[Stage Direction]
Petition from Georges Roy and Jean-Paul Dumont, respectively president and secretary of L'Union catholique des cultivateurs d'Est-court, praying for the annexation of part of the state of Maine to the county of Temis-couata.-Mr. Pouliot.
[Stage Direction]
Seed Grain


[Stage Direction]
-POLICY AS TO REMAINDER OP WHEAT UNSOLD
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked for certain information with regard to certain operations of the wheat board in connection with the supplying of seed wheat to the province of Saskatchewan. He made reference then to a car of wheat which had been delivered to a place called Coleville. I have a telegram with regard to that matter which I should like to read to the house. It is as follows:
Referring telephone conversation and reference to Coleville car. This small car of wheat ordered shipped to Coleville by Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture May ninth. Shipment was made May eleventh. We were advised by department this car had been ordered by a rural municipality in error and were instructed night of May twentieth to rebill to Lakehead. Instructions given railway morning May twenty-first and situation immediately dealt with. Accordingly this car arrived at Fort William May thirty-first.
My right hon. friend stated that according to the weekly statement by the wheat board there were apparently some two million bushels of seed wheat still left in the hands of the government.


Mr. BENNETT:: Of wheat; I did not say "seed wheat".


William Daum Euler: Of wheat, yes. While according to the weekly statement of May 21 rendered to the department there was apparently a stock of wheat of something over two million bushels, the fact is that there is no wheat in stock. The wheat has all been disposed of as seed wheat. The reason it still appears on the statement is that it is the practice of the wheat board generally to have it appear, unless the wheat has actually been invoiced to a purchaser. It has all been sold, but not all invoiced.
A further question asked by my right hon. friend was with regard to cash on hand. I am informed by the chairman that it is impossible to make an accurate statement as a number of adjustments have still to be made.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLICATION LA RESTAURATION NATIONALE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): On a question of privilege, Mr. 
Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) if he assumes any responsibility for everything that is published in a paper entitled La Restauration Nationale-the National Restoration-which has his picture on the front page? He does not say anything.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, it is not open to hon. members to propound questions on the floor of the house in this way. As a matter of fact I know nothing about it, never saw it and I do not know what is in it. The hon. member has no right to catechize me-


Mr. POULIOT:: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -about things which
appear in the press.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but I will file it with the Purvis-Moore report.



THE KING'S BIRTHDAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if the government has yet arrived at any decision as to whether or not the house will sit on Thursday, June 9.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the whips have concurred among themselves, and it appears to be the general wish of hon. members that the house should sit on Thursday. Last year the house in Great Britain sat on June 9, the king's birthday, and presumably would do so this year but for the fact that the house is in recess at the present time.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the third reading of Bill No. 138, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 31,

Transport Commission
to establish a board of transport commissioners for Canada, with authority in respect of transport by railways, ships and aircraft- Mr. Howe-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 35, subsection 1-Charges by agreement between parties.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 35, which introduces part V of the bill, contains a distinct departure in the matter of transportation control. I am not going to argue the matter at length because the bill was discussed thoroughly in the committee on railways and canals. However, when the bill was under consideration in the committee I made it clear that I was opposed to this part and particularly to these four sections, and indicated that I would oppose them when they came before the committee of the whole. I should like to state briefly the reasons for my objection to this part and to this particular section.
This section is a distinctly retrograde move. The board of railway commissioners was set up in 1904. For years previously chaos and discrimination and unfairness had existed in the railway transport business, both in Canada and in the United States. It will be recalled that powerful corporations in those earlier days would frequently secure privileges and advantages from the railway companies which were not open to smaller shippers or sometimes to other large shippers who were in a competitive position. These abuses were done away with in the United States by the appointment of the interstate commerce commission and the application of its code of laws, and in Canada by the appointment of the board of railway commissioners and the enactment of the Railway Act, with the various amendments that have been made since 1904.
I do not hesitate to pay tribute to the boards of railway commissioners that have been sitting in this country for the last thirty or so years. Almost always they have been presided over by able and distinguished men, sometimes by very distinguished men. Because of their findings a sort of case law has been built up which I believe is accepted. Their rulings are now recognized, generally speaking, as equitable and fair. The public interest has been well protected. It has been argued in support of this measure, which will set up a board of transport commissioners, that they will administer the law in the same manner as it has been administered in the past. I have no doubt they will, but the point is that by this part the board is instructed to permit agreements to be made 51952-229
between the railway companies and individual shippers.
Something that has been prohibited for years, something that has been recognized on no occasion, is now to become law: a private shipper and a railway company may enter into an agreement. I am quite aware it will be argued that this provision has been surrounded with the necessary safeguards, but the principle involved is a serious one. Under the Railway Act through the years unjust and unfair discrimination has been defined and its application guarded against. Furthermore, any discriminatory, competitive or special rate has been open to all shippers along the lines affected by the rate. Under this bill an agreement may be made with an individual shipper, and then provision is made to permit those who object to come before the board to State their case. If they can make good their case, there is no doubt in my mind that the board will do justice, but this is a reversal of the principle that has obtained in. the past.
Furthermore, this part limits the application of this provision to those who are defined in the bill as carriers. A carrier is defined as follows:
"Carrier" means any person engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward to whom this act applies, and shall include any company which is subject to the Railway Act.
This bill does not apply to highway transport. I think it is quite clear that the intention of part, V is to give the railway companies a weapon which will enable them to compete with the trucks on the highways. The trucking companies are not to have access to this court in order to present any grievance they may have, nor will private individuals who are not carriers under this definition be allowed to appear. My submission before the committee was that the word "carrier" should be changed to "persons," that any person in Canada should be allowed to appear before the board in the same manner as he is permitted to appear before any court for the purpose of securing redress of grievances. As I have Stated already, under this bill a carrier is limited to those licensed under this legislation. This makes a definite distinction and limitation and is another reason why I am opposed to this part.
My main objection is that this bill introduces into our legislative control of railways the principle of granting permission to a railway company to make an agreement with a special shipper. Whether or not the agreement is unfair is to be decided after the agreement is made. If one will study the

Transport Commission

section carefully he will find that these are the words which control the possibility of a complainant making good his case:
Being the same goods as or similar goods to and being offered for carriage under substantially similar circumstances and conditions as the goods to which the agreed charge relates.
I submit it will be extremely difficult for a small shipper ever to demonstrate that he is prepared, although in competition with the big shipper, to ship goods under substantially similar circumstances and conditions as would the large shipper. For example, a large shipper may have outlets all over Canada. He makes an agreement with the railway company to carry all his freight, because that is the suggested excuse for this measure, that the railway can bargain to get all this shipper's freight and thus get away from their highway competitors some of the traffic the railways are now losing. So the shipper engages to ship all his freight over this line, and he gets in return a flat rate over different zones. Then the smaller shipper comes along. He perhaps serves only one section of the country. He is in direct competition with the large shipper so far as his goods are concerned, but he cannot show the same circumstances and conditions. The answer that will be made to him is obvious: You ship only a small quantity and operate only in a certain territory, while the large shipper ships all over Canada; therefore as the circumstances are not alike and the conditions are not similar you have no case. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the competition is there, and the small shipper will thus be more or less ruthlessly driven out of the market.


Mr. VIEN:: Was it not made clear that
the volume of traffic could not enter into the picture?


Henry Herbert Stevens: But that is not a question of volume; it is a question of distribution. Let me put another case. In eastern Canada there is a large factory manufacturing a certain class of goods and distributing them right across western Canada, or as far west as they can go. There is a small factory on the Pacific coast, in an entirely different section, shipping freight east into the prairie markets. Now this small shipper would have to show that he was handling his business under the same conditions and circumstances as the large shipper in eastern Canada. But there is no parallel at all. His territory is different; the direction of the movement of his goods is different, the rate is different. The man in the east gets a low rate, and thus gets a very definite advantage in the movement of his goods westward. The conditions might be reversed. But the point I am making is that it will be almost an impossibility to show sub-

stantially similar circumstances and conditions to obtain in connection with the distribution of goods.


Thomas Vien: These words are already in the Railway Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Thomas Vien: The rate structure is predicated on similar circumstances and conditions, under the Railway Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but when a rate is fixed under the Railway Act anybody who ships any quantity, large or small, over that route gets exactly the same rate. The tariff is there and it is open to everybody and at all times, but in this case it is not.
I will give another instance, where I think unfair discrimination might arise in the operation of this act. Suppose there are two different types of goods, each of which is interchangeable and in competition with the other. I have no particular commodity in mind, but there are many lines of goods for which an entirely different line may be used in substitution according to the desire or prejudice of the customer. One line of goods might get a special rate. The competing goods could not because they are not the same class of goods, but a different type of goods, although the two lines of goods are in competition. And so I might go on down the line, giving many illustrations of the grave danger in giving this power or right. The main answer that was given in the committee to arguments of this kind was that the board of transport would be a fair and just board and could be trusted to guard against any abuses being allowed to develop. I frankly admit that I believe in the board of transport, the board of railway commissioners as it now is. I believe it will be fair. I am not complaining about the board of transport. I am complaining about the law that will govern the board of transport as this law will. This law not only authorizes but instructs them to sanction or approve of agreements, and they have no option in the matter.
I am not going to labour the question further. I am going to move a clause in amendment to the whole section; and if, Mr. Chairman, I am in order, I can do it now, or if necessary I can wait until the end of the section is reached. Perhaps I had better move it now so it will be in the minds of the members of the committee when they are considering the section. I move to amend section 35 by the addition of this clause after subsection 10:
Notwithstanding anything aforesaid the provisions of this bill shall not apply with respect to the carriage of goods between points or



193S

[Stage Direction]
Transport Commission
places in Canada where such carriage is only performed by carriers subject to the authority of the board of transport commissioners, and the board of transport commissioners shall not approve any agreement submitted to them which includes such carriage in the agreement or as a condition attached thereto.
Briefly the explanation is this. If this part of the bill is required by the railways to enable them to compete with highway competition, then it should limit in its operation to places where that competition exists; and if that competition does not exist, the agreed charges should not apply. My amendment would limit it in that way.
The CHAIRMAN:: I would point out to the hon, member for Kootenay East that subsection 10 was carried yesterday.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, it can go after subsection 13.


Frederick George Sanderson: Subsection 13 was
carried yesterday.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It can go in after subsection 1, as far as that is concerned.


Mr. HOWE:: It is just as appropriate there as anywhere, I think.


Thomas Vien: I think I can summarize my hon. friend's argument under three headings. In the first place he urges that " similar circumstances and conditions" means that in some cases certain competitive shippers might find themselves embarrassed because goods might be different and the lines or directions of traffic might be different. Competitive shipping, competition between shippers, does not exist with respect to different types of goods. Under the Railway Act, the rate structure is predicated upon similarity of circumstances and conditions. There is no departure from that principle in this bill. The words used prohibit unfair or unjust discrimination when traffic is moving under similar circumstances and conditions. This is the very principle of the Railway Act. To be able to allege unjust or unfair discrimination you must show that traffic of a similar nature, moving in a similar direction, under similar circumstances and conditions, is being charged at an unfair rate. In this act, if different goods are moving in different directions, under different circumstances and conditions, namely by highway, how could unjust or unfair discrimination be alleged?
My hon. friend further alleges that " agreed charges," referred to in section 35, are a departure from the underlying principles of the Railway Act. I submit that that is not so. Under the Railway Act there are three different types of rates:
. 51952-229J
1.	Standard mileage rates, which must be approved by the board. These rates are maximum rates. They cannot be exceeded; they must be submitted, approved and published. The board, after hearing, determines the maximum mileage rates permissible.
2.	Special tariffs, applicable to lumber, grain or other commodities moving in large volume, in trainload lots, carload lots, with respect to which there are special loading or unloading conditions or ceritain market conditions which permit, the particular commodity to be treated in a class by itself.
3.	Competitive rates, which in their managerial discretion carriers may publish to retain traffic which would otherwise go to rail or water competitors. Competitive rates need not be approved by the board. They are under the level prescribed by the standard mileage rates, and they can be published, and put into effect unless complained of.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All shippers are upon an
absolutely equitable basis.


Thomas Vien: Exactly. Any shipper who contends that he is injuriously affected' by competitive rates may make application to the board to object to their becoming effective, or for a revision or repeal of objectionable competitive rates.
In the exercise of its regulative power, the board never prevented a competitive rate from becoming effective without good reason. Competitive rates are permissible to enable rail carriers to retain traffic. In this act agreed rates are permitted to enable railway carriers to retain traffic which otherwise would go to their highway or water competitors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are under provincial regulation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not as to rates.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not in Quebec.


Thomas Vien: I believe it is not so in almost all provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are regulated with respect to everything but rates, and may be regulated with respect to rates.


Thomas Vien: In England they are regulated. Highway carriers must take out a licence to carry on their trade. In Canada they are not regulated in that respect. In England they are regulated with respect to vehicles; the vehicle must come up to special standards and is subject to periodical inspection. Furthermore, drivers must submit to periodical physical examinations. These are important regulations: licences to cany on, standard
Transport Commission

modes of conveyances, drivers physically and periodically examined and licensed. We have nothing of this kind in Canada.
Highway raltes in England are governed by a rates tribunal; they come under the provisions of the transport act. We have no similar constitutional power in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They regulate the weight of the machine that may cross certain bridges.


Thomas Vien: That is with respect to road regulations. Departments controlling highways publish regulations to that effect. I do not believe they can be called as effective regulations between competitive carriers, as those proposed in this bill. Under the Railway Act, when competitive conditions exist between two points, between rail and water carriers, the rail carrier can publish competitive rates to retain traffic to his rails.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is under the Railway Act.


Thomas Vien: Under the Railway Act. This bill does not contain anything else. We allow rail carriers to publish rates likely to retain the traffic to their own rails.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is scarcely right. They do not publish a rate. We allow them to make a private agreement with an individual shipper, and that is vastly different from publishing a rate.


Thomas Vien: I hope to foe able to prove to my hon. friend that there is no difference at all. The agreed rate is a competitive rate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, no.


Thomas Vien: I will at least attempt to prove it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The latter words of subsection 1 of section 35 disprove what the hon. member says.


Thomas Vien: No, I do not think so. Suppose a rate between points A and B, a rate of SI per hundred pounds. If the rail carrier published a rate of 90 cents per hundred pounds, with a view to retaining traffic to its rails, the highway carrier would immediately publish a rate of 85 cents per hundred pounds. The rail carrier would then have to publish a rate of 80 cents to outbid him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under this they do not publish it at all.


Thomas Vien: Let us not play upon words; if my hon. friend does not like the word "publish," let us say: "put into effect" a rate of 80 cents. This means a rate war, between the highway and the railway carriers. By agreed rates the rail carrier can go to a

shipper and say to him, "If you will give me all your traffic, for such a period, I will give you such a rate." This is the proposed agreed rate. An agreement is entered into. It is a contract. No rate war is possible. If they agree, the shipper and the carrier are bound. Competitive rates are suicidal for both the highway and the rail carriers.
It therefore seems that there is no difference in principle between the Railway Act and this proposed legislation, because the Railway Ac* enables the rail carrier to publish competitive rates to retain its traffic; herein, to avoid a rate war, we propose to allow the rail carrier to enter into such agreements with the shipper as will oblige the latter to route his traffic by a particular rail route, without a cut-throat rate reduction. There is therefore no fundamental difference in the principle of competitive rates under the Railway Act and the principle underlying these agreed rates.
My hon. friend's third point was that it is improper to refuse the highway carrier the privilege of appearing before the board to complain against agreed rates. May I suggest that the highway carrier is not unjustly discriminated against. The highway carrier is not regulated. He cannot be compelled to come to the board. His rates are not submitted for approval. He therefore competes with the rail and water carrier without control or regulation. He enters into agreements with shippers, and the rail or water carriers have no say in the matter and no remedy.
I submit that the rail carrier should be given the right to enter into an agreement with his own shippers, without the interference of the highway carrier. If the highway carrier can establish an agreed rate in favour of a shipper, why should not the rail or water carrier be granted the same privilege? My submission is therefore that there is no departure from the underlying principles of the Railway Act. The only principle herein involved is that we allow carriers to come to an agreement with shippers so as to retain traffic which otherwise would go to uncontrolled and unregulated highway carriers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to refer a
little further to what the hon. member (Mr. Vien) has just said about excluding the carrier from the right to appeal to the board. A shipper cannot appeal to the board unless that shipper has been shipping his goods by a carrier under the terms of this act. Take a shipper who is ten miles away from a railway terminal, and uses highway transport which competes with the railway. If an agreed charge is made with another shipper he would

Transport Commission
have no standing before the board, because the provision reads:
(6) Any shipper who considers that his business will be unjustly discriminated against if an agreed charge is approved and is made by the carrier, or that his business has been unjustly discriminated against as a result of the making of an agreed charge, may at any time apply to the board . . .
The general assumption is that that means any shipper. But turn to the definition of "shipper" and you find this:
"Shipper" means a person sending or receiving or desiring to send or receive goods by means of any carrier to whom this act applies.
That does not apply to a shipper who is not dealing with a earner under this act. My point is that any citizen of Canada has a right to appear before any court in Canada, a court of law or a court of equity. That is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen. I cannot sanction a law which will in effect rule a man or a company out from appearing before the courts. Under this we simply blackball those engaged in the highway traffic business.
And we are not free from biame in this. This parliament has never occupied the field that it might have occupied in controlling interprovincial and international transport by motor truck. That is admittedly our field; why does not the Minister of Transport occupy it as far as he can? Recognizing that we cannot interfere with the provincial jurisdiction, let this parliament occupy that field as far as it can, and then give to the trucking system its inherent common law right, that of appearing before a court to argue its case. I object to the idea that a court can be set up in this country to which a citizen is denied access.


Thomas Vien: A shipper and a highway
carrier can establish	an agreed	rate.	The
rail carrier or any competitive shipper cannot challenge such a rate. Why should the highway carrier, or a shipper using the highway have the right to challenge an agreement between a rail carrier and a shipper using the rails?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The	answer is	verysimple. In the one	ease	there	is no lawwhich applies to the trucking system. If there is a law applying to the trucking system he can apply. The	rail	carrier	and	other
forms of transport are covered by law, and it is the privilege of any person to appear before a court in this country and argue his case.


Thomas Vien: But how can they claim the
right to discuss a rail rate without allowing others the right to discuss their own rates?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is simply because
we have not found the machinery to control the trucks.


Thomas Vien: We have no jurisdiction over highway traffic.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, we have jurisdiction to control interprovincial traffic.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This section was discussed quite extensively at the last sitting, and I have no desire, and I think hon. members would not wish me, to traverse the ground we covered yesterday. However I think something should be said about the point of restricting access to the board of transport commissioners in the matter of agreed charges. Any person can appear before the board of transport commissioners in the matter of agreed charges who is allowed to appear before any court in the land; in other words, he must show an interest in the matter being discussed. He is allowed to appear if he is a shipper or a prospective shipper, that is if he wishes to ship goods. He is allowed to appear if he receives goods by the carrier, or if he wishes to receive goods-is a prospective receiver of goods. He is allowed to appear if he is a carrier under the act. What other classes of persons than these could possibly have an interest in a matter affecting rates? I cannot imagine any other class of person who could come before the board and show an interest.
Then as to discrimination. A rate is applied after exhaustive hearings by the board. Anyone affected by the rate has two options. One is that he can have exactly the same contract if he is shipping under substantially the same circumstances; and I think the act makes it perfectly clear that the size of the shipment does not enter into the situation as far as the similarity of the service is concerned. That is safeguarded in several clauses. Then if the shipper is not in a position to take advantage of the contract, but believes the contract will injuriously affect his business, he is given opportunity to appear before the board and object to the contract on the ground that if made it will injuriously affect his business. When we consider all the latitude that the transport board will have, when we consider the composition of the board, which after all is, as the railway board is and has been, a board for the protection of the public, I can hardly imagine that these agreed charges can be used in a manner injurious to the public at large.
As to the amendment offered by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) it would of course be restrictive to a point
Transport Commission

which would make the operation of agreed charges practically worthless. Cutting away all the verbiage, it would be necessary before an agreed charge could take effect to show that the particular traffic is subject to truck competition. The amendment says " must be subject to competition other than by a carrier under the act." Bulk water carriers would hardly meet that requirement, since bulk carriers do not carry the class of goods which is regulated under the act. So it comes down to this, that the amendment would have the effect of prohibiting the making of agreed charges except for a particular route which is subject to truck competition. One sees at once that that would prevent the sending of goods from the eastern part of Canada to the west under agreed charges, for the reason that there are no highways through part of northern Ontario; therefore goods originating in the east could not move under agreed charges farther than central Ontario. Every movement of goods under agreed charges would have to be subject to the test as to whether truck competition could be proven. I suggest that the amendment offered by the hon. member for Kootenay East is a method of rendering this part ineffective, and I must oppose it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, two days ago I pointed out what I conceive to be the dangers in the adoption of the principle of agreed charges, under the terms provided for by the bill as it now stands. I pointed out that the basis of the present law is equality as to tolls and facilities. I find that that is the heading of the section in the Railway Act -Equality as to Tolls and Facilities. The first subsection is headed "equal tolls to be charged"; the second, "no discrimination"; the third, "carload quantities"; the fourth, "localities"; the fifth, "duty of the board"; and the sixth, "competitive points". The sixth subsection reads:
The board may declare that any places are competitive points within the meaning of this act.
Further it is pointed out in the Railway Act that no agreement can be made by which a railway company may give preference to any community or shipper. Certain well-defined classes of freight rates are also provided by the statute. As a matter of fact there are four: the standard tariff, the special tariff, the competitive tariff, and the joint tariff; with the addition of a special one which deals with exceptional circumstances such as bad crops and matters of that sort.
Then follows a provision with respect to how the tariffs come into operation, which I

do not intend to discuss. The competitive tariff, as mentioned by the hon. member for Outremont, came into being for many reasons, principally, on this continent, because of water carriage.
Now, whatever may be said as to the justice or injustice of the law, or the desirability or undesirability of our Railway Act, I think everyone will agree that as a result of what took place in the United States prior to the passing of the Interstate Commerce Act, and in Canada prior to the inquiries that were set up by the late Mr. Blair, which resulted in the passing of the Railway Act, equal tolls were not charged to all persons, and preferences were given to individuals-sometimes because of the volume of the traffic, and sometimes for other reasons The difficulty that arose in the United States caused a great deal of friction, and, as I say. resulted in the statute to which I referred. The result of the statute in Canada was just what I read a moment ago as the heading of the section, namely, equality as to tolls and facilities. As I pointed out, tolls are covered by four different kinds of tariffs, in addition to the very special class which deals with exceptional circumstances which need not be mentioned here, and which has .not been regarded by text writers as an additional classification.
We are to do away with that. We are to do away with the equality under the law which was tthe basis of our freight rate structure. The abuses which took place prior to the enactment of our Railway Act and the passage of the interstate commerce measure in the United States-all these are again to be possible, because there is no longer equality under 'the law with respect to freight rates. The minister says, or may say-and I judge from what he said the other day that he does say it-that it is no longer desirable to maintain that principle of equality under the law, and that agreed charges or charges that are agreed in contract rather than by parliamentary control shall prevail. An agreed charge is in essence a contractual charge. The present tariff toll is a statutory parliamentary charge, and until such time as under the existing law tolls are approved by the board they cannot recover a single cent. The law itself in terms declares that they cannot recover anything at all until such time as the tolls, whether they be one of the four classes I mentioned, any one of them, have been approved by the board.


Thomas Vien: I think my right hon. friend is wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.

Transport Commission


Thomas Vien: That applies equally to the
standard tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Thomas Vien: The special rates and competitive rates enter into effect without the approval of the board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is hardly a rate in
practical effect that is specifically approved by the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have to file them with the board. There is a provision that the filing of them with the board under certain conditions operates automatically as approval. That is what the former member of the railway commission desires to say.


Thomas Vien: Implied approval.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is true; but
that does not get away from the fact that in essence filing is essential in order that there may be objection, if desired.


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the fair way of putting it.


Thomas Vien: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, the law contemplates equality of shippers under the conditions mentioned in the act, and that variations in the tariff rates under the four classifications provided., leaving out the special one, are open to action being taken, if any aggrieved person desires to take such action, after they are filed with the board. I think that is a fair statement of it.


Thomas Vien: I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, we are
certainly encroaching upon that rule-and nobody denies it. The only question therefore is this-


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: For good
cause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is the point.


Thomas Vien: For good cause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole question is a simple one: In the public interest are we warranted in departing from the rule which has been established during these years, and which resulted from the inquiry to which I directed attention the other day, and which I am not now going to repeat. That is the sole question-whether or not as a matter of high public policy we are warranted in departing from the existing law, which came into being because of abuses which existed
before its application. That is the story, and I think no one will deny that it is a fair statement.


Thomas Vien: But we are not departing from it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Outremont says we are not departing from it. I only desire to point out that if the English language means anything we certainly are departing from it. Peradventure it does not mean what it says. But if it means we are departing from it, as my friend yonder says, for what good cause? I prefer to regard it as having been * departed from, and I am not unmindful of the reasons which are given as to why it should .be, and the force of those reasons. But to say the existing law is not departed from it is to do violence to one's understanding of the language. I will not do more than direct attention to these words:
Notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act-
And I have referred to the section in the Railway Act.
-or in this act-
The transport bill.
-a carrier-
And a carrier is defined by this measure as being a carrier to whom the act applies-I believe those are the exact words.


Thomas Vien: By rail, water or air.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I just wished to have the exact words, and I find that-
"carrier" means any person engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward to whom this act applies, and shall include any company which is subject to the Railway Act.
That is, it includes every company which is organized as a railway company by act of this parliament. That is fundamental.
We go a step farther and provide that the carrier, as thus defined-
-may make such charge or charges for the transport of the goods of any shipper or for the transport of any part of his goods as may be agreed between the carrier and that shipper.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And approved by the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a minute. "As may be agreed to between the carrier and that shipper." Obviously that is contractual. That is, the carrier is authorized to make a contract with a shipper to carry his freight at any rate that may be agreed upon. But there is a limitation to that. That is the broad statement of the principle, but, the limitation is:
Provided that any such agreed charge shall require the approval of the board-
Transport Commission

Then there is the further provision:
-and the board shall not approve such charge if, in its opinion, the object to be secured by the making of the agreement can, having regard to all the circumstances, adequately be secured by means of a special or competitive tariff of tolls under the Railway Act or this act.
I hope the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Vien) and the minister consider themselves as being answered. It states distinctly in the bill that you shall not use this provision unless you cannot attain your end under the present law. That is said so distinctly that it does not admit of any doubt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I always admitted that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From what my hon. friend said this afternoon I gathered he thought differently. I felt that the hon. member for Outremont had not those words specifically in his mind. If under the existing law you can accomplish your end, then the matter will not be considered at all by the board. In other words, when you come to the board with your case, if it falls within the four comers of the Railway Act. the board must say, "You depart; we will have nothing to do with you on that basis under this act."


Thomas Vien: That means that the competitive rates would degenerate into a rate war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Talk of a rate war is quite beside the question. I hope my hon. friend will permit me to say that without being offensive. I think on reconsideration he will hardly admit the possibility of a rate war arising under the present law.


Thomas Vien: The publication of a competitive rate might not have any particular effective result, because the highway carrier might publish a lower rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The highway carrier does not enter into this picture.


Thomas Vien: He does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You must keep in mind the fact that the highway carrier does not enter into this picture.


Ernest Bertrand: That is what the law was made for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) was that we have not in any sense endeavoured to occupy that field. This legislation does not touch that. The minister nods his acquiescence. We are not in that field, and I ask my hon. friend to keep that in mind.


Ernest Bertrand: We are not in that field because it is a constitutional field. We cannot go there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope my hon. friend does not conclude that I am suggesting that we should. This provision of the bill has given me much concern. It leaves it open to one of a group of carriers in a competitive territory to destroy the agreed rate.


Ernest Bertrand: How is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let me read the section:
-and provided further that when the transport is by rail from or to a competitive point or between competitive points on the lines of two or more carriers by rail the board shall not approve an agreed charge unless the competing carriers by rail join in making the agreed charge.
If one carrier holds out, there is no agreed charge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend did not mean that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was not in the English act, but it is put in so that we would not contravene the provisions of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, which calls on the roads to cooperate. We do not wish to start rate competition between the two railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At Vancouver you would have the competition of the Great Northern, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. If one of these three railroads does not agree to the agreed charge, then it is useless.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then you cannot have an agreed charge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. I point that out to my hon. friend from-I cannot think of his constituency.


Ernest Bertrand: It is Laurier, a very nice name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure my learned and hon. friend that he does great credit to it I do not think the minister intended to destroy the value of this statute or the value of the agreed charge at a competitive point by making it possible for one of a group of competitive carriers to stand out and make an agreed charge impossible. The interest of that competitive carrier might be very limited because of the territory which it serves, but it can make an agreed charge impossible. That is the situation as I see it. Is it a matter of practical wisdom and of high national policy to introduce a provision for agreed charges with those limitations? I am not unmindful of the effect that highway transport has had upon the traffic of the

Transport Commission
railways. All you havre to do is to read the briefs which I am sure the minister received in this morning's mail.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Lewis Duncan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly must be an eminent authority; for he has been considered by this government on more than one occasion as being well worthy of his hire.


Thomas Vien: An eminent counsel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My learned and hon.
friend describes him as an eminent counsel.
I assume that these briefs have been given the minute consideration that the minister thinks desirable. There is one saving provision in this bill, that is that it shall not come into force until proclaimed. If as a result of the investigation being carried on in Ontario in connection with highway traffic the minister is satisfied that it would not be in the national interest to proclaim it, I assume he will not do it. As it stands now, we are being asked to provide that a carrier and a shipper may make a contract for the transport of goods at a rate which encroaches upon the generally established rate of the country. It is further provided that that rate shall not be effective unless it is approved by the board, and further that it shall not be approved by the board if it is possible to secure the objective by other existing means. Lastly, it is provided that one of a group of carriers can destroy the contract by simply saying that he will not agree. I submit that that does not mean much. I first felt the encroachment was very great, but after reading the limitations I felt it wa.s very small. After reading the two together I feel it means nothing because it puts it in the hands of one of a group of competitors to destroy the agreement entirely; and I can conceive of such a situation being possible, although it might not be probable.
One thing further was said which I think on reflection the member for Kootenay East would regard as being too broad a statement. There is no right for anybody whose interests may be affected to be heard in a court of law unless he is a party to the transaction, and as we have not legislated with respect to the transport of goods on the highways such a carrier is not a party to the transaction and has no right to be heard in the court. Only recently in England in an important case in which a witness gave evidence and named half a dozen people in rather uncomplimentary terms it was suggested to the judge that these people had a right to be heard, but the judge decided that no witness lias a right to be heard in a court of law if he is not a party to the transaction. The judge laid
that down as the law. So my hon. friend's statement is too broad. This would be a correct statement of it, that you cannot deny to any party who has an interest in and is a party to the transaction the right to be heard in the courts. Every day decisions are made which affect the right of individuals who are not in the court but who are bound as a result of what has been decided in the court. The right of the truck owner to appear in the court is a right that does not attach unless he is brought into the court. The only people in the court here are the carriers under this act, and they are the only people who could be in the court unless we enlarge the field, which we have not done, in respect to highway traffic. Then the opportunity would be afforded for them to be heard.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that on balance, with the limitations imposed, I cannot bring myself to think that it is sound to encroach upon the rule, which has behind it such a body of public opinion and of decisions as we have both in the United States and here.
I pointed out the other day, and I am not going to do it again, the difference between conditions that prevail in Great Britain and here. They are so well defined that it is hardly necessary to do more than mention them for the differences to be at once appreciated. In England the field is divided into four strips of territory, if I might use that phrase; it is not very sound to institute a comparison between dissimilar things if you hope to arrive at any rule, and conditions in Great Britain and Canada are so dissimilar that I do not think you could arrive at any helpful conclusion by making the comparison. But knowing what I do of the history of the interstate commerce commission and of our own railway board, and knowing the time that was taken and the investigations that were made for the purpose of establishing the rule, I feel that we are taking a very great chance by providing for this encroachment upon that rule, which was a salutary one and worked out well, unless indeed at the same time we establish by adequate means jurisdiction over transport on the highway. Every province makes some regulations with respect to highway traffic. It is true that the regulations differ with the attitude of mind of the legislators of the nine provinces.


Thomas Vien: And none applies to rates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know, none applies to rates, but regulations have been applied as to the weight of the car. having regard to the safety of bridges, also with respect to the effect on the asphalt or the surface of the road itself. They have also

Transport Commission
exercised control in some of the western provinces to a very great degree, as, for instance, to those who might be licensed or regulated for the handling of traffic in. a particular area. They went as far as 'that in one case, in a sparsely settled district in the far northern part of the country.
I think, Mr. Chairman, with the limitations as they read, the possibilities of the legislation being innocuous are very great. When the bill was first before the house and I read it. it had not that addition to the first part of section 35 which it now contains, but even with that I still think the minister is taking the proper course in providing that the act shall not go into effect until it is proclaimed, after he has satisfied himself by every means in his power as to just what will be involved if we make this encroachment upon a rule which I believe was salutary, which came into being because of great abuses, and a return to which we cannot as a Canadian people contemplate without realizing that the practices which prevailed before the interstate commerce commission or the railway commission came into being are not such as we can again tolerate in this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I have very little comment to make, except to say that the provision referred to by my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that the railways must act as a unit in making agreed charges is not a very serious curtailment. For many years the railway board has been the rate-making body for the railways, and it is the intention that it shall continue to be so. It is felt that it is not in the public interest for railways competing with each other to make special contracts, and the provision is there for that reason.
Amendment (Mr. Stevens) negatived. Subsection 1 of section 35 agreed to.
On section 35, subsection 4-Board approval of agreed charge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Subsection 4 was allowed to stand for further examination. It has since been examined. It is an exact copy of the English act. The board of railway commissioners have been questioned regarding it, and it is felt that this is a desirable clause to have, taking into consideration the actual machinery of the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It defines the discretionary powers of the board within which they may grant their consent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.

On section 37-Rights preserved. R.S., c. 79 Crowsnest Pass agreement.
Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) objected that the wording "or by chapter five of the statutes of 1897," which was the original Crowsnest Pass agreement, was not comprehensive enough to cover extensions of the Crowsnest Pass agreement since that time. I contend, and our solicitors contend, that the reference to the Crowsnest Pass agreement has no point in this act, because nothing in this act can possibly violate its provisions. But in order to meet the objection raised I will ask my colleague the Minister of Public Works to move that clause 37 be amended by striking out the words "or by chapter five of the statutes of 1897", in line 8 and substituting therefor the following words:
or by paragraph (e) of section 1 of chapter 5 of the statutes of Canada 1897, as extended and saved by subsection 5 of section 325 of the Railway Act.


Mr. CARDIN:: I move accordingly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the minister did not draft that. It is the first time I have ever seen salvation provided for by act of parliament. Had not the minister better say "preserved"? "Extended and preserved" would be better than "extended and saved".


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the chairman will make
that change, it is all right with me.


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment is:
that the word "saved" be deleted and the word "preserved" substituted therefor.


Clarence Decatur Howe: "Preserved" as in strawberry jam.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that is what it is intended for in some quarters.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
TURNER VALLEY OIL FIELDS: PROPOSED DUMPING DUTY ON MONTANA CRUDE-GERHARD NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE- STATEMENT OF MR.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to bring to the attention of the house before we proceed

Turner Valley Oil Fields
with supply a matter of some considerable importance to the part of the country in which I live.
The development of the oil fields of southern Alberta has proceeded very slowly. It is thirty-three years ago this fall since I organized a company for the purpose of searching for natural gas and oil in what has since become the Turner valley field. We made a discovery of what was known as crude naphtha and of large quantities of natural gas in which naphtha was held in suspension in globules, and it proved to be very valuable from the standpoint not only of the gas being used for illuminating and domestic purposes in Calgary and other communities, tout also of the resultant oil which was taken by a process of refining, under which process the naphtha held in suspension was utilized. There have been continued borings and drillings in that area until at last large quantities of crude petroleum have been discovered at a depth in some instances of ten thousand feet or more. Anyone who has had to do with the drilling of a hole two miles into the earth's crust must realize something of the difficulties that have to be overcome and the risks incidental to the work, apart altogether from the cost, and will perhaps understand why so many years have passed since the first effort was made.
The discoveries that have been now made establish beyond question the fact that we have there an extremely valuable oil field. A very large number of oil wells have been sunk in that field. The so-called Turner valley has a width of approximately one mile; the length of field is at least sixteen miles, and perhaps a good deal more. During the last eighteen months or two years wells of increasing importance have been brought into production; wells have been drilled with a production of three and four thousand barrels of crude petroleum per day. But obviously, as is the case with many things we have in western Canada, we are confronted with great difficulties. The immediate market provided by a few people is of course limited. To lift crude oil over the Rocky mountains by means of a pipe line is a highly expensive process, if not an impossible one. It is not difficult to contemplate a pipe line of sufficient length to carry crude petroleum from the Turner valley oil fields to tidewater in British Columbia. Inasmuch, however, as the Turner valley is about half a mile in altitude, and the point in the Rockies over which it would be necessary to pass, unless one went south or north a great distance, is nearly a mile above sea level, it
follows that the crude petroleum would have to be lifted-and I used the word "lift" advisedly-nearly half a mile, which is almost prohibitive from the standpoint of mere cost.
Then the question arises as to the market in eastern Canada, where the population is.. To carry crude oil from Turney valley east to Fort William would involve the expenditure of many millions of dollars, and it would also involve a pipe line which would constantly have within it perhaps a million barrels of oil. That is a tremendous quantity. A pipe line of sufficient diameter and of the required length from Turner valley to Fort William therefore means the rendering unsalable for a time of a very large quantity of oil. When you reach the head of the lakes your troubles have only then begun, because the refineries in the east are to be found at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and in other communities.


Mr. DUNNING:: Sarnia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The very large one at Sarnia is served by pipe line from the midcontinent field. Under the circumstances I think it is apparent to those who have been operating in western Canada in the Turner valley that they cannot hope, for instance, to displace crude oil coming from Colombia, Venezuela or Peru. That crude oil coming from those points is waterborne. It comes to Halifax, Montreal, Vancouver; and *wherever you have waterborne crude oil it is quite obvious that we could not hope, from an inland community like Turner valley, to ship our oil to compete with these importations. But there is what is known as the mid-continent field, and that extends north as far as Montana. It was because we could never be convinced that the forty-ninth parallel shut off oil discoveries that there was continued prospecting in the hope of one day getting oil in volume, because just south of us at Montana there has been a large field of oil which has been constantly operated during the last few years and which has supplied a substantial quantity of crude that has come into Canada. That is not carried in by pipe line. It is brought in by trucks and tank cars. The average truck carries something like forty barrels. The largest shipment that came to our country in any recent day from the Montana fields was ninety-five truckloads on May 23 last-that is last month-but the average, as I understand, has been something like thirty-five trucks per day. Since the discovery of crude in large quantities at Turner valley, there has been a constant reduction in the price at which Montana crude has been offered in western Canada.
Turner Valley Oil Fields

The price last week at which crude was being offered was as low as 80 cents per barrel, and contracts might have been made at a lower rate. In view of the fact that such importation limits to just that extent the use to which Turner valley crude can be put, those who are deeply concerned about the future of the industry in which they have invested their savings are strongly of the opinion that a dumping duty should be placed upon that product imported from Montana.
I am pointing out that there is no pipe line that conveys it across the country; it comes across in trucks. In the month of April last this country imported 51,523,000 gallons of crude oil.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is, all told.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of that quantity, 37,635,000 gallons came from the United States; 6,924,000 from Colombia; 3,793,000 from Venezuela; and 3,748,000 from Peru.


Mr. HOWARD:: But it does not say how much came from Montana.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said from the United States, and Montana is a part of the United States. I said that the average quantity of Montana oil imported per day was thirty-five truckloads, that a truck carried forty barrels, and that the largest shipment of trucks had been ninety-five on May 23 last. The statistical record is not complete with respect to the rest of it, but I am making that statement in order to direct attention to the volume that is coming into this country from the United States, and I wish to follow that with this statement: It is not suggested at the moment that Turner valley is capable of satisfying all the requirements for crude oil of the Dominion of Canada; for roughly the daily requirements of crude oil in Canada are about 110,000 barrels, but apparently it is within sight, for during the present year, if the wells now under drilling are completed and produce as do existing wells, we shall in that valley be taking out of the earth 100,000 barrels of oil a day, if a market can be secured. The fact that the market is not available necessitates pro-rating, as it is called, the production from the wells; and inasmuch as there is no pipe line and only rail transport at the present moment to carry crude east, it follows that there has been, as additional wells have come into existence, a reduction in the quantity taken from each. That is the net result of pro-rating the production. The more wells, the less the quantity to be taken per day from each to supply the requirements.
Recently the wells owned by those who have expended substantial sums of money on

them have come into production, with the result that the pro-rating as provided for ,by regulation of Alberta has reduced the quantity taken from each, and the company that has a large number of wells is, of course, still producing in substantial volume, although each well is on the same relative pro rata basis. The request with respect to dumping duty arises out of the circumstances to which I have alluded; but the request that a duty be imposed upon the raw product is the complement of what I have just said with respect to pro-rating the output of those wells. And before the budget is delivered I am directing the attention of the government to these circumstances in order that, if it is thought well in the public interest, some action may be taken along the lines I have suggested.
But I want to go a step further. Some time ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) referred the matter to the tariff board and the board went west and made investigations. So fas as is known, the tariff board has made no report, and some of the Canadians who have been operating in that valley are very resentful that no action is being taken, and have expressed themselves in rather strong language. For instance, they refer to us in this parliament in terms which I hope will not be regarded as highly offensive:
The Canadian tariff hoard "investigates" the Turner valley situation and adjourns forever. In Ottawa 245 costly politicians talk for five months and accomplish nothing.


Ernest Bertrand: That is from an Alberta newspaper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is an extract from an editoral in The Albertan.


Ernest Bertrand: Sent to every member of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not know that;
I thank my hon. friend. That shortens the need for my observations, because I see that my learned and hon. friend has already lead it.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was sent to every hon. member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the hon. member just observed that it was sent to every hon. member. That of course does not in any sense lessen its value.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it would be impossible to lessen its value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I do not look upon the matter in just that way.


Charles Avery Dunning: That kind of comment I do.

Turner Valley Oil Fields


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not so sure that having regard to my observation of the government of this country for the last five months one is not warranted in making that statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: It says that 245 members of parliament talk too much. My right hon. friend is one of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course he is. But it rests with the government of the day to take the initiative. It is their job to see that something is done, for they only can expend money.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: There is too much talking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They alone can take steps in regard to the tariff. They are the only ones who can deal with a dumping duty; they only can deal with unemployment, they only can deal with relief. What have they done?


Ernest Lapointe: Listened to speeches.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, they have been poor listeners; for the Prime Minister has not been in this house an average of an hour and a half a day since the session opened.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not fair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is as fair as it was to say it about me when I was Prime Minister.


Ernest Lapointe: The Prime Minister is tired and has not been well for a few days. I do not think this remark was called for. We did not do the same to my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You did not? Read the record. Day after day, week after week you referred to the fact that I was not in my place, because I was working long hours on work that I had to do. Now I say that the Prime Minister has not been in his place in this parliament on the average an hour and a half a day since it opened. Let there be no misunderstanding. Hon. members may have had to listen to speeches, and what is more, they may have to listen to more. One thing is perfectly clear, we have been here for five months and done nothing for the public good.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have talked a lot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What else was there to do? What was the government doing? It was the duty of the government to produce its program.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I am sure your government would satisfy the hungry people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not let us talk about hunger. Just think of it! One hon. member, not here, saying that if you be hungry in Saskatchewan do not think of voting for this government. Do not think of voting for this government. If you be hungry think what will happen if you do not vote for the Patterson government. That is what the hon. member for Regina, (Mr. McNiven) has been stating to the people of this country, according to the public press. And the resources of civilization seem to be in striking evidence in various sections of that fair province.


Thomas Vien: I recall a statement, "I shall cure unemployment or perish in the attempt."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the hon. member may regard that as a clever observation. The employment that existed at the time we came into office vanished but was replaced by increased unemployment; what is more, we did perish in the attempt, and that is what will happen to this administration. No one ever heard a single regret expressed by me at any action the electors might take with respect to it. That was not the statement that was made; it has to be taken with the context that surrounded it. If hon. members will read what was said before 1935, if they will look at the hoardings, look at the picture of the nine provinces, if they look at the unity of then and now they will understand something about conditions. Look at Canada today, the federal power in Vancouver a joke; the fact held up to the eyes of all the world that the dominion's own property cannot be safeguarded by the Canadian people. You find that Alberta is now conducting the affairs of the nation. There is no national government; it is just what each province says.


Mr. BLAIR:: Has this any connection with the dumping duty on oil?


Mr. KINLEY:: Nova Scotia is still sane.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, I have been
diverted from my theme. I was pointing out that the tariff board was considering this question.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Pour
some oil on the troubled waters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but remember that the products of oil are highly inflammable. A spark sometimes ignites them, and even the vapour is a source of large quantities of power.


Mr. McIVOR:: Louder.
Turner Valley Oil Fields


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh well, it is unimportant that my hon. friend should hear me.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I always like to hear the leader of the opposition because mostly he speaks sound common sense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was pointing out that the tariff board had had this matter under consideration and investigation. What I want to know is whether or not some steps can be taken without delay to ensure that this hard-won product may be utilized in this country by Canadians instead of importations being continued within the area served by this field. I am not foolish enough to suggest that Turner valley oil can serve the wants of Halifax, or even of Vancouver at the moment, but I am suggesting that this tariff board could make a report without delay, and that the government, before the budget is brought down, can deal adequately with it.
On another occasion it may be necessary for me to make some observations with respect to another aspect of the matter, but at the moment I content myself-not expecting that the government is going to announce a remedy at the moment; far from it-with saying that before the budget is delivered the government have the fullest possible opportunity for determining what action should be taken. Because it must be remembered that petroleum is one of the greatest producers of new wealth in a country. As soon as a well is in production new wealth becomes available. You do not have to wait three or four years as with the growing of cattle or sheep; you get your new wealth at once. It is for that reason that I direct the attention of the government to this matter, in the very earnest hope that they will take steps to remedy the situation, in order that the market which is available in that area-a very limited one,
I am quite frank about it-may become available for Canadian products.
One step further. It must be in the mind of the government that we had on the statutes of Canada for I think a quarter of a century an act providing for giving a bonus for the production of petroleum. I dare say there are many hon. members who have forgotten that entirely. If that provision were in force today it would involve the payment of very large sums of money. It was repealed because it was thought that the country could not stand the strain if large quantities of oil were discovered, but it was utilized for many years in Ontario. Now they do not ask a bonus, but they ask for assistance if need be in transport. I happen to know that the railway companies are giving the matter consideration, to see whether they cannot get

the traffic rather than involve the country and the companies in the construction of pipe lines. It is for that reason that I have ventured, before we proceed with supply, to bring this matter to the attention of the house, although I may possibly do so at greater length on another occasion.
One other matter I wish to speak of, and that is to direct the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) to what I conceive to be the very urgent necessity of appointing a commissioner under the Naturalization Act to investigate the activities of Mr. Gerhard. I have received a detailed report from Edmonton, and from another section of this country within the last few days; I do not desire to prejudge in any sense the case of any person, but I do think that on the evidence that can be established, for him to have a certificate of naturalization as a British subject at the present time does violence, and great violence indeed, to my understanding of the requisites of British citizenship.
I shall be glad to place in the possession of the Secretary of State details of evidence which have come to me and which will enable him, I believe, if he will be good enough to appoint a commissioner without delay, to make an investigation which will satisfy him that the outstanding certificate of naturalization should be cancelled without further delay. I say that this action should be taken if the evidence proves to be in accordance with the information which I have.
I desire to make it abundantly clear that I have no wish to prejudge anyone's case or to make any declaration as to the value to be attached to the evidence in question.


Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect and deep regard for the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), but I shall have to disagree with him. I am sorry I had not known the matter was to be discussed, and also sorry that for a few moments the discussion turned into a political sabre fight, which got us exactly nowhere. I do know that many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of farmers between Lethbridge and Medicine Hat and the international boundary have tractors equipped to use Montana crude oil. It is a type of crude oil which can be burned directly in tractors, whereas the crude which in the past has been produced in the Turner valley has not been a type as easily consumed or as economically used. I know that many farmers in southern Alberta are using Montana crude oil, which they bring in at a cheap rate.

Turner Valley Oil Fields
They haul it in off seasons of the year, and store it in concrete storage tanks below the ground. That would account for the importation of thousands of barrels to which the right hon. gentleman referred.
While it may be considered that opposition by the farmers to a dumping duty, for the reasons put forward by the leader of the opposition, would be selfish, I suggest that their particular case should be adequately presented to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the government before any steps are taken. Furthermore, I am sure the Minister of Finance will agree with me when I say that while the dumping duty need not generally raise the price of crude oil or fuel in the west, past history and experience would tell us that it likely would have that effect. Goodness knows that gasoline and all other fuel products in western Canada, where there is an abundance of raw products, are selling at unconscionably high prices, for no really good reason. If we impose a duty to overcome the pro-ration in the Turney valley, or to offset the effect of the small importations by trucks, I believe, without having made a thorough study of the matter, that much more harm than good would be done, and I hope the government will keep that phase of the matter firmly in mind before making any change of the kind suggested by the right hon. member.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I must add my word of protest against the suggestion of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he asks that a dumping duty be imposed on crude oil entering Canada. I oppose the suggestion because I believe such action would increase the price of crude oil in Canada. I have the further reason that only recently in the city of Portage la Prairie a cooperative oil refining plant has been built, and I believe I am right in saying that such a tariff change would increase the difficulty of that cooperative. They would have to pay more for their raw materials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not suggesting that they pay more.


Harry Leader: Perhaps not, but I believe from experience we can safely say that a dumping duty would have that effect. I raise my voice in order to make sure that in connection with any question of this kind the crude oil requirements of the cooperative refineries shall be considered before any dumping duty is imposed.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) : Mr. Speaker, I had no advance notice of this matter being raised, and therefore I have to speak entirely from memory with regard to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No motion has been moved.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not criticizing anyone, but am merely excusing myself if any statement I may make should be incomplete.
I will endeavour to be sure that it will not be inaccurate.
With regard to charging the government with inaction in the matter, I do not think any of the producers in the Turner valley will join in such a charge. When last year the new production of the Turner valley first became certain the problems apparently arising in connection with that production were brought to the attention of the government by the producers' association in the Turner valley. They asked a thorough investigation into a situation which would be created by the development of a heavily producing oil field in Alberta.
There was a question as to what body available to the government would be best suited to conduct such an investigation. Obviously transportation questions were involved, but transportation questions were not by any means the whole problem. Problems of marketing were involved, but they did not constitute the whole problem. It seemed that there might conceivably be a tariff aspect to the problem. Personally I regard the tariff aspect as relatively unimportant in relation to the problem presented by the increased production in the Turner valley. I am willing to be convinced from evidence that my view in that regard is wrong, but that was the view I held when the parties concerned came to the government to discuss the matter.
In any event the government decided that in view of all the circumstances the tariff board was the body best fitted to look into the matter, partly because of the mass of information which was available to the tariff board as a result of its previous investigation of the tariff on gasoline and oil products generally, and partly because in Judge Sedgewick we knew we had a man who would use that information in order to extract everything possible on the subject which might be of service to the interested parties.
The inquiry proceeded. I think everyone connected with it will agree that although no report has been made, the results of the inquiry have been distinctly beneficial to those concerned. As a result of the inquiry as far as it
Turner Valley Oil Fields

proceeded negotiations have occurred between the producers and the railways and between the producers and the oil refiners which have materially improved conditions. The improvement has not been sufficient to eliminate the problem. I do not claim that for a moment; but there came a time in the progress of the investigation when it became apparent that the important thing to learn was: What is the potential volume of production from the Turner valley wells? If my memory serves me aright, in the early months of this year the Alberta government indicated that they were making a further test of potential production, but the hearings had reached the point where the independent producers' association requested the board to adjourn sine die. Those words have a bearing on the editorial that was read. The unfairness of the editorial is indicated by the fact that the adjournment of the hearings was at the request of the parties principally interested, the parties for whom my right hon. friend was so ostensibly speaking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does the minister mean by "ostensibly"?


Charles Avery Dunning: I assume my right hon. friend was trying to help the producers. In his effort to help them he quoted an interview alleged to have taken place with one of them and blaming this government for killing off the inquiry, or putting it to sleep, which I think were the words used.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read only four lines of the editorial.


Charles Avery Dunning: Four lines did sufficient damage to the government for my right hon. friend's purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not my purpose at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Having accomplished
that-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to raise a
point of order at once. That is a misstatement of what I said. It is a habit the hon. gentleman is learning. I did not make the statement he attributes to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend states
that I read the editorial for the purpose of injuring the government. I read five lines from the editorial which referred to the whole 245 members, as the hon. member has pointed out. The hon. member starts off by saying "ostensibly." If he is going to repeat what

I said, he should give the words I used or their meaning, and not put another construction upon them,


Charles Avery Dunning: If I am to profit in connection with that sort of thing from the instructions I am constantly receiving from my right hon. friend, I doubt whether it is a matter of congratulation so far as I am concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
must realize that that is offensive. The other day he used a word which was offensive and he withdrew it at once.
Mr.	DUNNING:	Exactly.Mr.	BENNETT:	He is doing	the	same
thing now, only worse. I recommend that he make himself a little more familiar with the rules which state that motives cannot be assigned to members. He says that I have been giving him instructions as to how to break the rules-
Mr.	DUNNING:	No.Mr.	BENNETT:	That is	the	sense	of
his statement. It means that or nothing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, I am in
your judgment. I said no such thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What did the hon. gentleman say?


Charles Avery Dunning: May I continue?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister keep
within the miles I shall not intervene. If he keep within the rules, he need have no fear of my objecting to his doing so.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have sat here and
smiled when my right hon. friend has seen fit to break the rules in his references to all and sundry, and I did not try to throw him off his argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Such virtue!


Charles Avery Dunning: The hearings of the
tariff board were postponed indefinitely at the request of the producers of the Turner valley speaking as an organized body. Within the last two weeks the results of the tests of the potential production of existing wells have become available. I am speaking from memory, but I believe I am correct when I say that the potential production of the existing wells is 37,000 barrels a day. At the time the hearings were postponed it was known that the consumption within that area of Canada which could be economically served from the Turner valley was approximately 15,000 barrels a day. The then known excess potential production over the

Turner Valley Oil Fields
15.000	barrel consumption was not sufficient warrant, in the opinion of the producers, for the tariff board to continue investigating the matter with any hope of producing a constructive suggestion.
The situation has now changed. Within the last two weeks it has become apparent that
37.000	barrels a day is the potential of the existing wells. My right hon, friend speaks of other wells which are in the process of development and which will raise that potential to about 100,000 barrels a day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said it was believed that if they maintained the same rate of development, by the end of the year they would be getting 100,000 barrels a day.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I point out that in connection with this increased volume of production this parliament and this government do not control the extent to which the Turner valley field shall be developed. This government and this parliament cannot determine whether the Turner valley shall be permitted to produce 37,000 barrels, 50,000 barrels or 100,000 barrels a day. That power and that right are in the legislature and the government of Alberta. We have for the first time in Canada the problem which has been the most difficult one that the oil producing industry in the United States has had to contend with during the past number of years. In every one of the oil producing states it has been a matter of serious difficulty, first, to control the degree of development in order to prevent every one from being flooded with oil which could not be sold at a satisfactory price and, second, to pro-rate the existing wells at a point which would be fair to everyone. For the information of hon. members from other parts of Canada, may I point out again that the control of the rate of production is in the province of Alberta, not in this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And is being exercised.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend says that it is being exercised. I believe there are measures in effect in Alberta looking to that control. Looking for oil is so indefinite, so far as results are concerned, that when control measures become necessary, they are seldom effective. That has been the history of the oil fields in the south. During the last two weeks Mr. Frawley, an official of the attorney general's department of the Alberta government, and who, I believe, represented the government during the tariff board inquiry, has been in communication with the chairman of the board with respect to the new development. The producers' organization has also 51952-230
been in communication with the board with respect to the new development. The last advice I received was that the producers' organization was meeting to-day in Calgary in order to determine what further steps it would be wise to take, having regard to the fact that the inquiry was adjourned on their own request just a short time ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A short time ago?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not very long. I have not the date in mind, but speaking from memory, I believe it was two or three months ago. I give this information to the house for the purpose of indicating that the government is alive to the fact that there is a real problem in connection with the development of an extensive oil field in that part of Canada, the capacity of which to consume oil is readily ascertainable as being considerably below the potential productive capacity of the wells now being developed. I hardly think it is fair, however, to lay at the door of this parliament the responsibility for finding a market for an unlimited quantity of oil produced under conditions of geographical difficulty so far as its distribution is concerned. In that connection I would point out that it is not a question of losing the oil because it is not taken out of the ground to-day or to-morrow. It is merely a question of so organizing as to enable that wealth to flow into consumption at a rate which will best serve the interests of both the producers and the consumers of that wealth. The oil does not disappear because it is left in the ground. If it is not taken out to-day, it is still there to-morrow. I do not think anyone who has studied the Alberta oil formation will assume that it is at all likely that oil is being drained from the Turner Valley formation into any other formation which would permit it to be taken out of the ground, for instance, in a foreign country. There is no evidence of that.
The question then is merely one of how fast shall the oil be taken out of that reservoir which is in the Turner Valley. Those people who have drilled wells and put their savings into them, as my right hon. friend has suggested, are certainly entitled to and ought to have consideration because the adventuring of savings in the great enterprise of digging holes two miles into the ground without knowing whether or not you are going to get anything out is something we need to encourage in Canada. But I submit seriously that we should not put this question upon the ground of the national necessity of finding a market for an unlimited production of oil.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was very careful to
say that.

Turner Valley Oil-Fields


Charles Avery Dunning: It is far better, as geological knowledge advances and as we get a better idea of how much oil is in that great pool in the Turner Valley, that we or the government of Alberta, or possibly both of us, should carefully consider measures to conserve the production of oil in that field on luch a basis that the daily production will ensure its continuing to serve economically the people of those parts of Canada which can be served by it to the very best advantage.
In the meantime we have the problem of dealing with the present production. I do not believe that my right hon. friend's suggestion of a dumping duty with respect to that small quantity of oil which is coming in from Montana would have a hairbreadth of influence with respect to this great problem involved in a production of 37,000 barrels a day, which may possibly rise, as he himself says, to 100.000 barrels a day. I have no knowledge of the precise quantities that come over the Alberta border from Montana. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Mitchell) spoke of the effect of a dumping duty on the farmers who use the oil. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) spoke of another phase of the same matter. These factors must all be taken into consideration. But I do not believe that a dumping duty is a solution, although certainly the tariff board must take into account in their inquiry the effect on our national well-being of what is happening in the way of oil coming over in truckloads from Montana, and I feel sure that due regard will be given by the board to what the facts in the case reveal in that regard.
The question seems to me to be one of whether Canada can find some means of transporting oil over what are known to be uneconomic distances in order to find a market. The question is: Is it better to hold down present production in Alberta and thus continue the life of that oil field over a longer period of time, or is it the better course to enter into some artificially assisted means of getting the oil into a wider market than is at present economically available to it? I know I am merely posing the problem; I am not suggesting an answer to it, nor did my right hon. friend do so. I believe he put forward the dumping duty not as a serious answer to the problem, but just as one of the incidental features of it. I think he will agree, after hearing what has happened in connection with the matter, that the government has
 moved as reasonably as was possible under the circumstances; that the machinery provided for investigating this matter is the best that is available, and that the investigation is proceeding in a normal and reasonable manner to accomplish the end in view.



CLAIMS OF GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY PREFERENCE


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I advised the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) last week that to-day I intended to bring to the attention of the house a matter which, I consider, deserves close thought and careful consideration. I may not be able, within -the forty minutes which will be my limit, to cover fully what I wish to say. I may point out now that I have in my hand an amendment, which I do not wish to move because what I shall have to say is in no sense an attack on the government nor does it involve a question of want of confidence, so I shall content myself, Mr. Speaker, with notifying you that I have an amendment to move, if it is necessary, in completing the remarks which I desire to make.
The subject I propose to introduce to-day definitely in my opinion affects the good faith of Canada. It wdll be recalled that a couple of months ago the Minister of Finance made a very important speech in which he emphasized the desirability of the Dominion of Canada keeping faith in the matter of its contractual obligations not only with persons resident in Canada but more particularly with those resident outside this country, and I recall that his remarks on that occasion met with a general expression of approval by hon. members then in the house. I do not intend this afternoon to make a legal argument ; I make no pretence of being qualified to do so, but it will be necessary for me to refer to some statutes dating back a considerable time. Rather I propose to make an appeal for equitable and just treatment based on the facts and as a contractual right.
The subject to wdiich I refer is the claims of the first and second preference stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway. It is an appeal to parliament for just and equitable treatment. I want to make it clear that I am not directing criticism or blame against any one. I am particularly anxious that what I have to say shall be received sympathetically by the ministry and considered by them


Ernest Lapointe: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not aware of its
being before the courts in a way that would make it improper for me to present a case here.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will permit me, there was a case that went to the privy council, and judgment was delivered by the privy council a year or so ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Lovibond case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is settled.


Ernest Lapointe: No; dismissing part of the action relating to the Attorney General of Canada, and the declarations that the Grand Trunk Railway acquisition stock was involved, and that the orders in council which were adopted by the governor in council subsequently were also of no value. The privy council decided that the matter should have gone there only by way of a petition of right. But they sent back the record to the Ontario courts on the question of damages which those shareholders might suffer by reason of the fact that their names have been removed from the register as owners of those shares, and the question of invalidity of the statute and the orders in council necessarily still arises in the procedure. The case is still pending, and is fixed for hearing for September next.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the question of
damages.


Ernest Lapointe: On the question of damages, because the declaration of the invalidity could not be pronounced against the Attorney General of Canada because there was no petition of right, no fiat. I believe, however, that the country is interested because the Canadian National railway, which is the party in the litigation with those shareholders, is the people of Canada, and the matter of the validity of the statutes and the orders in council is questioned before the courts; so I really do not think this could be discussed while the case is pending.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does the hon. member
wish to speak to the point of order?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I shall bow to your ruling immediately it is given, but before the ruling is given I should like to make a plea in this connection. I am not going to discuss the matter; I am going to make merely one or two little references. Several times it has been desired that -51952-2304
this case should be brought up, and each time we have been confronted with the contention that the matter was before the courts. I had the impression that the case to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred had been sufficiently dealt with to clear the way for a discussion in the house. However, the minister has raised his point, and of course if you rule that I am not privileged to proceed I shall have to bow to that ruling.


Walter Edward Foster: Does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? The point raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is, I think, well taken. Under standing order' 41 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 293, it is declared that:
-a member, while speaking, must not .	.	.
refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.
Reference is made to page 323 of May, thirteenth edition. I think the Minister of Justice has pointed out clearly that this matter is before the courts at the present time. Therefore I hold that the hon. member is not within the rules of the house in. carrying on a discussion of this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course my hon. friend will be able to proceed with this when the final decision is reached overseas. Meanwhile I shall be pleased if he will send me a brief or any memorandum covering the points which he desires to submit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should be pleased if the government would allow me to send them in that form what I wish to say on the subject. I have no desire to disturb or embarrass the government in any way in this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I quite understand.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I do not wish to take part in this debate, but I want to make a very short observation in reply to some remarks which have been made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) during the course of his speech. He has alluded again to the case of one Karl Rudolf Gerhard, naturalized by the Department of State in 1938, and the activities of a Mr. Karl Gerhard, to whom the press has recently referred. Whether there are one or two persons of that name, and if there are two, to whom should be attributed some of these activities, I must admit is not quite clear, either to the leader of the opposition
3626	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
or to myself. I gave the other day particulars of the naturalization which was granted to Mr. Karl Rudolf Gerhard in 1938 and indicated what we knew of his residence in Canada during these last years. The press has also alluded to a Mr. Emil Karl Gerhardt, and denials have been exchanged between Mr. Karl Rudolf Gerhard and another gentleman as to the activities of Mr. Gerhard; and I will admit that the situation has got to the point where it requires to be a little bit clarified. I may say that my department is now considering this matter, and I shall not fail to take into account the remarks made this afternoon by the leader of the opposition as to the inquiry that should take place in this case.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Chief engineer's branch-construction, repairs and improvements-harbours and rivers- New Brunswick-[DOT]
Under contract-
Grand Anse-dredging, $7,500.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand it is the desire of the committee that we proceed item by item instead of taking the vote as a whole. The first item is this amount of $7,500, including a revote of $4,800, required to complete the dredging under contract with the Maritime Dredging and Supply Company. This dredging is intended to dispose of the filling that has taken place there, with a view of providing better accommodation for the fishing fleet in the harbour of Grande Anse. Dredging was started last year but was stopped on November 20, owing to adverse weather conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Caissie's cape-breakwater repairs and improvements, $17,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is for repairs to the breakwater, which was seriously damaged by a severe storm in October, 1937.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Escuminac-breakwater improvements, $45,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide for
strengthening the outer end of the breakwater by the construction of cribwork. The report of the district engineer is that there is constant damage along this section of the breakwater, and the work is necessary to protect ithe structure and add to its stability.
[Mr. Kinfret.l


Mr. STEWART:: Is this just a matter of repairing and improving an existing breakwater, or is it an extension?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is for strengthening the existing breakwater.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wilson's beach-breakwater, wharf extension, estimated total cost $100,000, $50,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount, including the revote of $20,000, is to provide towards the construction of an extension approximately 235 feet long in connection with the breakwater wharf. The work is requested by the board of trade of Campobello island, by Mr. Newman of Wilson's beach and by the present member and ex-member of the constituency. The engineer recommends the expenditure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was anything spent last year on this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec
Under contract-
Riviere Laguerre-contribution towards completion of improvements, the provincial government to bear a like amount, $10,000.
Essential undertakings-
Cape Cove (Anse du Cap)-wharf reconstruction, $41,600.
Caeouna-wharf repairs, $13,000.
Grande Baie (St. Alexis)-wharf reconstruction, $26,600.
Manicouagan-wharf improvements. One-third of cost to be contributed by the Ontario Paper Co. Ltd., $31,000.
Riviere au Tonnerre-harbour improvements,
[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $275,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In this vote the first item is Riviere Laguerre. This is a contribution towards the completion of improvements. The provincial government contributes a like amount.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I recall it, this work has been going on for a considerable time, and there is a joint contribution by the province and this government. Will this vote complete it, or is this another instalment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is supposed to complete the work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much has been spent an it altogether?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The sum of $140,000. The
total expenditure to March 31, 1937, was $124,695.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it likely to be completed this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, in September. As regards Cape Cove, the amount asked for is to provide for reconstruction in steel sheet piling of the shore end of the wharf. The present wharf was constructed in 1904, and the shore end is now in a dilapidated and weakened condition. The work is recommended by the engineers.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where is this wharf
situated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is near Perce in the
peninsula of Gaspe.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is it used for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Ten thousand cords of pulp-wood are shipped yearly, and the value of other imports and exports moving over the wharf is over $50,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there any revenue from it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There must be harbour dues or wharfage.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would be under the Transport department. I do not expect the minister to state the amount, but I should like to know whether there is any revenue.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will get that information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Last year there was a vote of $9,000, and this year it is $41,000. I assume the amount voted last year must have been spent because there is no revote mentioned.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have a note to the effect that there was a probable expenditure of $2,700 out of the $9,000.
The amount for Cacouna is the result of a recommendation of the district engineer who reports that a 200 foot section of the south face of that structure is in an advanced state of decay and should be renewed. Cacouna is situated on the south shore of the St. Lawrence about 126 miles below Quebec.
The amount for Grande Baie is to provide for the construction of the inner end of the wharf, which is the only section used at the present time, the outer end having been practically abandoned, on account of decay. The other section has been repaired at various times, being cribwork that is not strong enough for the present traffic which consists largely of heavy trucks. It is proposed to fill the crib with rock and surface it with macadam. Business transacted at that point amounts to approximately $200,000 a year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In regard to Manicouagan, what is the arrangement there, the reason for it, the estimated total expenditure, and the contribution by the company? I understand that a paper company has a development there; that this wharf was built to get their product out, and that they are making a contribution towards the work. What is the total cost, and what proportion is the company contributing? How much has been spent, and when is the work likely to be completed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is to provide a share of the cost of construction of a crib-work structure to protect the stone approach to the wharf. A storm in 1937 damaged the wharf. Up to the present this company has contributed $266,882 in round figures, in various sums since 1929-30. The total cost is $825,992. The government expenditure has been $559,110 so that the company has contributed a little less than half.
The item of harbours and rivers generally, $275,000, is the general vote which is repeated year by year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Under contract-
Port Arthur-harbour improvements, $51,300. Essential undertakings-
Cobourg-maintenance dredging, $20,000.
Owen Sound-harbour repairs and improvements, $49,000.
Sarnia-reconstruction of harbour works, $25,000.
Rondeau-reconstruction of East pier, $28,000.
Toronto-maintenance of eastern channel, $15,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $180,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Does my friend want to
go over this item by item?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps I could shorten
it by intimating what information I think the committee should have. This item provides for some harbour improvements at * Port Arthur. As I recall, we have another item in the supplementary estimates for work at Port Arthur. I think the committee should know what we have undertaken there, in both the main and the supplementary estimates, and whether this completes the work or is just an instalment on it. I find in the supplementary estimates, harbour improvements, a revote of $60,000 and a total expenditure of $155,000. Are they different works or are they connected? One is harbour improvements, a re vote of $51,300. and then there is this other vote of $155,000 including a revote of $60,000. Are they two separate works?
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, they are entirely separate. This vote of $51,000 provides for dredging. It is a contract awarded to the National Dock and Dredging Company for maintenance dredging in several elevator slips, and providing for repairs to concrete breakwater and deepening the ship berth at the outfitting plant of the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company. The details of the amount are as follows:
Complete contract with National Dock and Dredging Corporation, $39,300.
Repairs to north pier head at south entrance, $2,600.
Deepening ship berth alongside outfitting dock of Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company, $9,400.
This is entirely separate from what is provided for in the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The vote last year was
S82.000. Do we understand that the difference between the $82,000 and $51,300, which would be roughly $30,000, was spent last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that
the $82,000 provided last year covered part of the work which is now covered by the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much was spent out of the $82,000 voted last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have not the information here. We will get it when we reach the supplementary estimates item. This $51,000 covers only the dredging. All the rest of the work is covered by the vote in the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But I gather that when
it says a revote, that means it is part of the same item, the same appropriation of last year.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. CRIMINAL CODE



AMENDMENT TO PERMIT SWEEPSTAKES ORGANIZED BY PROVINCES FOR BENEFIT OF UNIVERSITIES OR HOSPITALS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bertrand (Laurier) for the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. E. J. WERMENLINGER (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long in what I have to say. May I at the outset express my 
appreciation of the courtesy which has been displayed in connection with the debate on this bill, as it was displayed in the debate on the bill introduced in 1934.
I intend to vote for the bill. I respect the opinions of hon.. members, and of people outside the house. It is my view that if it is necessary either to repeal or to amend section 236 of the criminal code to make the bill effective, then for many reasons that action should be taken. I have received quite a number of communications concerning the proposed amendment, but I shall not take the time of the house to repeat all that has been said. I believe the whole story was outlined in 1934 after a. sweepstakes measure had passed both houses in the province of Quebec and the Canadian Senate, but was afterwards rejected by the House of Commons.
As a life governor of a hospital in the city of Verdun, and being familiar with needs for hospitalization, I can say that I believe something should be done for the support of hospitals. I am well aware that there are conscientious objectors whose opinions I respect. Nevertheless we must all realize that each year large sums of money are sent to help hospitals in Ireland or Australia, or to a veterans' association in Newfoundland. To obtain the moneys prizes are offered in connection with the Cambridgeshire handicap, the Derby, or some other sporting event. That is a logical procedure to adopt.
To-day we are in the midst of gambling; there is no use in hiding the fact. I have no doubt that we should respect the opinions of those who conscientiously object to helping hospitals by means of sweepstakes. I would suggest, however, that if the hospitals do not *wish to take that money, it could be diverted to some other useful purpose. Some who buy tickets on sweepstakes or lotteries may do so in a gambling spirit, but I suggest that if they did not spend the money for that purpose they would spend it in slot-machines, bingo games, barbottes, or other gambling devices.
This is not a political or party issue, nor was it a political issue in 1934. While I served as alderman of the city of Verdun I became aware, as all hon. members must have done, that circuses, fairs, midways and shows come from other countries, bringing their animal acts, to divert the attention of the children and adults. We learn, however, that if they had no gambling devices in their organizations they would not dare to come. They come with the idea of making money and then taking it back to the United States or some other foreign country.

Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
I do not wish to enter into a discussion of foreign relations, but I do know that there are certain regulations set out by the Department of National Revenue with which fairs, shows or midways must comply. The agricultural and other societies sponsoring the shows are supposed to be bona fide. There must be conformity with forms 1914, B-18 and B-9. But the gambling devices are not included in those permits. If we are not to have lotteries or sweepstakes, then for heaven's sake let us not have circuses, shows and midways from other countries which come here with their gambling devices. Certainly those shows would not come if it were not for the gambling devices they carry.
I am glad this is not a political issue. I am urged to vote for the measure because I wish to help our institutions, and because I know that during June, July, August and September gambling devices do enter the country. Large amounts of money are wagered, and those sums are taken back to another country. Although I do not wish to speak at length, and should like to hear other hon. members -or have a vote taken, may I point out that last year in Verdun people were arrested because they were operating gold-digging machines which came from the United States. They come through the customs under the present arrangement. Are we to allow gambling in that form and then not permit the provinces to deal with this question as they see fit? I am not afraid to admit that people were arrested in Verdun for using these gambling devices. These machines came from the United States and were not subject to duty. All that is necessary to get them in is for the secretary of some agricultural fair to state that they are bona fide exhibits. But they were not; they were money-making machines. Are people to be allowed to come from the United States to make money with these gambling devices? I contend that we should amend the criminal code to legalize something which is now being done illegally.
If there are certain hospitals or educational institutions that do not wish to accept money in this form, that would be up to th:-m. Such funds could always be diverted to some other form of charity. We should be logical. I remember in 1934 when you, Mr. Speaker, introduced a bill to amend the criminal code in connection with lotteries, but the motion for second reading was negatived. Both the upper and lower houses of the legislature of Quebec have been unanimous in support of sweepstakes. We should try to do something
to alleviate the burden of taxes upon the business man. He is forced to pay taxes to support charitable institutions, baby clinics, girls' and boys' camps and so forth. As a great man told me this morning here, we are on the road to chaos.
I am ready to agree with those who contend that this is bad economy; nevertheless I contend that a law which tries to prohibit everything, sometimes prohibits nothing. The argument is put forth that the legalizing of sweepstakes and ' lotteries would decrease philanthropic contributions. I do not see it in that way. A philanthropist is a born philanthropist; if he has the means he is able to find plenty of opportunities to demonstrate his generosity. In Montreal the millionaire philanthropists do not grow like onions. This amendment would provide an opportunity for many people who otherwise would not do so to contribute toward the assistance of their fellow citizens. Many people would not make such a contribution unless it was in the nature of gambling. We seem to be entering an era of gambling at the present time. I am sure if I looked in the pockets of many of my colleagues I would find sweepstake and lottery tickets.
Section 92, subsection 7 of the British North America Act provides that the provinces shall have jurisdiction over the maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums and charitable institutions, other than marine hospitals. It is paradoxical to have section 92 state that each province shall look after the maintenance of hospitals, while section 236 of the criminal code forbids their adopting ways and means of doing so. Why should we do something illegal? If the criminal code is not amended, the man who wants to bet will have to change his name. He may be called Jules, like myself, and he would have to change his name to Juliette. He may be called Albert and he would have to change his name to Albertina. I do not approve that.
Bad economy, good economy, we have it in our hands to decide. The slot-machines are simply a racket. Bingo is a racket. Tombolas are a racket. Under section 18 of the Customs Act, five or more cars containing nothing but gambling devices would have to pay only $250 when entering Canada. If there were less than five cars, the rate would be $125. If it were not for the gambling devices that these people are permitted to bring across the boundary line, they would not come at all.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has introduced Bill No. 137, to amend the criminal code, which will be discussed at a later date.
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes

This gambling device question will have to be settled to the satisfaction of all the people of this country. People should not be allowed to spend their money on these machines and then have that money go to another country. I understand that in 1934, one of the offices of the sweepstakes organization in Montreal sent $294,000 to the Irish hospitals.
As I said before, I respect the opinions of conscientious objectors, but we must remember that prohibition sometimes invites lawlessness, racketeering and profiteering.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, coming from British Columbia, I think it might be well for me to make a few remarks on this bill because its mover (Mr. Bertrand, Laurier), has referred to that province as being favourable to sweepstakes. The vote to which the hon. member referred showed that only a very small minority of the people of the city of Vancouver and of British Columbia were in favour of sweepstakes, and I do not think the vote indicated for one moment that the people of British Columbia are favourable to an amendment to the criminal code to legalize sweepstakes in this country. In fact, since this debate opened I have received a large number of communications from my district on the subject of sweepstakes, and only one of them was in favour of this bill. I admit, however, that I am not in a position to state what percentage of the people of British Columbia are favourable to the bill, nor do I think my hon. friend is.
The ministerial association of my city communicated with the attorney general of British Columbia asking his stand on sweepstakes, and under date of April 14 last he replied, " I would certainly refuse to sanction anything of the kind." I am personally convinced that the legalizing of sweepstakes would not, both from a moral and an economic standpoint, be in the best interests of Canada. I should not like to see the lottery business made a department of provincial government, with the tickets backed by the dignity of the province. Some suggest we might sell the tickets in the United States, competing with the lotteries of the petty republics of South America.
There is another reason why I think no member from British Columbia could support this legislation. Without doubt, if this legislation passed and Ontario and Quebec took advantage of it, tickets would be put on sale in the smaller provinces, and the result would be that in a province like British Columbia, with a much smaller population,

our people would be contributing, not to our own institutions, but to those of the two larger provinces. So from that standpoint it would not be in the interests of the smaller provinces of Canada to support this legislation.
Great Britain and the United States have both had experience with agitations for legalizing lotteries and sweepstakes, and it is interesting to note that in reply to an agitation in recent years in Great Britain for reenacting legislation legalizing lotteries a commission was set up which inquired into the matter, and from its report I quote the following sentence:
The existing general prohibition in this country of all lotteries, whether promoted here or abroad, should be maintained, subject to the exemptions referred to below, and the law against foreign and illegal lotteries should be strengthened.
That was the commission's recommendation, and the law in Great Britain to-day makes it illegal in connection with any lottery in Great Britain or elsewhere:
. . . to print, sell, advertise, distribute tickets, or print or publish any description of a lottery or any prize-winners or winning tickets in one.
That is how the United Kingdom dealt with the agitation for the reestablishment of lotteries.
I do not think it is necessary for me to relate the experience of the United States. In 1834 lotteries were prohibited in that country after an experience over a number of years.
This bill comes before us, Mr. Speaker, clothed in righteousness. It is a little different from the bill before parliament some years ago in that it couples universities with hospitals. The last speaker (Mr. Wermenlinger) urged us to adopt this legislation in order to help hospitals, but I am convinced and I think every member of the house who has had any experience at all with sweepstakes realizes, that an individual purchases a sweepstake ticket not for the purpose of helping hospitals but for what he or she may get out of it. I am also convinced that the legalizing of lotteries and sweepstakes in Canada would not stop the sale in this country of the Irish sweepstakes tickets, because men and women who want to gamble would still pay $2.50 to buy a ticket with the chance of winning $150,000. It would not stop that for one minute.
Those of us who have had experience as public men know how often we are pressed to buy tickets for this, that and the other organization. Just imagine what it would be like if every province in Canada had a bunch of canvassers on the streets selling tickets for sweepstakes!

Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
A peculiar thing about this argument that the sweepstakes are for the benefit of hospitals is that I have not come across one hospital board that was in favour of raising its revenue from the sale of sweepstakes tickets. In March, 1928. a resolution was passed by the Canadian Hospital Council as follows:
That the Canadian Hospital Council cannot support the principle of raising funds by means of sweepstakes.
The British Hospital Association, which claims to be the heaviest loser through the Irish sweepstakes, passed the following resolution:
That the British Hospital Association is not in favour of an amendment of the law affecting public sweepstakes which purport to be for the benefit of voluntary hospitals.
And they go on to point out many reasons why, but I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them here in detail.
One thing which I think we should consider very seriously is that these institutions, no matter where they may be located in Canada, must necessarily receive additional financial support in addition to the revenue derived from the care of patients. This should be provided through our legislatures and other public bodies. I am of the opinion that just as soon as you set up some gambling device to raise money for hospitals, you will find that the people who now subscribe will direct their donations to some other object.
The hospitals point out that it will be impossible to finance our hospitals by means of a sweepstake. The maintenance cost of our hospitals, excluding capital expenditure, amounted, according to the last Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures, to $41.405,86S for non-mental hospitals and S10.484.937 for mental hospitals, or a total maintenance cost of $51,890,805. The amount contributed by patients was $21,197,612, leaving a balance of $30,693,193, which bad to be raised from other sources. While some of this balance comes from nongovernmental sources, most of it is made up of the government and municipal share of hospital support. To meet this amount of $30,000.000. the annual amount required from the people, on the basis of the Irish srveepstakes would be $150,000,000. Were the full cost of maintenance to be met, as is anticipated by many, the total amount required would be still higher. The Irish commission, it is pointed out, has received applications for grants from but seventy-three hospitals, and has the English speaking world to draw from. Canada has some 969 hospitals, of which 608 are public and therefore would be eligible, and
would have to meet strong competition in selling tickets because of the huge prizes given elsewhere. The burden of supporting our hospitals would be shifted, to the extent of the sweepstakes contributions, to those least able to afford it. This has been repeatedly observed in Ireland, Spain and South American countries.
Let me repeat that I am convinced, after going thoroughly into this matter, as I think any hon. member would be who has followed the history of lotteries in other countries and the experience hospitals have had in regard to lotteries, that this legislation should not be enacted.
In speaking about the legislation I wish to refer to the bill that has been introduced. The bill was introduced and had its first reading on February 24, 1938. I find on my file two copies of the bill. The first bill introduced is the one that I think we are discussing,-the one which was introduced in the regular way, received its first reading and was up for second reading. But since May 9 another bill has been injected into the file, and it is altogether different. It has an explanatory clause and is underlined. That bill did not receive first reading in this house; it was not introduced in the regular way. So I wish to raise the point which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to in dealing with another bill on May 10. The Prime Minister at that time said:
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before we proceed any further, the rules of the house as adopted on June 14, 1923, among other provisions contain the following:
"In the text of the bill, on the left hand page, new matter shall be indicated by such typographical means as may best suit the varying circumstances of each case, such as brackets, italics, underlining, asterisks, etc. Opposite each clause, on the right hand page, the enactment amended thereby, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed with the proposed changes to be made therein similarly indicated."
I would point out that the bill which was introduced in the regular way and received the first reading does not contain the explanatory clauses to which the Prime Minister referred, and I contend that this bill is not in order.


Walter Edward Foster: Does any hon. member
wish to speak to the point of order?


Ernest Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I do not remember the number of the rule which was quoted by the Prime Minister. I wish the hon. member who has just spoken would mention it. But I read it at the time, and it applied to the presenting of the bill. The bill needed some
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes

explanatory notes on the right-hand side, and whether those notes were given at the time of the second reading, or before, does not' matter. I cannot find the rule. I did not know that the point of order was going to be raised. But I read the rules at ihe time, and I found out what I have stated. If this bill is not in order, there are many other bills in the same position because I know that five or six government bills were reprinted after the point of order was raised by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This point -has been raised *two or three times. It has been accepted on each occasion that if the explanatory notes were on the bill prior to its second reading, the bill was perfectly in order. My hon. friend the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) introduced a bill which had no explanatory notes at the time of the first reading, but the notes appeared there in the course of the second reading, and the bill was allowed to be declared in order. It is quite proper that this bill should be so declared.


Harry James Barber: I might just draw the attention of the house to the fact that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was required, I believe, to reintroduce his bill under another number.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He had two bills. In the case referred to, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) substituted a new bill.


Walter Edward Foster: Upon the point of order raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) I will render my decision the next time the bill is called.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Generally - National Gallery of Canada, $115,000.
Mr. LENNARD:: Will the minister explain the increase?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The increase is to provide a larger sum for the trustees for the purchase of more works of art.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the sense of buying more works of art when there is not a building in which to display the ones they have now? They are all stored away, or at any rate a great many of the valuable paintings are, and the public never see them.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A number of these works of art are sent to the different provinces for exhibition purposes, and the trustees have not abandoned the idea that some day parliament will provide them with a suitable building in which to display all the works of art we possess.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This estimate affords me an opportunity to say something which I have wanted to say during the last four or five years but never had a chance until to-night to express. I cannot but think a number of Canadian artists are not adequately represented in the National Gallery. I feel strongly about this. The last time I visited the gallery and looked over the Canadian pictures I certainly found a dearth of pictures by one or two artists who, I believe, might fairly be classified as ranking Canadian artists. I am bound to say that there is one picture which has not impressed me as being authentic. It would seem to be regarded as Van Dyck, and while I am not at all an expert I am inclined to think that it might be well if the word "After" were placed before the name Van Dyck on that particular picture. There is a substantial number of Canadian artists who are not at all adequately represented in the gallery. On the last occasion on which I visited the gallery I tried to make effective my criticism of some pictures there, but I did not succeed. Certainly they do not dignify the National Gallery, whereas some of the paintings of those who are not represented would be an ornament to almost any gallery in the world. It would be unfair, of course, to particularize; for that might be regarded as unkind; but I make that observation to the minister, and I suggest that if he has an opportunity to visit the gallery he might see to what extent Canadian artists are represented there. If he does, I shall be glad to have a discussion with him as to what his convictions are in that regard.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am very much inclined to agree with the words of the right hon. gentleman as to proper encouragement being given to Canadian artists. Not -being myself an art critic, I would not venture any opinion on the works of art there, though I must confess, even if I am a layman, that it is difficult to admit that certain works which are on exhibit in the gallery are masterpieces. I quite agree, however, that we should do all that we can to encourage Canadian artists as far as possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have ample funds with which to purchase Canadian pictures. We have had the benefit of the services of excellent experts in the selection of old masters and of contemporaneous pictures as

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
well. Some of the pictures that have been selected for us abroad are by men of great eminence and are permanent memorials to their greatness. About that there can be no doubt. We have works of most of the great artists, and I am not for a moment suggesting that we should limit our purchases. I must say, however, that I was disappointed-I put it in that way-when last I visited the gallery and looked over Canadian works. I do not think the display is a fair representation of the ability of Canadian painters; that is, those on exhibit. There may, however, be some put away that I have not been able to see.
Let me assure the minister that what I am saying does not refer particularly to his administration; in fact, it refers with equal, if not greater force, to the administration that preceded this. In my opinion, however, the principle is wrong of selecting merely a certain type of picture which apparently merits the approval of a certain type of mind but which does not commend itself to others. If we are to have representation of Canadian art, it should be not of one school only but of all schools, and as far as possible every worthy artist who has produced anything that merits a place in our National Gallery should be there. I suggest that no preconceived notions with respect to one school or one type of picture should prevail, but that all should find a place in the gallery. I admit that we have not produced many great pictures in this country, but at the 6ame time there are one or two of our artists who have achieved very fine landscape. Some have attained great eminence in the painting of trees, which is not easy work. I have seen one or two productions of an artist who happens to be employed in the civil service here, and whose pastel work is particularly good. Some of his water colours have high artistic qualities. In discussing this subject I did not intend to particularize at all but rather wanted to suggest that there should be in the gallery scope for the exhibition of works of every school and of every artist whose work is worthy of a place among the collections of the works of Canadian painters.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will undertake to place the views of my right hon. friend before the trustees. In order to show the favourable disposition of the trustees, I may say that during the fall there was in the art gallery an interesting exhibition of Canadian design.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: It is a far cry from the leader of the opposition to where I sit, and I am sorry to say I could not hear
a single word he said. But I gather from the reply of the minister that he was recommending an increase in the cultural development of our country, and the setting aside of moneys in order to assist Canadian artists and (he cultural development of Canada generally. These are the things that last. When we pass away these elements of art, whether carvings in stone or paint on canvas or music on paper, are the things which will be Canada. Unless we realize that even now, in our present hard-up condition, we must strive to perpetuate something of the conditions of our times, Canada will perish. We face westward with a blazoning on our peace tower of the words, "Where there is no vision the people perish." I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that $61,000 set aside for the acquisition of works of art is almost pusillanimous. If we consider the manner in which these things are cared for in other departments equally responsible for the protection of our culture, we ought to be ashamed. I sincerely hope the Minister of Finance and all others in the government will definitely determine to see that Canada is not backward in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-construction, repairs
and improvements-harbours and rivers-
Ontario
Under contract-
Port Arthur-harbour improvements, $51,300. Essential undertakings-
Cobourg-maintenance dredging, $20,000.
Owen Sound-harbour repairs and improvements, $49,000.
Sarnia-reconstruction of harbour works, $25,000.
Rondeau-reconstruction of east pier, $28,000.
Toronto-maintenance of eastern channel, $15,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $180,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Before six o'clock we were
considering the proposed vote for harbour improvements in Port Arthur. I was not then in possession of all the information to give a satisfactory answer to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart).
The vote under consideration is for $51,300. It is for dredging and to complete a contract which has been awarded to the National Dock and Dredging Corporation. This vote has no connection with the works provided for in the supplementary estimates to the amount of $155,000. The difference between the amount in 1937-38 and 1938-39 can be explained as follows:	The amount of $82,000 is made
up of $57,000 voted in the main estimates of
3634	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
1937-38 for harbour improvements. But it was found, when checking the estimate, that this amount would not be sufficient to pay for the proposed dredging in the harbour, and so in the supplementary estimates a further amount of S25.000 was provided for. This makes the total of 882,000 shown in the column for 1937-38. Out of that amount of $82,000 a contract was awarded. But the price that we got was so low compared with the department's estimate that this further amount was not found necessary. In fact, the lowest tender for the dredging was at the rate of 22 J cents per cubic yard, although the estimate was between twenty-five and fifty cents a yard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was before you
sold the dredges.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, that was the National
Dredging Company. There is no connection. Furthermore I did not sell them.
Out of this $82,000 provided in 1937-38 the expenditure was 830,700, leaving as a revote $51,300. Out of that amount we require $39,000 to complete the contract. We also provide in these estimates for two small additional expenditures which were not then contemplated: repairs to pier head at south entrance, $2,600, and deepening of ship berth alongside the fitting-out dock of the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company, $9,400. These make up the total of $51,300 that we are asking.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it expected that this
will complete the scheme of improvement and development which the department has in mind in that port, outside the breakwater? There was an extensive breakwater under construction there. Has that been finished?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that there
is always a certain amount of dredging to be done in Port Arthur harbour, because some filling takes place there every year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You dredge it out of
one side and put it on the other?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; it is taken out.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I understand it, the
department had a certain plan for improvement and development in Port Arthur harbour, consisting of a breakwater, dredging, and some other improvements. Will this complete the plan, outside what may be required for maintenance dredging?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am inclined to think,
from the information I have, that this will complete it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The work that has been
started in Port Arthur has been completed, but when one thinks of that harbour and the multitude of shipping which goes in and out of it, this vote appears very small in comparison with the need, and for keeping that harbour and also Fort William harbour up to date.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The next item is $20,000
for Cobourg.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is maintenance
dredging too?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The next is Owen
Sound. This amount is required to provide for improving the approach channel in the outer harbour and reconstructing a section of the wall at the south end jf the harbour, which is in very bad condition. The district engineer reports that this wall is crumbling.
Another item is $25,000 to provide for the requirements of eleven timber pile clusters at Sarnia. The south side of the elevator is constructed of steel piles and concrete clusters. The existing wooden piles were driven in 1929. Two of these clusters are now broken off and the rest, according to the report of the engineers, are in bad condition.
Another item is for an expenditure at Rondeau. This amount of $28,000 provides for the reconstruction of a section of the pier. The engineer reports that the rebuilding of the timber portion of the east pier must be done without delay. There is an expenditure of $15,000 for maintenance of the eastern channel at Toronto. That is a dredging item. The item for harbours and rivers generally is a general item found every year in the estimates.


Frank Exton Lennard: I notice a reference to harbours and rivers generally, for maintenance of services; what are those services?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Repairs to harbour works.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is there any portion of these amounts for the maintenance of the large cruisers found in some of the harbours, and especially the harbours of Ontario? From what I can gather they are used principally for week-end parties, and are of very little use for harbour control work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The vote does not cover such expenditure; further, those boats are not under the Department of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
Manitoba-essential undertakings-Red River -repairs to breakwaters, $35,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $25,000.
Harry Leader: Has any definite action
been taken in regard to the opening of Eagle Nest creek at Delta, Manitoba?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Harry Leader: I should like to remind the minister that over three hundred ratepayers and other people belonging to the Delta beach association feel that this matter is not receiving the attention it should receive. I made a trip to Ottawa last year and took the matter up with the deputy. The question is that there is a waterway across some privately owned land used by other people, and it is impossible for the Delta beach association or any other public body or individual to gain access to the public shooting grounds which have been set aside years ago by the Manitoba government.
That creek has been used for years and years. People get into their canoes and follow Eagle Nest creek to get to the shooting grounds. The man who owns the land, a wealthy man from Winnipeg, has put an obstruction across Eagle Nest creek, thereby shutting out the public from access to the public shooting grounds. The Manitoba government has refused to take any action, declaring that it was a matter for the dominion government, and that Eagle Nest creek was a navigable stream and therefore under the jurisdiction of the dominion government. That is why I made the trip to Ottawa to find out whether or not it was under the jurisdiction of the dominion government. My advice at that time was that it was a navigable stream; that orders would be issued to the man in question to remove the obstruction, and that if he did not remove it, the department would undertake to do so and charge the costs of removal to the man who owned the land.
The owner of the land refuses to move the obstruction, but he made the promise that if the dominion government would open the mouth of Eagle Nest creek, which owing to the low waters of lake Manitoba a few years ago, had filled with sand, he would be glad to remove the obstruction. So far as we know, the last letter was received from Mr. Hunter,' the deputy minister, on May 13, stating:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, enclosing copy of a letter from Mr. R. H. Home of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, secretary of the Delta beach association, concerning Eagle Nest creek.
The matter will be given the further consideration which you request, and you will be advised later what further action the department contemplates.
That is the last word we have.
In a letter from the secretary of the Delta beach association it is pointed out that if the creek continues to remain closed by the obstruction placed there by the private owner, the hunters and general public who wish to go to the shooting grounds would have to travel six and a half miles in order to reach those grounds, whereas they formerly ran their boats or canoes up Eagle Nest creek for a distance of only half a mile.
The minister has copies of all these letters. The last paragraph of the letter from the secretary of the Delta beach association is as follows:
Regardless of engineer's reports,-
His report was adverse to removing the obstruction.

this creek was open to the lake for at least fifty years formerly. The delta at its mouth was formed during the recent few years of exceptional low water in the lake.
There is no doubt in our minds if the mouth of this creek was opened it would stay open so long as the water is held at its present level, made possible by the construction of the dam at Fairford.
We, the Delta beach association, demand that our request be given the consideration it merits by the government of which you are a supporter. We feel that there has been too much consideration given to the statements of Mr. Bain and that facts submitted to the government by this association have been treated too lightly.
I consider I am doing only my humble duty in bringing this matter to the attention of the government at the very first opportunity, and in declaring that the people I represent share with me the view that the government is not acting quickly enough to suit all concerned. I should like to have a statement from the minister in regard to what action will be taken, and when it may be expected.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position
to-night to give a definite answer. My information is that part of the area was sold by the provincial government to a private party, and that that party fenced the area he had bought from the provincial government. The request was made to the provincial authorities to force the party to take the fences away. There having been no success with the provincial government, representations have been made to Ottawa, and the federal government has been asked to interfere because a navigable stream has been blocked by the erection of a fence. The question offers some difficulty, and it might be difficult to determine exactly whether or not the stream
3636	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
is what may be called a navigable stream. If it is not, the federal government would have no authority to deal with the situation. We can deal with it only if it is declared to be or recognized as a navigable stream. Before we took any action in the matter, the question would have to be submitted to the Department of Justice. I have no hesitation in saying that I am not familiar with this situation, but I shall look into it and try to the best of my limited ability to see what remedy can be found.


Harry Leader: I have a letter from the minister's deputy, which was sent to me in answer to the representations I made in the early part of the winter. The letter reads:
The construction of a fence across Eagle Nest creek, lying just south of lake Manitoba, has received further consideration and it has been decided that, since no permission was granted under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, for this structure which effectually blocks the use of the creek for navigation, to advise the owner, Mr. D. H. Bain, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, that the construction of this fence is contrary to the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and to request him to have it removed.
I know that Mr. Bain was notified to remove this obstruction, but he absolutely refused to do so. He states that he will stand a lawsuit first. He makes a suggestion to the government which perhaps offers a way out. He says he will remove the obstruction if the government will undertake to open up the mouth of the creek which was closed during the time of low water by sand filling in. The engineer says that the mouth will fill up again, but there is no danger of that as long as the present level is maintained in lake Manitoba. That level will be maintained because a dam has been erected further north. I suggest to the minister that he undertake to clean out the mouth of Eagle Nest creek. Mr. Bain promises to remove the obstruction, and then all concerned will be happy.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend realizes that I cannot give him assurance that this will be done without first ascertaining what amount of money will be involved. I can promise him that I will give this matter my best attention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If anybody's right of
navigation is being interfered with, he has a right to remove the obstruction.


Harry Leader: I thank the minister for his reply. If he would care to accept a private estimate of the cost, one was made by an officer of the Delta beach association. He estimates that the mouth of Eagle Nest creek can be cleaned out for $500 at the most, although others say't can be done for $300.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot make any definite commitment, but if it will not cost any more than that there is a possibility that my hon. friend's request will be met.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	*
British Columbia-essential undertakings- Campbell river-wharf repairs, $8,800.
James Samuel Taylor: Is the minister prepared to do anything about the government wharf at Ladysmith? This is quite a progressive town and a number of vessels call in there to take away logs. There have been occasions when it has been quite difficult to reach the shore on account of the lack of a wharf. At one time a seaman on one of the vessels who was suffering from appendicitis was brought ashore under such circumstances that he died. Perhaps that cannot be laid at the door of the government, and I do not indicate that it should, but the fact is that a town the size of Ladysmith has been debarred from the convenience of wharf accommodation. The government wharf has been closed off because it was in a state of disrepair, and notices have been placed to the effect that pedestrains use it at their own risk. Is there anything in the estimates to permit something being done this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no special estimate, but I shall undertake to have the officers look into the matter. If it can be taken care of under the vote for repairs, I shall be only too pleased to order the work done if the cost can be kept within reasonable bounds.


James Samuel Taylor: A little money would go a long way if it were properly expended. I should like to refer to the Robert's bay wharf at Sidney. I drew the attention of the department to the fact that the little shed at the end of this wharf had been dislodged from its position. Two or three strong men could have placed that back again, but I am informed that it has been taken away and destroyed. This seems to be an expensive way in which to handle a small repair matter. I am drawing this matter to the attention of the minister in order that he may know just what is the situation in Nanaimo riding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river-contribution towards protection work at Rosedale, the provincial government and the municipality of Chilliwack each to contribute a like amount, $4,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: The vote last year was $2,000. Has some new arrangement been reached?

Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Branch


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is needed for the protection of the bank of the Fraser river at Rosedale.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon-essential undertakings-Stewart and Yukon rivers-improvements, $5,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the reason for
the small increase here?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The increase due to statutory increases amounts to $440, and there is provision for the return of the five per cent salary deduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch-telegraph and telephone services-operation and maintenance-land and cable telegraph lines-lower St. Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels for cable work, $133,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this the cost of operating all these maritime lines?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. There is an increase of $1,000 due to a statutory increase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
Telegraph and telephone services-operation and maintenance-Alberta and Saskatchewan, $92,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is an increase of $5,000 in this item.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; it is due to statutory increases and the restoration of the five per cent salary deduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone services-operation and maintenance - division superintendent's office, Vancouver, $12,300.
Harry James Barber: Will the minister explain this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide for the payment of salaries of the staff of the division superintendent's office at Vancouver. The staff is utilized in the maintenance and operation of all lines in British Columbia. There is a small increase due to statutory increases, also the restoration of the five per cent salary deduction.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice there is an
increase in the staff from forty-six to fifty-one. I thought the policy of the department was to get out of the telephone and telegraph business so far as possible, and some lines were disposed of. Has there been any further progress along that line, or have there been any additions or extensions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that we are always building short sections of line in British Columbia. Certain additions are being made practically every year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Were there any extensions last year that caused this increase in the number of the staff?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not see it under this vote, but it might be under item No. 334, which covers the British Columbia northern and Yukon districts, reconstruction, repairs and improvements. It may be that under that item the extensions are listed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was wondering why there was an increase in the staff from forty-six to fifty-one.
Mr. CARDIh^: Unfortunately I have not the details here but I shall be glad to provide them later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone services-operation and maintenance-British Columbia-Vancouver island district, $92,200.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is another increase here, $4,720.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The increase is due to the restoration of the five per cent salary deduction which accounts for $2,910, and there is an increase of $1,810 in the allotment for contingencies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch-reconstruction, repairs and improvements-maritime provinces, $8,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a new item. There was no similar item last year. What does this cover?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount of $8,000 is required for general repairs to the telegraph and telephone lines on Cape Breton island. The department maintains on Cape Breton island telegraph and telephone lines with a total mileage of 861 miles. The telegraph line mostly follows the coast. The principal line serves the north coast from Sydney to Baie St. Lawrence, providing an essential service to the large fishing and shipping interests in that section.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch-reconstruction, repairs and improvements - Saskatchewan and Alberta, $16,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this for repairs only?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, general repairs and improvements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3638	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Branch
Telegraph branch-reconstruction, repairs and improvements *- British Columbia - Vancouver island district, $9,000.
James Samuel Taylor: Is there any particularization of this total?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $9,000 is required for general repairs and improvements on Vancouver island district lines, as requested by the general superintendent of the government telegraphs in his memorandum. There are 928 miles of lines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generally-To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $200 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $100,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice that last year there was provided for this purpose $5,000, and this year it is $100,000. What has led to there being such a substantial increase in this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to cover cases where the estimate is short. Instead of contractors having to wait for a year for their money, when the expenditure exceeds the estimate we have provided this amount of money. This enables the contractors to avoid having to wait for another year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand that an item of this kind has been carried for a number of years in the department. What was the approximate amount in former years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that in those days it was limited to an expenditure not exceeding $200. We now provide for payments over $200, but with the approval of treasury board.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, was the approval of treasury board required-I have forgotten- when an item was under $200?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not for items up to $200.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then the scope of the item has been enlarged?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was that small basket item to cover small excesses not to exceed $200, which amounts were paid without the approval of treasury board. Now the amount of the item has been raised to $100,000, and anything over $200 will require the approval of treasury board?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And the $95,000 would be available for paying any of the items of the public works department, would it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Any items in these estimates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. Exactly.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It has enlarged the scope of the item.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is why the check of treasury board has been mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch-construction, repairs and improvements of public buiidings- Nova Scotia-Bridgewater public building- addition, $16,500.
Mr. HEAPS:: What public building is represented in this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is required to provide for the construction of an addition to an existing public building, in order to provide increased accommodation for the postal service.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why is the additional accommodation necessary?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There was a request from the Postmaster General. His department advises that the accommodation is entirely inadequate as it is at present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax Roclchead hospital-reconditioning and improvements, $18,700.
Harry James Barber: What hospital is this? A military hospital?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a Pensions and National Health hospital.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a revote of $13,500. What was the amount of the vote last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The appropriation of last year was $30,000. This is required to complete the work. The contract was for $26,950.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was the contract let for $26,000 on an appropriation of-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The appropriation was


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And $16,000 was spent, and there is $13,000 of a revote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax old post office building-alterations and improvements, $32,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was a very fine new public building erected at Halifax. What is the old one being used for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide space for
the Bank of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the old building.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Do you get rentals for
the use of the premises by the Bank of Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where were the mounted police before this accommodation was provided?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They were in rented
quarters.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And I suppose that
rental will cease?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And they will be put
in this old post office building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And the Bank of Canada will rent some of this space?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louisburg-public building, $23,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: In the case of all these
public buildings, will the minister mention the population served by these buildings and at whose request the buildings are being erected?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In this case, at Louisburg,
the population is 971.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How far along is that
work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The sum of $300 would be saved in rent in one case, and $200 in the other.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do I understand that we
are paying $500 per annum in rentals now in the town of Louisburg?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And to make that saving the
government is going to spend $23,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On whose recommendation is this building being erected, and for what purposes is it to be used?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to be used for post
office and customs purposes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the Post Office Department requested the erection of a building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no note as to a
request from the Post Office Department, but I assume there is a recommendation, because in connection with all public buildings for that department there is a recommendation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think we should have
that recommendation from the Post Office Department before us now, because apparently we are going to spend $23,000 to erect this building, apart from cost of maintenance, heating, janitor services and so on, all of which we are now receiving for $500 a year or about $10 a week. I can hardly conceive of the Post Office Department, looking at the matter from a business point of view, wishing to have such a building erected and having to pay one-half of the cost. I do not know how much revenue the Post Office Department gets in this town, but if there is a population of 900 I do not see that a building of that kind is necessary to serve the people there. I should like the minister to get that information for us. As he knows,
I have strenuously objected to the erection of post office buildings in the indiscriminate way in which they have been put up in the past, buildings being loaded on to the Post Office Department whether they want them or not. I think we should have the letter from the Post Office Department on record before we agree to this particular vote.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This locality is visited by a number of tourists. It is an historic site in Nova Scotia, and there is an old fort there which is of some importance, besides a museum. I am afraid that my hon. friend is a little too severe in his criticism when he asks for justification from the point of view of dollars and cents for every building erected in Canada. As I have already said in this house, when large expenditures are being made in the larger centres of population to accommodate the people and provide necessary services, we should show some consideration at least to the small places where the rural population lives, and if we want to make those places attractive we should not refuse all the requests they make for the beautification-I do not hesitate to use that word-of their home towns. We are always advocating that people should live in the rural sections of the country and should remain there, and people in the cities suggest that those who cannot find employment should move to the country. That plea would come with greater force if we showed some consideration to the smaller localities and once in a while made a little expenditure on their behalf to prove our intentions. After all, the real strength of the country is derived from those sections.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am quite prepared to deal as generously as anyone else with every district whether large or small, but the question whether this district is large or small has no bearing on the principle I am trying to lay



Supply-Public Works-Buildings
down. If the Post Office Department wants a building, the request should come from that department. I object to any member of this house going to the Department of Public Works and asking to have a building put up in his constituency. It is bad policy; it is bad politics, and it is bad for the dominion. A post office building, about which I knew nothing, was erected in my constituency, and it is not fully occupied to this day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did the hon. gentleman take credit for it?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I certainly did not, and I do not want to take credit for having any building put up in my constituency. I do not think members are sent here to make pleas for buildings to be erected in their constituencies; they have more important work to do. If all that a member can think of is to have some little patronage in his own constituency, then I suggest he is not performing any real service to the dominion.


Mr. BARRY:: Who should take credit for relief in Winnipeg?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The federal government, because they are responsible for the unemployment situation. In regard to this particular problem, I have laid down the principle that if a post office building is needed the request should come from that department. I have no objection to a building going up in the town of Louisburg if it can be shown that it is required. But on the figures placed before the committee this evening, showing that they are being accommodated for $500 a year and that we are now asked to authorize a capital expenditure of $23,000, I submit that the minister cannot justify the request unless he can show that there is a commensurate revenue to the post office and customs departments there. But the minister is not in a position to indicate that. If he can show that, I have nothing more to say. Under the circumstances the least the minister can do is to give the committee the information which it has a right to expect. I have no wish to object merely for the sake of objection, but hon. members will agree that my objection is a valid and sound one, especially when we are talking about governing the country on business principles. We should know exactly where we stand in connection with a self-contained utility serving the public; but how can the Post Office Department know what their position is unless they themselves are responsible in a matter of this kind?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The revenues derived in the locality are in the vicinity of $2,400 a year.
fMr. Heaps.!


Abraham Albert Heaps: The postal revenues?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Postal and customs.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What will be the cost of maintaining this building, allowing for the usual interest?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One-third, I suppose.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would say offhand that it will cost almost as much to maintain this building and to collect the revenues in that district as the total revenues amount to. Just figure it out.


Mr. ISNOR:: Figure it out on a four per cent basis.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think I have a right to the information I have requested.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Perhaps the hon. member who raised the objection overlooks the fact that Louisburg is one of our old historic places in Nova Scotia and is perhaps worthy of a suitable post office building. I do not represent Cape Breton; but I know that ground, and I think hon. members throughout Nova Scotia and the maritimes would welcome an expenditure such as this.
While saying a word about Louisburg, I wish at the same time to draw the attention of the minister to requests in connection with some fast growing districts, in Halifax constituency. I have in mind a petition presented to the Postmaster General-and I believe it also reached the office of the Minister of Public Works-in regard to Armdale post office. A few years ago we had a population of two or three thousand; now we have something like seven thousand people residing in the immediate vicinity of what is known as Arm bridge. I respectfully draw the minister's attention to that request which was made last year and renewed this year. I am making representation as a member from Halifax; I differ from the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Heaps); I think it is our duty as representatives of different constituencies to place before the minister our representations on any matter affecting our constituency. I am doing that now. asking the minister not to overlook the request for a new post office or public building at Armdale.
I might add that there is also a request from Middle Musquodoboit for a post office, and another one comes from Sheet Harbour.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is this a new post office building to be erected at Louisburg?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I want to say a word in its favour. I commend the minister for erecting a new building in that historic place. I visited it two years ago, and I went all over the town down there trying to find a place to buy stamps. There were about a thousand tourists there from all over the country, including many in United States cars. I am satisfied, now that these famous fortifications have been rehabilitated to a certain extent and marked so that tourists can, as they go around, study something of the historic events which took place there in the early days of settlement on this continent, that as they return home they will tell what an interesting sight it is, and I have no doubt that, as time goes on the number of tourists increases, so many postage stamps and post cards will be sold that it will go a long way to pay for this building in that historic centre.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the contract been let?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How could the contract be let under the treasury board act without a vote being passed? There is a provision in that act that you cannot let a contract for anything unless parliament has antecedently voted the money.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There was a vote last year of $20,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was no work done under it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; the order in council accepting the tender was passed on January 21, 193S. when the amount voted last year was still standing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is the contractor?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Fundy Construction Company of Halifax.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mulgrave-public building, $28,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask the same question in regard to this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The population is 1,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That must have been counted at the time the train was in.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The postal revenue is
$3,371 and the customs revenue, $1,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this also an historic site?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
51052-231i
Port Hawkesbury-public building, $22,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suppose the same convincing arguments that the minister used about the others would apply here.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; they apply to all of Nova Scotia; the whole of Nova Scotia is historic.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister assure us in regard to both these places that the Post Office Department has requested the erection of these buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have nothing here from
the Post Office Department. But I will undertake at another sitting to inform my hon. friend as to the requests or representations made by the Post Office Department in regard to these buildings.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the minister sure that
the Post Office Department has requested the erection of these buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have a recollection that it has.


John James Kinley: What do they elect members down there for?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have sometimes asked that question myself.


John Patrick Barry: Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) consider himself under a moral obligation to oppose every vote for the maritime provinces?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stewiacke-public building, $18,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the population
of Stewiacke?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a revote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the population was only around 450.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is about 900.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wolfville-purchase of property adjacent to public building, $1,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was the vote last
year? I notice there is a re vote of $1,500. Is there a revote of the full amount, and for what purpose is the property being extended?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was the same amount last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Apparently the purchase was not completed last year, and it is being, revoted this year.

Supply

Public W orks-Buildings


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; it was not completed last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much land is being taken, and for what purpose is it required?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: - Twenty-five foot frontage, on the main street, to a depth of thirty-five feet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a good price. Item agreed to.
Prince Edward Island-Charlottetown-public building-addition and alterations, $6,500.


Mr. COCHRANE:: What about the tidal dam recommended to be built at Eaton-ville? The recommendation was made by the engineers of the department.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are not discussing harbours and rivers.


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: That is a harbour.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But we are dealing with public buildings. When we reach harbours and rivers I shall answer the hon. member.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the reason for
the alteration costing $6,500?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is for the completion of a contract, to be paid to A. T. MacKinnon for the construction of a one storey addition to a building in Charlottetown housing the income tax branch. The addition is being made to a one storey brick structure eighteen by twenty-five feet. The additional accommodation is to be used by the Post Office Department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will that terminate the rental we are now paying for space? Does it just afford additional accommodation for the staff?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; it affords additional space for the staff already in the building. Item agreed to.
New Brunswick-Bathurst-public building- addition and alterations, $15,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the reason for the alterations?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to afford more accommodation for the Post Office Department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fairville - purchase of property adjoining public building, $3,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the size of the property at Fairville? The last time I heard of a sale down there, a man gave property away to escape taxation.
TMr. Stewart.]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The property in question is owned by Mr. Collins of Fairville, and has a frontage of fifty feet. There is a fifty foot frontage on the main street and 100 feet on Charles street.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Minto-public building, $21,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was it the same amount last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There was an appropriation of $24,700, and expenditures of $1,930.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the contract been
awarded?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For what amount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For the sum of $15,500.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When was the contract awarded?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: November 18, 1937.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the additional amount over and above the amount of the contract required for furnishings and equipment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, post office fittings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
North Head-public building, $31,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This building is to accommodate postal and telegraphic services. The property is on the north side of the main street and was purchased in September, 1937.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much was paid for the land?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The sum of $1,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rogersville-public building, $13,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a public building to be erected under contract with J. S. Roy of Moncton; the contract does not include fittings. The building is to be located on the east side of the main highway. The property was purchased in 1937 for $700.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Leonard-public building, $15,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that not in Madawaska county? How many people are in St. Leonard?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, in the constituency of Restigouehe-Madawaska.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last time I was there, the population was about 200.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That was a long time ago.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is a population of 2,245.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What service will be accommodated in the building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Post office service.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps the minister could satisfy me on a question regarding all the buildings connected with the votes being passed this evening. In all cases where post office accommodation is being given to the public, has the minister received requests from the Post Office Department to erect those buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot say positively that there is a request from the Post Office Department in every case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It usually comes through a member.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am under the impression that, in most instances there is a request by the Post Office Department. In this instance I am informed with some certainty that there is a request from the Post Office Department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think in this instance it came from the minister's colleague.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The post office inspector made the recommendation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am glad the minister had a recommendation in this instance, and I hope he has in all the others. I look upon these post office buildings as being in a different category from that of other buildings which may be required. When we had these estimates under consideration last year we were given to understand that no more post office buildings would be erected unless recommendations were received from the Post Office Department.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would warn the minister not to take the Post Office Department too seriously. When the post office estimates were before the committee I brought up an outrageous	affair that	had	occurred in myriding.	A	post office	had	been	moved acouple	of	blocks, and	the	Post	Office Department tried to pass this off on the Department of Public Works. I think the Department of Public Works should scrutinize carefully anything asked for by the Post Office Department.Mr.	HEAPS: Who	is to be	responsible
for the buildings? I know of an outstanding instance where a post office building was erected some years ago which the Post Office Department did not want and has not wanted
to' this day. This building bears a sign that it is a post office, but it has not been used as such. This is one reason why I think the Department of Public Works should not erect a post office building until the Post Office Department makes a request for same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them are samples
of the pork-barrel.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is one of them I would not wish to emphasize too strongly at this particular moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Stephen - building for customs and immigration purposes, $21,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Fairly extensive and expensive improvements are being made at this point. St. Stephen is on the international boundary, and on account of the density of traffic certain improvements were necessary and some new buildings were required. At one time consideration was being given to increasing the width of the bridge. Have all these problems been straightened out, and will this vote cover all that is required on our side of the line?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that this
will clean up all our obligations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a good sized building and is to serve immigration, postal and customs needs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-Amos-public building, $50,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was the vote last
year, and has the contract been let?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The appropriation was
$55,000, and the contract for $39,842 was awarded in December, 1937, to the Walters Construction and Engineering Company.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The lowest tenderer?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. Seven tenders were
filed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Drummondville - public building - addition and alterations, $7,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is for the construction of an additional storey on the examining warehouse to provide increased accommodation as requested by the commissioner of customs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a growing community.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works

Buildings
[Stage Direction]

armoury, $260,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a rather large
item for an armoury so close to Ottawa. What was the vote last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The vote last year was
$100,000 towards the construction of the building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was the contract
awarded?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, and the work has
been started.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was the amount
of the contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A contract for $234,800 was
awarded to Concrete Construction Limited, Montreal. I have no hesitation in saying that this contract was a little higher than we felt it should be; but the plans and specifications were checked by the Department of National Defence, and we were informed that this building was necessary to provide the accommodation required.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The vote last year was
$100,000, and yet a contract for $234,000 was awarded?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Before this vote had
been passed. Under what authority could the department award a contract for $234,000 on a vote of $100,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand that is done. We do not always vote the full amount required for the construction of a building. Sometimes we provide a certain amount towards the construction of such and such a building. If I remember correctly, last year when the item of $100,000 for this armoury was passed I stated that we believed the building would cost $200,000 but there was no use in voting too much money. When money is not to be spent in the particular year, it increases the amount of the estimates. I am informed that it is the practice of the department to award contracts provided we have received approval of a vote of practically one-half the amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Provided the expenditure is not greater than the estimate during the year in which the estimate is made.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When the item was voted last year we did not think we could spend even the $100,000, and in fact we did not spend that amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask the .minister how he managed to get an appropria-

tion for an armoury through council. I can recall the speech of the Prime Minister to the effect that the armouries scattered around the country spelled the loss of liberty and freedom of the people and demonstrated the growth of militarism. Here we have an armoury that overawes the capital itself. This is a serious matter. I have no doubt the minister got this estimate through council in the absence of the president of the council, who happens to be the Prime Minister. Olher-wise, surely he would never have managed to get an appropriation for an armoury in Hull. As the poet says:
And freedom shrieked-as Kosciusko fell!
What a shriek there must have been when the appropriation for this armoury went through, in view of the denunciation of armouries one heard on the radio in the fall of 1935. The minister will remember it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That settles it. That is how it got through.


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: I think we should have some explanation why this armoury is being built in Hull, costing the taxpayers of this country $270,000. Why is it being built? I want to know something about it.


Mr. BAKER:: How many regiments are housed in it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where are the antimilitarists?


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: I want an explanation of this item.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It houses the Hull Regiment, including the headquarters company and four rifle companies, with a total strength of all ranks of 470. The request came from the regiment itself and those interested in its welfare, and was approved by the National Defence department.


Richard Langton Baker: It is just half a regiment.


Mr. STIRLING:: The amount of the re vote would indicate that $16,500 was spent last year; on what was that spent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We paid $10,000 for a site. In addition, advertising for tenders, legal services and architect's fees account for the expenditure of $16,500.


Grote Stirling: An outside architect was employed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Who was he?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Bournet, of Hull.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the size of the site, because $10,000 seems a pretty substantial amount to pay for a site, if I know where this armoury is?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The size is twenty-one acres.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L'Assomption-public building, $24,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a public building already under contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lennoxville-public building, $25,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this just for a post office or a combination building for postal, customs and other services?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a post office on the government-owned site on the corner of Main and Belvedere streets. The postal revenues amount to $11,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louiseville-public building-addition, alterations and improvements, $10,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide for an addition to the public building, for increased accommodation for the post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal, Craig street drill hall-improvements and repairs, $75,000.
Grote Stirling: What are these repairs and improvements?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Last year, under a vote of the National Defence department, repairs were commenced to the front and back walls of the drill hall, just in front of the Champ de Mars, back of the city hall. When they had put the scaffolding around the building and started to make the repairs, the walls were discovered to be in such a condition that there was no use trying to repair them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the contractor discovered that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The condition of the walls was such that they abandoned the idea of repairing them, and the idea now is to reconstruct the front and back walls. Their condition was such that the man who was undertaking the repairs was forbidden to take away the scaffolding for fear the walls would fall.


Grote Stirling: Had not a report of the department been prepared on which the tender was let? Was not the condition of the walls known before the letting of the tender?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They could not ascertain the real condition of the walls until after they had started the minor repairs they intended to make. The repair work was undertaken by the National Defence department last year, and the scaffolding is still around the building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-old examining warehouse-improvements, alterations and repairs, $25,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $25,000 is to provide for alterations and improvements to the third floor of the old examining warehouse, to provide new accommodation for the food and drug laboratory of the Department of Pensions and National Health. The work was requested by the Minister of Pensions and National Health.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the place which was abandoned when they moved to new premises?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal - public building - addition and alterations, $10,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is required for cleaning the exterior of the old portion of this building, called the first unit, which was built in 1916, to make it harmonize with the new section of the building, called the second unit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The harmonizing of ideas seems to have been one of the major operations of the government recently. Nice work that, their harmonizing of ideas.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mont Joli-public building, $25,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $25,000 is to provide for the purchase of a site and the erection thereon of a public building for postal purposes in the town of Mont Joli, in the constituency of Rimouski.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a terminal point on the railway. A very important community!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
North Hatley-public building, $13,500.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract has been awarded to Mr. J. A. Verret, of Sherbrooke, for the sum of $8,348.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hatley has at least twenty-five residents.


An hon. MEMBER:: With summer visitors.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
Perce-public building, $15,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the contract for this building at Perce been awarded? It is a small village. What is the revenue there? I recall that the postal accommodation was in a very small building.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract has been awarded to Mr. Laurent Giroux, of St. Casimir, for the sum of $9,408. The population is over 1,500.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was just wondering why, if the contract is for $9,000, we have a vote of over $15,000. Surely it would not require the difference for the fittings.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It includes fittings and boxes, $2,000; supervision, $750; lighting plant, $1,500; and contingencies, $1,840.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pointe Claire-public building, $25,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the contract been
awarded at Pointe Claire?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The contract was
awarded in December 1937-


Richard Bedford Bennett: A kind of Christmas gift.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: -for $19,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pointe au Pic-public building, $28,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a building for
postal and customs purposes, on a site on the public highway purchased in October, 1937.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is open in the summer time, I suppose.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And in the winter time, too. The customs revenues are over $8,000, and the postal revenue, over $4,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a summer resort?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It takes the money you collect in the summer to keep up the fire in the winter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-postal terminal building, $300,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What progress has been made with this building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The plans are pretty nearly complete, and we expect to be in a position to call for tenders in not more than a month or five wreeks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends on how thing go down in the convention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Quebec quarantine facilities-improvements,
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount of $12,000 was
requested by the Deputy Minister of Pensions and National Health for the following improvements to the ' quarantine facilities at Quebec: Savard park hospital, balance due on contract for erection of unit; amount required to provide metal screens on windows; amount required to repair boundary fencing; grading and planting trees; for fixtures such as dish sterilizer and refrigerator and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec West-public building, $12,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a revote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a revote required for the erection of building for post office services on a site on the corner of Fourth avenue and Third street, purchased in February, 1937. The contract is awarded for $7,775.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rigaud-moving public building, $20,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is required
for the expense of moving the post office building. The provincial government is building a bridge over the river in the village of Rigaud, and the bridge comes just to the point where the post office was standing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The province would pay for moving it, would it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We pay for moving our post office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If their bridge takes away your post office, by expropriation, surely you are not going to pay for moving it, are you?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, it may not be a sound undertaking, but we have made it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand you did
that prior to the last provincial election.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, it was done last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Twenty thousand dollars seems a large sum. for moving a building. Is it a considerable distance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why do you not build a new bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The site was given to us by the municipality.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rock Island customs and immigration building-addition to site, $17,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an historic name.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is indeed. This is to provide for the purchase of additional land known as the Bouchard property, in connection with the customs and immigration building at Rock Island. This was requested by the Department of National Revenue.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there a house there, or are there any buildings on the land?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is the Bouchard property, the purchase price of which is 813,000; for demolishing the building, and grading and levelling the property, the estimate is $3,800.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the size of the property?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Bouchard property has a frontage of eighty-three feet on Main street by a depth of ninety-four feet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would not think the whole town would be worth that much money. How is an amount of $17,000 arrived at for eighty-three feet in a town that size? What is the assessment of that property? The government have a right to expropriate. They do not have to give three or four prices for a piece of property.


Mr. MARTIN:: They must give the just price.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The officer of the department made the following report on January 22, 1937:
I visited Rock Island and examined the Bouchard property required by the customs to handle the vehicular traffic. This property, owned by Mr. Bouchard, consists of a lot, number eighty, situate on Main street at the junction of the bridge approach. It has a frontage of eighty-three feet on Main street by a depth of ninety-four feet on the approach to the bridge, and has, according to the official book of reference of the village, an area of 9,700 feet. On the land as it stands there is a three-storey building, sixty-one feet by fifty-seven feet. There are three shops on the first floor and four apartments on the second. The third storey is not finished.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then it is not vacant property?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rosemount-public building, $25,000.
Kenneth Judson Cochrane: I should like to know why some consideration is not being given to my constituency? I do not want to be unfair,
but I submit that something should be done there.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When we come to Nova Scotia the hon. gentleman can bring up the question.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is out of order. We are discussing public buildings in the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. George de Beauce-public building, $29,000. Mr. CARDIN: The population is 1,500, and the revenue, over $8,000.
Item agreed to.
St. Pacome-public building, $12,500.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a new building. The population is over 1,200, and the postal revenue, $2,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Raymond-public building, $15,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The population is 1,800, and the postal revenue, over $4,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Scliolastique-public building, $18,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a new building. What is the justification?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The population is over 1,300, and the postal revenue, $2,200.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Scotstown-public building, $23,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a revote, which
indicates that the work has been undertaken. There has been a prior vote. As we have gone through these estimates what strikes one is the large number of revotes. What is the total amount expended last year out of the estimates? It seems to me there must be a very large discrepancy or margin between the votes of last year and the amount actually expended, because we have so many of these revotes. We have the figures of the total estimates, main, supplementary and others for each year; but I should like to know, if it is not too much trouble, the total amount expended out of the estimates last year to the end of the fiscal year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can supply that information the next time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thetford Mines-public building, $60,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a large sum.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is an important place. That is the asbestos town.

Sup-ply-Public Works-Buildings


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They are all important.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The population of the town is 11,000; postal revenues were $20,000, and customs revenues, $52,000.


Grote Stirling: What will be housed in this building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Post office and customs, and they are also providing accommodation for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will this save rentals of buildings now used for these purposes?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A public building was built there in 1903, a one-storey brick structure. We are tearing it down and building a new one on that site.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thurso-public building, $15,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The population there is nearly 1,300, and the postal revenues, $3,400. A fire occurred a short time ago which totally destroyed the building, and the post office has been moved temporarily to another site. That is the information from the Post Office Department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 8, 1938