in Great Britain and elsewhere. I raised the issue merely for the purpose of directing the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that that is omitted, deliberately I take it, to be covered by subsection (c) of section 3, and the instructions will come from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
There are two words left out which I think the Prime Minister may regard as valuable, having regard to the appointment from time to time of the high commissioner to Geneva. Those words are "and elsewhere" at the end of the section, which enable us from time to time thus to deal with his position. The words " and elsewhere " are deleted. The minister may desire to send him to France or Switzerland, but if there is a limitation imposed on his authority "in the United Kingdom" I doubt whether the power is conferred upon the minister to give the general directions which might become necessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am inclined to think that the government would have power to direct any servant of the crown to go to any place to which it might be desirable to send him on public business. For example we have frequently sent the minister in France to Geneva. I do not think that as matters stand we would need to amend the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Officers and clerks.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does this section mean
that the officers and clerks in the office of the High Commissioner for Canada at London are to be appointed under the Civil Service Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have
not been appointed under the Civil Service Act in the past, except in a few cases. The minor positions have not been filled by the civil service commission, but some of the higher positions have. It has been found rather difficult, and I think my hon. friend will appreciate the reasons, to expect promotions from the junior positions in the high commissioner's office to the senior ones.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was dealing with the exact words of section 4:	"There may be appointed in the manner authorized by law." Is there any existing law other than the Civil Service Act under which appointments crd

Sup-ply-Labour-Employment Offices
hereafter be made? The law under which they have been made is the passing of an item year by year in the estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Now, in order that you
may have an appointee who will appear in the estimates, are those words sufficient?


Mr. DUNNING:: The Civil Service Act
has provision for exceptions, intended to cover cases of this kind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I grant that there are
exceptions, but I wonder whether they provide for exceptions which cover this case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that section 4 of this act is exactly the same as section 5 of the old act which we are repealing. The old act contained the same words, except that we have added after the words "the high commissioner" the words "for Canada," as high commissioners may be sent to other countries later on. It was thought advisable to make clear that this section applied to the High Commissioner for Canada in London. The old act provided:
There may be appointed in the manner authorized by law such officers and clerks in the office of the high commissioner as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be before
the Civil Service Act was passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and the
high commissioner's office has never been brought under the Civil Service Act, any more than have the legations in the different countries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. Then the appointments will be made by a special item in the estimates from year to year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is it considered unnecessary to make any reference to the remuneration of the high commissioner? That was done in the old act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hereafter the
salary of the high commissioner will have to be voted in the estimate of the Department of External Affairs under the item which deals with representation abroad. Hereafter the amount will be set out in the estimates as given to parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the effect of
section 4, passed subsequent to (the enactment of the Civil Service Act, will be to bring the high commissioner's office under the Civil Service Act. Those are the appropriate words
which are used in other statutes to accomplish that purpose. The broad general state-memt at the beginning of the Civil Service Act is that all appointments shall be made in the way indicated in the act. As long as the high commissioner's act was prior in point of time to the Civil Service Act, obviously it did not apply. Now we are repealing the old act and passing a new one, containing the language that is used in other statutes for the purpose of bringing all appointments under the Civil Service Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend that I would not take any exception whatever to the high commissioner's office being brought under the Civil Service Act; and, if that is the effect of it, all that will be necessary in respect to appointments that cannot be best made in that manner will be to indicate th^t they are made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Employment Offices Coordination Act, Administration, $63,925.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	Mr. Chairman, in view of certain statements made yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I am obliged to ask the committee to give attention for a few moments to a garage in the yard of Mr. Stansbury, president of the Liberal association of Kingston. Perhaps I can best illustrate the point by quoting from page 3702 of Hansard:
Mr. Rogers: To my knowledge Mr. Stansbury has had no connection whatever with any one of these contracting companies.
That was in regard to a previous reference by the leader of the opposition.
To my knowledge he has not had any part in the awarding of any government contracts from which he has benefited in the slightest degree. But his predecessor-
Mr. Bennett: We shall see about that. What about his garage? What w-as it built with? Where did the stone come from?
Mr. Rogers:	He has no garage, to my
knowledge.
I was speaking of a garage in the commercial sense.
Mr. Bennett: Near his house, on his lot?
Mr. Rogers: As to that I do not know.
Mr. Bennett:	Well, find out.
3710	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
Mr. Rogers: Certainly my right hon. friend seems to have made a special purpose of conducting a minute investigation in the constituency of Kingston, if he is now coming down to the question of the garage in the yard of the president of the Liberal association of that constituency.
Mr. Bennett:	If he built it with public
property, that is my duty.
Some hon. Members: Did he?
Mr. Bennett: He certainly did.
Mr. Rogers:	Let my hon. friend make a
charge, and I will make an investigation. Probably my right hon. friend is no more correct in that information than he was in his earlier information. I am quite content to have the matter investigated at once; I want to make that perfectly clear.
In conformity with that undertaking I immediately placed myself in touch with Mr. Stansbury in Kingston. My information is that the building used as a garage in the yard of Mr. Stansbury was possibly built before confederation, in the sense that it is an old stone building such as may be seen in many parts of the country.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Don't cheer yet; he
knows perfectly well the building I referred to. Call it a garage, or any other name you like. You know the building I refer to.


Mr. ROGERS:: I am making this speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The building itself was constructed many years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There was a renovation of that building within the last two or three years. No public property went into the renovation of that building. There was at the time a pile of loose crushed stone in a cutting near the site of camp 37. Mr. Stansbury, I am informed, with the permission of the officer in charge, and on the understanding that he would pay the cartage, received four cubic yards of waste crashed stone, which was not placed in the building of the garage but on the roadway leading to the garage. I am informed that the actual price of the stone if sold by a contractor would be somewhere between $2 and $3. And as I have said before, Mr. Stansbury asked for permission to use this stone a$d received it accordingly. There was no public property that entered into the building of this garage referred to by my right hon. friend.
This is the third time the leader of the opposition has made this statement about Mr. Stansbury, who is a member of the city council of Kingston, and a highly respected citizen. He is at the same time the president of the Kingston Liberal Association. The
fMr. Rogers.]
first statement made by my right hon. friend was that Mr. Stansbury was connected with a contracting firm while president of the Liberal association. He was not. But the former president of the Conservative association of Kingston did receive contracts from the then government, and on a very large scale. We shall hear more about that later.
I am perfectly aware of the tactics pursued by my right hon. friend. He has made these charges on at least four separate occasions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he will make them for the fifth time in a minute.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And he has had to retract them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not retracted any of them, except the one with respect to Mr. Stansbury's contracting firm, and that was accidental, as is known.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will he now retract them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly does not intend to; he is going to repeat them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We know the tactics pursued by my right hon. friend. He makes these statements, knowing perfectly well that the correction seldom catches up with the charge. And he probably hopes and believes that there are some who will see the charge on each occasion, and will not see the correction, and would in due course receive the impression that the Minister of Labour from Kingston is a villain and a blackguard. If that is the kind of tactics pursued by my right hon. friend I would suggest that he should alter his ways, as quickly as possible.
He has pursued these tactics on more than one occasion during the present session of parliament. Now I have made my position clear with respect to these several matters which have been brought up. I have made it clear beyond doubt that if complaints exist with respect to governmental matters in the constituency of Kingston I shall be obliged to have those complaints brought to my attention, and if they are brought to my attention I will do my utmost to rectify them. Naturally I cannot keep under my eye at all times everything that goes on in the constituency of Kingston. My duties keep me here at Ottawa during the greater part of the time. But I suggest to my right hon. friend that he would probably add something to his own stature, and contribute something to the business of this country, if instead of making these charges, without himself undertaking to prove their truth or otherwise, he should bring them to the attention of those who are able to deal with them and who are in a position to rectify them if they are well founded.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I directed attention to the city of Kingston and the constituency of Kingston for a very special reason. The Prime Minister opened his electoral campaign in Kingston in 1935, and charged me with being a Hitler, a Mussolini and a Stalin, all combined.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Don't flatter yourself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not in the least flattering myself. I am merely pointing out the language used by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister at Kingston. And he indicated further that the conduct of the administration of business in this country was such that it was highly essential that it should be changed. And at the same time the present Minister of Labour became the candidate in Kingston.
Kingston has been a stormy spot in the politics of this country ever since I can remember coming to this chamber, so far as patronage is concerned. I can recall in 1911 and 1912 the difficulties in connection with the penitentiary, and I recall too the charges made by the late member for Kingston, Doctor Ross, as to the lack of attention to patronage matters by the late administration.
Great hopes and expectations were raised when it became apparent that one who had the high qualifications of the present Minister of Labour was to stand as candidate in Kingston. He is an eminent scholar. He has had long experience at Ottawa in the capacity of private secretary, a position which enabled him to know something about the machinery of government. And no one for a moment suggests that he has had other than the strongest desire to improve conditions, so far as the administration was concerned. I therefore made myself the promise that I would watch and see whether or not these high hopes and expectations would be realized or whether what is known as the machine would crush the minister, and he would be overborne by it, rather than overbear it; whether or not the political patronage committee in Kingston would be able to compel the minister to conform to their mind, or whether he would be able to give effect to those high principles, those noble sentiments he expressed so frequently during the campaign.
And I did watch, with great care. I have made many inquiries. Many questions have appeared on the order paper in the house, both last session and the present one, with respect to the administration of matters in Kingston. There were two camps in and around Kingston. Camp 42 was one and camp 37 was the other. Both camps were closed by the government. There was much clothing
and supplies in one of those camps. They were placed in a storehouse. They were sold. In a public meeting one of the electors of Kingston, at Sydenham, gave illustrations as to the prices received for them and the, method of their disposition-horses, wagons and costly equipment. Who got it, and at what price? It is a singular coincidence that within four hours after the conclusion of that speech at Sydenham Ithe storehouse was on fire.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I might as well deal with that now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no; excuse me-to use the language of the minister, I am making this speech.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then I will have ample opportunity l'ater.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite.


Mr ROGERS:: There isn't always that opportunity, though.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend sometimes makes these charges about half past ten or a quarter to eleven.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that shows after all that the high expectations with respect to the minister were indeed not realized. That shows the calibre and the type. This is a five-cent attitude of mind; that is what it is.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will deal with that later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a five-cent attitude of mind. I now go a step farther.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Always speak a little
louder, if you desire to be heard. If not, don't mutter to yourself so as to interfere.


An hon. MEMBER:: Penny ante.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The penny ante does not come with very great force from the hon. member. Now, to proceed a step farther: The storehouse was burned down. It was destroyed, and the report was made with respect to the fire. The minister has it in his possession.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Which minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister of defence. The relations are so close it does mot make much difference.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not seen it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to point out that with respect to matters that arose out of that very ease we find that the Minister of
3712	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) has placed a considered answer on Hansard and has indicated that he has accepted the recommendation not of the member for Kingston (Mr. Rogers), not of a member of this house, but he has made appointments to the signal corps on the recommendation of Mr. Stansbury.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: To the signal corps?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, Bernard Curran.
That is what was said, rightly or wrongly, and the answer appears on the records of this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend quote it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was on March 28. If my colleague will turn up Hansard of March 28, I shall read it. That is what happened in connection with the storehouse. A quarry was being operated by the government not far from camp No. 37, and it is a fact that stone was taken to Stansbury's property for the purpose of making improvements thereon. The word "garage" is offensive to the hon. gentleman, so let us drop it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend said a garage was built with public property.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say it was built entirely with public property. I heard what he read the other day and I know what he said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend said:
If he built it with public property, that is my duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said "if."


Norman McLeod Rogers: And then my right hon. friend said:
He certainly did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what is more, I stated that the stone did not come from the spot the hon. gentleman said it came from, part of No. 2 highway. I want to make it perfectly clear that Mr. Stansbury has been very active in connection with all these matters and that stone was taken to his property by a man named Drinka. It is said, not by himself, but in a statement that the minister makes in this house for him, that he had permission. The man who had charge of that particular work is no longer there. His name is Bissonette. If the minister will take the trouble to make the necessary inquiries he will find what quantity of stone went there. He will find he took it there. He will look in vain for any consent in writing, at any rate up to this date, for that purpose.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What difference does it make whether it is in writing or not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It makes quite a considerable difference when you are dealing with public property, as I shall presently point
out. It should make a great difference to the minister if he is the custodian of public property, as I suggest he should be. I think
this was March 28.


Mr. GRAY:: An employee of the signal corps.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My right hon. friend said before that the recommendation was for appointment to the signal corps. There is a vast difference which my right hon. friend must definitely appreciate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is an employee of the signal corps.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is an employee at the camp which is the headquarters of the signal corps.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a question asked by Mr. Ross (St. Paul's):
Are W. Anderson, T. J. Lennon, B. Curran, W. J. Trenhaile, employees at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence?
Here is the answer by the Minister of National Defence:
3. All recommended by district officer commanding, military district No. 3, Kingston, Ontario.
That is not the one that comes within the class I mentioned yesterday.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, a few minutes ago my right hon. friend said that the Minister of National Defence has made an appointment to the Royal Canadian Signal Corps on the recommendation of Mr. Stansbury. I wish him to withdraw that remark, because it is absolutely and definitely inaccurate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excellent. I told the hon. gentleman that I did not have the book beside me, but I would look it up. I have now read the question and answer from page 1740. Reference was made the other day to the various appointments that were made on the recommendation of Mr. Stansbury, and the minister surely remembers the answer he gave in the house with respect to this. If he wishes, I shall take the time to turn them up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to another point of order. If the right hon. gentleman will consult the records of Hansard he will find that he made a statement this

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
afternoon that the Minister of National Defence had made appointments to the Royal Canadian Signal Corps on the recommendation of Mr. Stansbury. That was an absolutely untrue statement of fact and I desire that it be withdrawn.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not get excited.
I said to the hon. gentleman that I would look at the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just wait a minute until I finish. When he asked me for the authority I found that Mr. Bernard Curran was not one of those who was appointed on the recommendation of Mr. Stansbury, that his appointment was made on the recommendation of the district officer commanding.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise again to a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not finished.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. My right hon. friend knows the rules of the house and he should sit down when I rise to a point of order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no point of order at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am as competent to judge what is a point of order as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). The point of order is this: A statement has been made this afternoon by the right hon. leader of the opposition which I say is definitely untrue and should be withdrawn.


Mr. SPENCE:: You have said it three or four times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: " Untrue " is an improper word to use in this house and it should be withdrawn.


The CHAIRMAN:: On the point of order raised by the Minister of National Defence, my opinion is that it is well taken and I ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw the remark to which the minister takes exception.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I object to the language used by the minister in making his point of order. There can be no point of order if the language used is unparliamentary. That is number one. When the point of order is made in parliamentary language I shall make my reply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
right hon. gentleman is correct. Instead of using the word "untrue" I should have said that it was unparliamentary and not in accordance with the facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be no difficulty about withdrawing. I have the record. It is that the appointment of Mr. B. Curran as an employee of the signal corps was not made on the recommendation of Mr. Stansbury; it was made on the recommendation of the district officer commanding.
I turn now to page 1846 of Hansard and I find a series of questions put to the minister by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Clarke). The hon. member asked questions in connection with a Mr. Robinson, a Mr. Graham, both of whom were employed as carpenters at the signal corps, Barriefield. Then another question was asked in connection with John Doyle, an employee at the signal corps, and one in connection with Harold Johnston, also an employee at the signal corps. In each case this question was asked:
On whose recommendation was he employed?
And in each ease the answer was, "Mr. A. E. Stansbury." That is the position. The only difference is that Mr. Curran's appointment was recommended by the district officer commanding, whereas the others were recommended, without giving them one after another, by Mr. Stansbury.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise again to a point of' order. The right hon. gentleman is leaving the definite implication that the gentlemen mentioned by him were members of the Royal Canadian Signal Corps.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want
definitely to correct that impression and say that no recommendations to the Royal Canadian Signal Corps under the Department of National Defence have been made at any time by Mr. Stansbury. Let that be very definite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read from the record.


Charles Avery Dunning: You did not.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: He did.


Charles Avery Dunning: He read part of the
record, not all of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read from the record
as to the class of employment of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Graham, both employed as carpenters at the ' Royal Canadian Signal Corps under the Department of National Defence.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why not read it all?
3714	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are the words I used. Are they right or wrong?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not complete.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they are part of the question.


Charles Avery Dunning: They do not convey the facts at all.


William Earl Rowe: Who is
reading them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I admit that the minister of defence is a past master on that side of it. Now let us read the whole question.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is better.


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Is there a Mr. Robinson employed as a carpenter at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, what days and hours has he worked?
3.	What total remuneration has he drawn?
4.	On whose recommendation was he employed ?
Answers:
2.	During the year 1935-67 days.
During the year 1936-36 days.
During the year 1937

11 days.
During the year 1938-7 days (as at March 25).
3.	$718.55.
4.	Mr. A. E. Stansbury.
In reply to the next question, it appeared that Roy Graham is an employee of the signal corps, Barriefield. Question 4:
On whose recommendation was he employed?
Answer:
Mr. A. E. Stansbury.
The next question refers to an appointment recommended by the Ontario employment agency, and is with respect to William Fowler. The first question is:
Is William Fowler an employee of the signal corps, Barriefield, and if so, when was he appointed and on whose recommendation?
Answer: "Yes; appointed October-"


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, my right hon. friend, probably unintentionally, misread the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In what respect?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is
"an employee at"; the right hon. gentleman said "of".


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is William Fowler an employee at the signal corps, Barriefield, and, if so, when was he appointed and on whose recommendation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct now.


Charles Avery Dunning: A difference of one word makes a lot of difference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Answer:
Yes; appointed October 1, 1937; recommended by Mr. A. E. Stansbury.
2. If the present apopintment was by the civil service commission, was he previously appointed by the department, and on whose recommendation ?
Answer:
Yes; recommended by Ontario Employment Agency, 409 Bagot street, Kingston, Out.
The next question has to do with the location of the electoral district in which the signal corps is located. When you turn the page you will find a similar question with respect of John Doyle, an employee of the signal corps, Barriefield.
4.	On whose recommendation was he employed ?
Answer:
Mr. A. E. Stansbury.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Once
again my right hon. friend used the word "of." It should be "at."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before "signal corps."


Charles Avery Dunning: He said "of the signal corps" again. He is not an employee of the signal corps. He is employed at the signal corps.


An hon. MEMBER:: The right hon. gentleman is an expert at that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Is John Doyle an employee of the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence, or has he been an employee?"


Charles Avery Dunning: "At" the signal corps.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is:
During the year 1935-76 days.
During the year 1936-44 days.
During the year 1937-nil.
During the year 1938-10 days (as at 25th March).
And then the fourth question is:
On whose recommendation was he employed?
And the answer is "Mr. A. E. Stansbury."
Harold Johnston is the next employee referred to, and the answer to question No. 6, on whose recommendation he was appointed, is "Mr. A. E. Stansbury." The question was with respect to Harold Johnston, "an employee

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence." That merely indicates one thing, that Mr. A. E. Stansbury, whoever he may be, is responsible for the appointments being made at this signal corps. One of the men is a carpenter, another is something else, a third is something else.
Now I took the case of B. Curran, and I pointed out that the answer there was that the recommendation was by the district officer commanding. There was a further question as to how long he had been there, and the answer was that he had been appointed on the first day of October. I pointed out that on the fourth he had been arrested for impersonation at the provincial election and taken to the police court, and that he was released. I put the facts as they are on the record as to why he was released. I believe that those who have anything to do with and any regard for the administration of law and order will be amazed when they see the ground on which the charge was dismissed. It was on the ground that the magistrate, Mr. Shea- and I believe the minister will acknowledge that Mr. Shea is very actively connected with the Frontenac Construction Company, which came into being since this government assumed office-


Norman McLeod Rogers: What connection has that with this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that he sat as a
magistrate in this case.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, what connection has it with this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It had a great deal to do with this case. When he sees the grounds on which, in the magistrate's police court in the city of Kingston, this man was dismissed, and when he hears the evidence, I believe the minister will say that it is time something was done. Here are Mr. Shea's words of wisdom.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Surely that is a matter for the crown attorney.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the crown attorney was there, but apparently, as it was a matter affecting the provincial election, his activities were not very great.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not fair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is what Mr. Rigney says, at page 9 of the record:
There is no jurisdiction for you here, that's my submission, in reference to which I have already drawn your attention.
His Worship: Cases of this kind are ordinarily triable by an election court. I agree that this case does not come under the Controverted Elections Act and I have no jurisdiction to try it.
The charge was dismissed on the-


Mr. SLAGHT:: Does the right ihon. gentleman charge Mr. Rigney with breach of duty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only say Mr. Rigney appeared there and participated in that case.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: In accordance with his duty, surely?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may be his duty, but why was it not his duty to proceed under the criminal code, as the charge was laid? That is what a crown attorney in my country would do, or in any other country I know anything about. When you 'have an offender before the court and the magistrate says it does not come under the elections act, Mr. Rigney-


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The right hon. gentleman may remember that Mr. Rigney, who is also a friend of mine, was the appointee of the Conservative party during his own regime, though not while he was prime minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not appointed by the federal government at all, therefore the last observation has no relevancy. May I draw attention to the second point? Mr. Rigney says:
I think it is necessary for the record to have evidence but it is apparent that the information purports to have been signed by Doctor Sands, but I don't know who the returning officer was.
His Worship:	What evidence have we got
about the information and also about the swearing ?
Mr. T. J. Rigney, K.C. represented the crown; Mr. W. H. Herrington, K.C., the accused; Magistrate J. Ambrose Shea, presiding. I point out that, as a result, this man was not in any sense punished for impersonation on that day.
The declaration made by Robert McKee, of the city of Kingston, contractor, was as follows:
On Monday, October 4, I was present as outside agent for Thomas Ashmore Kidd, a candidate for election to the legislative assembly of the province of Ontario for the riding of Kingston, at the advance poll for the city of Kingston situate in the city council chambers in the said city.
In the afternoon about 3 o'clock I saw a man approaching the said advance poll from the northerly side of Brook street whose coat collar was turned up and who was wearing sun glasses.
I thought this man looked like one Bernard Curran who was known to me but did not question him.
After this man had entered the poll I opened the door and asked Stewart Jenkins, inside agent for the said Thomas Ashmore Kidd, what name this man had given and was advised that he had given the name of Gerald Morrison of 172 Wellington street, Kingston, Ontario, and after signing the usual declaration, handed to
3716	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
advance voters, to that effect, had received a ballot from the returning officer, one Bert Derry. I then entered the poll and after being sure of the identity of the said Bernard Curran I told the said returning officer not to deposit the ballot of this man and asked him to make out a warrant for his arrest as an impersonator, but the said returning officer refused to make out the warrant and said if I wanted him arrested to do it myself.
I sent for a city constable and Sgt. Leslie Clark of the police force of the city of Kingston came to the poll and arrested the aforesaid man at my request and on my advice that he was Bernard Curran and not Gerald Morrison and put him in the police cell. I later signed a sworn information accusing this man of impersonation, and this man after some delay was arraigned before the magistrate for the city of Kingston and my testimony was taken by the court.
That is Robert McKee's statement, solemnly declared on the 23rd March, 1938, before the commissioner.
I merely mention that as an indication of the fact that Mr. Curran is the same man who, on the recommendation of Mr. Stans-bury, is employed with the signal corps.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not on the recommendation of Mr. Stansbury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of the district officer
commanding, in this particular case. I pointed out that there is a large store here, and there are large quantities of supplies. I have taken the trouble to investigate what has happened to the supplies. Nearby there was work being carried on for the reconstruction of the old Fort Henry-or is it Fort William?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Fort Henry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A question was asked
in this house as to whether the work was done by contract or otherwise, and the answer was given, partly by contract and partly by day's work. What are the facts? The facts are that the specifications call for a piece of work which was shown on a plan so as to indicate what was included in the proposed work, and that several people tendered, and the contract was let for $70,000 or thereabouts. The expenditure at Fort Henry has more nearly approximated $1,000,000 than $70,000. The Frid Construction Company had a contract for the $70,000 job. Who has done the rest of the work and on what terms? Was it cost plus or not? The statement in Hansard in answer to the question is "day's work." The contractors apparently assume that they are doing the work on a cost plus basis, and this government is contributing one-half of that cost. And more, 
the Frid Construction Company had a contract at that very time for the construction of work on the campus of Queen's university, the Crain building, I believe it is called.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the name of
the building. The government of Ontario supplied the cement for the Fort Henry work; the specifications said that they would supply it. I find that this is what happened with respect to part of that cement-and I am going to give the hon. gentleman the number of the car so that he can have no misunderstanding in making inquiries, and as to where the car stood, who took the cement away, and where it was taken. Canadian National car No. 421639 was laid on the siding in Kingston, and on the eighth day of June, 1937, Louis Drinka, who was doing the trucking for the Frid Construction Company, residing at 298 Montreal Street, unloaded part of the cement from that car on to his truck, a motor truck, alleged to be a two-ton motor truck, and he took that cement to Queen's university and there unloaded it in storage bins which were connected with the Crain building. He did that with more than one load-how many loads I do not know- and then from the same car cement was actually taken to the Fort Henry work.


Charles Avery Dunning: What are you reading from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: From my own notes. I am reading from my own handwriting of my notes taken from information I have, and if the hon. gentleman would like to see it I will gladly show it to him. There it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the other sheet, which you put down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a typewritten note under my dictation.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Who gave you that information?	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman knew that, he would probably know more than he should know, but he would not know quite as much as he thinks he does.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would like to know who gave that information from which the leader of the opposition read just a moment ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am making that statement-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is he trying to be a detective lately?

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one member of this house who is always interrupting, and usually his observations indicate his profound ignorance. Sometimes they are impertinent; on this occasion they happen to be the latter. He boasted the other day that he never made personal observations, but now he asks if I have turned detective, and he thinks that is clever.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think I am in order.
I asked who gave the information for the statement he read a moment ago. Surely I am in order. That is not showing ignorance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, on page 98 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms the word " impertinent " is listed among unparliamentary terms. I would ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw the expression.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends upon how the word is used. It has been held to be unparliamentary, but if it is used to express the exact meaning it is not unparliamentary. It depends on whether it is used in that sense or not.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On a point of order, I have never yet been called ignorant and I ask that the word be withdrawn.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. On the point of order raised by the Minister of National Defence-if the right hon. gentleman will sit down for a moment-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had not noticed that the chairman was standing.


Frederick George Sanderson: The word " impertinent " is unparliamentary and is listed on page 98-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am familiar with it.


Frederick George Sanderson: and I would ask the right hon. leader of the opposition to withdraw it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will say " not pertinent " and withdraw " impertinent."


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Following your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I would like the word " ignorant " to be withdrawn also. I do not think it behooves the leader of the opposition to make such a statement against members of this house, unless he is included in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a nice way in which to raise a point of order. To continue-


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cochrane; the word "ignorant" is unparliamentary. It is listed on page 97.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "The hon. member is
lacking in learning;" the word "ignorant" is withdrawn. I am thoroughly familiar with the fact that the words "impertinent" and "ignorant" have been held to be in other parliaments unparliamentary, but I am well aware of the fact that they have been used in this parliament frequently and I would like to think that Your Honour has at last concluded that the rules of order shall be enforced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a reflection on the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a reflection on the chair. I desire to compliment the chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I would point out to the right hon. leader of the opposition that the first point of ruling I had to make in this chamber in 1936 was to ask the leader of the opposition to withdraw the word "impertinent" which he had applied to the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite recall the circumstances. But it is an amazing thing how frequently it has been used since. That is all I have to say.


An hon. MEMBER:: By whom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now I propose to proceed. We have cement provided by the taxpayers of the country for use on the Fort Henry job, and we have the Frid Construction Company with a contract under specifications for $70,000 only. We have many hundreds of thousands of dollars-we shall know exactly before we conclude this discussion how much money has been expended by the Frid Construction Company, and we shall expect to see a list of those employed and the salaries paid to them during the progress of the work. We have the cement being taken from the car, and I have given the car number; other information can be supplied, but that will do for the purpose. It is taken to the Crain building, put there, and the empty bags, in order that the count may be complete, were taken to Fort Henry. Keep that in mind. That is the sort of work that is going on there.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my right hon. friend vouch for the accuracy of that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can vouch for the accuracy of part of it, the observations I make-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which part?
3718	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment 0jjlccs


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement I gave
with respect to the oars, with respect to the movement of the cement, the movement of the empty bags, are facts beyond peradven-ture. The comments I make and the inferences I draw may not be those which others would draw.
Now to show just what has been going on there, it will be recalled that I pointed out that cement went to the Crain work and cement went to Fort Henry, for which it was destined, from the government of Ontario, and that Mr. Drinka hauled it to the work on the Crain building, also being done by the Frid company. In the fall of last year one car of cement at least was purchased and taken to Fort Henry. As to why that should be done I am not at the moment making any observation, but that car was purchased by i lie Frid Construction Company from the Drury Supply Company-I do not know the exact name-and it went to Fort Henry. Just realize what that means. We have here what the ministers in their answer the other day said was a contract for Fort Henry, and part was done by day work. As a matter of fact these men were working on a cost plus basis, the worst plan in the world for graft at any rate.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to deal with this.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The worst of it is the statement is incorrect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say the statement is correct.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Very well, I will let my statement wait and establish it later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the minister's privilege. Now let me summarize this.
Was the car of cement to which I have referred directed by the government of Ontario for use at Fort Henry?
Was it placed on a siding at Kingston?
Was a portion of it taken to the Crain building, also being constructed by the Frid Construction Company?
Was a portion of it then taken to Fort Henry?
Were the bags, after being emptied of cement at the Crain building, taken to Fort Henry?
Did the Frid Construction Company last fall, after discussions were becoming prevalent, purchase a carload of cement and take it to Fort Henry?

I have no knowledge as to whether this was in replacement of what had been taken, but Mr. Drinka was the man who hauled both. I have given his address; he is the man who has been doing all this trucking. I want to know where the money of the taxpayers of this country went with respect to that work at Fort Henry, and I want to know whether it is true that this was a cost plus job and not a day work job as was stated in answer to a question asked in this house. Everyone knows that when you spend a sum like $100,000 or $200,000 on work of that kind on a cost plus basis it is but an invitation to extravagance. To that I am now directing the minister's attention, because this has to do with something else.
Rubble stone was hauled during the evening by the Frid company's rig to the Crain building, and also by Mr. Drinka's rigs. Then there is another thing; the question of the scaffolding used on the two works. It seems to be abundantly clear that what happened was that certain timber, bolted together and painted blue was transported to the Crain building by Drinka in a Frid Construction Company truck, and on completion of the building on the campus was taken to Fort Henry. That I think can be established. That is a case in which the government of Canada is paying for work being done at some other place.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How does my right hon. friend know that? It is a very common practice in cost plus work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: lit went back to Fort
Henry. The work at Queen's was not cost plus work.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a very common thing for a contractor to move scaffolding from one job to another. He makes allowance for doing so on every cost plus job.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the scaffolding was going to a private job.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What difference does that
make, as long as the bookkeeper keeps track of it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A contractor has a job of public work on a cost plus basis, and he has a private job, and ihe uses the public work scaffolding for the private work.


Charles Avery Dunning: The mere moving of the scaffolding does not prove anything wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is done every day.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, if that is the basis upon which the business of Canada is being conducted-!


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a matter of bookkeeping, whether ithe scaffolding was charged properly to the second job, as my right hon. friend knows as well as I do.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Why did not my right hon. friend write me a letter about this? I would have looked into it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this I
think is in order, having regard to the mut-terings of one of the hon. members of this committee in the distance. Since man first emerged from the condition described by Darwin, mutterings are supposed to have disappeared and speech has taken their place.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, I am not muttering. I said the right hon. gentleman is quite a spectacle, and if people could see him now they would judge him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We now come to a question that was touched yesterday, some facts I wish to get from the minister. He said: Write me a letter and I will give an answer. What I want from him is a public statement; for it is a matter affecting the public and not the individual. The question is whether or not this work at Fort Henry was done on a cost plus basis; also whether or not the contract was extended. There is nothing on the record to show, because it was done by day work. Now what day work was it, cost plus or by contract?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will get the information, gladly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it was done by contract, why were tenders not asked for, in accordance with what was said the other day? In the case of the work done under the Department of Highways, with respect to the first contract tenders were called for, and many people tendered, but that was a little $70,000 job; we have now spent nearly a million dollars, and no opportunity, public at any rate, has been given to anyone to tender. I should like to know the reason for that. I pointed out the other day what was the situation. This I think the minister must have seen; he says part of it he has not seen, but part at least he must have seen. I wonder if he realizes that a citizen of Kingston was charged with the non-support of his wife-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
.51952-236


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was charged with nonsupport-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Avery Dunning: It certainly was not my right hon. friend or the Minister of Labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the answer he gave as his defence, according to the press-and I have verified it as well-was this: He said that if he could secure a job he would take care of his family, but he did not have sufficient funds to provide Mooers-who was at one time the president of the Liberal association in Kingston, and who is superintendent of the employment agency, the man we were speaking of yesterday-with a beer account at the Prince George hotel. He said if he could get sufficient funds to provide Mooers with a beer account he would be all right, but as he could not do so he could not get work. That is a matter of public record; and what is more-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, it was in the newspaper; he appeared before the police magistrate, who adjourned the case advising the man that he would investigate the matter and bring him up again after he had done so. The case still stands adjourned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Free beer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You see, Mr. Chairman; this indicates how little people do care. One of the ministers of the crown says, "Free beer."


Charles Avery Dunning: Which one? Who said that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I heard it just now; one of the four ministers there.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not hear it, and the ministers sit closer to me than to nw right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I heard the words "free beer."


Charles Avery Dunning: No minister said any such thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say they did; that is the difference.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend must retract that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I say they did and the minister says they did not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not say it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say it.

3720	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Mr. ILSLEY:: I did not say it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I did not say it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Be a man; retract it.


Mr. KINLEY:: When a member asked me what the beer account meant, I said "free beer." I suppose that is what the right hon. gentleman heard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
accepts the position of a vicarious sacrifice for others.


John James Kinley: I said it.


Mr. FRASER:: If you had used the phrase "Barnum was right"


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would exercise your powers and direct attention to the fact that the observation just made by the hon. member for Northumberland is unparliamentary.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is unparliamentary about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just raise the question and leave it to the chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: The word "Barnum" is not on the list-


Charles Avery Dunning: He was a great man.


Frederick George Sanderson: -of unparliamentary
words, and in my judgment I cannot rule it as such.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very good, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you have so ruled, because it gives me a chance to say what I wanted to say but did not for fear of being called to order. I desire to say that Barnum did say, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time-"


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At least that is attributed to him, but it may be that the Minister of Finance has a closer association with Barnum than I.


Charles Avery Dunning: But I can read; that
was Lincoln.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be a matter of
profound satisfaction, Mr. Chairman-


Charles Avery Dunning: Mixing Barnum with
Lincoln is terrible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact
Lincoln did not say it; it was Barnum.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the
leader of the opposition know that of his own knowledge?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be regarded
as a very great offence even to refer to one as Hitler, in some sections of the country; but he occupies such a warm place in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite that I assume I may accept that as a compliment.
Now, Mr. Chairman, may we deal again with Mr. Stansbury for a moment. I said there were quantities of supplies in this storehouse. I said they had been sacrificed; horses, Bain wagons, tarpaulins-one of which was found and the offender sent to penitentiary-and concrete. And there were twenty-five cartons of white lead that went from Fort Henry after midnight, with the knowledge and assistance of the storekeeper. Do we know anything about that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Do I? Certainly not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my right hon.
friend know anything about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he does.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend is
making a charge against a civil servant on his own responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he was dismissed
for it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, that answers it;
he was found out and dismissed. Why not say so?
Mr.	BENNETT:	But he was given	a
new position at the Rockwood hospital, on the recommendation of Mr. Stansbury.
Mr.	DUNNING:	What hospital?Mr.	BENNETT:	Rockwood; that is	an
Ontario hospital.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is that a federal institution?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not as far as I know.


Charles Avery Dunning: How does that reflect
on the Minister of Labour?
Mr.	BENNETT:	It indicates the type
of recommendations that have been made by one who has been making them to the minister, who has acted upon them. That is what I am putting to the committee. I want to indicate to this committee, sir, that this whole business in Kingston is as bad as it is possible for anything to be, and reeks to high heaven. That is what I want to make clear. What is more, I want to say this, and I said it the other day:	I do not
believe the Minister of Labour would do it. I made that clear to him. It is no good for him to say that I am endeavouring to make charges against him with respect to

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
these matters, for I do not believe he knew these things. But I say it is his duty to know something of them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In several of these cases
why did not my hon. friend bring them to my attention at onee by letter, and have them corrected?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell you why.


Charles Avery Dunning: Because he wanted to
make political capital out of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell you why, and I will start with what I said at the very beginning. I was very, very much interested in Kingston in view of the Prime Minister's opening speech and the speeches made by the Minister of Labour when he was a candidate; I was anxious, as I am now, to see whether or not this political combination could destroy him and the principles that he asserted on the platform, his high principles, or whether he was going to be strong enough to control and stop them. That is the reason. I want to put it up to the minister as publicly as he put it up to the people of this country how he would conduct the public business if he got a chance; that was what he said when he was a candidate in Kingston. I say more, I say to the hon. gentleman and to all hon. members of this house that it is not good enough to say what your predecessors did. That does not constitute a defence. Why, Mr. Chairman? Because hon. gentlemen opposite asked for support, and got it, on the ground that they were going to do better than their predecessors; on the ground that they were going to improve on what had been done previously. And there never has been a worse condition prevailing than that in and around Kingston during the last eighteen months.
That is the position, and what has been done about it? Has a single thing been done? There you have the public press, and just think of the labour office, the employment office to which returned men went, as 1 indicated yesterday from a letter which I read. Did they get employment? They did not. Why? Because you have in charge of that office one who, it is true, has been investigated by the superintendent, or whoever it may have been; yet in the courts of the country, before the magistrate, we have it asserted by the man who is charged in the dock that if he could get a job he would not be so charged. But he said, " I cannot afford to make a contribution to this beer fund."


Mr. TUCKER:: That statement was not sworn; it was an idle statement made before the magistrate.
51952-236}


Richard Bedford Bennett: The magistrate adjourned the case to make an inquiry.


Walter Adam Tucker: The statement was not
sworn to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the case has not
since been heard.


Walter Adam Tucker: What has that got to do with it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing, I take it.


An hon. MEMBER:: A great deal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the question of supplies I have mentioned? Now we have it asserted by Mr. Stansbury that he had the consent of someone to take the stone. Who gave the consent about the white lead? It was removed-


Charles Avery Dunning: Do you allege Stansbury took the white lead?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did I say that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Who took it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked who gave consent.


Norman McLeod Rogers: You suggested it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggested nothing.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Where did it go?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did say it was the duty of my hon. friend to find where it went.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Where does my right hon. friend get this information?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has had it for some time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: He has not been anxious to have it followed up, apparently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because the storekeeper is there yet at Rockwood.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no. My right hon. friend himself said the storekeeper was dismissed. And Rockwood is not a federal institution. How can he say it is there yet?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say "yet"; I said it was at Rockwood.


Charles Avery Dunning: Those are the words;
I will leave it to Hansard,-"the storekeeper is there yet."


Richard Bedford Bennett: By "yet" I meant at
Fort Henry. He is not there yet, but he is at Rockwood.


Charles Avery Dunning: He is not in the employ of the federal government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but Mr. Stansbury recommended him to the position which he holds: I happen to know.
3722	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


William Alexander Fraser: Wait until the people of Canada read the press in the morning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, I do not know,
Mr. Chairman, whether the last observation made by the hon. member for Northumberland means that a cooked report of what has been said is to be made; but it is, of course, open to that construction. He may be able to make it, I don't know. He has great powers in many directions.
Now, I want to go a step farther. The minister says I did not communicate with him. A question was put on the order paper as to how the work at Fort Henry was being done, and the answer was that it was being done partly by contract and partly by day work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have the answer right
here. Does my right hon. friend want it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does he wish it now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
Mr. ROGEftS: The right hon. gentleman has asked how much was the cost plus and I sent out for the information. In the first place, cement never became part of the work, unltil it was replaced after a loan was arranged for with the provincial government representative. The first contract was about S70,000 on a unit basis, similar to the method prevailing in the Department of Highways of Ontario. The next year tenders were again called in the public press, and ithe contract ran over $200,000, on a unit basis. The only cost plus work was for the mounting of guns, and other unusual work, not over $35,000, of the total sum. No changes at any time were made in the unit prices quoted in the tenders. That is the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, ilt is not correct to say, partly by tender and partly by day work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The only cost plus is for the mounting of the guns.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the answer given in this house.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The only cost plus item was for the mounting of the guns.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is all the information in Hansard. Would the minister give me the date of the second tender?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will send up for it; I have not it here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister obtain copies of payrolls?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can secure them, and will gladly do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does he, as a matter of fact?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I recall it, the payrolls on any work for which dominion government contributions are available. They are examined from time to time by the inspectors in order to determine whether or not the relief quota has been lived up to.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is provincial government work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is half and half. Do we get copies of the payrolls? Does the minister gelt copies of the payrolls?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not on all projects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The department, then?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not able to say that. I will find out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In some cases, it will be remembered by the minister, we do have copies of payrolls in order to authorize payments. They were obtained in some cases, and in some cases they were not. In order that we may be able to study out for ourselves the difficulties in connection with this stone, and other matters, will the Minister of National Defence produce the report of the commandant of the Royal Military College with respect to stone?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not aware of it at all; I will look into this question right away.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To be conclusive on that point, with respect to the utilization of these supplies. Obviously I have not seen or had any connection with the commandant, and therefore I will have to place myself entirely in the hands of the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Supplies for the Royal Military College?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, utilization by Mr. Stansbury of stone which went from the property known as the Royal Military College at Barriefield, camp 42.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my right hon. friend will permit me, I have the information he asked for. I should like to make a correction with respect to the second contract. I believe I gave the figure of approximately $200,000, and the actual figure is $305,448.50.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date of it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: March, 1937.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that done by tender?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, by tender.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: What papers were they published in?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information, but I will get it later for my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will produce the commandant's report I think that will throw a lot of light upon this matter. With respect to the-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not aware of any report at all on the matter, but I will look into it right away.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was one, I am informed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my right hon. friend indicate the nature of the report?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report was merely as to the question of the utilization of this stone by Stansbury, on his property.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is this more stone, or is this the same old stone?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It sounds very ingenious, most ingenious.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I want to know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is this the four dollars' worth?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the Canadian
people have an opportunity to appraise the value of the government, at least, and its methods of transacting business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Four dollars is a lot of money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not much to a millionaire, like the hon. member. It might be to some people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The right hon. gentleman certainly could answer on that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The stone I had reference to was the stone hauled to Mr. Stans-foury's place and utilized there, and a report was made to the Minister of Labour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was the stone to which the right hon. gentleman refers used in connection with the activities of the Department of National Defence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg your pardon?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was the stone used in my department?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The contracts were contracts made with the Department of Labour, and-


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, no; my right hon. friend is speaking about a report of the commandant. The commandant has not anything to do with the Department of Labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The contracts were contracts made through the Department of Labour with the Department of Public Highways of Ontario, as a matter of fact. The specifications bear the imprint of the highways department. Before that there were camps known as projects 37 and 42. I want the report of the commandant with respect to the withdrawal from within the curtilage of the Royal Military College of stone that went to this place of Stansbury's.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where did my right hon. friend get the information? He knows more than the minister does, because the minister has not seen or heard of this report. How does he know there* is a report of the commandant of the Royal Military College?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell you my knowledge. In the course of my inquiries with respect to it, I inquired as to whether or not the military college authorities had taken action, and my information was that their people did inspect it. That was as far as it went-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Inspected what?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This stone that was taken away, and therefore I concluded there must be a report. I said at the very start of it-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask my right hon. friend: Does he know, or does he not, if there is a report, because the minister does not know about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I placed myself in his hands with respect to the report which I believe was made by the commandant, and certain information given with respect to the removal of stone from land within the curtilage of the Royal Military College.
Mr. (MACKENZIE (Vancouver): I thought my right hon. friend said there was a report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I placed myself in the minister's hands. I believed there was a report and I mentioned my reasons for so believing. Obviously I could not communicate with council. That is the position. The point I wish to make with the minister is that there exists a condition which he should remedy. It is no good to refer to what somebody else did because he was elected to

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
make it better than it was. That was his job. If these conditions continue, then his job is to see that they are stopped. The issue is a simple one: Shall these conditions continue or shall they cease? That is all. It is to that issue that I directed the minister's attention. If he had been as careful yesterday as he was on former occasions, he would have realized that what I was trying to do was to direct attention to these conditions, not because I believed he had created them-I do not believe that yet-


Norman McLeod Rogers: The impression was left that way, whether it was intentional or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think one could use stronger language than I used to free the minister from the intention to do it. I made it clear beyond peradventure that what I was asking him to do was to cure the condition by having proper steps taken to end it. I cannot see how anyone could think otherwise unless they wished to do so regardless of the language used. What is more, the hon. minister will remember the occasion when I first mentioned the matter. Attention was directed to the fact that I did not think the minister himself had done these things. One who is as familiar with history as he is and desires to do what he did; one who made the speech he did, that he was going to clean up that mess, could not believe otherwise. I pointed out the condition to which he referred.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Let me just refer to the debate of yesterday. At page 3701 of Hansard
I am reported as follows:
Quite so, and his whole purpose has been, by a number of vague charges in the beginning, which I have no doubt were designed to bring more definite charges, to seek to create the impression that I as Minister of Labour had definitely connived at the violation of the terms with respect to employment under relief agreements.
Mr. Bennett: And he will prove it in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not prove connivance, prove the charges.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no, because I followed that up.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I simply read the words. If my right hon. friend says that he did not mean that-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly did not revise that Hansard, and I certainly did not say that the minister had connived. I said the charges could be proven. I say that yet. That is what my statement referred to. I gave

the letter from Rollands, and I can give other cases with respect to this matter from what I regard as fairly accurate sources.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend
surely will take steps to correct Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the Minister of Finance will correct his own Hansard, it will be a good deal better.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not do an injustice such as that to any man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not seen the occasion when if he could, he did not. That is all I can say.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not out of order. I say to the minister that I was dealing with the charges and I was not dealing with his connivance.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Labour has just quoted yesterday's Hansard and has shown a plain charge by the right hon. leader of the opposition in connection with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers).


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister read the words, and the right hon. leader of the opposition said only a few moments ago that he did not intend to say yesterday that the Minister of Labour connived, but he refused to move to have Hansard corrected in accordance with his explanation of to-day. My point of order is that under these circumstances and in view of the fact that those words have gone out all over the country doing an injustice to the Minister of Labour, you, Mr. Chairman, acting in your capacity of chairman of this committee should order that the words used yesterday by the leader of the opposition be corrected in accordance with his statement of to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A little more knowledge of the rules would have prevented the Minister of Finance from making that statement. The chairman has no such power.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Speaker has.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Speaker has under certain conditions.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance, the right hon. leader of the opposition is correct in saying that the chairman has not authority, but the chairman can report to the Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What can you report?


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the point of order? I submit there is no point of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Oh, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is it?


Frederick George Sanderson: As raised by the Minister of Finance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not a point of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: In the judgment of the Chair, it is a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That settles it. What is the point of order?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am content to leave it to the house and to the record of to-day's proceedings as contrasted with the record of yesterday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one in this house ever thought for one moment that I said that the minister had connived. I was dealing with the charges. He then went on and stated certain things which, of course, were not within the rules. Here is the record:
Mr. Bennett: But remember, this is a thing that was not going to happen. This is where my hon. friend was going to change it all. This is where the professor was going to see that decency prevailed. That is the way I put it.
Mr. Rogers: I shall speak with a little less heat than my right hon. friend, but possibly with a little more light. The right hon. gentleman has dealt with this question on three different occasions.
Mr. Bennett: And he is going to deal with it again.
Mr. Rogers: Quite so, and his whole purpose has been, by a number of vague charges in the beginning, which I have no doubt were designed to bring more definite charges-
Of course, that is improper-
-to seek to create the impression that I as Minister of Labour had definitely connived at the violation of the terms with respect to employment under relief agreements.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Read the next.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And then I said:
And he will prove it in this house.
That referred to the charges; it dealt with nothing else. How could I deal with the state of mind of the minister? He was imputing motives which he had no right to do at all. I was dealing with that, and I am dealing with the same question now-with the charges that I made with respect to the administration in Kingston of this department, and the Department of National Defence. I said I would prove it, and I have. The hon. gentleman knows that some of these matters cannot be dealt with because
they are not within the fiscal year for which the auditor general's report has been issued.
I took the trouble to look that up to see whether they were, and they will not appear until the report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, has been placed in the records of this house at the next session. That is what I mentioned to him yesterday. No one suggested that he had connived at these things. The sentence used prior to that is the particular one to which I direct attention. He said he was going to cure them. He saw the conditions at Kingston. He said they were bad.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said the relief camp would be closed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I meant the administration. What is more, when Doctor Ross spoke there, I remember a full page advertisement that was issued. I do not think the minister was responsible for that. The condition was going to be cured. The minister's speeches were on that high plane, and I said yesterday, and I repeat, that that is what we are looking for. We do not want references to what somebody else did; what we want is a cure. We want these evils set aside. I want this question cleared up and adjusted.


Norman McLeod Rogers: When a complaint comes
to the Department of Labour with respect to the relief act or any other function of the department, it is investigated at once. I may say I have received only one complaint from Kingston with respect to discrimination in connection with the matter to which my right hon. friend has referred, and that has been investigated. I know of no instance where a complaint has been made and has not been investigated. If my right hon. friend would bring these matters to my attention, they would receive immediate and careful attention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only pointing
out that that was the issue. The statements made by the minister were public statements, and I have made a public statement in connection with the conditions that I believe obtain and prevail and can be proven. I ask him to take steps to cure them. I have made my statement publicly because his statements as to what he proposed to do were made publicly on the hustings. Now, to come back and say, "Well, that is what you fellows did, only worse," is not exactly the appeal which was made to the electorate. But it is an old story-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Let me correct that, if I may. I know my right hon. friend wants to
3726	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
have the record straight. I said in the first place, We will deal with the complaints as they arise. That is the first thing; in other words, correct the situation. It was only in the second place that I dealt with conditions which had existed before; and I think that was a position which was entirely logical.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it would not have sounded very convincing if the hon. gentleman had gone to the people and said, "Elect me rather than General Ross, because we are going to continue and improve on the patronage methods that he has adopted in the constituency."


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should say there has been an improvement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says there has been an improvement. Then, all I have * to say is that it must have been very bad before, because no one will say, just on the statements which have been made by the minister himself, that these conditions do not call for change. The idea of a man taking stone and then saying he has somebody's permission to do it though it belongs to the public I These things are not to be done in that way. There is also the whole question of appointments being left in the hands of a man who has the right to say whether or not men shall be permitted to work, and that my taxes and other people's taxes shall be used for the purpose of providing employment only for a given type of person. That is wrong. It is wrong when you are dealing with relief. What is more, if the minister is fair he will realize that the first time I talked about the matter I spoke of these casual appointments being within his jurisdiction, and the criticism I was making with respect to


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry that my right hon. friend on that very occasion read from that return and made a specific charge that with respect to opportunities for employment in relief acts, there had been discrimination. Mr. BENNETT: Certainly.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And yet the references were not to those who had been employed on relief works whatsoever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, on relief acts.
I tried to make it clear that I regard relief acts as an entirely separate thing from everything else. I believe that everybody, regardless of political faith, has the right-


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend did not make that explanation in the first instance.


An hon. MEMBER:: And it was done under his political regime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In respect to circumstances I have knowledge of, the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg will not say that employment on the sewage disposal plant was limited to a certain type of person in that city. Oh yes, an hon. member is nodding for him to get up. He will get up any time and read the letter of Mr. R. H. Webb to Mr. Bennett. The hon. member nods to the hon. member for St. Boniface to make his little speech and read his little letter, and he will do it. That is an answer, of course, to observations on the present administration; he is going to read that letter. But remember that it was put on the file. Remember that it was found on the file.


William Alexander Fraser: Somebody made a mistake.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I do not think so. I want to make clear beyond peradventure to the minister that I do believe that conditions there call for the remedy of the evil. I repeat that I am not going to stop now. I am going to continue to watch that condition, because a singular situation has developed. It is a situation different from that in any other constituency; for the hon. gentleman was a different candidate from other candidates. More was expected of him. He was going to do these things; I believe he wanted to do them, and I have been interested to see whether or not he would allow what has been called the machine to overpower him or whether he would make the machine run decently. That is the position; that is the whole reason and purpose behind this. I made up my mind when those speeches were made by the Prime Minister and by the hon. member for Kingston that I would continue to follow the matter. If God gives me health, I propose to do so, because we have received these definite assurances. When President Wilson went into public life he made certain statements of the same kind-


An hon. MEMBER:: -and lived up to
them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One knows his history in New Jersey. He joined issue with the machine; it was his own party's, but he broke it, and it paid him to do so. I am curious to ascertain whether or not, when we get men of the high type and calibre of the Minister of Labour in the public life of this country, with his academic training, with his outlook and his historical knowledge, when he makes these statements as to the methods that are to be followed in connection with the conduct of public business, he will give effect to those assurances. I look to see it done, and that he is not to be overawed or diverted from his endeavours to accomplish it by the

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
machine which has hitherto controlled, and which, unless the minister takes a strong position, will continue to control, the patronage situation in that constituency. Certainly the language of the Prime Minister the other evening gave me reason to say "splendid" in response to what he said, because it indicated he realized that under relief conditions in this country we have a situation which is not free from danger, very great danger, and the only way we can remedy it is for men of the type and standing of the Minister of Labour to see to it that the whole force and strength of the government are utilized to prevent the continuance of this evil.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I have listened for a good many days of this session to lessons by the right hon. leader of the opposition on the political morals which should obtain in this country. Also I have very often heard him use the expression "bribery of the electors" either by the expenditures of public funds or the promise of expenditures of public funds, and I have come to the conclusion-and if the term is parliamentary I am going to use it-that I think the right hon. gentleman is posing as a holier-than-thou leader, when I am convinced that he is about the biggest hypocrite who ever entered this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that the chairman will probably ask that that be withdrawn.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The word
"hypocrite" is unparliamentary, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Well, then, Mr. Chairman, I never saw the practice of hypocrisy to the degree I have listened to it to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That, unfortunately, is
in the same position.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Now, what happened-


William Earl Rowe: I rise to a point of order. That expression is just as unparliamentary as the other.


Frederick George Sanderson: The point of order, in my opinion, is well taken.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then, Mr. Chairman, I will bow to your ruling, and I withdraw those Words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having thought them out very carefully, and feeling better for having said them.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The right hon. gentleman in 1930 started the game of bribery-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That again, Mr. Chairman, is unparliamentary.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: -by going throughout Canada and making promises-


William Earl Rowe: That is just as unparliamentary as "hypocrisy."


Charles Avery Dunning: What is?


William Earl Rowe: "Bribery."


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. leader of the opposition uses it every day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member said I "started the game of bribery."


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. gentleman can use the word "bribery" better: he is a clever enough lawyer to use it properly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That word is not properly used, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order, one hon. member cannot allege that another member of this house started a "game of bribery." I have always voted against lotteries, and thus far I have escaped being charged with bribery. But there are cases in which


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the right hon. gentleman speak louder, so that I can hear his point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point of order is that it is unparliamentary to make that observation.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I have a right to speak on the point of order, have I not? To my knowledge the right hon. gentleman has used the word "bribery" hundreds of times in this house. He used it in connection with the byelection in St. Henry, Montreal. He used it on many other occasions. I leave it to you, Mr. Chairman, whether I have not the right to use the same term as the right hon. gentleman has used hundreds of times in this house.


James Houston Spence: In a different way, though.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition, I am of opinion it is well taken, for this reason, that it might be inferred from the remark that there was something personal in the way of bribery on the part of the leader of the opposition. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I again boW~to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and withdraw the word " bribery." But I will read one or two promises which the right hon. gentleman made in 1930 and leave it to your good
3728	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
judgment whether these promises have not a slight connection with the word "bribery." Here is what he said in Victoria. According to the Colonist of June 17, my right hon. friend said:
You have my promise that if the Conservative party is returned to power that as soon after July 28 as possible, parliament will be called together to deal with the problem of unemployment by providing, not doles, but work, and that legislative action will be taken to bring about the future security of our country and the well-being of its people .	.	. We
cannot tolerate the dole. Men and women of ihis country want work, not charity.
Did the right hon. gentleman carry out that promise? Did he not inaugurate a dole system in this country, and in doing so did he not do more damage to Canada and probably place our democratic institutions in such a position that to-day they are not very much respected?


Mr. MASSEY:: Has the present government changed it?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am making my own speech; the hon. gentleman can make his. Speaking in Calgary, the leader of the opposition said, as reported in the Calgary Herald of June 13:
I am not a genius-*
He did not have to tell anyone that.
I am not a genius ... I am a man just as you men who are here, one of your fellow-citizens. I have responsibilities as every man in this position has, and I must not lightly make statements that I am not prepared to the last syllable to carry into effect, and I will not.
Then, on June 21, at Brandon, he said, as reported in the Mail and Empire:
Endorsation of the suggested Mafeking cutoff to afford Manitoba a shorter route to the Hudson Bay railway was voiced by the Conservative leader. Supporting the proposal, Mr. Bennett said that this would be a proper national undertaking to be started to relieve unemployment, and he asserted such was his intention.
When the leader of the opposition made the statements contained in the three quotations I have read, he knew he could not carry them out and therefore he knew he was deceiving the electorate. He has deceived them 'because none of these promises was carried out while he was in power for five years. In 1935 we had an election, he knew the promises he made in 1930 he could not put into effect, and so in 1935 he thought he would use other means; he would use public funds, and under his legislation of 1935, under peace, order and good government,

which gave him a blank cheque, to do what he liked with, the province of Manitoba came to Ottawa to make arrangements for expenditure on unemployment relief. They entered into an agreement in April, 1935. In that agreement the Department of Labour, through the Hon. Mr. Gordon, took the definite stand that no money would be spent on road projects except on the trans-Canada highway. And when Mr. Gordon or any other ministers in the last government took a stand, it came from the leader of the opposition, who was then Prime Minister, because in those days we had a one-man government and none of the ministers acted without his sanction. From that time on the Conservative candidates and my right hon. friend's henchmen and machine were going around the ridings in the province of Manitoba and saying to the electors. "The federal government is prepared to spend money to build these roads. If the provincial government is prepared to put up dollar for dollar, the federal government will also lend the provinces' share to them." Why, in my riding they promised a road from every place to every place, and they promised so many bridges that if they had all been constructed it would have been necessary to hire a machine to dig rivers to put the bridges across, because there were not enough rivers in the constituency.
Prior to July 23, 1935, the then Minister of Labour took the stand that no money would be expended on roads in Manitoba, except on the trans-Canada highway. The minister of public works of Manitoba, the Hon. Mr. Clubb, wrote as follows to the Minister of Labour on July 23, 1935:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
A large delegation interviewed the honourable premier and myself this morning in reference to the construction of a road, as a relief project, from a point four miles east of the town of Morden, thence easterly through the towns of Plum Coulee, Letellier, Dominion City, Stuartburn, Vita, Caliento, Sundown, Menisino and Piney, to the town of Sprague, an approximate distance of 115 miles.
Roughly estimated, this road will cost around $10,000 per mile, plus the construction of a bridge over the Red river at Letellier, which will cost in the neighbourhood of $125,000.
The delegates were very desirous of having this road constructed as an unemployment relief measure, and intimated that the dominion government would favourably consider same.
If you are prepared to do this as a relief measure, the province will undertake to do its part.
Yours very truly,
W. R. Clubb,
Minister of Public Works and Labour

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
Then, on July 27, the Hon. Mr. Clubb wrote another letter to the Hon. Mr. Gordon in the following terms:
Dear Sir:
Last month when I was at Ottawa discussing relief projects that might he undertaken in this province, I submitted to Mr. Dickson, deputy minister, a list of same and in which was included the project known as the Piney highway.
This road was started in 1930 as a relief project and considerable work was done in that year and continued in 1931.
The list referred to above. I understand, Mr. Dickson referred to you but in your letter of June 27 you stated that you could not see your way clear to approve of any of this work other than that on the Trans-Canada highway and the Peace Garden road.
Since my return, I have had numerous requests asking me to again take up with you the matter of the completion of the Piney highway and to ask if you would be prepared to reconsider your previous decision.
He then describes the highway, and closes with this:
I would appreciate it if you would let me hear from you in this regard.
Then one of my right hon. friend's political henchmen, the head of the machine in Manitoba, Ralph Webb, came upon the scene. He classifies himself as director of the Conservative organization in the province of Manitoba, and on August 23, 1935, he wrote to Mr. Gordon-


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1935?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes; 1935 was election
year. He wrote:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
I would appreciate it very much indeed if you would kindly read the enclosed carefully. It does explain the situation,-
Mark those words "it does explain the situation."
-and means so much to us, and in view of the new conditions that have arisen owing to the rust and extreme heat on the crops, it might be good justification for really doing something at this time as a special consideration. There is not the question of a doubt that if we do not do something, many hundreds and thousands of these people in these districts will be applying to the provincial and federal governments for assistance this winter.
Yours very truly,
R. H. Webb,
Director for Manitoba.
In that letter he enclosed this letter which he had written to the Prime Minister, addressing him as " My dear Chief "; he also says that he is sending a copy to Mr. Gordon,
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Manion. The' letter is marked private and personal, but it is on the file and I am going to read it:
August 23, 1935. The Right Hon. R. B. Bennett,



P.C., K.C., M.P.,

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Chief:
I have just come in from the constituencies of Lisgar, Provencher and St. Boniface particularly, and the situation at the moment is very good there politically, but it needs the necessary impetus to carry on.
I have already written to the Hon. J. E. Lawson, the Hon. R. J. Manion and the Hon. Wesley Gordon and the Hon. T. G. Murphy with regard to the two roads in these three constituencies that are vital factors in this election campaign, and they have the whole story in detail, both verbally and in writing.
In 1931 the federal government appropriated moneys for both of these roads. Both trunk highways enter the province of Manitoba, and as an unemployment relief measure, quite considerable work was done, which 1 think was shared by the federal and provincial governments fifty per cent each. The provincial government have or did apply again for these two roads to be carried on as an unemployment relief measure, but for some reason or other were more or less turned down as a matter of policy.
A new problem has arisen lately, which may be a good reason for reconsideration. As you know rust and extreme heat have destroyed the larger portion of our Manitoba wheat crop, and in some parts of Lisgar and Provencher especially it has created a very serious problem, and has left the farmers in a serious situation. My thought is that if your government will cooperate with the provincial government as an unemployment relief works measure, that work could be done on these roads that would give the farmers of these three constituencies plenty to do and help them to earn something, whereas if it is not done they possibly may appeal to the provincial and federal governments for some form of relief and for which we will get nothing, but on the other hand are perfectly willing to work themselves and use their teams and equipment. As a political measure, it assures us without any question of a doubt these three seats which we badly want to win, and which look very good for us at the present time.
The Liberal federal members in these three constituencies, supported to some extent, under cover, by provincial government members, are endeavouring to blame the federal government for the fact that these two roads have not and will not be built, and it has become such a strong factor politically, that a great deal rests on a favourable decision being made.
I feel that we should play the game politically, call the provincial government's bluff, who have stated positively to delegates that they are prepared to put up dollar for dollar with the federal government in the building of these two roads as an unemployment relief works measure, and I understand, although I am not sure, that the provincial government have forwarded on letters of approval for both of these
3730	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
roads. They certainly did in their original letter of March or April 27 because I have a copy of it. and it was discussed at Ottawa with the Minister of Labour and the Hon. T. G. Murphy.
If the federal government would advise of participation in these two roads, it would be good politics; it would call the provincial government's bluff; it would kill the propaganda that the Liberals are carrying on at the present time; it would assure us of a victory in these three seats, and in my humble opinion, will not have cost the federal government anything, because by the time the work is organized, the election will be over, and winter will be upon us, and perhaps very little work will have been done before the end of the present financial year.
The Hon. W. Gordon, the Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion and the Hon. T. G. Murphy know all about these two roads. They have the details, map locations and I believe thoroughly understand the situation. Our candidates are very alive to the situation, and no doubt have also been in touch with your own good self and the ministers, pointing out the actual situation and what it means. If it was not the right thing to do I would be the first to turn it down, but they are essential to the welfare of the province as a whole, running through two very thickly settled parts of the province, in fact the oldest settled parts, and there is not a road anywhere east of the Red river other than mud roads, and the people there are naturally aroused. I am not saying that it is a federal matter at all, we all know that, but as an unemployment relief works measure it is thought that something might be done, and particularly in view of the serious situation that has developed through rust and extreme heat in the crops of the farmers, and politically it means victory for us.
Yours very truly,
R. H. Webb,
Director for Manitoba.
What happened? After the right hon. gentleman received that letter, which he must have received, after the Hon. Mr. Gordon, the Hon. Dr. Manion, the Hon. Mr. Murphy and the Hon. Mr. Lawson getting copies, here is what the right hon. gentleman sent to Mr. Dickson. We, who were here from 1930 to 1935, all know, that at any time the right hon. gentleman signed his name to any document it meant that you had to carry it out or stand the consequences. Here is what he said:
Ottawa, September 4, 1935. W. M. Dickson, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Dickson:
I have received a telegram from the Minister of the Interior reading as follows:
"Regarding further works in the province of Manitoba which might be commenced for the relief of unemployment the following should I feel receive serious consideration. Construction of a highway leading southeasterly from Winnipeg to the international boundary known as

the Piney highway. Construction of a highway from Morden eastward to connect with the Piney highway. Construction of a highway from Russell to a point near Erickson to connect with the highway leading to the Riding Mountain park. Construction of a bridge known as the Lens bridge, Swan River district. The provincial government has addressed correspondence to the Department of Labour intimating their willingness to consider the construction of such highways and bridges as may be mutually agreed upon and to enter into a supplementary agreement in regard thereto." Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. B. Bennett.
Then, on September 4, 1935, the Hon. Mr Clubb wrote the following letter to the Hon. W. A. Gordon:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
Yesterday Senator Mullins, Mr. R. Peden, of Rossburn, and the Hon. Mr. Griffiths interviewed me with reference to the proposed gravelling of the road from Russell to Clear Lake via Silverton, Angusville, Birdtail, Rossburn, Olha, Oakburn, Menzie, Elphinstone, Sandy Lake and Rackham to Clear Lake highway.
This road, Mr. Peden informed me, had been approved by the parties interested at a meeting which he had attended. In discussing this matter Mr. Peden also informed me that Senator Mullins and himself had just returned from Neepawa where they had discussed the building of this road with the Hon. Mr. Murphy. They stated that Mr. Murphy had said that if I would write you requesting that this road be approved by you as a relief project on the usual basis it would be built. If this information is correct, and your government accepts this proposition, which we submitted to you on a previous occasion and which you refused, I take it that you would be prepared to draw up an agreement embodying this project and forward same to me for signature.
Then, there are some figures with regard to the mileage of the road, and the letter is signed by W. R. Clubb. I have another letter from Mr. Clubb to Mr. Gordon under date of September 4, 1935; reading in part as follows:
Under date of July 27th, 1935, I wrote you with reference to the Piney highway and also under date of July 23rd with reference to the Sprague-Morden road. To date I have not heard from you with regard to the above projects and would appreciate it if you could give these matters your attention, and oblige.
Then there is some correspondence with Colonel MacLean, and by the way I might just interject here a word with regard to this gentleman. When Colonel MacLean was in charge of the employment office in Winnipeg you could not get a job unless you were a fourth degree Conservative.
An hon. MEMBER:: And your grandfather before you.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes. After this letter of August 23 had been written to the right

Supply

Labour-Employment Offices
hon. gentleman, what happened? On September 12 Mr. Gordon sent the following telegram to Mr. Clubb:
Reference your letters fourth instant Piney highway Sprague Morden road and Russel Clear Lake road stop Governor in council has now approved of supplementary agreement which authorize federal assistance to construction on the above highways also certain bridges and memorandum of agreement is being forwarded at once to the province.
The letter from Ralph Webb was dated August 23, and on it action was taken by the federal government. I am going to deal with my riding particularly, because I am more familiar with it. In my riding this agreement entailed an expenditure of $575,000 on the part of the dominion and a further expenditure of $250,000 as the federal share of the Piney highway. In other words, there was an expenditure contemplated in those three ridings, including the 50 per cent share of the province, of $1,525,000. Right up to September 12 the then Minister of Labour had refused to have anything to do with road construction in Manitoba except on the trans-Canada highway. When Mr. Ralph Webb, the henchman of the right hon. leader of the opposition, comes into the picture on August 23, this expenditure is provided on the representations of that gentleman. I should like to go back to a clause in Mr. Webb's letter to the right hon. gentleman which I think deserves to be read again:
If the federal government would advise of participation in these two roads, it would be good politics; it would call the provincial government's bluff; it would kill the propaganda that the Liberals are carrying on at the present time; it would assure us of a victory in these three seats, and in my humble opinion, will not have cost the federal government anything, because by the time the work is organized, the election will be over-
Can you beat that for trying to bribe the electors by the expenditure of public money? You can scrutinize the records of this house, and I do not think you will find anything as glaring as this. Then there is the order in council authorizing the work, which is P.C. 2851 of September 10:
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 10th September, 1935.
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 9th September, 1935, from the Minister of Labour, submitting:
(1)	That parliament has enacted legislation which may be cited as "The Relief Act, 1935";
(2)	That clause 2 of the act provides, inter alia, that the governor in council may, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein;
(3)	That the government of the province of Manitoba has signified a desire to enter into an agreement with the dominion under the aforesaid act respecting relief measures in the province, supplemental to the agreements authorized by orders in council P.C. 1769 dated June 28, 1935, and P.C. 2396, dated August 8, 1935.
The minister, therefore, recommends that he be authorized to enter into an agreement with the province of Manitoba on behalf of the dominion under the provisions of The Relief Act, 1935, in accordance with draft attached hereto.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
E. J. Lemaire,	_
Clerk of the Privy Council.
I do not think I should read the entire agreement, but there is one clause I want to read to show that this whole project was carried forward for political purposes only. Mind you, I am not saying that these roads were not needed, but this whole project was started for the purpose of winning the three seats, bribing the electors into voting for the Conservative candidate. This is what clause 11 of the agreement provides:
This agreement shall be effective from and including the tenth day of September, 1935, and shall expire on March thirty-first, 1936, but shall not apply to any project on which work has not been commenced by the tenth day of October, 1935.
And voting was on October 14. Well, Mr. Chairman. I do not think I need say very much more. I hope my right hon. friend will stop accusing everybody else of doing something wrong and of suggesting that he always did the right thing. As I said before, as far as Manitoba is concerned, when his government was in power you could not get a job anywhere unless you were a full-fledged fourth degree Conservative. That was the practice. Preferred lists? You had to show your initiation certificate before you could be put on the preferred list for any commodities that were bought by any department, and my right hon. friend cannot deny that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly say that is
inaccurate; and that without regard to political considerations men found jobs on relief projects, notably in the city of Winnipeg in connection with the sewage disposal plant.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Whenever a statement
is made my right hon. friend always denies it; that is the easiest thing to do, but the facts are there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And they could not exist without the right hon. gentleman being aware of them, because when he was Prime Minister of this country he was running the
3732	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
whole show; he knows that. I do not think I need go any further. Even with the bribery that my right hon. friend and his henchmen tried to use by way of public money-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely that is not in
order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman can use the wrnrd "bribery," but not in that sense.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I shall withdraw the
word and say the impetus which they tried to provide to unduly influence the electors, through the expenditure of certain large sums of money. I want to tell my right hon. friend that it will take ten leaders like him to influence the good electors of Provencher, because they are intelligent people. You can see that, because they have returned me to this house so often. I will tell my right hon. friend that despite the various kinds of impetus he tried to use in the election campaign in the constituency of Provencher. I was elected by the largest majority any man ever received in the riding. This money was being expended on road projects which were started for one purpose, and one only, namely, to win the election in those three seats. Thank heaven the electors turned it down and told the right hon. gentleman exactly what they wanted.


Mr. GLEN:: Mr. Chairman, naturally I wish to take some part in this discussion, because one of the roads in question goes through my constituency, and I think I can speak with some degree of certainty with regard to what happened there. I must say at the outset I am not at all in favour of the tu quoque argument, and I very rarely apply it or use it. But when I read yesterday's Hansard, and listened to the speech delivered to-day by the right hon. the leader of the opposition, I think the very high ground he took in those speeches certainly calls for some comment as to the conduct of the Conservative party while they were in office.
Yesterday, when referring to patronage, he used the word "monstrous." As reported on page 3698 of Hansard, he said:
It is monstrous-I use that word again, at which the minister sometimes smiles-that a poor unfortunate cannot get a job because he cannot get a letter to the employment office from the head of the Liberal organization.
Further on down the same page, referring to a man living in Calgary, he said:
Under conditions of normal prosperity there might be a different attitude. But this is laying the foundation for anarchy. Mark it!
In reply to the Minister of Labour, he stated that he wished to make it perfectly clear "that to my knowledge it was not done

under the relief administration." Then, further down on the same page he said:
Sometimes I wonder whether our friends realize that we are living on the edge of a volcano in this country.
To-day we had the right hon. gentleman taking a very high ground again with regard to the attitude which should be adopted by the Minister of Labour in connection with conditions in Kingston. For that reason I think it only right that I should recall at this time some of the things that have been done by the administration of which the right hon. gentleman was the head.
As I said before, I do not like this kind of argument, but I think the people of the country must know exactly what happened during that period. During the election campaign of 1935 we were faced with the project of a road running through my constituency from Russell to Erickson, joining with the Clear Lake road to Riding Mountain. The Tory candidate was saying that the road was to be built by a Conservative government. I told the electors that this was an election road. I told them from the platform that if it was an election road, and they wanted it, the best thing they could do would be to vote for me, because a Liberal government would be administering it after the election. I believe to a certain extent that appealed to them, and is one of the reasons why I was elected. Probably it was not for that reason alone.
But when we see the letter that has been submitted by the hon. member for Provencher, I will suggest to the committee that I do not think there ever has been or could be a stronger indictment against the form of patronage that was carried out by the administration under the right hon. gentleman opposite. I never thought for one minute when going through that constituency, and saying the things I said, that .they were to be borne out one hundred per cent by the letter addressed by Mr. Webb of Winnipeg to the right hon. the leader of the opposition.
What I do not like-and I will say it frankly-is the fact that the leader of the opposition should be in a position to know the terms of that letter, and confirm the terms of it by the telegram which he sent and which has been read and put on Hansard by the hon. member for Provencher. I refer to the telegram which was sent by the right hon. gentleman to Mr. Dickson.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it was on the basis of a telegram from Mr. Murphy, and so says on the face of it. The telegram was from Mr. Murphy. What does the hon. member mean by saying that?

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


James Allison Glen: I mean this: A letter was addressed to the right hon. gentleman by Mr. Webb. It is dated August 23, 1935, and has been read in extenso by the hon. member for Provenoher, One must assume that the letter was duly received by the leader of the opposition, and that he was aware of the fact that there Was a desire on the part of Mr. Webb and on the part of the Conservative organization in Manitoba that these roads should be built.
Having received that letter and seeing its terms, we note that Mr. Webb bluntly says that the work was for political purposes, and also the further statement that even if the government of the right hon. gentleman did agree to carry out the building of the road, no money need be spent upon it, because the winter would be upon them and there would not be the opportunity to carry out the project.
What I do say is this-and I do not like to say it; I hate to have to do it-is that the right hon. leader of the opposition having received that letter and having again received a telegram from Mr. Murphy on September 4, asking for the construction of these roads, was bound to know and to have acceded to and be entirely cognizant of all the conditions under which these roads were to be built.
This casts the reflection upon the right hon. gentleman that for political purposes he was willing to aid the Conservative association in Manitoba at the request of his organizer. The statement is blatantly made, tfhat it was for political purposes only. It is true that in the letter he made reference to relief, but that is negatived absolutely by the statement that there could be no relief given that year because of the lateness of the period in which the contracts wrould be let and the work begun.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the provincial government, without which it could not be done?


James Allison Glen: The provincial government
prior to that had already made the request that these roads should be built.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they renewed it.


James Allison Glen: Excuse me; I should like
to finish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Allison Glen: The request was made on July 27, 1935, and was refused by the then Minister of Labour in the government headed by the right hon. gentleman. The provincial authorities had been anxious all along to build these roads, and had made requests
to the government of the day. Those requests had been refused. But when a meeting took place in my own constituency where the then Conservative candidate, Mr. Peden, attended, with Senator Mullins, the former member, it was agreed to build these roads at the request of citizens in my constituency. And it was after that that these letters were sent and the road was ultimately agreed upon by the federal government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not agreed upon by the federal government. My hon. friend must not misunderstand the facts. The federal government agreed to contribute half of the cost, and the province again urged that the road be built, and gave reasons for their attitude.


James Allison Glen: The roads were built in agreement between the federal and provincial governments. That agreement was duly signed. The contribution was made by the federal government, and the roads were to be and since have been built under that agreement.
But when my right hon. friend speaks about patronge, let me tell the committee that not a man in my constituency, known to be a Liberal, could be employed in Riding Mountain park. At one time there were fifteen hundred to seventeen hundred men in the park. They had to have the consent of the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Murphy, or his committee, and also the consent of the committee in my own constituency, before they could be employed. Let me give an illustration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member must be misinformed. A large number of single unemployed persons were sent to that park, and hence the number there was so very large. No one knew anything about their politics.


James Allison Glen: Not one of them dared declare he was a Liberal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no question of their politics. They were unemployed and they were sent there from every part of Canada.


James Allison Glen: Let me give my right hon. friend an illustration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know what I am talking about.


James Allison Glen: When this park was opened, invitations were sent all around, but they were so anxious to keep out Liberals that they did not even invite the three members who had secured the park for Manitoba, the hon. member for Dauphin, the hon. member for Neepawa and myself.
3734	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: You were not members of the house at that time.


James Allison Glen: We were not members of the house, but we had secured the park for Manitoba. When I went into the park on the opening day I was astounded to see a man directing traffic who had been one of my strongest supporters. I stopped and asked him what he was doing there. He replied, " For heaven's sake, Jimmy, don't speak to me; if anyone sees me speaking to you, I will lose this job."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is conclusive. That is helpful.


Charles Avery Dunning: He did not hear that; he experienced that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hearsay.


James Allison Glen: That is what was happening
all the time. Let me give another illustration. This story was told to me as being true. The Hon. Mr. Murphy certainly did well for the constituency of Neepawa. He provided plenty of jobs in that park. The day after the election when he was defeated, a man came up to the garage man in Neepawa and said to him, "What happened yesterday at the election? How was Murphy defeated?" The garage man said, "Just let me whisper this to you; we killed Santa Claus." That is how they viewed Mr. Murphy, as a Santa Claus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that is a
manufactured story. That story originated in the United States.


James Allison Glen: It was told to me as the
truth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That story is told in
every election.


James Allison Glen: I want to refer to the principle that was involved in the construction of works under the leader of the opposition. I do not know that there has ever been a time when one could say more positively: Here is political patronage at its very worst. A letter was sent from Mr. Webb, a gentleman who had been mayor I believe seven times and who is now a member of the provincial legislature, to the head of the federal government of that day, stating reasons why certain roads should be built. That request was granted by the leader of the government of that day. It has been suggested to me that they were to be started before October 10. I think it ill behooves the right hon. leader of the opposition to take the position he has taken to-day with regard to matters in the constituency of the Minister of Labour.

If he had shown the same desire and regard in the past for proper dealing, then his argument to-day might have been much stronger. I do not defend patronage of that kind and I do not practise it. My constituents tell me that there are Tories now working in this park when a Liberal could not get a job during the Tory administration. I am being blamed for that. I agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister to the effect that we should endeavour to eliminate patronage in all forms of the civil and political service. I agree that we ought to do that in our political and public life. I believe the leader of the opposition has been ill advised in bringing to light these matters at a time when he is passing from public life. I felt I had to say what I have said because I know the facts in connection with patronage in that park.


Mr. MacNEIL:: When this item was under consideration last year the minister intimated that he had under advisement an extension of the follow-up service with regard to the placement of young women, particularly in domestic service. I should like to know what steps have been taken to implement the assurance given last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not recall the precise
statement to which my hon. friend refers. The federal government does not appoint the personnel in the various provincial employment offices. This is simply going over the ground that we covered yesterday when this item was under discussion. I shall be glad to look up the point mentioned by my hon. friend. There has been certainly no intentional oversight with respect to the matter, but I do not recall at the moment the precise point raised last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before this item carries, may I ask the right hon. leader of the opposition if, in view of the existence of the documents that have been read and placed on Hansard, and the statements contained therein which reveal a conspiracy to use public funds to corrupt the electorate in three constituencies on the part of himself and three other ministers of the crown when he was occupying the office of Prime Minister, he has nothing to say in defence of his action before this matter is allowed to drop?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations that
I shall make will be made when the house resumes this evening. There is no warrant for any such language as that used by the Prime Minister. What is more, there is no authority for his statement in the letters that

Private Bills
have been read. A personal and private communication written to me by a man outside the House of Commons is made the basis of an attack against me personally. I know there is no minister here this afternoon who has not received personal communications from various people complaining about the political effect of certain works to be done, but not one has been read from this side. But the hon. member read a personal communication which had been written to me marked "personal and confidential." A copy of that letter was read in this house by the right hon. gentleman's mouthpiece. The right hon. gentleman would not do it. He would not disgrace himself by doing that.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 125,
for the relief of Paul Sanson White-Mr. Hill. -Mr. Howden in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, speaking to this bill and others of a similar kind, I strongly object to having a bill of divorce in the statute books. I have protested already.
To my mind it is a shame that we should act as a tribunal just to dissolve marriages. Those people should be refused legislation of this kind; they should be sent to the provinces where there are courts of divorce. It is a real shame to see the long tale of divorces that is in every statute book of this parliament.
Section agreed to on division:
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



LOUISE MAUD THOMAS GREGORY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 126, for the relief of Louise Maud Thomas Gregory -Mr. Factor-Mr. Howden in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Howden):: Carried?


Mr. MARTIN:: On division.


Jean-François Pouliot: What do we know about these people? We have never seen them; we are not interested in them; we have never heard evidence concerning them; and we are acting as rubber stamps for these divorces. I strongly protest again.


James Houston Spence: Somebody else has seen them.
Section agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed on division.



EMMA KATHLEEN LAVERY FORESTER

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 127, for the relief of Emma Kathleen La very Forester -Mr. Graydon-Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jean-François Pouliot: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, this is rubber stamp business. I find this legislation foolish and disgusting. We know nothing of the parties and have to take for granted the evidence that is given in the Senate. Moreover, you will notice the type of investigators who give evidence in most of these cases. They are fellows who peep through keyholes-a disgusting kind of fellow. One of them once saw people misbehaving, when the curtain was about six inches from the window sill; and though he was three hundred feet away he saw everything that happened in the room and gave evidence. Another one looked through a keyhole. They are known as people who make money by blackmail most of the time. There is connivance. The senators ask the parties, "Is there any connivance?" The answer is, no; and they are satisfied with that answer, when there is evidence that there is connivance. I protest. It is a shame for this house to pass such legislation.


Mr. McIYOR:: I understand that a bill on divorce is coming from the Senate, and I suggest that that will be the time for the hon. gentleman to make all the speeches possible. He will use his good judgment at that time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest to the hon. member that he advocate setting up real courts in Quebec such as there are in other provinces.


Jean-François Pouliot: In answer to that, let me say that I am not an advocate of divorce

Private Bills

courts or divorce mills, but when there are already divorce courts or divorce mills in any province those who want to take advantage of them can go where they are.


James Houston Spence: They do.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is stupid legislation we have in front of us.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



EDITH MARGARET CAMPBELL QUINN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 128, for the relief of Edith Margaret Campbell Quinn -Mr. Hyndman-Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jean-François Pouliot: Here, again, I will make a valuable suggestion to the committee-I already made one the other day-that the Senate and the House of Commons refuse to pass such legislation. My suggestion to-day is that all parties who come here for divorce shall be sterilized before divorce is granted.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



DOROTHY MAUD DORAN GAY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 129, for the relief of Dorothy Maud Doran Gay- Mr. White.-Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jean-François Pouliot: This is no gay matter and I protest again. I find the legislation stupid and I say that seriously. It is a shame for this parliament to pass such legislation and it is time for it to stop. Action must be taken and those who try to play the fool with us must be told this fact. Perhaps it would bring about reconciliation between them if they deserve to live in peace together.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



KATHLEEN BARNSLEY PRICHARD HARTNEY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. 132, for the relief of Kathleen Barnsley Prichard Hartney-Mr. Jacobs.-Mr. Howden in the chair.

On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jean-François Pouliot: Owing to the numerous
protests against these bills, I suppose they are all adopted only on division.


John Power Howden: Yes,
they are carried on division.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



THOMAS RUSSELL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 133, for the relief of Thomas Russell-Mr. Emmerson. -Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
John Power Howden: Shall the section carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



MARIE MARGUERITE AGNES MARCELLE DUPONT ROSS

[Stage Direction]
The house, in committee on Bill No. 134, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Agnes Marcelle Dupont Ross-Mr. Jacobs.-Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
John Power Howden: Shall
the section carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



WILFRED AUGUSTUS COTTLE STEAD

[Stage Direction]
The house, in committee on Bill No. 135, for the relief of Wilfred Augustus Cottle Stead-Mr. Lennard.-Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
John Power Howden: Shall the section carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices



CELIA CAPLAN TUCKER

[Stage Direction]
The house, in committee on Bill No. 136, for the relief of Celia Caplan Tucker-Mr. Heaps.-Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jean-François Pouliot: I rise on this bill. It happens that I went through the evidence, which is of a most shameful and disgusting type. According to the evidence, the whole thing was arranged by the father-in-law, who organized the so-called frame-up, which was admitted by the husband. Notwithstanding that, the Senate declared itself favourable to the divorce. It is a repugnant case of a frame-up organized by the father-in-law, to the previous knowledge of the husband, and it is declared by the husband right there. I submit that the bill should not be voted upon like this in committee until hon. members have had an opportunity to read the evidence. It is of the most shameful and disgusting type; it is just a frame-up. I shall not say more because there are ladies in the gallery, but it is something revolting. We are making fools of ourselves by such legislation.
Section 2 agreed to.


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



IRENE THOMAS SMITH

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 139, for the relief of Irene Thomas Smith-Mr. Walsh. -Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jean-François Pouliot: I do not object any more to-day, although I am against it, because I was so much disgusted by the evidence in the Tucker case which I picked up that I did not go through the others.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



SYLVIA SALZMAN UDASHKIN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 140, for the relief of Sylvia Salzman Udashkin- Mr. Lawson.-Mr. Howden in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jean-François Pouliot: It is something abominable.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.
51952-237J



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 99, to incorporate the Maritime Provinces General Insurance Company.-Mr. Isnor.
Bill No. 121, to incorporate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Hudson's Bay.-Mr. Boulanger.
Bill No. 130, respecting The Mail Printing Company.-Mr. Slaght.
Bill No. 131, respecting the Globe Printing Company.-Mr. Slaght.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of William Dougald Stanley Campbell.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Mildred Varner Macleod.-Mr. MacLean (Prince).
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Employment Offices Coordination Act, Administration, $63,925.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the house rose at six o'clock the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), speaking in reference to the correspondence which had been read to the committee by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), made the statement that I myself would not have read this correspondence to the committee, but that I was using the hon. member for Provencher as-henchman I think was the expression used.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, "mouthpiece" was the word I used.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a mouthpiece to perform that service on my behalf. I wish to say at once that I had no word direct or indirect with the hon. member for Provencher with reference to his action in the committee to-day. I never said a word to him about any of the correspondence; I did not instruct anyone else to say a word to him on my behalf. His action was entirely his own as far as I know. That is the truth with regard to that matter.
Now, with respect to what actually took place, as will be recalled, some time ago an order was passed by this house for a return showing certain correspondence. This is what was called for and what was brought
3738	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
down. It was brought down, yesterday, a return to an address to the House of Commons dated June 6, 1938 showing:
-a copy of all letters, telegrams, orders, in council, agreements and other documents having to do with the construction of the Piney highway, Morden Sprague highway, Brandon Clear Lake highway, in Manitoba, carried on between the province of Manitoba and the dominion government, as well as all other correspondence in relation thereto, between the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister and any other parties, between the dates of August 20, 1935, and October 15, 1935.
That was the correspondence which this house ordered should be tabled, correspondence to be taken from the files of the government department. The Minister of Labour, performing his obligation as a minister of the crown to bring down the correspondence asked for by this house, undoubtedly requested his deputy minister or some other official in his department to bring to him or to send to the Secretary of State all the correspondence on file and to have that correspondence prepared so that it might be tabled in this house by the Secretary of State, who would subsequently table it. The correspondence that was tabled came from the office of the Minister of Labour. It was all correspondence that related to the subject which this house had ordered should be dealt with in the return. The correspondence dated back to previous years and was laid on the table exactly as taken from the files of the department, not those of the present minister but in part those of the previous minister, the files that he had left in the department as a matter of record to justify his actions. I ask the committee to keep that circumstance in mind. We are being told by the right hon. leader of the opposition that certain letters which were on the files of the ex-Minister of Labour, and which he had left in the department as a record to justify his course, should not have been brought down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say and did not suggest that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the insinuation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then we will come to what was actually done. What was the correspondence that was there? Here was the first communication, and I will ask the right hon. leader of the opposition if he will say that this letter should not have been brought down:

Conservative Dominion Headquarters Province of Manitoba
408 McIntyre Block, Winnipeg, Man., August 23, 1935.
The Hon. Wesley Gordon, ICC., M.P.,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Gordon:
I would appreciate it very much indeed if you would kindly read the enclosed carefully. It does explain the situation and means so much to us, and in view of the new conditions that have arisen owing to the rust and extreme heat on the crops, it might be good justification for really doing something at this time as a special consideration. There is not the question of a doubt that if we do not do something many hundreds and thousands of these people in these districts will be applying to the provincial and federal governments for assistance this winter.
Yours very truly,
R. H. Webb,
Director for Manitoba.
I ask the right hon. leader of the opposition: Does he say the Minister of Labour should not have brought down that letter, when it was in the files; a letter making a straight appeal from one who, if I am not mistaken, was at the time the mayor of Winnipeg, or who certainly had held that position for many years; a letter addressed to the minister in his capacity as a minister of the crown; making an appeal to the Minister of Labour to do a certain thing to help relieve a situation; to use money of the federal government, which was intended for relief purposes, in order to provide for the construction of roads.


James Allison Glen: That is not marked "confidential" either.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am just
coming to that. This letter is not marked "personal and confidential." It was on the file as a public letter, a strictly official letter. It is not for me to say anything about what were the relations between the former Prime Minister and his colleagues, but I have pretty good reason for saying that Hon. Mr. Gordon, I have no doubt, felt the necessity of protecting himself with regard to all actions that were taken by his department; and I assume one reason why he left this letter on the file-if there was any reason why it should not be left there-was that he felt the necessity of being able to affirm what it was which occasioned the action that was taken. Now may I come to the next letter, but first let me refer again to these lines:
I would appreciate it very much indeed if you would kindly read the enclosed carefully. It does explain the situation and means so much to us . . .

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
"Read the enclosed carefully." What is the enclosed? There is only one enclosure, and that is the document which the leader of the opposition says should not have been brought down. He says that I would not have produced it, but that I had my mouthpiece, as he said, read it instead. I ask hon. members of the committee how the Minister of Labour, being ordered by the house to produce the documents that were on the file of the ex-Minister of Labour and lay them on the table, could have taken out of that file a communication that was not marked personal or private or a communication which was attached to a letter, which was referred to therein as "the enclosed" and which, it was stated, was placed there in order to explain the situation and explain it very carefully. The enclosure, when one looks at it, is not so much a personal, private letter. A personal, private letter is a communication that is sent to one person for his personal, private information, not to be passed on to others. This letter was much more in the nature of a circular than a personal, private letter. It was a circular letter to other ministers of the government of the day. It is headed:
Copy to the Hon. Wesley Gordon, K.C., M.P., Ottawa, Ontario.
Copy to the Hon. J. Earl Lawson, K.C., M.P., Ottawa, Ontario.
Copy to the Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion, M.P., Ottawa, Ontario.
Then after the words, "private and personal," and the date, August 23, 1935, there is the address:
The Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, P.C., K.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
It is written to the right hon. gentleman as Prime Minister, and begins:
My dear Chief:
I need not read the whole of the letter, but here are some of the essential parts; this is what Mr. Webb was telling the Minister of Labour he must consider as the reasons why the government of the day should appropriate a large sum of money for the construction of certain roads. The amount, I believe, was something like SI,365,000, and here are the reasons set forth why that amount should be appropriated for the purpose mentioned: My dear Chief:
I have just come in from the constituencies of Lisgar, Provencher and St. Boniface particularly, and the situation at the moment is very good there politically, but it needs the necessary impetus to carry on.
I have already written to the Hon. J. Earl Lawson, the Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion and the Hon. Wesley Gordon and the Hon. T. G.
Murphy with regard to the two roads in these three constituencies that are vital factors in this election campaign, and they have the whole story in detail, both verbally and in writing.
The house is denied the whole story as the ministers of the crown of that day had it. I am not at all sure that it would not be advisable for us to call the public accounts committee together and get the whole story.
I agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition that this business of trying to corrupt and bribe constituencies with public money is something that must be stopped if it possibly can be; but I do not think to that end we need waste the time of this House of Commons as it has been wasted in these last two days with the right hon. leader of the opposition devoting two complete sessions of this house to what? To talking about what I think is generally described as one of the lowest forms of ward politics; insinuations as to how this man and that man, whose names are unknown to anyone or were unknown until placed on Hansard to-day, received or were denied this or that consideration, or were expected to do this or that for some political reason. I say it is wasting the time of this parliament to talk of that sort of thing when you have the written evidence that a prime minister and several of his colleagues sat together and conspired-* that is not too strong a word-to see how three constituencies in a province could be won, by means of money appropriated by this parliament for purposes of relief, and worked hand in glove to that end with the political organizer of a province. That is the kind of thing that needs looking into, and that is the sort of thing that needs to be stopped. That is what we have in the correspondence tabled to-day. Let me read more: As a political measure, it assures us without any question of a doubt these three seats which we badly want to win, and which look very good for us at the present time. ... I feel that we should play the game politically . . . If the federal government would advise of participation in these two roads, it would be good politics; it would call the provincial government's bluff; it would kill the propaganda that the Liberals are carrying on at the present time; it would assure us of a victory in these three seats and-
Then comes-and I do not think it is too strong a term to use-the most contemptible part of it all:
-and in my humble opinion will not have cost the federal government anything, because by the time the work is organized the election will be over, and winter will be upon us, and perhaps very little work will have been done before the end of the present fiscal year.
Ending up with:
And politically it means victory for us.
3740	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
The right hon. the leader of the opposition said he was watching with interest to see whether the new Minister of Labour, with his high ideals in public life, would be able to destroy the machine, the political machine, or whether he would be overborne or crushed by it. And yet the leader of the opposition himself when Prime Minister of this country was conspiring with his colleagues not only to help that political machine, but to oil it and to give it power to destroy free will and its expression at the polls of the people of Manitoba in three specified constituencies. How far this was the method generally adopted, who can say?
I have not time to go through the correspondence; I wish simply to bring home some outstanding points. Looking at the order in council, and its date in relation to this earlier correspondence, the whole story is there, as complete as it can be-an order put through on the eve of an election, just for the purpose of letting these poor people who were then so hard pressed in the province of Manitoba- starving, many of them, as the right hon. the leader of the opposition would say- believe that at last help was coming from the public treasury.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And the work was to be there by the tenth of October.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the work was to be there, and all would be well. But in the back of the minds of all these gentlemen there was the knowledge or intention that as soon as the election was over-no more work- whether the people starved or did not starve.
I say that in all Canadian history there has never been an exposure of corruption and corrupt political methods so disgraceful.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read this! Beauharnoisl Beauharnois! Read that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Beauharnois is a shadow compared with this thing. The right hon. the leader of the opposition comes along and shouts, " Beauharnois " 1 And after all his talk about Beauharnois, he sits in a cabinet and as Prime Minister does something that is infinitely worse than anything ever done by any of those connected with Beauharnois, more than anything that was done by men who were not even members of the House of Commons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite; and neither was Webb.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, but my right hon. friend was Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And so were you!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But I had
not any knowledge of the evils my right hon. friend speaks about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The record shows you
had.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I had not, and my right hon. friend knows it. He himself was the engineer in this whole business. He sent directions as to what should be done over the head of his own minister, telling what was to be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, it
does not say in the telegram what he was to do.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Why did you send it,
then?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He intimated to me that it had been received from the Minister of the Interior. The record is there, and I say the Prime Minister is bound by it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend has spoken about Beauharnois.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He talks
about Beauharnois in this house, and he talked about Beauharnois across this country from coast to coast, with what results? With the result that he came back to this parliament with his party defeated, with his party emasculated, well-nigh annihilated, and without a following behind him worthy of the name, leaving some of the provinces of this country without a single Conservative member, and with what further result? The Conservative party is not only obliterated for the time being, but, as we saw by the election two days ago, is obliterated possibly for all time as a party. And what at the same time was the verdict, with respect to myself, by the people of this country? The man whom he sought to condemn is sent back to this parliament with the largest following any leader of a political party or any Prime Minister in Canada has ever had. I tell my right hon. friend that for what has been disclosed to-day the people of this country will pass judgment upon him some day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to this matter he will get out of all this before judgment is passed in this house; but let me tell him that the judgment which will follow him is the record of this House of Commons of to-day; the record of his own words will follow him for the remainder of his term in this house; they will follow him

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
to the end of his days, and they will remain a judgment against him as long as a record of this parliament remains.


Mr. WALSH:: I assume this house is still discussing item No. 103, is that right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Item No. 108.


William Allen Walsh: There were certain items discussed during the course of this afternoon that did not create a very gratifying reflection upon the present government. I notice that whenever a person or a government is confronted with a difficult proposition, it attempts to cover up by the throwing of mud, and the raking up of past history. I do not see that what the Prime Minister has said to-night, or the snickering grin and laughter of the Minister of National Defence-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you.


William Allen Walsh: -in any way eradicates the suggestion that was made from the opposition benches this afternoon in connection with the work that is being done in and around the city of Kingston.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Allen Walsh: It was my privilege to visit- Mr. BENNETT: The commandant's report. Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver): I have it here.


William Allen Walsh: -my native city last weekend. I want to say to the committee that it is common gossip on the streets of Kingston-


Charles Avery Dunning: "Gossip" is right.


William Allen Walsh: Yes, gossip is right. And I want to say this in passing, to the Minister of National Defence, that when the opportunity comes to look into the details of his department we shall then be able to see to what extent political debauchery and corruption have crept into that particular department of government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do it now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that item is not before the committee.


William Allen Walsh: It is not possible to do it now, but the time will come when we shall look into it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


William Allen Walsh: I shall come back to the city of Kingston.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You had better.


William Allen Walsh: I can go there with my head in the air, and be respected by the citizens of the city of Kingston. I was saying that it is common gossip-


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, gossip.


William Allen Walsh: I was saying that it is street gossip, everyone is talking about it in the city of Kingston, as to what is being done in connection with public works there. I want to say this in passing, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) personally is not in any way being blamed for the condition that has arisen there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Blame your leader.


William Allen Walsh: I say that in all fairness.


An hon. MEMBER:: You cannot be fair.


William Allen Walsh: I could not be fair with some people, because some people do not know what the word "fair" actually means. I do not consider that the Minister of Labour himself has in any way connived at what has developed there. Unfortunately, what has developed is the creature of our political system. The sooner the two major parties and the two minor parties of this house get together as public-spirited men and women, the sooner shall we eradicate this sort of business from the political life of our country. As I sat here and listened to what one government was said to have done in the past, and to what another government was said to be doing at the present time, I wondered what the people of Canada were going to think when they read their daily newspaper tomorrow morning or to-morrow evening. The reflection that has been cast upon democracy as it exists in Canada to-day is not at all gratifying. For this government to sit here and suggest that they are doing these things because it was done to an even greater extent in the past-


Charles Avery Dunning: That was never suggested by anybody.


William Allen Walsh: Why rake up past history? Why go into old history to bolster up what I consider to be a rather weak case? The question before the committee is a serious one as far as public life is concerned. The right hon. Prime Minister boasts of a very large following. Fortunately for him and for his party they are the creatures of peculiar circumstances. He takes credit for the great victory achieved by the Liberal party in 1935. Any person with any degree of knowledge of past political history will be able to analyse the situation that developed in 1935 and made it almost impossible for any other action to be taken by the Canadian people. From 1930 to
!	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
1935 this country was governed by a leader and a government who did everything in their power to remedy a serious condition. During that time they received little or no assistance from those sitting in opposition. The country went through a difficult period, and if we analyse the conditions of that time we can see readily how the people had not the time prior to 1935 to appreciate what had actually been done by the government which was in office from 1930 to 1935.


James Allison Glen: What about Saskatchewan?


William Allen Walsh: I do not think the Liberal members can take a great deal of real satisfaction out of the victory in Saskatchewan. If you will have written on the records of Hansard; if you will have published and broadcast from one end of Canada to the other exactly what did take place in Saskatchewan, I can assure you that the people will be more disgusted with that phase of democratic government than they will with what exists here in Ottawa at the present time. Everything that was possible to be used was used in Saskatchewan.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend not agree with the decision of Saskatchewan?


William Allen Walsh: I do not agree with the conditions that brought about the decision in Saskatchewan. Any one who does agree with those conditions has no right to continue in public life.


Mr. TURGEON:: What are the conditions with which you do not agree?


William Allen Walsh: You are more familiar with them than I. I have an idea of what took place out there, but it is not as good an idea as my hon. friend's.


Mr. McNLVEN:: Does my hon. friend agree with what happened in Manitoba prior to the 1935 election?


William Allen Walsh: I want to come back to this discussion. The Liberal party has complained of third parties in the field.


Charles Avery Dunning: Never.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The more the merrier.


William Allen Walsh: You have complained of the "more," but not of the "merrier." There is every ^ reason to expect third parties in the field in Canada, and fourth parties as well.
If conditions in public life, as exemplified by the statements of the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, are allowed to continue unremedied, the people of this country are bound to ask for a different form of government. If any member of this house is

interested in the survival of democracy in Canada, he will not aid and abet what has taken place and what is taking place in our public offices, but will make a serious endeavour to clean the slate, start over again and give democracy a real chance. I do not see why we cannot be businesslike in the expenditure of public moneys. I do not see why we cannot expend public money just as we expend our private funds. I do not see any reason why there should be a suggestion in this house that there is a conspiracy to give only Liberals jobs when a Liberal government is in power.


Charles Avery Dunning: We cannot prevent you from saying that. That is the trouble; you say it whether it is true or not.


William Allen Walsh: I would not say it if it did not exist. I started out like the Minister of Labour. I was in an academic institution, and during the course of my campaign in 1935 I gave utterance to words very similar to those uttered by the minister. I had my high ideals and, like him, I still have them. I hope I am going to be able to maintain them despite what I have had to listen to in this chamber during the course of this evening and this afternoon. If we had less laughter from the treasury benches and more serious contemplation of what is taking place in government circles, this matter would be remedied.


Charles Avery Dunning: What we want is more truth in opposition statements.


William Allen Walsh: There are several points that could be brought up, but I see no reason for doing so. I think this matter has been emphasized sufficiently, and I feel sure that members of the house have come to the realization that something must be done in order to prevent a continuation of a practice that apparently has grown up and rooted itself in our democracy. This practice does not belong there. I feel quite sure that the Minister of Labour will be among the first to make an effort to eradicate this system, root and all. I have sufficient confidence in the Prime Minister and in those associated with him to feel that they are ready to assist this country out of the quagmire in which it is at present. It is unfortunate that this discussion has developed. It is unfortunate that we have had to refer to conditions that exist in Kingston. I do not associate those conditions with the Minister of Labour, but I do associate them with what we have allowed to grow up. As parliamentarians we ought to be bigger men. We should rise up in firm

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
determination to eliminate these conditions from the public life of Canada so that the people may have their faith reestablished in the democratic form of government that exists in Canada to-day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I assure members of the committee that no one deplores more than I do that two full days should have been occupied in the kind of discussion we have had here. I am in the judgment of the committee when I say that, in view of the statements made on several occasions by the leader of the opposition, I had no recourse but to meet those charges, and my colleagues had no recourse but to meet such charges. My hon. friend who has just spoken has expressed the view that as Minister of Labour I have a certain sense of obligation with respect to the duties of my office. I hope I have.
When the leader of the opposition first brought these matters to the attention of the house, I asked him to let me have any complaints which he might have received, and said that I would take the earliest opportunity of dealing with them. He referred specifically to Fort Henry, and he certainly designedly created the impression that no one but a Liberal could secure employment on the work at Fort Henry. I told him without the slightest hesitation some days ago that in my view, on relief work which is done in cooperation with the provinces, for which money is paid out of relief votes of this parliament, there should not be discrimination, and that whenever I received complaints of discrimination they were investigated without the slightest delay. My right hon. friend simply made the statement, that so far as he understood-he occasionally admitted that his recollection was faulty-none but Liberals would receive employment on the work at Fort Henry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, that was certainly
the implication of what my right hon. friend said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that. [DOT]


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall look up Hansard to correct that impression if it is incorrect. Immediately after that, I wrote to the Frid Construction Company, which had the contract for that work at Fort Henry, and I also wrote to the chief relief officer in the
city of Kingston. I received first from the chief relief officer in the city of Kingston this letter; it is from Colonel Pense:
I have spoken to Mr. J. K. Fraser, chairman of the social welfare committee, in regard to your letter of the 16th instant.
There is no hesitation in saying that no political considerations have ever entered into the administration of the social welfare department of Kingston; any names that have been submitted to the employment office were submitted without regard to any political affiliations the person might, or might not, have.
The letter from the Frid Construction Company is in the following terms:
Your letter re selecting applicants for employment on our contract at Fort Henry duly received, and I am glad of the opportunity of explaining this to you.
The clause re labour in our contract stated that our company was allowed to employ twenty-five per cent of our own men. The other seventy-five per cent we were obliged to take through the government employment office in Kingston.
From the beginning when men were required we called the employment office, and these men were all sent to us with an employment office card. These men as far as our superintendent was concerned were never asked as to their political affiliations. We required only that the men employed must be able to perform their work in a satisfactory manner, otherwise they were paid off.
Regarding the twenty-five per cent which we were allowed to hire ourselves. They of course were of our own selecting, mostly foreman, clerks and skilled workmen. In each case we naturally picked the best men available for the different positions.
It has never been the policy of our company either on this or any other job, to ask the employees questions pertaining to their political affiliations or religious beliefs. In every case the prime requisite for employees is their ability to handle work well and efficiently.
In one or two cases only, men were recommended to us by friends, and we did see they got work under our twenty-five per cent quota, and if they turned out to be good men we kept them on.
I am enclosing some private correspondence I had regarding these workmen for your information.
I am reluctant to mention these few cases as the men given employment were heads of families and in very dire straits, and we did feel justified in doing this, as their employment meant so little when compared to the total number of men employed.
Our company has carried out the labour part of our agreement very carefully and we believe to the satisfaction of Mr. Hudson who is general superintendent, Ontario government office, employment service of Canada. I am enclosing letter we received from him under date of April 14, 1937, which speaks for itself.
In that enclosure the head of the Frid Construction Company does acknowledge that he did receive certain recommendations from
3744	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
a member of parliament, and I think I should say that to the members of the committee. Does the leader of the opposition feel there was anything out of the way in that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the slightest-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am glad that he does not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -because the contract provides that the head of this company is to have his own foremen and that he is to get the balance of the labour under the Ontario employment commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Precisely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it is because the head of the Ontario employment commission took the position he did, as I indicated yesterday, that I complained. I never complained about the Frid Construction Company.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am entirely in agreement with that statement, because the only letter he received from a member of parliament was from a member on the opposition side. And I may say that two and possibly three men were placed because of requests made by one of the friends of my right hon. friend. I should also say this, that two of the subcontracts on the work at Fort Henry were given to Conservatives in Kingston, and those actively in charge of the work are members of the Conservative association in the city of Kingston and control entirely the employees whom they use on that part of the work.
My right hon. friend complained this afternoon of the cost of the work at Fort Henry. He said it had already reached close to a million.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said it was nearer a million than seventy thousand.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, that is correct, but my right hon. friend allowed himself considerable latitude in making that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what he said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is quite correct. That is the statement he made, that it was nearer a million than seventy thousand, but certainly the inference was that it was a gigantic expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that it was several hundred thousand dollars.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Strictly, up to date the expenditure has been $498,000, of which the dominion government has contributed one-half, which is under $250,000. I gave the committee this afternoon the conditions respecting the tenders which were invited for that work. I might say that in each year, 
1936 and 1937, tenders were publicly advertised, advertised in the public journals, in the Globe and Mail, and in certain trade papers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the hon. gentleman give me a little information respecting that? I have a copy of the specifications respecting the first tender, June 30, 1936. Can he fix the date of the second?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My information is that the second tender was awarded in March, 1937. The first tender was for $72,000. The work was actually extended beyond that on the same unit prices, as I explained this afternoon. The second tender was for $305,000. That is the information I have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were tenders called for the second contract?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Tenders were called for the second contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Public tenders?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Public tenders, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not a copy of these specifications.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am giving my information. My right hon. friend also went on to say this afternoon that in connection with the disposal of certain huts which were left when the relief camps were closed, there had been irregularities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not huts. I said-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Equipment. These are his words:
There were two camps in and around Kingston. Camp 42 was one and camp 37 was the other. Both camps were closed by the government. There was much clothing and supplies in one of those camps. They were placed in a storeroom. They were sold. And in a public meeting one of the electors of Kingston, at Sydenham, gave illustrations as to the prices received for them and the method of their disposition-horses, wagons and costly equipment. Who got it, and at what price? And it is a singular coincidence that within four hours after the conclusion of that speech at Sydenham the storehouse was on fire.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what he said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that is what I said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, certainly my right hon. friend must have had it in his mind to create some impression by his statement. I am bound to say that after reading that statement I am not yet clear as to what precisely he had in mind. Actually the disposal of the equipment of the relief camps was undertaken by the salvage officer of the dominion government. The huts themselves, as I explained previously to the committee, were not given to friends of the administration

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
in power; they were disposed of at a nominal price to various welfare organizations. I have a list of them here, if my right hon. friend desires them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made no observations about the huts.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to the fire, my information is that the fire occurred in a hut which was used for storage purposes by the signal corps at Barriefield. The contents of the hut were fully insured and the insurance was paid. That is my information at the present time. Obviously, therefore, there is nothing whatever in that statement. My right hon. friend also made some charge with respect to the movement of cement from one contract held by the Frid Construction Company to another contract held by the same company in the city of Kingston. Here again I have lost no time in securing information, and if he had written me a letter I could have given him the information within twenty-four hours and saved the time of the house by doing so. The cement for the Crain building, which is being constructed at Queen's, was borrowed from the Fort Henry job with the consent of the provincial authorities, and it was returned to that job on the following dates: November 1, 1,000 bags; January 17, 750 bags.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why were the empty bags taken to Fort Henry?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My information is that talk about the returning of empty bags to Fort Henry is utter rot; that is the memorandum I have. It reads:
The talk about returning the empty bags to Fort Henry from Crain building is utter rot. In the old days when cement was put up in canvas sacks they were returnable and had a value. For quite a few years the department of highways has been purchasing its cement, as do most users, in paper bags which are not returnable. The cement referred to in two items above was ordered by Frid, charged to Crain job and then transferred to the Fort job.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made it perfectly clear that they were paper sacks.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So that there is nothing left of that charge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were they sent up there at night, and if so, for what purpose?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend is confusing his charges. The cement was not taken at night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that; I said the bags.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend said that twenty-five containers of white lead were taken after midnight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not cement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, the committee will pardon me if I confuse the cement, white lead, cut stone and various other materials-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Cut flowers and cast-iron pipe.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -that have been brought into the discussion; but up to the present time I have not been able to discover that there have been at any time on the Fort Henry job or at camp 42 as many as twenty-five containers of white lead. My information is that at camp 42 there had never been more than one or two cans of white lead required for their purpose, and not more than one can had been required for work at Fort Henry. What, therefore, is left of that charge, I confess I do not know. I have tried to get the information, and that is as much as I have at the present time.
My right hon. friend also had something to say about some stone which apparently had gone in some clandestine way from the Royal Military College to the grounds of Mr. Stans-bury. Again, to the best of my ability, I have not been able to discover the slightest scintilla of evidence which would support that charge. I dealt this afternoon with his first charge, that Mr. Stansbury had built his garage from public property, and my strong conviction is that there is just about as much foundation for his second charge as there was for his first. My right hon. friend, in speaking of the way in which he dealt with employment, said that in Calgary the names were put into a hat and drawn from the hat. Am I correct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I was told; I was not there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Everyone knows that I was not in Calgary. The mayor told me that was the way in which it was dealt with.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think it is unfair to suggest that it would have been a very good thing if that hat had been preserved in some way, because it was the only hat used for that purpose when my right hon. friend was in power. However, I will read a letter which was sent to the leader of the opposition on May 23, 1935, from Charles E. Scott, recording secretary of local No. 1779 of the Carpenters and Joiners of America.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister any
idea when the letter was received?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was a letter that came to me when I was leader of the opposition. It was sent by the union. It was
3746	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Labour-Employment Offices
sent by the carpenters' union when I was in the position now occupied by the leader of the opposition. It stated what was taking place in Calgary in the matter of giving employment to men, and the letter was put on Hansard at tihe time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To whom is it addressed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was then
leader of the opposition and it was addressed to me as such.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The letter refers to the
barracks then being built at Calgary under the Department of National Defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said that it was addressed to me.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I correct that statement; it was addressed to the present Prime Minister When he was leader of the opposition. That, of course, need not affect the subject matter of the letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The letter reads:
The members of the above local wish to inform you that when the building of the barracks at Calgary was announced it was generally accepted that the available work would be spread out to afford a maximum of assistance to the various classes of craftsmen which it might employ.
Contractors opened lists for the carpenters who had worked for them at various periods, and many workmen hoped that after waiting many months for the work to begin that at least they would be able to get a few days' employment. Now we are to understand that the only hope of ever getting work on the barracks job is when his name is on the approved list which is furnished to the contractors.
The members of Local No. 1779 request that when parliament is opened a protest be vigorously made against the practice of using this patronage list, as it is debarring carpenters who are loyal and have been citizens of this country for the last twenty-five to thirty years, also a large percentage of the members being ex-service men. Owing to this approved list being used certain carpenters are being given employment by the various contractors on the scheme, thereby making it impossible for others to get employment.
Trusting you will give this appeal your greatest consideration.
Yours truly,
per Charles E. Scott,
Recording Secretary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the date of it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is in Hansard of May 23, 1935. It will be found at page 3035. Now, in view of my right hon. friend's statement yesterday, surely he will agree that there is a sharp contradiction-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in the least. The list furnished was the list provided by drawings from the hat. That is exactly what happened.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am content to read the letter again, but that is what I might regard as an extremely forced construction of the letter as it stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not there, but tire mayor told me that that was how they brought peace and harmony into the field.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as I am concerned-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend did not say that it was the mayor. What he said was:
In my own community I know that effect was given to that endeavour by putting the names in a hat and having them drawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know from the mayor's statement that he did it. That is sufficient for my purpose.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why is not the hat produced as evidence?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In conclusion, may I say that with regard to employment at the present time I propose to continue to see, so far as in me lies, that when that work is conducted as relief work we shall obtain the strictest observance possible of the clause with respect to discrimination.
As far as other casual vacancies which become available from time to time are concerned, if these are to be taken under the control of the civil service commission, well and good; but if they are not, I do not hesitate to take responsibility as a member of parliament for any recommendations which I make. I am not prepared to say whether or not that is the best course finally to follow. But in conclusion I would suggest that a great deal of this debate, perhaps all of it, could have been avoided if my right hon. friend, instead of accepting these rumours and suspicions and gossip which came to him from sources which I think I know in Kingston-which gossip and rumours he made no real effort to corroborate before bringing to this committee-had made an effort to test the truth of them, or had brought them to the attention of the department best fitted to deal with them, he would have rendered a far greater service to the country than he did yesterday and this afternoon.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Having
been mentioned this afternoon and again this evening by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), it is my desire now to refer to three

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
specific issues raised by the right hon. gentleman in the course of this debate. He referred to a question which has been dealt with in part by my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) with respect to the sale of certain supplies from projects 37 and 42 in the vicinity of Barriefield. I have here a departmental memorandum which describes in the fullest and most complete way all the transactions that took place at Barriefield, and apart from what was mentioned by my colleague, that most of the equipment there was given to charitable institutions, I find that two sales were made from project 37 through the salvage officer, who is an officer of this government, and who was not a member of the Department of National Defence. One sale was to J. Cohen & Company of Kingston from project 37, as follows:
1 concrete mixer with motor.
1 buggy, concrete.
2,800 feet steel rail.
16 wheelbarrows.
1	drill.
2	cars, side-dump.
The other sale, made to M. J. Dolan, 289 Princess street, Kingston, consisted of:
9 sets harness, artillery, converted.
228 lamps, wall.
Total, $101.58.
The records of the department indicate that vehicles were transferred from project 42 to other government departments as follows:
Carts, concrete, 7, transferred to Department of Public Works.
Wagons, dump, 3, transferred to Department of Mines and Resources.
Wagon gear, 1, transferred to Department of Mines and Resources.
This committee heard this afternoon certain suggestions made with reference to horses, etc. The official departmental memorandum is as follows:
In September 1937 representations were received to the effect that certain stores and equipment, that is, cement, paint, and Bain wagons, were given Or sold at inadequate prices to neighbouring farmers. The matter was investigated. The report received indicated that the only Bain wagons used at project 42 were privately-owned and were brought in with hired teams of horses; also that there were no shortages in stores, including paint or cement.
With respect to this alarming fire with which the right hon. gentleman tried to stir up the waning enthusiasm of his miserable remnant over there-


Richard Bedford Bennett: A matter of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is very apt at that sort of thing to-day. But he cannot call any hon. members of this chamber miserable remnants. The rule is very clear on that point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, if the remark is in the slighest degree unpleasant, I have the greatest pleasure in withdrawing it.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I rise again to a point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have withdrawn it. With respect to this fire, this sinister fire, in the cold hours of the angry dawn, about which the right hon. gentleman was endeavouring to stir up a tremendous suspicion, I wish to tell the committee that a most thorough investigation was held by the Department of National Defence, and no blame was found attributable to any individual. A meeting took place, and four hours after the meeting a fire. Hence this scandal referred to this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman.
Now we have something still worse. Where does all this tittle-tattle come from? Where does this street gossip of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) come from? I think I know. And I am going to tell. The other afternoon in the house, referring to a tender of the Department of National Defence the right hon. leader of the opposition made this accusation: He said we did not give the contract to the lowest bidder, and so lost thousands of dollars to the country. Well, I want to tell the committee something about the gentleman whom the right hon. leader of the opposition was defending. I had some evidence before me; it was not 'of a political nature I can assure my right hon. friend; but his information has been derived from a gentleman concerning whom I shall read an affidavit, showing that he was guilty of the most vicious malpractice with reference to contracts with the government of Ontario. Possessing that knowledge which came to me as a responsible minister, I refused, and instructed my deputy minister to refuse, to allow the contract to go to that gentleman. Why? This is not street gossip. This is an affidavit of Alfred Leonard Gibson of the village of Kemptville in the county of Grenville, superintendent:
1.	I am superintendent of the Eastern Dairy School of the Ontario Department of Agriculture.
2.	The Eastern Dairy School was carried on at Kingston, Ontario, until April, 1936.
3.	During the period August 1, 1932, to July 31, 1933, coal was supplied to the said school by Sowards Coal Company of Kingston, Ontario, at the price of $6.50 per ton, four deliveries of coal having been made during that period; the amounts of the deliveries being 63 tons, 1,060 lbs.; 63 tons. 1,303 lbs.; 63 tons, 1,410 lbs.; and 55 tons, 250 lbs. respectively, the total cost for the period being $1,599.08.
3748	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
4.	During the period August 1, 1933, to July 31, 1934, coal was supplied to the said school by the Sowards Coal Company of Kingston, Ontario, at the price of $6.50 per ton, five deliveries of coal having been made during that period; the amounts of the deliveries being 54 tons, 1,700 lbs.; 50 tons, 345 lbs.; 56 tons, 550 lbs.; 42 tons, 500 lbs.; and 32 tons, 1,140 lbs. respectively, the total cost for the period being $1,534.75.
5.	During the period August 1, 1934, to July 31, 1935, coal was supplied to the said school by the Morris Coal Company of Kingston, Ontario, at the price of $7 per ton, four deliveries of coal having been made during that period; the amounts of the deliveries being 40 tons, 1,425 lbs.; 30 tons, 1,030 lbs.; 41 tons, 230 lbs.; and 40 tons, 385 lbs. respectively, the total cost for the period being $1,067.73.
6.	I measured the coal storage at the said school and according to measurements and the cubical contents of the said storage space it would be impossible to put more than 50 tons of dry coal into the coal storage space.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true . . .
The declaration, was sworn before George J. Mcllraith on June 4, 1938.
I want to reiterate the essential portion of that declaration. During the winters of 1931-32, 1932-33 and 1933-34 the average cost of coal purchased per annum was $1,422. All these purchases were made from the James Sowards Coal Company of Kingston, at a price of $6.50 per ton for all the coal with the exception of one small order of forty-one tons at $7 a ton. For the winters of 1934-35 and 1935-36 the average cost for coal for the same institution was $854. This coal was purchased not from the Sowards coal company but from another Kingston company which supplied coal at $7 a ton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the name of
the firm?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So I ask the committee to consider this; If it cost that institution $1,422 per annum for its fuel requirements when dealing with one company, and $854 per annum when dealing with another company at a higher price per ton, if you please, certainly to me it would appear quite obvious that it was not in the public interest to deal with a company like the Sowards company in any part of the Dominion of Canada. The one who is the chief informer in regard to the comedy we have witnesed during the last two days, who has been endeavouring to shove sixty-three tons of coal into a fifty-ton storage bin, does not deserve the support of any self-respecting minister of the crown in Canada.
I come now to something else. Did you hear these sinister, subterranean, surreptitious whispers this afternoon about a report

that was made by the commandant of the Royal Military College at Kingston, some report dealing with rock, some mysterious rock that disappeared in the night? I asked one of the highest ranking militia officers in the department-not my deputy minister-to telephone the commandant of the Royal Military College with reference to this report; and, Mr. Chairman, there is no report. It was all a fabrication; it was all imagination, a dream on the part of the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At last.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want now to deal with the hon. member for Mount Royal, who made the statement a few minutes ago that there was debauchery-I think that was the word he used-in the Department of National Defence.


William Allen Walsh: For want of a better term.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want to tell my hon. friend right now that he has certain duties and obligations in this house, and if he knows anything against the honour or integrity of the minister or any officer of this department let him have enough manliness to rise in his place now, make a charge and place his seat in jeopardy, as a gentleman of honour, with reference to these rumours he has been pretending to tell about.


William Allen Walsh: Would the minister permit me to suggest-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I am in order, Mr. Chairman. I cannot imagine anything more despicable than such action on the part of any hon. gentleman. I might remind the hon. member that at the commencement of this session I offered the right hon. leader of the opposition the hon. gentlemen opposite the opportunity, by a special resolution of this house, to call together the public accounts committee one year in advance of the time that is fixed by parliament, in order to investigate any single feature of any of the business of the Department of National Defence. What did they do? They refused that offer, but now the hon. member for Mount Royal rises in his place and talks about debauchery and something else. Will my hon. friend follow that up? Will he do it now? I challenge him; I dare him; I defy him to do it now, instead of slinking in his seat, skulking in his place. Let him do it like a man; let him place his seat in jeopardy and make some specific charge with reference to the Department of National Defence. For two days now, Mr. Chairman, we have listened to these sinister

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
rumours. Why, if we wanted to recall what occurred between 1930 and 1935, what could we say? I know what happened in Calgary; I know what happened in Vancouver; I know what happened in the relief camps of British Columbia; and I think I know now, for the first time, what happened to " my dear chief " in Manitoba.
However, the business of the country must be carried on, despite these unfortunate interruptions; and the right hon. leader of the opposition never did himself less justice than he did this afternoon. According at least to the accepted rumours in the journals of the country, this gentleman of great experience, who has been Prime Minister of this great nation, is leaving public life. He should have gone out with the halo of public esteem about his head; but he has misspent the last two days in imputing motives, repeating petty rumours about some stone that cost two or three dollars, while on the other hand a letter was read from the mayor of Winnipeg, the director of the Conservative party in Manitoba, involving a total expenditure of $1,365,000. I want to tell my right hon. friend and hon. gentlemen opposite, on the eve of this convention of theirs, that this government is in a fighting mood and is going to go right through with the Liberal policy, to sweep through this country as it did once before.


An hon. MEMBER:: Waking up at last.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend may wake up about ten years from now. He will certainly wake up after the Tory convention is over. I want to tell my hon. friend that on the record of this government for the last five months, especially this magnificent piece of legislation introduced by the Minister of Finance, and the record of three years of solid achievement, with the rebuttal of these foolish, sinister and subterranean charges and rumours, we shall go on and on, fighting the battles of the people as we believe in fighting them for the cause of real progress, real democracy and real Liberalism.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make some observations with reference to the attack launched during the last two days against the Minister of Labour and the government by the right hon. leader of the opposition. His speeches and statements, shortly afterwards withdrawn! as untrue because they were forced down his throat on three separate occasions, are typical of the policy that he adopted for five years, the policy which brought the condemnation of the people in greater measure than at any time since confederation. They are typical of the policy that
has been adopted in this house during this session which, together with the general conduct of this leader and his followers, was in no small degree an issue in Saskatchewan. The right hon. gentleman returns from Saskatchewan, as the Minister of National Defence pointed out, having lost nothing because nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
In his remarks this afternoon the right hon. gentleman referred to circuses and disclosed that he is a student of the great, deceased P. T. Barnum. He undertook to quote to the committee what he probably treasures in his mind as a gem of wisdom, a remark made by that great circus man, that you can fool some of the people part of the time. A few weeks ago we received a lecture on political morality and corruption across Canada. We did not know then what he and his esteemed colleagues had in mind. I was interested to hear the name of Hon. Mr. Manion mentioned, a gentleman who occupied a cabinet post in the last administration. I have no doubt that the receipt by that gentleman of the letter which the Prime Minister also received, and his participation in the contribution of $1,365,000 to buy three seats in Manitoba, will commend that gentleman to his colleagues in this house at the coming convention. At least he is not stingy in spending public money to buy the voters in elections. If I read the judgment of the people of Canada aright, he is going to have to raise the ante if he is to be accorded the leadership of the party; and he is going to have to exceed the $355,000 per seat in order to endeavour to fool the people some of the time.
After the lessons in political morality and on the evils of corruption that we have received, the right hon. gentleman has spent this afternoon in what I think is the most grotesque exhibition that it has been my privilege to witness since I have been in this House of Commons. Why do I say that? Is that fair or unfair?


Mr. LENNARD:: You have not been here much.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Perhaps the hon. member is right; but if he can match the exhibition of this afternoon, then he perhaps will take the palm. But let me point out to the committee what happened this afternoon. The right hon. gentleman rose in his place and laid bare some charges, and when he was asked whether he knew of these from personal knowledge his answer was, "I know from personal knowledge that some of these misdoings occur." I wonder if he will tell us
3750	COMMONS
Supply

Labour-Employment Offices
which one. I wonder if he was playing the mysterious Mr. X, or whether he was acting the part of the sleuth-I do not believe he was-or whether he was "keyholing" outside the bins in Kingston, and that the personal knowledge he had of what went on over there was acquired in that manner. Do not let him forget that men who look through keyholes, as was illustrated to-night by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), in discussing other legislation, often get hatpins in their eyes. And the hatpin in the eye that the right hon. the leader of the opposition has received during the last few hours ought to cause him to pause before he utters loose, idle, scandalmongering and slanderous statements against men of high standing and integrity in this country who are not in this house to defend themselves.
What did he do? He said with regard to the Minister of Labour that he gave him a clean bill of health. He made it clear that he did not impute to that minister any personal knowledge of the derelictions of which he was accusing these men. And he offered no suggestion that any other hon. member in the house, either on the government benches as ministers, or elsewhere, are accused by him of having the slightest knowledge of or participation in any of these rascally practices that he dug out of his fertile imagination. What does that mean? It means that he has seen fit to occupy hours of the time of the house -why? In an indictment of the conduct of any member of the house? No. In a suggestion that any member has committed the slightest impropriety? No. But he from the sheltered privilege of his seat in this house has led a miserable, scandalous and vicious indictment against a close friend of mine, Mr. Rigney.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the expression "scandalmongering" is against the rules of the house and so are the words, "slanderous" and "miserable" and "vicious." I merely direct attention to that, as a matter of order. I do not wish to interrupt any more than I find absolutely necessary.


Charles Avery Dunning: What point of order?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The right hon. gentleman is too quick to take to himself the term I was using. If he will-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, as a
matter of order-and that statement is clearly wrong; it does not require argument to present that fact-when he has used language which is contrary to the rules, and before

you rule I direct attention to it, and he says, "The hon. gentleman is too quick to take it to himself," this is making it just doubly against the rules.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, no member can take any objection to anything said in the house until the sentence is finished. And there was a semicolon, not a period, when the hon. member was speaking.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: May I explain what I said-and I think you will find in Hansard that I am accurate-was that the gossipy, scandalous, miserable stories which were given to my right hon. friend, and which he Las been using in this chamber, were properly so styled, and I have a perfect right to style them so. I did not accuse him of scandalmongering, or even gossiping.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the hon. member did.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I am not at all sure but that the word "miserable" is both parliamentary and properly applied to the right hon. gentleman, in so far only as this incident is concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a point of order, if you will recall, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made reference to my being at a keyhole, and he applied that language not to alleged reports, but to me personally. I was not going to interrupt, having regard to the source from which it came, but I thought I would now direct attention to it, in view of the fact that it has been repeated. It is a breach of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order raised by the right hon. gentleman-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the right hon. gentleman say there is no point of order? I raised a point of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: The leader of the
opposition has raised a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is it?


Frederick George Sanderson: That the remark in regard to scandalmongers by the hon. member for Parry Sound was referring to the leader of the opposition. I have listened attentively to all the speakers to-night, and I am of the opinion that the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound were not directed against the leader of the opposition.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Certainly not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well, Hansard will show.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Then, let me make it clear to the right hon. gentleman, if he feels any doubt in his mind as to my intention, or if there is any ambiguity in my language, that I would not think of using such remarks with regard to him personally. But let me just point out what I was about to call to the attention of the committee, and it is this: Having made it perfectly clear that no member of this house is concerned, and that he has no charge to make against them, he rises in his place in this house sheltered by the privileges of parliament, and against whom does he lay the most serious charges, which means crimes? In the first place he lays such a charge against Mr. Stansbury of Kingston, whom I do not even know:	But I am
informed that he is a gentleman highly respected in his native city-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Hear, hear.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: -who has many times been returned to the council of his city, and is to-day an alderman in the city council, and trusted by the people of that city with a more or less important office. He is not here to defend himself.
The right hon. gentleman next attacked one of his majesty's magistrates in Kingston, whom I do not even know, but who, I understand, has a long and honourable record, and ten years service to his country. That magistrate, of course, is not here to defend himself, either.
Then he attacked the crown attorney, Mr. T. J. Rigney, K.C., a Kingston man. I went through law school with this gentleman who was placed in this important position to administer justice by a Conservative government of Ontario. My right hon. friend wants to dissociate himself from that party, and after the exhibition made in the last provincial election by the hon. gentleman who sits beside him, I do not wonder at his action. But he attacked this gentleman, one of his majesty's counsel, respected and learned in the law, and imputed to him dishonourable action in attending at the police court and stating honestly to the court that there was no proper charge upon which His Majesty the King could proceed against the poor, unfortunate man in question. What would he have him do? Would he have him go on with a trumped-up charge and proceed to hear evidence which was not applicable? Would he have him proceed with a charge which the 51952-238
court had no right to hear? Is that the standard of administration of British justice that he would set up in Ontario? I wish we had more crown attorneys who, after investigating cases, would walk into police courts and take the responsibility of saying that certain charges should not be proceeded with. There is no foundation for these charges. Is a crown attorney with a long record of integrity and service, a gentleman against whom no breath of suspicion has ever been sounded, to be indicted and labeled for dereliction of duty which would justify his dismissal? Why has the right hon. gentleman in the closing hours of the session sought to deal with silly gossip that has been poured into his ear, I do not know by whom?
Then, because he takes in considerable territory when he starts swinging his arms, he attacks a salvage officer of this government whose name fortunately was not mentioned. Let me tell the committee what I consider was the duty of the right hon. gentleman in connection with these charges. He was asked how long he had the particulars. He stuttered a little and he said he had had them for some time. I suppose he has been sleeping with these charges or has locked them up in his bosom. Perhaps these charges were given to him by means of an anonymous letter. He was invited to disclose their source, but he would not. If that mysterious man is not ashamed of his name; if the right hon. gentleman is not ashamed to disclose it, why does he not do so? He has practically written the charge of blackguardism against the names of four reputable citizens of this country. His course as a distinguished member of the bar of this country was clear and plain. He should have said to the scandalmonger who gave him his information, "Go to the attorney general of Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Gordon Conant, a man whom everyone respects because of the manner in which he discharges his duties, a man of high honour and integrity, lay these charges before him, and within twenty-four hours he will grant you an investigation of these scandalous charges against the crown attorney and the police magistrate of that county." Did he do that? No. He thinks more of making political capital out of something like this than he does of punishing wrong-doers who break the laws of Canada. That is the charge I make against him.
I do not desire to show any heat in connection with this discussion. I believe the tirade of the last two days is the result of the Saskatchewan election. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) has returned from the fray. He made

3752	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
a creditable fight and the position of his party has been bettered. The members of the social credit party fought their fight along the lines as they saw them. No doubt they are greatly disappointed, but they can take it. The leader of the opposition cannot take it. That is why he has indicted the Minister of Labour, of whom it can be said there is no finer administrator in any country in the British commonwealth. I would like to have seen the right hon. gentleman avoid the last two days' discussion. Whether he will accept it or not, I have a high personal regard for many of his qualities. I believe he 'has made some worth while contributions-without bering scornful at all, I may say he has perhaps made more while in opposition-to the discussion of measures that have been introduced in this house. We all admire his indomitable courage, his great industry, and those high qualities of mental attainment which enable him to assist those charged with government in solving their problems. I think every one of us must pay a tribute to the contributions he has made to the debates in this house.
What a happier stepping away from the turmoil of public life it would have been if this had not happened! How much happier we on this side would have been if we had not been compelled to point out the type of attack that had been made upon innocent men of standing and integrity, men who had no sponsor or spokesman unless I can be treated as such! How much better it would have been, not only for the right hon. gentleman's reputation, if I may suggest that, but for the honour of public life in the Dominion of Canada if he had taken an entirely different course in connection with this miserable, trumped-up episode!


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, on previous occasions I have listened to similar discussions in this chamber. When I listened to acrimonious discussions such as we have had yesterday and to-day I almost came to the conclusion that all parties in power are absolute sinners while all parties in opposition are absolute saints. Such discussions are neither edifying nor useful. We know that patronage goes on no matter what party happens to be in power. I have made the plea in the past to abolish patronage, whether the Conservative or the Liberal party was in power. I hope that some day the two major parties may see the error of their ways and do away with this whole vicious system which seems to be permeating part of the public life of this country. During the course of this discussion numerous points of order have been raised by one side or the other, but I am of the opinion that probably three-quarters

of the whole discussion has been out of order. We are discussing the administration of the Department of Labour, and we have attempted to discuss contracts entered into by the Department of National Defence, and various other types of contracts. We would be serving a far more useful purpose if we kept strictly within the item now before the committee and got on with our business.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) made some remarks this evening regarding the recent Saskatchewan election. I did not catch his exact words, but I gathered that he said if the truth were known about the Saskatchewan election, those members who had taken part in it would be ashamed to take their seats. I am here to tell him that I took some part in the Saskatchewan election and I am not a bit ashamed-I have no reason to be ashamed-to take my seat here. Further, I should like to tell him the reason why the Conservative party did not elect a single member. I wish to take only a few minutes of the time of the committee to indicate why that was the case.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has that anything to do with the item under discussion? I think I shall raise a point of order, as a good many have been raised. Has the Saskatchewan election anything to do with the administration of the Department of Labour?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is rather late to raise it, though.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, this debate all day has gone very wide.


James Houston Spence: Gone haywire.


Frederick George Sanderson: A great deal of latitude has been granted by the chair, and I do not feel disposed at this time to call the hon. member to order, because strictly, according to the rules, many speakers to-day were out of order. The discussion, however, was so vital that points of order were not raised by the chair. I therefore think it would be rather unfair to the hon. member who has the floor for me to tell him to confine his remarks now to this item under discussion.


Walter Adam Tucker: There was in Saskatchewan a Liberal government which appealed to the people, and the government of Alberta undertook to take part in that election. The government of Alberta presumed, under the leadership of Premier Aberhart, to name the social credit candidates in Saskatchewan. Those candidates were named, regardless of the wishes of the people of Saskatchewan, by

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
Premier Aberhart, three of his cabinet ministers, and an hon. member of this house, and announced from Edmonton. The Liberal party took the attitude that this was a denial of one of the fundamental rights of democracy; that in a democracy the people should have the right to name their own candidates, and that no one man should assume to name candidates for the legislature; that only under dictatorships is such a thing done. Members of the Liberal party denounced that as a step toward dictatorship; members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation denounced it. They also stood for democracy. But what did the Conservative party do? It temporized with the situation. The Conservatives had twenty-three candidates nominated. They had no hope of electing a majority of the next legislature, because they would have had to elect at least twenty-seven members to have had a majority-more than those nominated. Yet they issued an advertisement, published in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, sponsored by the Saskatoon Conservative association, asking for a vote for ex-Premier Anderson and Mr. McEachren, and saying this:
The Conservative members will control the government.
The advertisement further on says:
If you who are attracted to social credit feel that you must register your support in some way, we suggest you give one vote to social credit to serve this purpose and your other vote to either of the Conservative candidates.
That was the attitude of the Conservative party. They temporized with Premier Aberhart in that attack on democracy. That is one reason why they did not elect a single candidate.
There is another reason. Premier Aberhart came into Saskatchewan attacking the Canadian constitution, taking this attitude: "Yes, we passed ultra vires legislation-"


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: "-and we propose to go on passing ultra vires legislation until the courts get tired of disallowing it."


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. In permitting
the hon. member to inject the Saskatchewan election into this discussion I had no intention that he should make a speech on it. I would ask him to shorten his speech and confine his remarks to the item before the committee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice that on this item there is an increase of $5,582. Would the Minister of Labour explain the increase.


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Chairman-
51952-238}


Walter Adam Tucker: I was interrupted-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The minister is getting some information.


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I have the right to the floor. I had the floor before the last speaker.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member will get the floor when the minister has replied.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I had not finished. Unless you rule me entirely out of order, I wish to continue.


James Houston Spence: Let the hon. member tell us where his party got all the money to run the election.


Walter Adam Tucker: Our party had not as much money as the hon. member's party had in past elections.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In answer to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the increase of $5,000 is accounted for in the following way: permanent salaries, increase $1,822.50; temporary salaries, increase $2,760; printing and stationery, increase $1,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What part of the administration of the Department of Labour is this item for?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was explained to the committee at the beginning of the session yesterday. The sum of $63,925 is for the administration of the central office of the employment service of Canada; that is to say, the office which is maintained in Ottawa, which provides a clearing service for information from the other offices. It also provides the salaries of the special placement officers dealing with handicapped ex-service men.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The other day, when the
minister was giving information to the committee on this point, he discussed the number of placements the department had made during the past year. Has the minister the number of applications that were made to the employment service of Canada during the same period?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I gave both.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, it was not given yesterday. The minister gave the number of placements made during the past year, but I do not think he gave the number of applications which were made for positions to the employment service of Canada.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The employment opportunities for 1937, the calendar year, were 418,388. The applications in the same year were 712,223. The placements were 389,536.
3754	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Mr. MacINNIS:: And the number of applications?


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


William Allen Walsh: It is not my intention to allow the remarks of the Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Parry Sound to pass unnoticed. I can inform the minister that loud noises and erratic wanderings have not the least effect on my participation in debate. I prefer to debate a subject rather than a person. He suggests that I should place my seat at stake on account of actions which are taking place within his own department and which I have drawn to his attention on two occasions in this chamber without receiving any reply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which were they?


William Allen Walsh: One was when a gentleman came to Ottawa from Montreal to see wnv he did not receive even advice that the Department of National Defence wanted to purchase supplies. Although he had been supplying the department for thirteen years, for a period of over a year he had not received any intimation that there were supplies to be purchased. He visited the Department of National Defence. At first he was told, "Well, your firm is an English firm." But when he said that his goods were manufactured in Canada, one of the minister's officials told him


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which one?


William Allen Walsh: I can get the name of the official. I am giving the minister information in just the same way as the minister gave it to me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the hon. member tell me the name of the official?


William Allen Walsh: No, I will not tell the name; but I have the floor, and I will remind the minister that he kept me in my seat when he was speaking. This official told the gentleman that he would have to get his name approved by the patronage committee in Montreal before he could even receive a form of tender on which to tender for supplies.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name the official.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who was the person in question?


William Allen Walsh: I draw to the minister's attention the manner in which he conducted the political campaign in the city of Victoria.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, and Victoria replied.


William Allen Walsh: Victoria did not reply, but it will reply in due course just as the rest of Canada will do when it has an opportunity of replying.
I should like to go back to the city of Kingston. The Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Parry Sound suggested that the leader of the opposition spoke from the shelter and privilege of a seat in this house. But the Minister of National Defence spoke from the privilege of his seat in this house and said things here with respect to a man who has a very high reputation in the city of Kingston, which he would not dare to say outside this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I read
an affidavit.


William Allen Walsh: The minister read an affidavit which in no way lowers the reputation of Mr. Sowards, who is head of the Sowards Coal Company of Kingston. Indeed, he could not read any affidavit that would in any way lower that gentleman in the estimation of his fellow citizens of Kingston. Mr. Sowards has been in the coal business all his life. He started that business as a coal yard and he himself grew up in that business. He has served that city and most likely supplies seventy-five per cent of its homes with coal and wood, and the people there all seem to be well satisfied. It was not on account of prices that the Minister of National Defence would not take cognizance of the lower tender from the Sowards company, but purely and simply because Johnny Sowards was president of the Conservative association in the city of Kingston-that and no other reason.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
has nothing to do with it.


William Allen Walsh: Certainly, and the Minister of National Defence knows that better than I do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I say that has nothing whatever to do with it, and my statement must be accepted.


William Allen Walsh: I do not have to accept
that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
hon. member must. I raise the point of order.


William Allen Walsh: My statement is as good as
the minister's.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. The rules are clear and explicit.


William Allen Walsh: Read them.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When
an hon, member makes a statement that statement must be accepted.


William Allen Walsh: But I, too, have made a
statement, and I expect my statement to be accepted just as the hon. minister expects his statement to be accepted. I did not suggest that he was not speaking the truth or anything of that sort. I simply put my statement in contrast with his, and I leave it to the members of this house and to the people of Kingston to judge which statement is correct and which is incorrect. That is a perfectly fair position. I do not think I am breaking the rules of the house in making a statement of that kind by way of contrast, particularly when a man whose reputation has been slandered in this house has no means of defending himself against such slander.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is a sworn statement.


William Allen Walsh: There is no sworn statement that can be presented to this house that would show that Johnny Sowards of Kingston is anything but a reputable citizen. The Minister of Labour, coming from that city, knows that as well as I do. He need not go further than the Liberal executive of the city of Kingston to know the good reputation and the good character that are borne not only by Johnny Sowards but by every member of that family who is interested directly or indirectly in the coal business of Kingston.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not want to anticipate another discussion of this matter, but I could not and I do not defend the situation which was set out in the sworn statement given to the committee some time ago by the Minister of National Defence, nor could any other member of the house.


Frank Exton Lennard: Do you mean you do not defend the minister's statement?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I could not defend the situation set out in the sworn statement, which shows that the Sowards company delivered coal ostensibly to amounts of sixty-three tons when only fifty tons could possibly be put into the bin. Not only that, but I have a further statement that there was the greatest difficulty in getting forty tons into the bin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A cheese-maker's estimate of a bin.


William Allen Walsh: I know that we sometimes feel the same way when we have coal put into our bins. We think the bin will hold seven or eight tons and are surprised when we get a bill for nine or ten tons, and yet I assume
the dealers are honest. I feel that the Minister of National Defence has gone out of his way to slander a man who bears a very high reputation, and I do not think he is justified in doing so; nor do I think the statements are justified that have been made with respect to the leader of the opposition. Some members on the other side of the house sat here in opposition while the present leader of the opposition led the government, and I am absolutely surprised at the attitude they take towards him in this discussion-


William Alexander Fraser: He asked for it.


William Allen Walsh: -suggesting that he is going out of public life with anything but honour. The leader of the opposition has not been given credit for what he did during the five years in which he held office. Hon. members on the other side of the house should bear that in mind when discussing a public question. The item before us relates to work that is done not only in the city of Kingston but elsewhere. It is an item that comes under the Department of Labour, and it has been criticized from the point of view of certain things that have taken place in and around Kingston. It is, in my opinion, unfortunate that the discussion went as far as it did. It has not raised the people's estimation of democracy or of this house to a very high level.


William Alexander Fraser: Who started the dog fight?


William Allen Walsh: It is those on the other side of the house who are responsible for the state into which this debate has drifted-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Allen Walsh: -and the insinuations that have been made during the course of the debate. It is all very well for the hon. member for Parry Sound to rise in his place and say he regrets the debate, and for other members to regret it, but the result of the debate is attributable altogether to hon. members on the other side of the house who have introduced into the discussion something that had no bearing on the item under discussion, with a view to shielding themselves behind something that took place five, six, or seven years ago.


William Alexander Fraser: You have been on a merry-go-round.


William Allen Walsh: Yes, but I have never been drunk.


William Alexander Fraser: It would do you good if you got drunk.
3756	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


William Allen Walsh: It might, but I hope I shall always maintain myself in my sober senses so that at least I shall know what I am talking about, like a sensible human being. From the way in which some members have been talking on the other side this evening, one would almost think something of what the hon. member has suggested had taken place.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Alexander Fraser: Cheap.


William Allen Walsh: Cheap, because you cheapen the debate.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is definitely out of order, and I must ask him to withdraw that remark.


William Allen Walsh: Absolutely; I withdraw it.


William Alexander Fraser: Why do you not sit down now that you have a chance?


William Allen Walsh: Probably if the hon. member who is intruding into the debate would take an intelligent interest, we would make favourable progress.


William Alexander Fraser: The hon. member would
not understand it if I did.


William Allen Walsh: Give this side of the house an opportunity to understand something from the other side and we will appreciate it. We have been here for five months, and during the course of the debate to-night someone suggested something about what had been done during the last five months. If we asked any member of the government to rise in his place and enumerate what they had done in the last five months, it would not take him more than five minutes to do so. I am hoping that as a result of this debate we are going to have a more careful administration of public funds. It is all right for a government, entrenched as this government is, to sit there and laugh to scorn the suggestions made by the opposition, to throw ridicule upon the opposition because they are small in number, and to cast reflection upon individual members of that opposition because they do not happen to be endowed with the same degree of mental ability as hon. members on the other side of the house profess to have. We are here elected by the people to do a duty, and it is our intention to do our duty in a full and complete measure, and to give as good an account of ourselves as we possibly can under the circumstances. We ask the government to meet the opposition in the same spirit. We have to criticize; our criticism should be met in the spirit in which it is intended, for the ultimate good of the country, and not IMr. Fraser.]
for the destruction of democracy, which is sure to follow if members of the government continue to administer the affairs of the dominion as they have allowed them to be administered as shown to-day.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Now that the political grudges have been thoroughly ventilated, perhaps we may return to the needs of the unemployed which must be met at least in part under the vote now before the committee. One might not think so, listening to the debate this afternoon, but there are still unemployed in Canada, unemployed who do not benefit by the distribution of political patronage. Having heard the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) so eloquently pledge himself this evening to fight the battles of the people, I cannot refrain from reminding him that at this moment there are thousands of single unemployed men in his own city who are without food and shelter or work. I hope that when the matter is again before the committee he will make some satisfactory explanation of how he proposes to fight the battles of the people when their needs meet with such apparent indifference at this time.
This afternoon I asked the Minister of Labour with regard to the situation as it affects single homeless women. I wish to remind him that when this vote was under consideration last year I pointed out that some evidence had been placed in my possession regarding the method by which such women were victimized in Vancouver. We have a migration of young women as well as young men to the coast. Many of these young women register with the employment service. They are sent out by the officials of the service to various employment opportunities as reported to the offices. At one stage apparently no endeavour was made to check those reported openings in order to protect these young women against victimization. I was taken to task on one occasion by a gentleman who was then attorney general of British Columbia for mentioning the recruiting for a chain of brothels in British Columbia. I am not concerned at the moment about proving whether or not brothels exist, or in discussing law enforcement in British Columbia; but it is known to all who are interested in public affairs at the coast that a certain degree of recruiting does go on. I am asking the minister to explain to the committee to what extent facilities have been developed so that these opportunities are checked by some follow-up protection, in order that young women placed through the employment service are adequately protected

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
against exploitation either by those who seek to take advantage of their destitution by imposing low wages, sweat-shop conditions, or against actual victimization by agents of the underworld.


Norman McLeod Rogers: When my hon. friend
raised this point before six o'clock I did not recall the discussion of a year ago. I do recall it now. I am not at present able to give my hon. friend the information for which he has asked. I did leave word for communication to be made with the director of the employment service there to see what action had been taken, after the discussion of last year. I have not that information yet, but will secure it as soon as possible.


Angus MacInnis: In the discussions we have had during the last three or four weeks in regard to the single unemployed in Vancouver, the minister, if I understood him aright, has taken the position that employment is available in British Columbia. I do not know exactly what the situation may be to-day; possibly the minister has the information; but I have the May issue of the Labour Gazette, and I find that there were almost 10,000 registrations at the labour offices in British Columbia during March, and that there were only 2,518 placements. As a matter of fact, about one-third of the placements are for a duration of around one week, and the remainder for longer periods of time. At the end of March there were over 13,000 unplaced who had registered for work. In the face of figures such as those, how can the minister take the position that the unemployed in Vancouver at the present time can find work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My information is that last year in British Columbia the placements were as follows:
Men Women
In regular work	
18,786	3,574In casual work	
26,109	3,902
Total placements in British
Columbia	 52,371
At any given time, as my hon. friend is aware, the applications for employment would exceed the placements. But it does not follow-and it was this point I endeavoured to make yesterday-that all placements in British Columbia or any other province are obtained through the facilities of the employment service of Canada. So I do not think the figures given by my hon. friend are conclusive in that regard.


Angus MacInnis: They may not be conclusive, but they are just as conclusive as the figures given by the Minister of Labour. I
have here the figures for March of this year. There was a decline of nearly thirty-four per cent in the number of positions offered through the employment offices in British Columbia. Would the minister say that this would not have any effect on the number of positions offering in the labour market generally in British Columbia? Is it not to be supposed that when there is a decline in the number of positions offered through the labour offices there is likely to be a corresponding decline in the number of positions offered in other ways? I say again that the position taken by the minister in regard to the situation in Vancouver and British Columbia, where men are unable to get work and are refused relief, is not at all in accord with the high sentiments we heard expressed this afternoon. I ask again that the minister take the situation under his consideration and see whether something cannot be done immediately to avoid the trouble which will undoubtedly take place there unless something is done.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is the Ottawa office of the department represented in Vancouver at the present time? If so, who is the individual representing the department there in regard to the situation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In regard to the situation which has been under discussion from time to time in the last few weeks, the representative of the department who has been in Vancouver is Mr. Humphrey Mitchell, who has been director of labour transference in the department during the last two and a half years.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is he an officer of the employment service?


Norman McLeod Rogers: He is not an officer of the employment service.


Angus MacInnis: What is his standing
within the service?


Norman McLeod Rogers: He is a temporary employee of the department, appointed under the Unemployment and Agricultural Distress Act of 1936.


Angus MacInnis: What is the salary in connection with that position?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It does not come under this item, but it is $500 a month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The item under consideration involves payments to the labour employment service maintained in several provinces and at various points in many provinces. During the progress of the discussion, the minister made a statement with respect to the item,
3758	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
in reply to a question as to how that office was conducted in the city of Kingston, which is operated by a man named Mooers; I think that is the way it is spelled.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I presented to this committee, as was my duty, evidence that indicated his complete unfitness for that position; and I read from a public print that reference had been made to his practically holding up people for contributions to his beer fund or liquor fund in order that they might find employment. I did more; I produced a letter from a reputable person who had gone to that office for the purpose of securing employment and had been sent to the president of the Liberal association, or told that without the approval of the president of the Liberal association he could not find employment. I followed that by saying that Mr. Stansbury did in fact give him a letter to the Frontenac Construction Company-


Norman McLeod Rogers: He did what he could to secure employment for him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -to secure him a job, and that it was laughed at. That involved the conduct of the man in charge of this office in Kingston, and I say to the minister that the evidence completely establishes the man's unfitness for his position. It is true that he was not appointed by this government. He was appointed by the provincial administration, and I pointed out to the minister that under those circumstances such a man was not a fit and proper person to be charged with that responsibility. I also referred to a contract, because during the course of his statement the minister said that conditions were inserted in the contracts for tenders which made it incumbent upon those who sought additional labour on contracts to get it from this body or through this office. The language in the bids for the Fort Henry property is as follows:
Contractors may use machinery, wherever desired.
The men selected by the Department of Labour shall not be rotated on the job, and may be dismissed if their services are not satisfactory. A written statement shall be supplied to the representative of the Department of Labour, indicating the reason for dismissal, in each individual case, and contractors are urged to give men a second chance, if they fail to make good on the job for which they were originally selected.
That follows the conditions that are to prevail with respect to the hiring of labour:
All labour to be supplied on these contracts shall be supplied through the Ontario Department of Labour. Contractors will be permitted, however, to supply such men as are required 	.
for supervision, and special work approved by the department, but the number of men so engaged by the contractors shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total number on the job.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was later changed to twenty-five per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only reading from the bid that was circulated, because it is only fair to point out that with respect to the Fort Henry job it was through the department of highways of Ontario that tenders were asked, and the tenders called for indicated that a certain defined work as mentioned in the plan was the work to which the contractor was to direct his attention. I find nowhere a provision such as would constitute any safeguard for the dominion in that bid. There may be in some bids, or there may be in the final contract, but in this bid so far as I can see-and the typewritten portion with respect to labour is made separate -there is no provision to safeguard that position.
I do say to the minister, to the hon. member for Parry Sound and to the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches, that we should not have the taxpayers of Canada providing half the cost of this undertaking and have the control of the labour in the hands of a man of the type that the evidence indicates he was and is. No one for a moment has suggested that any statement made with respect to him is not true. No one has risen in his defence, not even the hon. member for Parry Sound. No one has said that he was attacked behind his back.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Surely the charges of my hon. friend are charges which ought to be and which will be investigated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My point was that the investigation should have been made long ago, because this, in the language of the great apostle, was not done in a corner. The hon. member for Parry Sound says it is street gossip; but it is more than that; it reaches the public press in a case that is tried in the police court.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my right hon. friend will permit me, he has made certain definite statements with respect to the present officer in charge of the employment service in Kingston.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quoted from documents.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But those statements
certainly did not go to show in any way that Mr. Mooers has used his position in such a way as to discriminate wholly in favour of Liberals and against Conservatives. I do not believe there is any basis for that charge in what my right hon. friend has said.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read a letter from a reputable citizen of Kingston who went there for employment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, one person.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there can be others secured, as I told the hon. gentleman. This man was told, "You will have to have a letter from the president of the Liberal association."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not for relief work at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I gathered that part of the Fort Henry work was treated as a relief job.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This was at Barriefield.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rollands heard there was a vacancy at Barriefield, but he wanted a job anywhere. Let us have no misunderstanding about it; that is the position. I have another letter here, which is signed by Mr. J. Marshall, rural route No. 1, Kingston, Ontario, dated May 10, 1938, which is not very long ago:
Sir:
A few lines hoping to be excused. I have been asking Mr. Rogers for a job for the past fifteen months but all he tells me to keep in touch with Mr. Stansberry. I have seen him several times but all he tells me their is nothing doing. I cooked in camp 42 for over two years and as not be able to get very much since I hope that you will try and get me a job as it is very hard for me to give without working.
Hoping to hear from you soon,
Yours truly,
J. Marshall.
I do not know who he is.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my right hon. friend
will permit me, I did not know the other people to whom he referred, but I do recall Mr. Marshall. He has applied to me for a position; he has written to me on various occasions. I believe at one time he was a cook attached either to camp 42 or camp 37. I have not the slightest idea what his political affiliations are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was he referred to Mr. Stansbury?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If he says so, I would
not deny it, for this reason:	When I go
back to Kingston I am approached by men who ask for jobs. I have had to leave with my local executive such contact with such openings as do occur in Kingston.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That I have said quite
frankly in the house at various times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it negatives a statement which the minister made in the heat
of the argument this afternoon, that there were no cases in which he had referred anyone to Stansbury.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, no, I did not say
that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What he is saying now
I have followed. What he said this afternoon is at variance with that, perhaps because he was dealing with another phase of the same matter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I never referred anyone,
or spoke to a contractor in Kingston in favour of any person, or instructed anyone else to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not discussing that phase of the matter. I am talking about the question of the minister referring this man to the president of the Liberal association for the purpose of getting a position. That at least is evidence of that phase of it.
Now comes the hon. member for Parry Sound who says, "You are casting a reflection upon Stansbury, upon Rigney, upon Shea and upon a salvage officer because their names are discussed in this house." Well, the other evening the Minister of National Defence, a minister of the crown, when speaking of the Sowards incident, he having submitted the lowest tender for coal, and when I had asked him about the reports received concerning the firm, and to quote the language of the order in council, used these words:
I have not the documents before me at the moment with reference to the particular tender mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, but I definitely recall that complaints were made in regard to the carrying out of a previous contract by this same gentleman, with reference to a definite breach of the labour conditions in the contract. I shall ascertain the exact terms of the complaint and shall be glad to supply it to my right hon. friend or to any member of the committee.
This evening there was read a statutory declaration dated June 4, 1938, a week ago to-morrow. And the order in council was pased in 1937. What does he mean?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nothing; I just meant-


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Nothing," I thought so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is all very well to be clever. The information was given me at the time. I did not have it in my recollection at the time, and the information was given to me by my colleague the Minister of Labour, and was substantiated to-night.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is right. Had I
been in the house at the time I would not
3760	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
have hesitated for a moment to say that I had sent on the information. The information was not at that time in the form of a statutory declaration. But when I noted the manner in which it was regarded by the leader of the opposition I thought he would appreciate it more perhaps if it was in the form of a sworn statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is Mr. Gibson who
gave the statutory declaration of June 4, which reduced into writing what had prevously been ascertained. But Mr. Gibson is a cheese-maker; he is a dairy inspector.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And a very capable man,
and the superintendent of a school.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, a very capable
man and the superintendent of a school. Since when did a competent cheese-maker become equipped to tell the number of tons of coal a bin would hold?


Charles Avery Dunning: A high-school boy can
do that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will say to the Minister of Finance that it depends entirely on the kind of coal.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, what does the
declaration say? If it is lump coal, the bin does not hold the same number of tons as if it is fine coal.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The same kind of coal in each case; the specifications require it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not say what kind it is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I gave
the figures as to cost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not help. It
depends on how you put the coal in the bin, and how much is in the bin, and the cubic contents of the bin can be ascertained without difficulty, provided it is honestly measured. The computation as to the number of tons the bin holds is not difficult, after you have the cubic contents.
But everything depends upon the kind of coal you put in. If you put in buckwheat you can get in more tons than if you put in run of mine. And if you put in nut coal you certainly can get in more tons than if you put in lump coal. I am merely mentioning that because it shows what a minister of the crown will do, and it gives point and effect to the observations of the hon. member for Parry Sound.
I used the same language the other evening with respect to Mr. Sowards as my learned friend from Parry Sound has used with
[Mr. Rogers. 1
respect to these men. I used the exact language, that they were being attacked without a chance to be heard. Mr. Sowards defence is that he offered to supply coal cheaper than somebody else, and that the taxpayers of Canada would gain thousands of dollars. But we will not have that contract, because the reports received concerning this firm-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was S600 or so, more expensive than the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now it appears that the
reports have come from the Minister of Labour, who lives in Kingston, where Mr. Sowards lives. That hearsay evidence, if I may so describe it to my hon. friend from Parry Sound, is based upon-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Sworn
evidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the hearsay evidence of the minister is based upon the information received from Mr. Gibson. And a week ago to-morrow Mr. Gibson, who is a cheese-maker, swears with respect to the contents of the coal bin.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is wrong with a cheese-maker doing it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Norman McLeod Rogers: He swears not only as to the contents of the bin, but as to the bills for coal deliveries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, certainly, the number of tons supplied.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the cost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and the cost. And the same things I have heard with respect to the present supply of coal in other portions of this dominion. I have always said that coal is one of those things in connection with which it is impossible to estimate the number of tons unless you know definitely the size of the coal which goes into the bin.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but if the item comes up
again I am prepared to have corroborative testimony with respect to even larger contracts supplied for the Rockwood hospital at Kingston.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that it is a provincial institution.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Taken from the public accounts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might also be well to remember that Mr. Gibson is an employee of the provincial government, and Mr. Sowards

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
has been supplying, as the lowest tenderer, coal to the dominion public undertakings for years. What is more, Mr. Norman who was the lowest tenderer the year before in Kingston, received his coal from Mr. Sowards. And Mr. Norman I am informed was advised he could not do so any more. That is the position.
There is the story as I understand it. It is a singular thing that it should be a minister of a federal department who should go to a provincial department for the purpose of determining this question. John Sowards has been supplying coal to the Dominion of Canada since he was a young man. The accounts are there in the auditor general's reports during all those years, and never have I heard such a statement as that now made. Is it not singular that it comes from the provincial authorities, and from an employee of the provincial government, who is a cheese-maker or an instructor.
With respect to the magistrate, and also with respect to the crown attorney, I will say this to the hon. member for Parry Sound, that at least it is laid down in the books that when they have jurisdiction, and an individual is charged with an offence under the criminal code, it is the duty of the law officers and the duty of the magistrate to see that appropriate proceedings are taken, when it is clear that the present proceedings are under a statute that has no availability.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Surely my right hon. friend would not carry that doctrine to the length of saying that where a crown attorney honestly investigates facts and alleged charges, and decides they cannot prevail, he should still scrape up some other charge to lay against a man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Surely not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said.
What happened in this case was that the magistrate said, "I have no jurisdiction; these cases have all been dealt with under the elections act. It is true this is not under the criminal code, and I will let him go."


Arthur Graeme Slaght: He was quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was he? Well, that is the first time I have heard any reputable counsel say so. The court of criminal appeal in England said just the opposite, rightly or wrongly. With jurisdiction over the time, place, subject matter and the man-here is a man who has impersonated another-the criminal code provides for this; an information has been laid under the code, and yet
the magistrate states that he has no jurisdiction. The crown attorney did not investigate the merits of the case at all. On the contrary, he made it quite clear that he did not propose to do so. My contention is that this is merely part of the general laxity that prevails. I used it for that purpose as an illustration.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I am glad my right hon. friend has made this explanation, because if he will look up his own language he will find that perhaps in the heat of debate it was much stronger.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the thing is
perfectly reasonable. Yesterday we were dealing with the question of employment offices. I say they are no use for the purpose of providing employment. Then there was laxity with respect to the conduct, not only of law and order but generally. The whole atmosphere was saturated with the political viewpoint when these matters were being dealt with.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Surely my right hon. friend does not say that they are no use in securing employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they are no use.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Here is the record of the placements. My right hon. friend has not submitted any evidence to justify a general indictment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have submitted evidence, and I say more to my hon. friend; I say that an office which is presided over by a drunken blackmailer is no good.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend was applying it to the whole employment service of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that any office
which is presided over by a drunken blackmailer is no good.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No one would contest that for a moment, if true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then our case is settled on that phase of it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend was speaking of the employment service generally and said it was no use in providing employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister knows perfectly well I am confining the present discussion to Kingston, so he cannot generalize in that way. I asked the minister to investigate. The hon. member for Parry Sound is perfectly right when he says that gossip is not evidence, but it is slightly different when it is circulated generally in the community.
3762	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
The minister is to investigate this. There are two men in Kingston, Sam and Harry Abra-hamsky, who are furniture dealers. They have stated in the presence of competent and creditable witnesses that they paid S100 to Mr. Stansbury to be placed on the patronage list in order to sell furniture to the government of Canada. Upon investigation it was found that the minister's private secretary had sent a letter to Kingston saying that the executive had not considered the matter and they were not on the list. These men want their money back. I agree with the hon. member for Parry Sound that street talk is not evidence, but it is striking evidence when a letter from the minister's secretary, written in his absence and seen by others, indicates that that is the condition which prevails, namely, that the executive had not considered the matter and they were not on the list. So much for that.
We come now to the question of the utilization of material. Here is the tender of the Frid Construction Company for the repair work at Fort Henry. This is contract No. 36-87, and it contains this phrase:
Cement will be delivered to the owners' railway siding for this work.
In the body of the contract appear these words which I shall quote so that there will be no misunderstanding:
Cement shall be Portland cement supplied by the owner, delivered on the site.
And again:
The department provides free of cost to contractor and f.o.b. owners' private railway siding all Portland cement.
That cement is the property of the crown. If it is fraudulently converted, that is, used for some purpose other than for which it was consigned-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I gave my right hon. friend the-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just wait a minute, I am speaking. There must be some valid reason. The Frid Construction Company say they made an arrangement with the government, but I ask: When?


Norman McLeod Rogers: With the deputy minister of highways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my right hon. friend
now attacking the reputation of the Frid Construction Company?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am saying the Frid
Construction Company took cement which, under the terms of their bid, was for Fort Henry, and used it on the Crain building at Queens.


Norman McLeod Rogers: With the consent of the provincial department of highways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When? Before or after
they did it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall get that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They replaced that cement in November, as the minister said. Keep in mind it was in November it was done and the cement had been taken months before. Let me deal now with the question of paint. Where did the white lead go?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Where was it in the first
place ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The man who lost his job will tell you where it was. One step more. The Minister of National Defence says he has not been able to find the commandant's report, and I ask him to look for it more carefully.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. I said definitely he had been communicated with and had said there was no report made at any time to Ottawa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who said?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The commandant, this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to stone?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; that is my information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the quartermaster say so?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not consult him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Consult the quartermaster.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, before recess the right hon. gentleman made a definite statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, he did. He asked if a report had been made by the commandant of the Royal Military College and I said that there was no report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of National Defence should have about him at least some measure of appearance. I said I was in the hands of the minister. Those are the exact words I used. Obviously I had no knowledge, but I understood that there was a report from the commandant with respect to this stone and I wanted the minister to produce it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: During the recess the adjutant-general telephoned the

Business of the House-King's Birthday
commandant, and my information, as a result of that conversation, is that there is no such report. I am giving that information to my right hon. friend as it was given to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My information is that there is a report. The quartermaster-general may be the man who made it. That is a matter on which the minister can satisfy himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think we had better clear that up.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it is not the quartermaster-general, who would be next?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the question. The question is. Was a report made by any officer of the Royal Military College to the government here with respect to that stone?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was not the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the question now. The Minister of Finance says that is a proper question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My right hon. friend did not say that before six o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said he was in the hands of the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he will look up Hansard he will find that he said, "I believe there is a report by the commandant of the Royal Military College.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I said I was in the hands of the minister with respect to who made it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I inquired during the recess and there is no such report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to know if any officer of the Royal Military College made a report on the movement of stone to the Stansbury property by Drinka?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed there was no report made to Ottawa by any officer of the Royal Military College.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall I report items Nos. 109 and 110 which could not be reported yesterday because the committee was forced to adjourn due on account of there being no quorum?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe a correction should be made. Item No. Ill was the first one taken up and passed yesterday.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before announcing the business for Monday, if the house will permit me to do so I should like to say just a word as to the adjournment of last evening. Hansard records the fact that there was not a quorum in the house when it met at eight o'clock. I think it is only right that there should be on the records of Hansard the fact that yesterday was the day on which we were celebrating the King's birthday, and that in front of the houses of parliament there was from seven o'clock until nine the ceremony of the trooping of the colours, which brought very large crowds to the front of the buildings. As a matter of fact, the crowds were so arranged as to make it impossible for hon. members to come from the central gates by the direct approach to the parliament buildings as they are accustomed to do in attending meetings of the house. Several hon. members I know of-myself among them- experienced difficulty in getting to the House of Commons because of the crowds that were about at that time. However, the fact is that most hon. members who were not in the house at the time had been or were witnessing the ceremony of the trooping of the colours. It may have been an excess of patriotism on the king's birthday, or some excess of loyalty towards the flag or the sovereign, but that surely was excusable in the circumstances. I believe that if the hon. members already in the house had waited just a moment or two, as the corridors were pretty well filled with members at the time, it would not have taken above a minute or two to have had the house well filled.
The business on Monday will be any bills that may be on the order paper, and will continue in supply with the departments of Labour, of Mines and Resources, and possibly Public Works. I cannot say in which order they will be taken up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the house rises, dealing with the matter mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I think it is only fair to point out that those who were here would have been quite ready to have become parties to an extension of time; but as there is no house unless there are twenty present, no motion could be put, nor could the house be adjourned until nine o'clock. It was suggested that it might be adjourned until nine o'clock; but the house cannot be adjourned unless there are twenty people in it, because the constitution itself
Questions

provides in section 48 that it is necessary to have twenty people in order that the house may exercise its powers. Therefore there is no house unless and until there are twenty people in it, and a motion of any kind cannot be made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not taking exception to the fact that attention was drawn to the bell, but if the bell had been kept ringing a little longer there would have been enough members present.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We waited five minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps if the house had sung God Save the King for five minutes, the chamber would have been filled.



GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF FENCE POSTS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. FAIR:: 1.	Did the government of Canada recently enter into an agreement with Air. C. J. Sedgwick, of Chelan, Saskatchewan, for the supply of poplar fence posts for a community pasture ?
2.	If so, how many posts were ordered, and what is the agreed price per post, treated and loaded on cars?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



YOUTH EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE-ALLAN CHAMBERS

William Earl Rowe: If the house had sung it for all that time there would not have been anyone left.


Grote Stirling: It would have been a thin house.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 13, 1938