[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) presented the third report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 115, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 125, to amend the Customs Tariff.
He said: I beg to ask leave to introduce a short bill, a bill to amend section 6 of the customs tariff, by adding a new subsection to be called subsection 2A, by which the governor in council may order that excise duties or excise taxes may be disregarded in estimating the market value for purposes of special or dumping duties on goods imported from certain specified countries, which are entitled to entry under the general tariff.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Another election sign.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The elections are coming.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Dissolution is on the horizon.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be read a second time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I presume this is the measure referred to by the Prime Minister.


Mr. BENNETT:: This is the complementary measure, and unless it was passed the bill which was introduced yesterday and which stands on the order paper would not effect the purposes intended. This is a complementary section in the customs tariff to the amendment made in the Customs Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister referred to this matter yesterday and I see no reason why it should not be given second reading now.
Mr. MATTHEWS moved the second reading of Bill No. 125, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister when he intends to bring in amendments to the Pension Act, and if we could have some information in regard to it.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister): It might not be necessary to in-
4376	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Senate Amendments
troduce other than a very formal half dozen words. It is hoped that that is all that may be necessary. I will be able, I trust, before the house rises this evening to let the hon. gentleman know.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MULLINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The Toronto Globe of Wednesday, June 27, carries the following headline: "Nickle exposes Cook's Tour prison visit," and my name appears throughout the article. I wish to say that I was not conducted on a Cook's tour. I had my perfect freedom inside the walls of the penitentiary. Further I want to say the article suggests that I am related to General Ormond. I deny that I am in any way related to him, and I wish to make that denial on the floor of this house. The statement I made on the floor of the house when on a former occasion the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was speaking, in regard to dishes which were used, was and is absolutely correct.



MARKETING ACT


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with the
consent of the house we might take up the Senate amendments to numbers 7 and 8 on the order paper, so as to expedite that business before proceeding with the Bank of Canada Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the right hon. gentleman mean Bills Nos. 92 and 93?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Bills Nos. 51 and 89. Bill No. 51 is the Marketing Act. The Senate took out. the word "wheat" and we are declining to accept it. Then, they made some changes in Bill No. 89, to amend and consolidate the Excise Act, which I believe do not completely express the intention. We propose to send that back also. Will that be acceptable?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: What is the idea
of removing wheat? I did not think it was going to be operative anyhow, but what harm was it going to do?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are sending it back
to the Senate to put wheat in.


William Richard Motherwell: I beg pardon.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry but we could not hear whether the proposal of the government was to retain wheat or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, we are differing with the Senate and are asking that the bill be sent back to them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Another election.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dissolution again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not unmindful of
the fact that it was a reformed Senate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We will
see.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house disagrees with their first and second amendments to the Bill, No. 51, an act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith, for the following reasons:- "Inasmuch as wheat producers should not be treated in a different way from other producers of farm products;
Also, the Natural Products Marketing Act does not conflict with the Canada Grain Act in the case of wheat, nor in the case of coarse grains which are included in the act, and to which no exception has been taken."
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order No. 7 has not yet
been called and therefore this motion presented by the Minister of Agriculture is premature.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is making the motion now.



NON-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 51, an act to improve the methods and practices of marketing natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
Robert Weir: I now move the
motion which is in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. POULIOT:: Just before the motion
carries may I say how thankful I am to the other chamber for the opportunity which it is now giving to the hon. Minister of Agriculture to answer my question about the decrease in the home consumption of farm products.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I desire
to support the motion of the minister. While not abating in one single particular the ob-

Excise Act-Senate Amendments
jections which were made from this side of the house to some of the clauses of Bill No. 51, if we are going to have a marketing bill my conviction is that wheat should be included in that bill.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I desire to urge the
same thing. I am opposed to the bill, but if it is going to go on the statute books I think that wheat should be included as well as other farm products.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue) moved:: That a message he sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house disagrees with their amendments to Bill No. 89, an act to amend and consolidate the Excise Act. for the following reason, namely:
That the said amendments do not fully assure protection to the revenues of the crown.
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.
He said: In making this motion, I would like to say that in my opinion the effect of the amendment made by the Senate would be to give to the owner, and not only to the owner but also to anyone who holds a mortgage, charge or lien upon a vehicle or thing seized as forfeit to the crown for a breach of this act the statutory right to have the forfeiture set aside in his favour. It may appear to be a hardship that an owner or lien holder should lose his property or his interest in a seized vehicle because the vehicle has been put to an illegal use by somebody else, but it has been found from long experience that in the enforcement of revenue laws and laws for the protection of public property it is necessary to have some such principle recognized. It is recognized in other acts of this parliament, for example, the Customs Act, the Fisheries Act, the Fisheries Protection Act, and the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act. It is also, I am informed, the law in Great Britain and in most, if not all, of our own provinces. The remedy for hard cases is administrative remission which can always be arranged when it appears to be in the public interest. It is felt that the principle embodied in the proposed amendment should not be accepted by this house. It would be giving notice to all concerned that a vehicle owned by somebody else or subject to a lien can be used for illegal purposes with complete impunity.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, despite all that the minister has said, if the vehicle of an innocent party happens to be used by a third party and a seizure is made of the vehicle the only way in which the owner can recover his property is through the leniency of the departmental officials themselves or by an action in the exchequer court, and my hon. friend the minister knows full well that the exchequer court sits very seldom in the outlying provinces. All that this amendment which has been made by the Senate does is to ensure that action may be taken in a superior court


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is much more than that.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me put it this way, that action may be taken in the courts of the province in which the seizure is made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the matter about which the difficulty arises at all.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely some protection should be given to an absolutely innocent party. From the statement of the minister himself, I gather that no attention is being paid to that matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I fail to discover it. I have a case in mind which happened in Saskatchewan. Before going away a father left explicit directions that his automobile should not be used by his son. In some way the son secured a key to the car and took it out. Along with some of his friends or with those who happened to go with him, a bottle of liquor was found in the car by the mounted police. This happened four years ago and up to date the father has not been able to recover possession of his car which is still in the hands of the department through the agency of the mounted police. Moreover, before he can take action in the exchequer court he must deposit $400. That court sits in the western provinces when there is business for it; there has been no sitting and there is not likely to be a sitting. All this has been permissible under the provisions of the Excise Act. While I am in sympathy with every facility being given to the officers of the department to take action, nevertheless there are cases of extreme hardship about which something could be done. As far as I am concerned, I do not see anything sinister in the proposal of the Senate to remedy this evil. It is an evil and it is most unfair. Surely the crown does not want to take undue advantage of a private citizen, and that is what is happening under the provisions of

Excise Act-Senate Amendments
these sections. After all, it is left pretty well to the local officer as to how he shall construe this matter. When a man in order to obtain property which is rightfully his and which has been wrongfully used against his will and consent has to refer to the procedure to which he must refer to-day, surely something is wrong and something should be done to remedy such a situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a word in answer to what the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) has said. It is hoped that by bringing the matter again to the attention of their honours in the Senate, certain difficulties will be overcome. The hon. gentleman's reference to the use of the courts of the province rather than the exchequer court is a - matter to which no serious objection is made but the amendment as it stands is so at variance with all the principles that have hitherto governed in the consideration of matters of this kind. As we see it, an inducement is being offered to smugglers and those who violate the law. The principle which the Senate has asserted may be maintained but it would have to be strengthened by the addition of several subsections to the section as it stands.
I may say to the hon. gentleman that confiscation to the crown of instruments by which revenues have been defrauded is an amplification of the oldest principle which we have in our laws. In fact, it goes back to beyond the time when we had institutions at all. In our own country it is founded upon principles which were laid down in Holy Writ and in the early days of another dispensation. It is true that it is extremely difficult completely to differentiate between the innocent and guilty but it has been found in practice that unless the provision of forfeiture to the crown exists, those who disobey the law look upon perjury as a very simple thing when compared with the offence which they themselves have committed. According to judicial opinion, one of the greatest evils which this country now encounters is the prevalence of perjury. Those men who commit offences look upon perjury as a small matter when compared with the offence which they have committed. They are willing to commit perjury for the purpose of carrying through their nefarious actions. We have had striking illustrations of this in western Canada. There have been the most terrible cases in which I am convinced that human life has been sacrificed for greed and gain in connection with the administration of the liquor laws. There has been an endeavour [Mr. C. A. Stewart.l
made to impair and destroy the usefulness of our institutions by providing huge sums of money for elections and other purposes. This has been so apparent that we have to have the most stringent provisions in our laws in order to meet the situation. In these days of motor cars the situation is somewhat different. Many cases such as that mentioned by the hon. gentleman have been brought forward but where you have a father and son living in the same house and the car from the home of the father has been used for illegal purposes, the question of the forfeiture of the car has never been seriously in question until this moment. Innocency is not spelled merely by a father telling his son not to use his car. If the boy took the car and knew it was to be used for an illegal purpose, then the car becomes forfeited. One leading case we had concerned a new Cadillac car which was passing from Fernie to Montana and was forfeited. This happened in Alberta and the conviction was sustained by the privy council. I am not unwilling that there should be some modification of the statutes but as it now stands it is essential that some additional provisions be inserted in order to safeguard the public interests.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not present during the whole of this discussion. I have some sympathy with what the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) has said although I cannot go quite as far as he does, nor can I go quite as far as the provisions of the amendments proposed by the other house. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is quite right when he says that there must be very stringent regulations so far as smuggling is concerned. It is quite possible that if a provision was inserted in the present law whereby the rights of forfeiture were abrogated as far as the owner of an automobile or vehicle being used for smuggling, even in a small way, was concerned, that might be very much abused. From my own experience in the department I realize that there might be collusion and possibly perjury. Smugglers might be able to accomplish their purpose and yet make it appear as though they were innocent parties. This must be guarded against. While I have no desire to criticize the Department of National Revenue, a case like that mentioned by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) should not be held over for a period of four years. I think it would be possible by a conference between representatives of the Commons and the Senate to work out something whereby some of these abuses could be prevented.

Excise Act-Senate Amendments
While I am on my feet I should like to refer to another phase of this matter. I have in mind the using of an automobile in connection with the bringing in of a small quantity of cigarettes or a silk dress. Some person may be visiting Buffalo, Detroit or one of the other border cities and bring in a silk dress, a pair of shoes or two or three cartons of cigarettes. In the case of a woman, she may be wearing the shoes. I have always contended that while an automobile was being used in the smuggling operation, the automobile itself was not intended to be used for smuggling. It just happens to be the means of conveyance for bringing the person in from the United States and incidentally bringing in perhaps a carton of cigarettes, a bit of tobacco or something of that sort. In the past the department has not forfeited the vehicle in a case of this kind, although I suppose it had the power so to do under the law. That would be a most extreme application of the law. To-day-and it was the same during my incumbency-the penalty is as high as 850 or $25 on the proprietor of a vehicle being used perhaps by a passenger who might bring in one or two cartons of cigarettes. I always contended that this was an extreme application of the law, but it comes to this in the end, that the officers of that department at the border-and I think certainly at headquarters in Ottawa-should exercise a reasonable degree of common sense. That is practically what it comes to. You have to have a stringent provision in the law to provide for cases where severe action should be taken; but the minister or his deputy or the commissioner or officers at the border should be instructed to use some degree of what is usually called horse sense in the application of the law. It might be possible bo frame some modification, by conference with the Senate, whereby the situation might be eased in those cases where there is no real intention to smuggle, and I would draw a very distinct difference in cases where people are bringing in goods to be sold again as compared with the man or woman bringing in some little article which they 'happened to have bought in Buffalo or Detroit or any other border city. I would commend to the government that they consider the possibility of making some slight modification which would relieve the situation and yet not prejudice the revenues in any large way.


Hon. PETER VENIOT (Gloucester):: The suggestion that after an act has been passed instructions should be issued by the department to outside officials to exercise a certain degree of leniency or judgment is in my
opinion very wrong. I 'have had ten years' experience in enforcing the excise laws, and if I had received word from the department under which I was working, after they had passed a law and placed it in my hands to be carried out, that I should exercise leniency,
I would not have thanked the department for placing me in that position. I have had experience as a seizing officer and have done quite a bit of seizure work during my incumbency as collector of customs in New Brunswick, and very often it was quite a task for me, conscientiously speaking, to carry out the law as it stood; yet it had to be done. I could see that in the carrying out of that law great hardship was imposed upon some individuals, but I think there should be no difficulty in framing a clause of this act which would carry out the intention of the minister in his effort to prevent smuggling and at the same time to do justice in such a case as the one referred to by the hon. member for West Edmonton. In New Brunswick, under our provincial automobile laws, we have an easy method of tracing the owner or anyone who has had anything to do with a car that may be seized, because the owner cannot drive a car without first having his licence plate, his registration, and a certificate to the effect that he is owner of the car. In the next place, any member of the family who may drive that car without a certificate or authority from the Department of Public Works, indicating that he is certified to by the head of the family as one authorized by the owner of the car to drive it, is liable to punishment. Again, no one not the owner may drive a car unless he has a chauffeur's licence. I do not know what the law is in the other provinces, but by that means in New Brunswick the authorities can trace any car to the owner or any member of the family who has authority to drive it. If, as in this case, the man who took his father's car without consent had authority under the provincial law, with a certificate to drive the car, the father would be responsible. The case is a hard one and every means possible should be taken to protect the owner whose car has been taken without his consent, and to obviate the necessity of heavy legal expenses and in many instances long delays in proving ownership, as in this case. And what about a stolen car? My car is lying out in my garage at night and some individual comes along and steals it. It is an easy matter to steal a car even when it is locked, because those who know how to go about it have simply to push up a piece of wire into certain sections of the connecting links without using the key at all, so that a

Excise Act-Senate Amendments
car may be taken whether the person who steals it has the key or not. In this way a car might easily be stolen and used for smuggling purposes and I, the owner, knowing nothing about it, after the car has been used for smuggling and has been seized by the department, find myself without the use of that car. There should be some means whereby I can reclaim the car without having to go to heavy legal expense and without having to wait two or three years to recover the car.


Robert Charles Matthews: If anything like that
happens to my hon. friend he will have his car back immediately.


Peter John Veniot: It may be all right for me, but some poor devils have to wait two or three years for it, and that is what I want to avoid. The trouble in the past has been in rectifying these errors and in trying to alleviate injury consequent upon a strict enforcement of the law by the officials. I say, however, stand by your officials when you place a law in their hands and ask them to exercise their judgment. Their judgment may be at fault, but, I say, always stand by the officials and find some means of rectifying any injustice done. That stand I take on behalf of the officials because I have been one myself and have had to suffer from a strict enforcement of laws of this kind, both in conscience and otherwise. I feel that anything the department can do to help the officials should be done. But instructions should not be issued to officials -to use their judgment and leniency; when a law of this kind is placed in their hands the officials are supposed to exercise it to the letter.


Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton):: I happen to be acquainted with the case referred to by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and the facts are a little stronger even than he put them. The facts are these. On May 15, 1932, a certain gentleman who resides in the district I represent, the owner of an Essex sedan automobile, being obliged to go away for a week, left instructions with his wife that the son should not be allowed to use the car, and the ignition key Was placed in her possession. When this man returned he learned that his son had taken the car on May 16, without permission, and notwithstanding that his mother had forbidden him to do so. On May 15, 1932, the son took the car at the request of a friend and went to Verigin. On arrival there, he met another friend who asked for a drive to Kamsack and the son allowed this friend to get into the front seat of the car. He was then requested by another man to give him

a ride to Kamsack, which he agreed to do on that man agreeing to buy a gallon of gasoline. They then drove to a gasoline filling station. When this third man requested a drive to Kamsack, the son had no knowledge that he or anyone else in the car had any spirits or liquor of any kind and no arrangements were made that any liquor should be brought into the car by the third man or any other person and neither the son nor his friend first mentioned had any liquor on their persons or in the car. While the car was parked in front of the gasoline station a constable came along and searched the car. The third man who had a bottle of illicit liquor on him had hid it under the car where it was found, and the car was seized. That man has been without his car for three years; he has taken action in the exchequer court and has deposited $400 but that court will not meet in Saskatchewan until some time late this fall. H he has to wait until the exchequer court decides whether the car was illegally seized, he will be three years without the use of his car. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister in view of the statement just made about adopting equal jurisdiction of the superior court and the exchequer court in this matter would suggest another amendment that actions pending before the exchequer court have the privilege of being referred to the superior court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I shall see that when the matter is being considered with the Senate that view will also be put forward.


George Washington McPhee: I thank the right hon. gentleman.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Just one suggestion. It might
be well to adopt the same practice as prevails in the United States where, I am told, their citizens are allowed to bring in goods from Canada to the value of around $100. Why not insert such a provision in our law?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Successive governments
have looked into that and declined to do it for reasons that are clear; it would involve millions of dollars in revenue.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Make it $50.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 27, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) for the third reading of Bill No. 19, to incorporate the Bank of Canada, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.

Bank oi Canada-Mr. Woodsworth
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to enter into any lengthy discussion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) proposed an amendment before the house adjourned last night. The motion is that the bill be read a third time. It was moved in amendment by Mr. Woodsworth:
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend same so as to safeguard the sovereignty of parliament over Canada's financial policy.
I find that the amendment is out of order for this reason, that it is irrelevant. The sovereignty of parliament cannot be affected by the passage of a bill in this house. The sovereignty of parliament is created and defined by the British North America Act, section 91 of which states that it shall be lawful for the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to all matters except those assigned to provincial legislatures and in the classes of subjects enumerated there are included "banking, incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money." The sovereignty of parliament can be affected only by an amendment to the British North America Act. This amendment is therefore out of order.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the position taken in this comer of the house on financial reform is well known. We have for years past taken the stand that we should do everything possible to obtain a stable currency and credit system.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I think I had the floor when the house adjourned last night. With regard to the point of order it is not my intention to challenge the ruling of the Speaker. I feel that process only delays the house although I would point out that there is an open question before us as to whether the sovereignty of the house may not be destroyed, but I suppose ultimately that question could be settled only in the courts. It is, however, becoming apparent-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend? He says "the sovereignty of the house." His resolution reads "the sovereignty of parliament." We are beginning to see that there is a difference between the two.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not quite catch my right hon. friend's remark.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend in speaking just now used the expression "the 74726-277
sovereignty of the house", but his amendment relates to the sovereignty of parliament, I agree with him that the sovereignty of this house is being affected materially by many measures which are being put through but the sovereignty of parliament will remain what it is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not going to go into this technical constitutional question. I believe the sovereignty of this house is not being safeguarded and also the sovereignty of parliament is not being safeguarded. There is, of course, a difference between the two. I shall go a little further and say that the sovereignty of the people of this country is not being safeguarded. But it seems to me it is not necessary to go into every little technical constitutional matter when one is discussing a general principle.
The house is being placed in a rather peculiar position by the decisions of the Speaker. It appears that no general resolution of this kind is permissible on third reading. It appears further that no definite amendment is permissible on the very general grounds that it might involve expenditure of money. Some of us would very definitely deny that the making of this institution a public bank would in any way interfere with His Majesty's revenues. I should have been delighted indeed to support the amendment as it was finally drafted by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). If, however, we are not going to have the opportunity of moving any amendments, I suppose we have to let the public know that and to leave the matter as it is.
In connection with this bill I may say that I have left the matter very largely to my colleagues who were members of the committee on banking and commerce but I should like to take this last opportunity of saying a few words in regard to the situation. Perhaps I should congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on his growing recognition of the danger of the money power. I hope he is really recognizing that danger. As a matter of fact, I am afraid he is simply repeating some phrases. I am delighted, however, to have those phrases coming from him because this marks a very decided change of attitude. For years we in this corner have advocated a central bank, one publicly owned and controlled. I regret that we were not able to place our position definitely before the country by means of an amendment to the third reading of the bill.
On the second reading I spoke strongly in favour of public ownership and control. In-



Bank of Canada-Mr. Woodsworth
deed I went so far as to say that I thought if the matter came to a vote I should have to vote against the measure. I still feel the same way. In setting up this Bank of Canada we have the opportunity to make it a public institution, and to extend the power of parliament into the realm of finance, but the government is determined that this course shall not be taken. I regret it exceedingly. It is true that certain amendments to the bill have been made in committee; I think these are all to the good, although I suggest that they are not fundamental and do not go far enough to alter the principle of the bill. I have listened to what the Prime Minister had to say but I have not been at all convinced. He pointed out the danger of political pressure; I would say there is much more danger of irresponsible class power. He speaks of appointing a sound governor. That means a man who can be trusted to carry out the behests and policies of the leaders of finance. The Prime Minister believes in having this governor practically independent of public opinion; I think that is a very dangerous proceeding. It is true that to a very large extent in the past the leaders of finance have been independent of public opinion, and I think that is the situation to-day. The trouble with this bill is that it frankly legalizes that situation. We are putting power that should belong to the sovereign people into the hands of private and irresponsible individuals. I quite recognize that the Prime Minister may not realize the danger of this situation. He himself has always moved with wealthy men-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. he hasn't.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In my judgment
he has distinctly the class consciousness of wealthy people, he accepts their point of view and their policies. He is probably firmly convinced that these are in the interests of the country at large. Some of us must challenge that position. We believe that the interests of financial men are not the interests of the public at large. We believe that it is because the country has been at their mercy that we have got into the position that we are in to-day, and that it is only as a sovereign people can make its will effective that we can hope for any remedy of the present situation. I would suggest that the Prime Minister's argument goes altogether too far. K carried out his doctrine would undermine democratic government. If he cannot trust the people, does he think he can trust someone who is altogether removed from the control of the people, or even from the pressure of public opinion? I think too

highly of the people themselves, of the ultimate good common sense of the people when their own welfare is really at stake and they are roused to actual conditions, to accept that viewpoint. The Prime Minister might . as well proceed frankly to set up a dictatorship, not merely in the realm of finance but in parliament. If the people are not able to judge of financial matters, that is the fundamental principles in finance, I cannot see how they are able to judge of the fitness of individuals to represent them in parliament or the fitness of a government to maintain its administrative powers.
The Prime Minister speaks of the difficulties in making appointments. He says that consideration must be given to race, to religion, to residence, to political affiliations, to occupation and so on. I wonder if that argument does not carry him altogether too far. We have at the present time a very capable deputy minister of finance; I wonder whether questions of race and religion and occupation entered into the consideration when he was appointed. I hope not. I cannot see why they should enter any more into the appointment of a governor of the Blank of Canada. Had I time I might take the different departments, a number of them in charge of very capable deputy ministers. Does the Prime Minister mean to infer that questions of race and religion and political allegiance and so on were at the basis of the appointment of those men, and for that reason we cannot trust them? I think that is going altogether too far. It is a decided reflection upon people to-day in public office. If our politics have been corrupt in the past, if in the past there has been altogether too much political influence of the wrong kind, surely the way out is to give scope for political influence of a better kind, to have an educated public opinion exercising its influence; not to have whole areas of public business removed altogether from the control of the people.
It is a practical question for some of us as to how to vote when the amendments are at last disposed of. I frankly admit that in a matter of this kind one could justify a vote either in the affirmative or in the negative. I believe, as indicated by the amendment which I attempted to move, that this bill does not safeguard the sovereignty of this house or of parliament. On the other hand I suggest that finance is a realm in which the people have never had sovereignty. Finance has always been aside from and superior to parliament. I think it has always dominated parliament. Theoretically parliament has been supreme, but in practice the financial kings have always dominated the

Bank of Canada-Mr. Spencer
political kings. There is no doubt whatever in my mind as to that. So, since we never have had sovereignty, I suppose we are none the worse off because this bill does not give us sovereignty. In the past we have often had conflicts between church and state, it is needless to enter into that question to-day. Now we have reached the conclusion that there is a realm in which the church is sovereign, and another realm in which the state is sovereign. In Japan, I believe, it has always been conceded that the state as constituted was never supreme over the military autocracy. The military class have been quite independent of the representative institutions of the country. There is something parallel to that in our attitude towards financial affairs. The representatives of the people through the centuries have gradually acquired power over certain realms of our life, but over the financial realm, which is so important, so vital, they have no power whatever. I would say that some of these days we will simply have to challenge the position of the financial interests or they will completely dominate our public life. That dominance undoubtedly has not been challenged in the bill before us.
Then, perhaps there is another consideration which may come in. Personally I am not anxious to give the present government too much authority. It is possibly quite true that the governor of a bank may be trusted just about as much as the present government in connection with the administration of financial affairs. I do not know that there would be much difference in policy. However, that ought not to affect one's decision in a matter of this kind. We hope that some of these days there will be in authority a government which will be in a better position to administer the financial affairs of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Needless to say I am not referring to my friends to the right. Looking over the bill with some care and studying the general situation I do believe that this measure marks an advance on anything we have had in the past. It is by no means one hundred per cent perfect, it leaves much to be desired, and it does not safeguard the interests of the public as I think they should be safeguarded. Nevertheless it does seem to me to be a piece of necessary machinery, and as such, an advance over the old arrangements we had under the Bank Act and the Finance Act. I would further suggest that under a more advanced government it may be used in the interests of the people. Cer-74726-2771
tain amendments can be made, and I hope if my Liberal friends become the government party they will proceed to make amendments through which-


Ernest Lapointe: I expect they will.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I know that is expected. I hope they will proceed to make amendments so that the Bank of Canada will be both publicly owned and controlled.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear my Liberal friends applaud that statement. I should like to have had their position definitely placed upon Hansard in the form of an amendment, and I am glad to have their applause and approval. If when we come to the next parliament they are the government party I will warn them that we are going to hold them strictly to that position, namely, that they will proceed to amend this act so that we shall have a publicly owned and controlled bank.


Mr. GOTT:: They think they are in office now.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Very near.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will forget all about it in another year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. member suggests they will forget all about it. I am afraid that the financial power which is now denounced will prove a little bit too strong.


Eccles James Gott: Half of them will not come back.


Pierre-François Casgrain: You won't.


James Shaver Woodsworth: However, we can leave that to the future. In the meantime I wish to say, since we have no opportunity to state it formally, that we stand definitely and emphaticaly for public ownership and control of the central bank. That taken for granted, I am inclined to think that this measure marks an advance beyond anything we have had in the past, and for that reason, on third reading I shall vote in favour of the measure.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak a few moments ago I did not know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) had the floor. Needless to say I willingly gave way to him. For many years hon. members in this corner of the house have supported a stable currency and credit system. When we look back to the period between 1926 and 1929 and realize that during that
Bank of Canada-Mr. Spencer

time no less than $635,000,000 of new money was put into the money flow of this country, one appreciates that not only was trade improving, but in the event of a sudden reaction things would be very bad indeed. Then we find that in the deflation period between 1929 and 1933 there was no less than $704,000,000 written out of existence. One has to appreciate that that is one of the real reasons why we have had such a drop in prices. It is because we are up against these great differences, and these extremes of inflation and deflation that hon. members in this corner of the chamber have consistently advocated a stable currency and credit system. We have also taken the stand, as the records as far back as 1923 will show, that we believe our money system should be based on goods and services, and not upon gold. That being so we have consistently fought the idea that we should be handicapped for the sake of not having what some people think is a sufficient gold basis on which to base our monetary system.
I should like also to remind the house that we have not made proper use of our national credit. While from year to year, with our possibilities for production, we have become richer, we have actually curtailed national improvements. When we found it advisable to construct public works of different descriptions we should have been in a position to use our national credit. Only a few years ago the amount of $50,000,000 was struck out of the estimates for public works, having in mind the idea that such a saving would be one of the solutions towards bringing back prosperity. To-day I am very pleased to find that the government has realized it can make use of the national credit, and in the legislation proposed last week by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Minister of Finance we find we are going to have the sum of $40,000,000 put into public works of different kinds, without any interest cost to the nation. I claim that procedure should have been adopted years ago. The Prime Minister admits he could use $100,000,000 in that way. I take the stand that wherever there is a public work to be done, one which is needed for the public benefit, it should be done without interest charge. I contend, further, that so long as there are public works needed we should not have a pair of idle hands in the country. Such action would have the effect of cutting down the debt burden of our country, because up to the present time we have entered upon public works programs through the medium of creating debt, and such debt is creating one of the greatest burdens we have to face.

Believing along the lines I have indicated I take this opportunity of moving, seconded by Mr. Coote:
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend so as to provide a stable currency and credit system based on goods and services, limited only to the needs of industry and social services and not by gold; to make available the national credit at cost for governmental services, and so lighten the terrific burden of debt.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) ; Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is out of order. The only point that I think the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) has overlooked is this, that you may amend the third reading of a bill by moving that it be not now read a third time, or you may vote against the bill being read a third time, which negatives the motion and precludes it being brought up again the same session, and lastly, if you do undertake to send the bill back to a committee to be amended it must be specifically indicated in the amendment what it is proposed to do in the way of a new or amended section. I think the hon. gentleman will agree when he has read over his amendment that he has covered everything that could well be thought of but that he has not indicated just what amendment might be made for the purpose of enabling a committee to pass upon it. In *other words, the committee has to go to work and draft a new bill. Now that is not the purpose of a third reading amendment.


Mr. POWER:: It is easy. Appoint Mr. Gerry McGeer as governor of the bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is out of gear-whether it is McGeer or not I cannot say. At any rate I think the hon. gentleman will agree that this proposal if accepted by the house would impose, upon the committee the duty of sitting down and trying to draft a bill, whereas the purpose of a third reading amendment with respect to the matters I have referred to would be to indicate what the amendment should be that was to be inserted in the bill or the amendment that is to be made to bring the bill into accordance with the provisions of the suggested amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the objection
taken by the Prime Minister is well grounded. This document does not profess to be an amendment to the legislation. It does not deal with the bill before the house and it gives no intelligible instructions to a committee.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Lapointe


Henry Elvins Spencer: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, when I sat in my seat and heard four other amendments ruled out of order, each one drawn in a different way with the object of trying to get a vote of this house upon it, I rather anticipated that mine would meet with the same fate. I am not going to question your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am only sorry that we cannot find an amendment that is acceptable to both sides of this house.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, with many of the arguments of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) as to the sovereignty of the House of Commons and parliament I would heartily agree, but when he attempted to deliver a lecture to hon. gentlemen on this side of the house, coupled with his arguments, I would remind him that perhaps if we had had his cooperation and that of his group on other measures which have passed the house this session, and which were just as much against the sovereignty of parliament and the House of Commons, we *might have achieved better success. May I refer particularly to the peace, order and good government clause in the Unemployment Relief Act? I admit that my hon. friend voted with us on that but he had a very limited influence with his group because apart from the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) they all voted with the government and against the sovereignty of parliament and the House of Commons.
I think my hon. friend himself and all the other members of his group also voted against the amendments which were proposed from this side of the house to the marketing bill with regard to the sovereignty of parliament. I do not want to blame my hon. friend but I think he might refrain from delivering lectures to us in that respect.
But I rose particularly to say a word about section 24 of this bill and the amendment I moved in committee of the whole to that section. The government then took the amazing attitude that they would stand or fall by their proposals with regard to the issuing of notes, that they would resign if a majority of the house would consider it better that the notes of the Bank of Canada should bear English and French words instead of the notes being issued in two sets, one in English and one in French. Following that intimation the committee gave a decisive vote against my amendment. I do not propose to offer it again because that would merely give another opportunity to say that t was acting from political motives.
But I think I owe it to the principles I have upheld and to myself to say a word in answer to what I believe were the uncalled-for insinuations of the Prime Minister in his speech in answer to me. How he could say that I was violating the constitution I am at a loss to understand. He. himself said that he stood for equality. That was the purpose of my amendment; that was the principle on which it was based.
How he could say, further, that I and those who think as I do were trying to coerce or dominate the majority is still more fantastic. I took the trouble to say that I was pleading with the majority in order that they might be persuaded that the mode that I was offering was preferable to the other. Was that coercion? Was that a dominating spirit? Why should not the matter be discussed without diverting the discussion in another direction? And, Mr. Speaker, I think nobody has a right to describe me anywhere as being unreasonable and a sort of firebrand. I have tried all my life to preach Canadian unity and Canadian brotherhood in Canada, in all the provinces and in both languages, and if Providence gives me strength I propose to do so during the remaining years of my life. I repeat, why should not this matter be discussed without the use of abusive and threatening language?
Let me only say this in conclusion. Canada will continue growing and developing along sound Canadian lines. Canada and Canadians are bigger and better and more lovable than some of those who assume sometimes to speak for them. When both the Prime Minister and myself have disappeared the principles of good will upon which Canada has been built will continue to be upheld, and I hope will continue to be accepted by Canadians, and the country will advance along sound national lines.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I
hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted, I would have voted against the third reading.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Robert Weir: I was paired with
the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

Food and Drugs Act


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STEVENS:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I was paired with the
Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. COTNAM:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


William Daum Euler: I was paired with the hon.
member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PARENT (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson). Had; I voted I would have voted against the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On a question of privilege, may I call the attention of the Prime Minister to an unintentional omission. No motion has been made that the bill be passed and that the title be as on the order paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the right hon. gentleman. The motion that the bill be read the third time was declared carried, but the further proceedings, the motion that it be now passed and that the title be as on the order paper, have not been followed. May that motion be put, Mr. Speaker?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Bennett moves,
seconded by Mr. Guthrie, that Bill No. 19 be now passed and that the title be as on the order paper. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 70, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The only amendment made by the Senate was to strike out the word " company," inasmuch as, under the Interpretation Act, the word "person" covers "company" and there is no necessity for the latter word.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: I will not take until after lunch Nos. 10 and 11, in order that the Department of Justice may look into them. No particular changes have been made in these two bills except in the form in which they are expressed, and they will stand until after lunch.
Loan Companies Act


Ernest Lapointe: I have looked at these amendments and I find that there is a difference only in phraseology.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly as I see it. I desire to make some inquiries during the luncheon hour to find out why they were put in the form they are in.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 123, to amend the Loan Companies Act.
He said: This bill endeavours to provide, so far as this parliament can, that the corporate powers of companies shall not be exercised where the rates of interest are larger than those they are entitled to exact by their act of incorporation. It has a retroactive effect because it applies to all companies heretofore as well as hereafter incorporated and leaves to parliament the right to decide what the maximum that may be charged shall be; and a charge in excess of that rate would result in the forfeiture by the company of its powers, there being undoubted jurisdiction in this parliament to provide that, as a condition of granting corporate existence to any group of men, it shall also follow that if they depart from the conditions imposed as to rates they may charge, forfeiture of their corporate powers shall ensue. With respect to provincial companies, that difficulty would be overcome, except to this extent, that so far as we have power, and of course we have considerable in the way of affording them recognition or dealing with them as such, they would forfeit any rights to protection from the dominion.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much
that the legislation which is embodied in Bill No. 123 does not go further than it does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How far does the hon.
member want it to go?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I commend it as far as it goes but my submission to the minister is that it does not - remedy the evils that are alleged to exist in regard to loan companies that are now carrying on; the exorbitant rates of interest which have been charged according to the terms of their charters can under this legislation still be charged. This bill says only that if they do exceed the powers given to them in the various charters they have received from parliament at different times, those charters may be forfeited. But I regret very much the

adminstration in conjunction with the superintendent of insurance were not able to fix a certain specific rate beyond which those loan companies could not go and which would apply to both those that are asking for charters this session and those that have received charters in years gone by. If not this year certainly at a later date parliament must face the situation and fix a definite maximum rate of interest beyond which those loan companies cannot go. This legislation, in my humble judgment, is practically innocuous because under their charters those loan companies can make exorbitant charges and they can still do so even after we pass Bill No. 123.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). The bill before the house is a great disappointment in relation to what we expected. There is in it nothing that specifies what the loan companies are allowed to charge. When I brought the matter up on a bill that came from the Senate some weeks ago and suggested that they should not be allowed to charge more than 13 per cent, the Prime Minister proposed that the bill be sent back to the committee on banking and commerce where it might be possible to make the charge even less than I had suggested. This has not been done and so far as I can see the loan companies can go ahead charging most exorbitant rates. The rates given us the other day by the superintendent of insurance for a loan of $100 for twelve months ran as high, including expenses, as 49 per cent and for a $50 loan for twelve months the total charges and interest came as high as 94 per cent. We should do something definite in this house to stop this sort of thing. I am certainly against letting this bill g-o through as it stands.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible
to have jurisdiction over provincial charters-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point.


Charles A. Stewart: -and nearly all the offenders are operating under provincial charters so that, frankly, I cannot see how this bill can be of very much service because the main offenders get their charters from the provincial authorities and of course the federal authority is powerless to reach such companies. If the bill goes through some definite maximum rate of interest should be fixed.

Loan Companies Act


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: There are on the order paper now, I think, three bills establishing small loan companies which by their charters are given very wide powers. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) has already said that the superintendent of insurance in addressing the committee on banking and . commerce in regard to these bills showed that in some cases those loan companies could charge over 90 per cent, that being the total interest and service charges which they could make. He said that in practically all cases if they made the very maximum charges which they were allowed under their charter, those charges would amount in the case of small loans to over 90 per cent. When one of these bills was called some time ago the Prime Minister, as I remember, intimated that the government would consider introducing legislation which would limit those companies in the loans they could make, to an interest rate of not more than 13 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That figure was mentioned by the hon. member for Battle River.


George Gibson Coote: The superintendent of insurance stated that in his opinion a maximum of two per cent per month was all that should be allowed to those companies, and that two per cent should include interest and all other charges except any charge actually paid out for registration.


Mr. McGIBBON:: That was on the unpaid balance.


George Gibson Coote: That was on the money actually received.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I can help the hon. gentleman as to that. The difficulty with it is that with respect to the charges the matter is governed by the authority of each province. We have jurisdiction only with regard to interest. I am prepared to add to the present bill a provision that the interest rate shall not exceed 12 per cent.


George Gibson Coote: I am sorry I have not one of the bills before me but there is in both of the measures that are now on the order paper a clause which allows the company to make a service charge of $10 in the case of each loan; that is in addition to a rate of seven per cent and another rate of two per cent. The service charge of $10 is to cover a variety of costs or charges which the company might naturally incur; it is supposed to cover actual disbursement. The companies do practically all of this clerical work in their
own offices and by their own employees, and yet they make this $10 charge. The two per cent they are allowed to charge in addition to the seven per cent is, I believe, really intended to cover that service charge and in many cases no $10 charge should be allowed. It would be quite within the rights of parliament to insert in this bill or to have inserted in each one of the bills that are before us a provision to the effect that the total charge that loan companies can make for either interest or other charges shall not exceed two per cent per month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is too much.


George Gibson Coote: If they cannot operate on a total charge of two per cent per month they should not make the loan and parliament should not be granting them charters to enable them to carry on business where they can make exorbitant charges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am willing to add such a provision to the bill but I shall point out when we come to it the difficulty from a legal standpoint. I think the rate suggested is too high.


George Gibson Coote: With that understanding I shall not delay the second reading and perhaps when we go into committee the amendment which has already been suggested may be considered there.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Company defined.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the maximum
now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill came in this form from the committee, so what my personal views are need not be stated. But I am prepared to accept and add to this bill a provision as a condition of the exercising of the powers granted by parliament, that hereafter no company's charges shall exceed for all purposes two per cent per month. For the purpose of having that put into proper shape; I move that t'he committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Public Works Construction-Mr. COMMONS
Casgrain
The house resumed at three o'clock. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stewart (Leeds) for the second reading of Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada.
Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, this bill has for its purpose the construction and betterment of certain public works enterprises throughout the dominion. With the title of the bill hon. members on this side of the house can be in accord, because it expresses a worthy purpose. However, if we look into the details and examine the schedules we find that it is designed more to meet the ends of the government of the day and might be described as a bill to advance Tory interests in this country. It is intended to be put into force in order to help the government in the next general election. It is intended, through the bill, to relieve unemployment and, to a certain extent, it is called an unemployment relief measure. If in the speeches delivered some time ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who, during the course of his several addresses in the country and to this house has told us that unemployment is past, that we are on the upgrade, and that things are getting better, we were given the facts, then apparently this program would not be needed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will have to withdraw that statement. At no time did I say that unemployment was past.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Well, if the Prime Minister states that he did not say unemployment was past certainly he indicated to the country that unemployment was on the downgrade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I will withdraw it. But after the utterances by members of the government and by the Prime Minister himself I think I am safe in saying we were given to understand that the worst is over, that unemployment is on the downgrade, that business generally is going on in greater proportions, and that we may expect a return to greater activity very soon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Pierre-François Casgrain: If these statements are true, and if the government states they are true, then the country can stand on its own fMr. Bennett.]
feet, and I do not think these public works would be necessary in all places. I do not say that some of the works in the bill are not necessary; on the contrary some of them were needed four years ago. Some were needed as far back as ten years ago, but for some reason or another the government of the day could not proceed with all the works and undertakings, and little by little they carried them out as far as they could.
May I point out that in the years 1929, 1930 and since requests were made to the Department of Public Works and to the government by the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay for certain works which were absolutely necessary. I hold in my hand a copy of the votes and proceedings of this house for May 17, 1933, in which I find certain questions credited to me. These questions were asked regarding certain works at Pentecote River, Aux Coudres Island, Mutton Bay, Moisiei Magpie, Longue Pointe du Mingan, Harrington Harbour, Hamilton Cove on the Portneuf river, Dolbeau, Betsiamites, Beaupre, Richers Bay, Petites Bergeronnes, Point-au-Boisvert, Point Lebel, Port-au-Persil, Port-au-Saumon, Riviere-aux-Vases, River Blondelle, St-Anne de Beaupre, a retaining wall on the St-Jean river, work on the St-Margaret river, a wharf at St-Irenee, the building of a post office at Pointe-au-Pic and works at St-Simeon, Sept-Iles, Sheldrake, Baie St-Paul and Petite Riviere St-Francois.
All these works I have just mentioned are absolutely necessary now, and were necessary in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933. As a matter of fact, in the schedule appended to this bill there is an item of $156,000 for a wharf extension at Pointe-au-Pic in the county of Charlevoix. I am pleased that this amount has been provided for the work at that place. In the year 1930 the previous government had appropriated the sum of $125,000 to proceed with the construction of work necessary at that place, a work which had been recommended by the officers, engineers and technicians of the Department of Public Works. If those moneys had been spent they would have given a great deal of work to the unemployed people in the vicinity of Murray Bay, where there is a large pulp and paper mill and where, for the last three years, the people have been out of employment.
I say this bill is just four years too late. The works mentioned in the schedule to the bill should have been proceeded with in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, when there was more unemployment and more need for assistance than obtains at the present time. The work

Public Works Construction-Mr. Casgrain
at Pointe-au-Pic which I have just mentioned was recommended in the year 1930. Demands have been made by public bodies, municipalities and corporations interested in the various districts needing public works, and there are on the government files reports to the effect that the works are necessary.
Just to illustrate my point may I say that only this morning I received a letter from the president of the Clarke Steamship Company Limited, drawing my attention to t'he condition of the wharf at Havre St. Pierre, and he has asked me to urge upon the government the necessity for spending some money to do necessary and urgent repairs at that place. The letter, addressed to me, is as follows:
I have your letter of the 8th instant, regarding Havre St. Pierre wharf, which I had on my return from Newfoundland.
I have had another report since writing you regarding this wharf, and I cannot urge too strongly to press the government in this matter, as if something is not done immediately,
I am afraid this whole wharf will go out, and it is very dangerous at present; it is also^ a danger to anybody going over the wharf in its present state.
I would appreciate it if you would again follow this matter up with Mr. Stewart.
And the letter is signed by the president. A few days ago I wrote the minister drawing his attention to the condition of the wharf at a place called Mille Vaches. The wharf at that point was in a bad state of repair. The people in that vicinity have to use it in the export of pulpwood and other materials.
The minister in introducing the bill stated that the government was proceeding with a public works program to take the place of the dole. Those may not have been his exact words, but I believe I have expressed his meaning. We are glad to hear that the dole will pass away, and that to a certain extent we are going to give work to our own good Canadian labourers. I appreciate that fact. I must subscribe, however, to the statements made by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) to the effect that the present program will not entirely relieve the state of unemployment, that it will be necessary for the government to do some work along the lines followed previously, and that at least to some extent it will have to carry on the dole in order to save people from starvation. We know that these works will not be proceeded with before the end of the fall, or possibly next year. The minister stated that approval of the program was general. That may be so on the government side of the house, because hon. members may have
noticed that about 87,000,000 are to be spent in Tory constituencies and only a little over $2,000,000 in Liberal constituencies in the province of Quebec. The minister stated that because of recent storms it was necessary to do a great deal of work in the maritime provinces and along the Atlantic coast. May I say to him that in the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay, along the Canadian Ijabrador coast and the north shore, and other places, there are plenty of works needed. All these places are in need of works. Many works have been dismantled recently and the government has no reason, simply because they are doing some work on the Atlantic coast to pretend that they are meeting the wishes of the country at large.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to some of the points that were made the other day by the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). He said that not all that was intended to be done was included in the schedule of this bill, and he drew the attention of the house to an amount of $2,500,000 under harbours and rivers, and to another large amount for public buildings, and said that money could be drawn out of those two votes for public works and relief. I protest, Mr. Speaker, against that way of doing business. If there are certain works that are going to be done, and the money is going to be taken out of those two large votes for works in this province or in that, I say that the house and the country has a right to know what works these are, where they are going to be done, and who is going to be benefited by them. I am afraid if we allow the government to go on with that kind of program and appropriate as large an amount as they like for harbours and rivers and public buildings generally, we shall find when we get nearer to the election that only those constituencies will be in need of public works where it will promote the interests of the government to spend public money. It means that we are simply giving the government another blank cheque as we have been forced to vote them others both this year and in the other years since this government has been in power.
The Minister of Marine also stated that the government has had in view the task of finding out the works that were the most urgent and that would give the most employment to the largest number of people. Looking over the items in the schedule we find, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has mentioned, that a lot of them may give employment to big corporations and certain kinds of engineering firms, but the hard-working common labourer will not get his fair share of many of these
'yj .	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Brasset
items. I think it is our duty to make the government aware of these facts and to urge them to make sure that in carrying on these works the greatest amount of work will be given to the ordinary working men.
The Minister of Marine also stated the other day that the government ever since they have been in power have done their duty by the city of Montreal, that they have worked for the interests of Montreal, and seen to it that all those who did not have work did not suffer hardships but were taken care of. If what the Minister of Marine has said is true, how is it that in the city of Montreal at any time within the last six months or within the past year no man can walk along Notre Dame street, St. James street, or anywhere along St. Catherine street, on his way from his office to the upper part of the city without being stopped by half a dozen passers-by, real, honest, good Canadians, asking for five or ten cents or a quarter to get a meal or shelter for the night. If the government had really done their duty, if they had done what they claim to have done, and these people had been receiving sustenance, conditions would not have been such that so many people would have had to ask for charity on the streets.
The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) has mentioned his objection to clauses 5 and 6 of this bill. I also object to these clauses, Mr. Speaker. I think that too great powers are given by this bill to some of the ministers to control the spending of these moneys. The government should have asked parliament for these moneys in the ordinary way by bringing down a supply bill, and it should have made a condition that on these works local labour would be employed and Canadian material used; that contracts would be given not only to big corporations but to small firms; provision should also have been made for including the six hour day and a fair wage clause in the contracts, and for the awarding of contracts to Canadian companies. The government should not award contracts simply on the basis of promoting the interests of a few friends and promoting their own interests at election time.
I am not against the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, but I see danger because the government wants to arrogate to itself the right of distributing the moneys to be expended among its own friends, and while claiming that the expenditures are for the benefit of the people, expending the money really with the object of bringing the government back into power. The government I say has not the right to 
bring down such a bill because it has lost the confidence of the people of this country. This government through its friends in Saskatchewan and Ontario has suffered two disastrous defeats recently, and a moribund government such as this has no right to ask the people of this country through its representatives in parliament to vote huge sums of money to be expended only for the benefit of the people who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe):: I
would like to add a few words to what has already been said in respect to this bill. I am pleased to say that my constituency has been more fortunate than many others because the bill provides for two rather important items of construction for it, one an item of $61,000 for the reconstruction of the quay and betterments at Cap-aux-Meules, and the other the expenditure of $64,000 for repairs and betterments to the port of Grand Riviere.
I want^ to congratulate the minister upon having included these items, but I would remind him that both this session as well as in previous sessions I have asked him for appropriations for many other places in the county which I have the honour to represent.
My constituency has over five hundred miles of coast and seashore, and although many wharves and breakwaters were built by the former Liberal administration there are still many places that are in need of betterments, and there are also many places where repairs are needed to be made to public works already in existence, places, for instance, where public works have been damaged by storms. In asking grants for these places I pointed out to the minister that the providing of work in that way would be a proper method of curing unemployment in those localities at least. All along the coast there is pulpwood to be shipped, farm products, fish and so forth, but the people are handicapped and cannot ship out these products as there are no wharves where the boats can come in and pick them up.
This bill will not do away with the responsibility of the government for unemployment or with its obligation to end it. My constituency was one of the hardest hit by the depression, and the work which the government intends doing there will remedy the situation in only a very small degree, and only in those communities where the work will be carried on. I would therefore ask the minister to reconsider some of the items in this schedule, that he strike out some of the works which are not very necessary as,

Public Works Construction-Mr. Boulanger
for example, the item for Valois, as was mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) and replace them with items for some useful and very necessary works which have been asked for by me in the course of this or previous sessions. I would point out to the minister that he could easily take 8200,000 out of the $1,200,000 to be voted for the constituency of the Prime Minister and use it in my constituency in building wharves, where it would be of very much greater use than in building barracks for soldiers in the Prime Minister's constituency.
I notice there is an item of $2,500,000 for harbours and rivers generally. I should like to know if some of that money could not be spent in building and repairing public works in my constituency? It is quite true that the cities are very much in need of help from the government but it should not be forgotten that the smaller communities are also in need. I hope the minister will give very serious consideration to the demands which I had the honour to lay before him this session and will try to grant some of them. There is one item for my constituency, $64,000 for harbour repairs and improvements at Grand Riviere. My constituency is about five hundred miles long and as Grand Riviere is at one end of the constituency, this expenditure will not benefit the biggest part of the district. I should like to see the minister appropriate $5,000, $10,000 or 115,000 for different wharfs and works in my constituency. This would help to bring the end of unemployment.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only a few words in order to express the viewpoint of the rural members. I notice from the schedule attached to the bill that most of the work to be done is to be done in the cities. The rural members and the electors whom they represent are not jealous and my purpose in rising to speak is not to complain of what the cities are receiving, it is to make a suggestion or two- to the government. I realize that it is more difficult to provide for large works in the rural districts than in the cities. Those counties which lie along large rivers like the St. Lawrence offer an opportunity for the building of wharfs, retaining walls and works of that kind, but that is not the case in counties like the one I represent. However, I think if the government would exercise their ingenuity a little they could find means of providing work in entirely rural counties like Bellechasse. I hope some method will be found of accomplishing this work by means of the money to be voted in a general way.
For example, the government could assist in the clearing of land on a large scale, what I would term the mechanical clearing -of land. This could be carried on in a large way instead of having it done by the individual owners of the land. The government could undertake to clear a whole parish, a whole township or a whole section of country by the use of tractors and other mechanical means instead of leaving this clearing to be done by the individual farmers. In this way employment could be given to many people in the rural districts who are now out of work. The upper part of my county is newly settled and there is a great deal of unemployment. These people work in the woods and in the lumber camps, mostly on the other side of the border in the state of Maine. At the present time this means of employment has been closed to them because the American government has barred Canadian workers. They insist that only American lumbermen shall be employed in the lumber camps of Maine and the other states. We cannot blame them for protecting their own people before offering advantages to others. The result has been that these lumbermen who have to go to the woods in the winter in order to obtain the means of existence have had to stay at home without employment. I think my statement in this regard will be borne out by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). This unemployment has resulted in great misery in the newly settled parts of our respective communities. If the government will undertake a large scheme of clearing land by mechanical means these people can be employed and they will be able to support their families.
There is one more suggestion I should like to make. It has been estimated that there are between fifty and sixty thousand young farmers between the ages of twenty and thirty years at present unemployed in Quebec. I imagine the same would be true of the other provinces. These young men have absolutely nothing to do and a little help from the government would establish them in some useful employment. Because of the depression and the low prices prevailing for farm products their parents have been unable to assist them. The government is contributing to the establishment on the land of the city unemployed; this is a very good work and is to be commended but why could not the scheme be extended to include young unemployed farmers who are only too anxious to establish themselves on the land? If this were done it would prove of great benefit to the farmers, not only of Quebec but of all provinces. I hope the government will
4394	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Luchkovich
consider the two suggestions which I have made with great sincerity and in no spirit of criticism. I hope money can be found to look after the unemployed in the rural parts of the country.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, according to the 1931
census there are 44 cities and 347 towns in Canada. By this bill the towns 'have not received consideration proportionate to that given to the larger cities. The population of the various towns in Alberta is 34,042 while the population of the cities is 194,203. The population of both towns and cities totals 228,245. The total population of Alberta is 731,605 and subtracting the population of the towns and cities, leaves a population of 503,360 in the villages and upon the farms. I could supply the figures for the other provinces 'but I understand at this late stage there is at least a moral time limit upon our speeches. Therefore, I shall not take up the time of the house by quoting these various statistics. For every person living in the towns of Canada there are no more than six living in the cities. As these expenditures are allocated, all that Alberta will get is $150,000 for a post office and administration building at Banff, $1,200,000 for barracks in Calgary, $200,000 for Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks in Edmonton, and $7,400 for a telephone line from Keg river to Carcajou. It is on behalf of those who live in the small towns that I speak to-day. I will speak for the farmers later. A member on the other side said that some of the money to be expended on these barracks in Calgary might easily be transferred to his district in Gaspe or the, town in which he lives; I forget what he said. Well, I might say that at least $50,000 of this money could easily be transferred to the town of Vegre-ville where we have police, headquarters, because these men have absolutely no housing. I would therefore ask the minister if at all possible to reconsider this vote so that some of the towns in our province might come in on the allocation of these expenditures.
Take the maritime provinces. There are only about a million people there, and not only from what I have heard from members from that part of the country, but from' what I have read in newspapers and magazines, they are not suffering from the depression as we are in the west. In the three prairie provinces we have 2,350,000 people as compared with a little over 1,000,000 in all the maritimes; yet the maritimes have received $5,000,000 whereas the province of Alberta

receives only $1,700,000. The maritimes are receiving $100,000 more than the three prairie provinces put together. In conclusion I do not think I can do better than quote to the house the views of the various chambers of commerce in the west regarding the allocation of these expenditures so far as the small towns are concerned. Here is a resolution passed in a very large district in Alberta:
Whereas the effects of the depression have been equally disastrous to all classes of urban communities, in that many of the smaller centres have a relief burden as great (on a per capita basis), as the largest cities;
And whereas the tax-paying ability of the residents of much smaller centres has become seriously impaired because of depressed business conditions;
And whereas the people of the dominion, regardless of place of residence, w'ill indirectly pay for any national program of works that may be instituted:
Be it therefore resolved, that we, the boards of trade and chambers of commerce of north eastern Alberta in conference assembled at Vegreville, this 15th day of January, 1934, petition the government of the dominion and province respectively, as follows:
1.	That any program of public works be so framed as to afford relief from the unemployment burden to all classes of urban municipality alike.
2.	That any such program be of a nature to be of lasting benefit to the province generally and be designed to create buying power and debt paying ability in the smaller as well as the larger centres.
3.	That employment on any works instituted as a part of the national program be afforded to unemployed on the basis of merit only, and without reference to former domicile. Provided, however, that this condition shall not apply, should the municipality in which the work is instituted share in the cost thereof to the extent of at least 33J per cent.
One hon. member to my right said that these moneys should have been expended four years ago. I might add that something of this sort should have been done in 1930 but was not. I believe that more money could be expended, but I certainly do think that some of it should have been allocated to the smaller places-at least more than has been given. I therefore appeal to the minister to do something for the smaller towns.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I wish to call the attention of the minister to a fact which is evident throughout the whole schedule. In fifteen or sixteen different places where public buildings are to be erected, it is indicated in brackets that the site has been acquired. When we are in committee on the bill the minister,
I think, should be prepared to tell us when these sites were acquired. It will be recalled by many that before the war the government of that day was in somewhat the same

Public Works Construction-Mr. Maclnnis
position as the government of to-day. There was a revulsion of feeling in the country against the government after the election of 1911, and so, with another election in contemplation, there was launched a program of public buildings and sites were acquired all over the country. It is true the war came on and that program was not carried out. It may be that these were the sites acquired at that time, and possibly some of them were acquired under the last government; I do not know. At any rate we should like to know. One of the sites acquired before the war is in Manitou, which is in my own constituency, and when this item of 82,000,000 for public buildings generally is before the committee, the minister might do worse than give some attention to the needs of the town of Manitou, where a building of moderate size would meet the needs of the community.
All I wish to say in regard to the bill generally is that while undoubtedly it will do a great deal to relieve unemployment, I am by no means as sanguine as some seem to be that it will enable us to get rid of the dole entirely. The 820,000,000 voted in 1930 did not go far in that direction, and I doubt whether the 840.000.000 which it is now proposed to spend will entirely solve the problem of unemployment relief. If that problem is solved it will not be by reason of this bill but for other causes.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: No doubt the people of Canada have been looking forward to the introduction of this bill ever since the announcement was made early in the winter that such a measure would be brought down. I believe that the people throughout the dominion are interested in this bill, more so possibly than in any other bill, and for that reason I think it is the duty of every hon. member to express his views regarding it..
I will not indulge in any congratulations of the government on bringing down this bill, nor am I going to criticize them for not having brought it down sooner. It has been said that the fault to be found with the bill is that it is four years too late. With that statement I entirely agree. As a matter of fact I believe that if the present opposition had been half as sympathetic in 1930 to the needs of the unemployed as they pretend they are now the government now in power would not be sitting where they are. It is largely because of the unsympathetic attitude of the opposition at that time that the Conservative government came into office.
One criticism I have to make is this. I believe that the money could be spent to far better purpose, at least some of it, than in the way allocated in the schedule. For instance, I notice that in the city of Vancouver there is an amount of 8240,000 for armouries, and I could suggest a number of uses to which the money could to far greater advantage be put in meeting the needs of the people than in building armouries. We need hospitals and schools. Not only in Vancouver but throughout the dominion. We need better homes for the working class and some of this money could be used for that purpose to far better advantage and more in the interests of the Canadian people than for the building of armouries and mounted police barracks. In regard to hospitals I should like to put on record a statement that was made by Doctor Hatfield, head of the tuberculosis clinic of the Vancouver General hospital, quite recently. I am quoting from a news item in the Vancouver Daily Province. This is what he said:
There are fifteen hundred cases of tuberculosis in Vancouver. Two new cases occur every day, and as many as a hundred and twenty cases were found' in one month this year.
^One death occurs every forty-eight hours in Vancouver from the disease, which is causing six times as many deaths here as all other infectious diseases together.
Then he goes on to say:
Doctor Hatfield went on to describe the sad plight of men released from tuberculosis treatment but unable to compete on the labour market immediately. He showed how these men break down from overwork and lack of sufficient nourishment, suffer a relapse and again spread the disease. Such men, he declared, should be cared for until they are fully competent to go into the open labour market again.
But they cannot be cared for because there is not sufficient hospital accommodation to look after them. And for that reason again I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works that he reconsider this item for the armouries in Vancouver and see if at least some of the money cannot be used to take care of the sick that the municipality is unable to take care of at the present time.
I hope before the bill is finally passed every precaution will be taken to see that in all contracts let the fair wage clause will be inserted and that provision will be made for its enforcement with the utmost strictness; also that no subcontracts shall be let or, if such are let, that provision be made that fair wages must apply on all subcontracts as well as on the original contracts.
There has been some criticism of the provision in the bill that where the amount of
4396	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Parent
the work does not exceed $25,000 tenders need not be called for. It is rather an indictment of our present system of government administration that all our work could not as well be done by day labour under the engineers of the Department of Public Works as by calling for tenders and the letting of contracts for the work. I have had some experience of municipal administration and the carrying out of municipal work and we have proved time and again that the work can be done much cheaper than by contractors. As a matter of fact, we can save more than the contractors' profits on every piece of public work done by day labour under a competent engineer acting for the municipality or for the various boards that have been appointed to carry on certain municipal works.
I remember when the Prime Minister brought down the $20,000,000 appropriation at the special session of 1930 he remarked that it was not a solution for the unemployment problem. I hope we shall not consider this public works program as a solution for the unemployment problem, because it is not. We shall have to solve that problem in some other way; it cannot be solved by a policy of public works. It can be solved only when the purpose of our production and our productive effort is used to provide for the needs of our people and not, as is the case at present, for the making of profit.


Louis-Étienne Parent: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay
the house very much in discussing this bill; however, in the interest of my constituency I intend to make a few comments. In principle, I approve of this measure because it affords us the means of relieving the unemployed in this country. However, like many who preceded me in this debate, I find that this measure has been too long delayed. If the $40,000,000 which the government intends to appropriate to public works had been expended two or three years ago, what a difference we would have noted throughout the country in the purchasing power of the people and the ordinary trade! But let us proceed. The bill provides for the construction and improvement of certain public works in urban centres, especially in thickly populated places. I admit that there are more unemployed in urban centres than other centres and rural counties, however, one must remember that unemployment also prevails in rural districts. There are small towns in rural counties. For instance, we have in the county of Terrebonne, the town of St. Jerome with 10,000 population; the towns of St. Therese, Terrebonne and St. Agathe, where I have the honour to reside. These centres

during the last three years of the crisis, had to provide for the needs of a great number of unemployed by carrying out certain undertakings with the help of both dominion and provincial governments. If the entire $40,000,000 are applied to erect buildings whose superstructure is of steel, that will require artisans, experts, skilled labour. Many unemployed-the majority of them-are neither bricklayers, carpenters nor masons, but are purely and simply navvies or labourers. In our rural counties there are many of these people residing in small towns, heads of families who require work. That is one of the reasons why I requested the government to remember rural counties and grant them certain amounts for various works not connected with the erection of large buildings or steel bridges, but with the construction of or improvement on roads and concrete bridges. All are aware, to-day, that with the development and improvement of traffic the subsidiary road to the national highways are called upon to stand the wear and tear of heavy traffic. The bridges have broken down, they must be rebuilt; and who will foot the bill? It will be the farmers who look after the highways and the grades. If the government granted to each county a certain amount to build bridges and improve the roads, labourers and heads of families could benefit by it.
Moreover, sir, we have in counties like the one I have the honour to represent, the advantage of being able to carry on certain work in the forests. We have in Terrebonne, north of Montreal, a large tract of land known as the Mont-Tremblant park, of which it is hoped to make a national park so as to attract tourists to this locality. A great number of shanty men who, in the past, found work in lumber camps from lumber companies, might to-day, be employed in opening up roads, clearing and preparing this large tract of land known as Mont-Tremblant park, which would become a pleasure resort for tourists. This would have the effect of increasing the income of the people of the district who mostly depend on the tourist trade for a livelihood.
I closely followed yesterday, the remarks of the hon Minister of Marine (Mr. Duran-leau) who kindly requested us not to criticize too much, because there are various amounts which will be appropriated to rural counties. He mentioned, among others, an item of $2,000,000 included in the estimates of the department of the Interior. $2,000,000 for the rural counties out of a total of $40,000,000 is a very thin slice. Mention is made of the

Public Works Construction-Mr. Munn
building of highways, of electric lighting systems, aqueducts, drainage, pleasure grounds,, protection work on rivers, etc. Other items should be placed under the same heading as the item to which I just referred, for instance: the item of $60,000 to apply two coats of paint on the steel structure of the Montreal Port bridge. I am quite aware that this work is necessary, but it should be placed in the estimates of Public Works, under "Maintenance" of the Port bridge and not included in this bill as a relief to the unemployed.
There is another item for public buildings in general, improvements, additions, fittings, repainting, painting and other repairs, which should be included in the estimates of the Public Works department. These two items, totalling $2,050,000, should be applied on construction work in rural counties so as to relieve the unemployed who reside in the small centres to which I referred. The quota amounts to but one twentieth of a total amount appropriated if I rely on the statement of the hon. Minister of Marine that $2,000,000 only out of $40,000,000 will be applied to rural counties. One must remember that half the population of Canada is rural, and that a large number of unemployed are to be found in small centres and towns. It will be necessary that more than one twentieth of the total amount be appropriated to public works in rural districts.
As many have stated, I am not finding fault with the amounts granted to other counties. There is an appropriation of $1,500,000 for the constituency of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I am pleased for the citizens of that constituency, however, I think that some consideration should have been given to other parts of the country which have a right to receive, by virtue of this bill, at least some small portion, without in any way affecting the amount of $1,-
500,000	for the constituency of the right hon. Prime Minister. That is why I uphold the rights of the county of Terrebonne which I have the honour of representing, because I think it should be granted about $100,000 for bridge work, improvements on roads and various other works to which I referred. I request but one thing, it is that, by this bill, a fair and just distribution be made among all the counties where unemployment prevails -there are unemployed in all parts of this country-in order that no blame be placed on the government and those who represent the people in this house, because should this bill be adopted in its present form, we shall certainly be criticized.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: I do not wish to take up much time of the house, but I wish to say to the minister that the allotment for British Columbia under this bill is a little under the average. However,
I have no particular complaint, because there are items here under which we may get something which is not specified. During the past two or three months I have made certain requests to the minister concerning repairs to wharves, new wharves, public buildings and other matters. While he has not made any allotment for my riding of Vancouver North I am hoping that he will spend some money in that riding, especially on the wharves and public buildings that I mentioned to him.
In regard to one item in the bill, No. 175, $14,000 for a retaining wall for Stanley Park,
I want to compliment the minister for having that in the bill, but I think the amount should be doubled, then he would have a first class job. I know it will be impossible to make a good job of it for $14,000. I suggest to the minister that before letting this work he get a report as to how much it will take to complete. Another thing in connection with Stanley Park. It belongs, as you know, to the government, and is under lease to the city of Vancouver. It is one of the beauty spots of the Pacific coast. In my opinion it is being neglected, in this respect: some people say Stanley Park is virgin timber, but the fact is that it has been logged off. There is a lot of dead, rotten timber scattered through the jungle that should be cleaned out, as it serves as a breeding ground for the beetles that are destroying the green trees that are left. I have investigated and I know what I am talking about. I think the minister should get a report as to the condition, and that some of this money should be allocated for cleaning up that debris.
Another item that I see in the schedule is an assembly wharf at Nanaimo. I wish to caution the minister about building an assembly wharf there. In my opinion Nanaimo is not a suitable location. Nanaimo is the centre of a coal-mining industry rather than a lumber industry, there are no lumber mills at Nanaimo, and if an assembly wharf is built there it will surely be a failure because the dust from the coal will get on the lumber and when it gets to the planing mills they will wonder what has happened. This is something of which I think the minister should take special note and make sure that the lumbermen of British Columbia want that assembly wharf built at Nanaimo.

4398	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. St-Pere
I am not holding any brief for any other town, but as a practical lumberman I know that Nanaimo is not a suitable location.
I would also advocate the inclusion of a fair wage clause in all contracts, and I think that any work costing over $5,000 should be let by tender.
There is nothing ear-marked for my riding in this bill, but I have made certain representations and am asking that if possible some part of items 75, 77, 78, 79 and 135 be allocated to the works I have suggested. I have not asked for anything unreasonable.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, any one who would hope, through this bill, to see unemployment completely disappear from our large cities, would be very optimistic but not practical. No doubt this measure will somewhat improve the sad plight in which the workmen of Montreal and those of all large cities in Canada find themselves at present.
I accept, in principle, this bill, but with certain restrictions. I trust that no political distinction will be made in distributing the work among those who request it, secondly, wages not only rational but substantial should be paid to them. Many unfair, unjust, I may even say vile acts take place at present under the plea of so called rational wages. I therefore request as an appendage to this bill, not only rational but substantial wages, to which all workmen are rightly entitled. Moreover, I equally request that tenders be the rule laid down in regard work calling for even a smaller outlay than $25,000.
There are in our large cities a considerable number of smal| contractors who, in the past, have contributed more to help the workmen and to increase public wealth than those large companies which operating here and there, whose shareholders are foreigners and managers do not understand the mentality of our workers. These small contractors have had, within the last few years, material lying idle and it is high time that the government allow these people, who have made enormous losses since the beginning of the crisis, not only to utilize their material but to give work to the men they employed in the past.
There is another matter which I want to point out: The hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) insisted the other day in the course of his speech, that the material utilized in these various enterprises should be Canadian in order that this bill should afford still more work to those who in this country have been idle for a number of years.

This measure, I stated a moment ago, will not afford the complete relief expected. What will become of our white shirt employees? What will become of our former office employees? What will become of our youth?


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: The white shirt employees can become bookkeepers.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	The white
shirt employees cannot become bookkeepers?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: They are clerks.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	The present
bill will require bookkeeping, but this work will be performed by the employees of large companies, so that our white shirt people will find very little comfort in the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: You have just referred to small contractors.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: They are all
"cimenteurs" (such liars or cement workers).
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): ' Instead of so often interrupting those who take more interest than he does in endeavouring to relieve the depression existing in our rural districts, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge would be more deserving of praise, if following the example of the Liberal members who spoke just now, he championed oftener in the house the interests of his county.
I shall be brief, sir. It is very fine to present to workers a measure of this kind so as to deceive them, but-I am addressing myself to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-is he or would he be following the example of his government, in favour of cutting out the dole? I state that the dole- necessity is law at present-must still be continued after this act is put into force. It is futile to think for a moment of cutting out the dole, let it be a joint contribution by the dominion government, provincial governments and our cities. I am in favour of continuing the dole, recognizing, with all those endowed with some practical sense, the impossibility, through a bill like this one, of affording a complete solution to the sad unemployment problem. And that, sir, is my last word.


Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he has been informed as to the deplorable condition of the harbour at Whitby, county of Ontario.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions representations have been made as to the necessity for dredging at

Public Works Construction-Mr. Ferland
Whitby. The general vote is in terms sufficiently elastic to permit that work to be done, if we conclude that it should be done.


Vincent Dupuis: No definite answer yet.


William Henry Moore: Have I the assurance of the minister that the matter is under contemplation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not in committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. member may have the assurance of the minister that what he has said to-day will be considered, and the situation at Whitby reviewed.


William Henry Moore: I would not press the matter were it not for the fact that this bill has been staged as a relief measure. There are unemployed in Whitby. It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) that the majority of the undertakings are for non-productive purposes.
I regret the action of the government in spending so much money on such non-productive purposes. May I associate myself with the statement or warning of the leader of the opposition as to the dangers of inflation. However, since the measure is for non-productive purposes, since it is to be financed out of money drawn from the clouds and since we have unemployed in Whitby I would ask that this bill should provide that the unemployed in Whitby may be set to work on the improvement of the Whitby harbour.
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette) (Translation):	A number of speakers, sir,
who preceded me in this debate have in one way or another apologized for taking part in the discussion, stating that their intention was to be brief. There are so many things to say about this bill that I shall immediately state that I shall take the necessary time to make my remarks. The bill under consideration had for a long time been promised to us. It was announced with much flurry and exaggeration during the election campaign of 1930, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his followers promised to settle the unemployment question. Let us examine the promises of this session; for many months we have been promised this bill to relieve unemployment. A few weeks ago our scrupulous Prime Minister stated that he could not introduce this bill before the elections of Ontario and Saskatchewan for fear of influencing the people's vote. I now realize that he was perfectly right. In fact it would have influenced the people. The constituencies set aside in this bill are numerous; there are many needs for which the bill 74726-2781
should have provided, yet they were ignored Had this measure been brought down previous to the Ontario election, there can be no doubt that the poor candidates of Ontario would have had the same fate as those of Saskatchewan, who failed to elect one of their candidates. The Prime Minister feared to harm the chances of the Conservative candidates and that is why he did not wish to embarrass them.
If we consider the bill, on the whole, we find that certain features must be examined. Its object is to relieve unemployment. Therefore, it must provide work wherever there are unemployed. What do we find in this bill? There are in Quebec about 1,400 municipalities. How many are included in this measure? Can any one find more than twenty-four? Among these twenty-four a number have no unemployment problem. Thus, for instance, I could point out to the little municipality of Valois, in the county of Jacques Cartier where, to my knowledge, no unemployed are to be found, but where, however, an expenditure of $25,000 is authorized.
What characterizes this bill, is the total disregard for farmers in centres half urban and half rural, as in the case of the county of Joliette. In cities like Joliette or St. Hyacinthe, and those of the importance of Sherbrooke or Riviere du Loup or in so many other cities of Quebec, where there are so many unemployed, it was an easy matter to provide for public works which would at the same time have helped the farmers. There are many public buildings which could have been erected in such cities. As the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) also pointed out, a moment ago, many of such undertakings could have relieved the unemployed, even outside of cities. For instance, if one examines the present situation in the northern parts of the counties of Joliette, Berthier Maskinonge, 1'Assomption, Montcalm and Terrebonne, one may note that many farmers cannot depend any longer on their land for a livelihood because the returns are insufficient, although in the past the land was profitable and the farmers were comfortably off. There are public works which could be carried out in those northern sections; roads to be built in the county of Joliette, as well as in the county of Berthier-Maskinonge represented by a member who was able to obtain for the town of Berthier a post office which will cost about $48,500.
The government could and should have appropriated for such works a larger amount, since it is an easy task for them to finance
4400	_	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Ferland
undertakings of this nature in a country whose credit, are we to believe our friends in the government, is greater than that of all other nations. The government could have provided for certain undertakings which would have given practical and profitable results to farmers. At the inquiry on the spreads of price and mass purchasing, the disadvantages of tobacco trusts were investigated and it was pointed out to the government that the tobacco growers of Quebec especially those of the counties of Joliette, L'Assomption, Montcalm and Berthier-Maskinonge can no more find markets for their products which they have to sell at exceedingly low prices, a few cents per pound. At a sitting of the committee, the mayor of St. Jacques-l'Achigan, Mr. Joseph Marion, brought out a very interesting memorandum which contained suggestions made by tobacco growers of my district in order to remedy this disastrous and ruinous situation. It concludes as follows at page 1682 of the report:
Our suggestions greatly resemble those made by the Ontario tobacco growers: organization of the official grading through the means of a central warehouse for drying, grading and public auctioning.
The government should have provided for a central warehouse for drying, grading and selling by public auction, in our important district. While giving work, to the unemployed in our district, it should also have provided for cold storage plants for the farmer's perishable products in order, to complete the work undertaken by the co-operative associations of butter-dairies and farm industry products. Perishable commodities could be stored in these plants, such as butter, when, during a few months in the year, prices are low or when there is over production. One could store in those plants, for the time being, the maple products which are marketed without being graded or carefully selected and sacrificed at ruinous prices, while a local market is being flooded with large quantities of this commodity, far more than required by the local population.


Mr. DURANLEAU (Translation):: Will
the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Does he not think that the Marketing of Natural Products Act will permit exactly what he suggests?


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: I regret, sir, that I have to reply in the negative, because I have no faith in the results of the act to which my hon. friend, the Minister of Marine ''Mr. Duranleau) has just referred.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: To be saved, one must have faith.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: Faith will remove mountains.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Am I to understand that the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) has no faith himself in that act?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: I did not make that statement. I am quite confident on the contrary.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Would the hon. member repeat what I did not catch? Will he explain what he means when he states that I have no faith?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: I stated that to be saved, one must have faith.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Then, I
must reply to my hon. friend that if one must have faith to be saved, I doubt very much that he has enough to save his party and government at the next election.
What also Characterizes the bill under consideration, is the particular solicitude of the government to specially favour the Quebec Counties represented in the house by Conservative members. One notes that the government paid special attention and carefully handled the matter.


Joseph-François Laflèche: That is quite natural.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: To this, the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) replies: Quite naturally.


Joseph-François Laflèche: That is natural 1


Charles-Édouard Ferland: This remark is entirely in keeping with his principles, his mentality and with the policy of the Conservative party generally.


Joseph-François Laflèche: You have principles when in the opposition and then when in power, you disown them. That is the difference existing between us.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: We expected that partiality in the distribution of public works in Quebec. If at least they had been distributed in all cities where there are unemployed!-And we are aware that there are unemployed in all cities. The government has not forgotten that it helped the unemployed of all cities in Quebec and that, at present, there are unemployed in all the cities which are not mentioned in the bill and which should have been included among others Sherbrooke, whose population is close on 30,000; Joliette whose population reaches almost 12,000; St. Hyaeinthe, Riviere-du-Loup.

Public Works Construction-Mr. Ferland


Joseph-François Laflèche: Those two counties are represented in the house.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: -and even Hull. I find it ridiculous that the government has, not thought of helping the unemployed of Hull. If there is a city which is suffering from unemployment where the working population is at present in distress it is certainly the city of Hull. The government can certainly not close its eyes to what takes place just outside the limits of the Capital. Yet for the sole reason, obviously-if there are others, we should be told-that Hull is represented by a Liberal member, no work for the unemployed is mentioned, for this municipality, in the bill.
Why should there not be any work in the new diocese of Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm? There is no excuse for ignoring this new county, there is no reason for not affording relief to the people of this new constituency. This county has a number of parishes on the St. Lawrence river, and it could also, have benefited by the work to be undertaken in the various rivers of this country. Particularly in Quebec, a considerable amount of the money to be voted, which represents many millions of dollars, will be utilized in carrying out work on the St. Lawrence or other rivers. One might think that it is "watered stock"- electiofi watered stock.


Alfred Duranleau: Are
you opposed to the work which will be done on the St. Lawrence?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: In principle, I am in favour of the work to be carried out on the St. Lawrence, but not in the way which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine wishes to distribute it.
For instance, I am opposed to spending considerable amounts, hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a concrete wall in order to prevent the embankment in the county of my hon. friend from falling into the St. Lawrence river.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: It is to prevent the county from sliding away!


Charles-Édouard Ferland: There is precisely in this bill a large item, $40,000 to construct a cement wall which according to the hon. Minister's statement would serve to protect another wall that cost $68,000, and also be an extension to the latter.
Especially-this is not the statement of the hon. minister-the said wall will serve to protect the government at the next election. I fear that the protection will be of no avail.


Alfred Duranleau: Time
will tell.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What are the undertakings you have suggested for the county of Joliette?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I suggested a number of undertakings for the county of Joliette, which could also have applied to the county of Berthier and which the hon. member forgot to request. He contented himself with a post office at Berthier. For at least three or four years past this post office has been requested. I am pleased that the hon. member has obtained it and I have no objection to there being erected at a cost of $48,000 a beautiful post office in the town of Berthier and, even, that there should be placed at the main entrance a commemorative bust of the member for Berthier who is not very tall, so that it will not take a great deal of stone, and therefore, will not cost much.
For some time past, sir, a campaign has been waged in the press so as to protest against the deplorable state of the two bridges which link Montreal to the Joliette L'Assomption-Montcalm county. As stated in the press, these bridges are truly a disgrace to the Canadian metropolis; they are in a lamentable state, paved with planks which act like an accordion when automobiles pass over them, the bridges are too narrow and have no sidewalks for pedestrians who travel daily from Charlemagne to Montreal to earn a livelihood.
These pedestrians are constantly exposed to serious accidents. It would be an easy matter to rebuild these bridges with the funds appropriated to relieve unemployment and if there be not sufficient to rebuild them, they could be repaired; the foundations could be strengthened, sidewalks could be added on each side for pedestrians and these' floating planks could be replaced by a cement floor or by some other material. However, it is quite easy to explain that the government did not think of repairing or rebuilding these bridges. The counties of Joliette and L'Assomption-Montcalm are negligible quantities for our friends opposite since they do not even want to let them keep their members and that they remove from these counties, owing to the redistribution of seats, one member out of two.
Such is, sir, the spirit of justice which animates our friends of the Conservative party. This is quite in keeping with their policy of the last few years, it is clearly written in this bill, which is also as unfair as the Redistribution Act by virtue of which there exists in Quebec rural counties that have only about 20,000 population while others have a population of 60,000. To prove
4402	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Fontaine
my statement, that this bill is unfair and that it sets aside the Liberal counties, I have but to point out to the fact that the largest rural county of Quebec, the new county of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has been entirely ignored, not even being mentioned.
Certain municipalities will benefit by this bill; I am very pleased. I have no objection to counties represented by Conservative members being given work; however, I state that counties having Liberal representatives should also have their share, since there are unemployed everywhere.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Chicoutimi and Father Point are in counties represented by Liberals. Lacolle is represented by a Liberal, the member for St. Johns-Tberville (Mr. Rheaume).


Vincent Dupuis: Lacolle has
been transferred (decode).


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: That does not go (colie).


Charles-Édouard Ferland: The hon.
member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) states that some counties represented by Liberals obtained work. It is true that some did; however, in most cases one finds that the reason and justification for this is very obvious. If, for instance, we take Sorel, it was necessary to authorize work in that place, since by the policy of our Conservative friends, the workers at Sorel had been dismissed so as to make place for workers from the counties of Berthier-Maskinonge, Champlain, Yamaska and other Conservative counties, The conservative electors must be taken care of and given assistance wherever they are, even if they are in Liberal counties.
I shall not insist any further, sir; I clearly showed that this bill smacks of partiality, unfairness and " partisanship " the usual policy of the government, and, although the principle of giving out work is accepted by all, I state in closing my remarks that the government is to blame for the way it distributes work.



ROYAL ASSENT

Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before the hon. member
begins his remarks, I should like to transmit to the house the following message from the deputy assistant secretary of the Governor General:
Ottawa, June 28, 1934.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Mr. Justice Rinfret, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.	_
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Deputy Secretary to the Governor General.



SENATE AMENDMENTS

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to
inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate does not insist upon the amendment made to Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith, with which the House of Commons has disagreed.
I also have the honour to inform this house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate does insist upon its amendments made to Bill No. 89, to amend and consolidate the Excise Act, with which the House of Commons has disagreed.



PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stewart (Leeds) for the second reading of Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada.
Mr. T. ADELARD FONTAINE (St. Hyacinthe - Rouville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it unnecessary to discuss at length the reasons, considerations and comments in connection with this bill.
I had the opportunity, recently, to submit to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) in a petition I presented to him on behalf of the people of the county of St. Hyacinthe-Rouville, which I have the privilege of representing in the House, a few requests in connection with work which could be undertaken in my county. I think that one may rightly state that it is unfortunate, nay, most unfortunate, that it was thought proper to set aside or overlook certain counties and some of the principal cities of our province, cities in majority Liberal such as Hull, St. Johns, St. Hyacinthe, iSherbrooke, Joliette and a few others. I do not intend to speak at length on this measure. Every member approves the principle of this bill. Fortunately, as the hon. ministers, once or twice, have pointed out there still remains to distribute quite a considerable amount, 6 or 7 million dollars, I think. I have faith, inasmuch as the county I represent is concerned, that consideration will be given to the requests and petitions that I presented and that they will be acted upon in a practical manner by granting to this county the fair quota to which I know it is entitled.

Public Works Construction-Mr. Fajard


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Speaker, I do not envy the considerable amounts voted to relieve our large cities. It was but fair that the government, after having starved the people by its policy, should have come at last to their rescue and provided food to the working classes. What characterizes the bill under consideration, is the complete denial of work for our rural districts. The government does not seem to remember that, since 1930, our farmers have been in distress, that at the end of each year they witnessed the prices of their products decrease, while, on the other hand, they had to pay the same prices for what they required. It would have been an easy matter, by this bill which, at first, provided for an amount of $50,000,000, to vote some moneys to help the various provincial governments in draining the lands. In Quebec, Ontario and the Maritime provinces, thousands of acres could easily be cultivated, if we had the necessary funds to carry out drainage work, we could thus help our numerous rural families. Since the government also states that it wishes to help the back to the land movement, it would have been an easy task to assist the various provincial governments by granting certain funds to help to clear the land. We would have thus had an actual back to the land movement and the funds would have been distributed equally and fairly to all.
What is happening at present? I represent a rural county and I receive a dozen letters a day from young men inquiring whether it would not be possible for them to find work in the large centres where they know that large undertakings are being carried out. It is all very fine, sir, to erect customs and post office buildings. I have no objection, however, we must realize that these buildings give no returns to the country; they are rather a cause of expenditure, either because of insurance or repairs and maintenance necessary while the money expended for the drainage of lands or to establish settlers, becomes an actual asset. The farmer, at present, pays too much for what he requires. I am certain that, if an audit was carried out to discover the additional amounts which farmers had to pay because of duties on farm implements, barbed wire and fertilizers, we would discover that a large portion of the $40,000,000 which will be expended in large cities, is derived from money contributed by our rural constituencies.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few remarks to those of hon. members on this
side of the house as regards Bill 113. The object of this measure is to provide work for the working classes and reduce the expenses in connection with the dole. If one examines this bill, one notes, generally, that the public works mentioned in Annex A have already ' been requested by liberal members, on many occasions, especially with reference to the Montreal post office-the postal terminus. In 1930, an amount of $6,000,000 had been provided to erect this building. We requested, by our questions and speeches that the unemployed should be relieved, that work should be given by erecting an annex to the customs and excise building at Montreal. As last the city of Montreal obtains what it requested, but it is a little late because such work should have been undertaken at the outset of the crisis under the measure enacted by the house in 1931.
Moreover, we had appropriated in 1929-and that would have served the purpose-$50,000000 for the Canadian National. This was carried in the house on division and without discussion. In 1930, about $12,000,000 were expended and the balance remained in the Public Treasury. This would have provided much work, especially for labourers. I cannot figure how, through the projected public works, our workers will obtain much work, although they are the ones who suffer most in Montreal, in our cities and rural sections. When contracts are to be awarded in Montreal, the trades union people will be employed and quite a number of them still have a little work in building and repairs, but one will find out that there will be no work for those who receive the dole, those on whom the factory doors are closed,. at present, and for the labourers without any special trade.
The work will be done in the central part of Montreal, except for a very small part in the eastern section of the city. As to the Western part where unemployment greatly prevails, no work will be available for our workmen. The centre of the town will become the Mecca! All will endeavour to reach it in caravans or in processions so as to obtain work and the government shall require a good employment bureau, capable men, and secretaries to choose these workers, to compensate them for the dole which will end about July 15 or August 1, next.
I have my doubts about sections 6, 7 and 8 of the bill. If you suppress the dole you will be faced with work of urgency because municipalities will call for help, they want to be given work as soon as possible. Provinces and rural centres are doing the same, all are on their way to Ottawa! What steps
4404	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Mercier
will the government take when faced with section 7 of the bill? In schedule A, one notes that, out of 163 items, 73 of them, when added, only amount to $25,000 or even less. That means in urgent cases the government will award the work without tenders. Patronage will completely prevail in each county; contracts will be awarded under instructions from the minister solely, and tenders will not be called because the government will invoke section 7 which reads as follows:
In the ease of work of pressing emergency in which, in the opinion of the governor in council delay would be injurious to the public interest ...
The moment you suppress the dole, all these undertakings will become urgent, the government may resort to section 7 on all work costing $25,000 or less-73 out of 163- will be awarded without tenders.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Is that
a crime?


Paul Mercier: Public interest requires that the work be carried out on the most economic terms possible. When a government awards a contract of $25,000 for work which can be done for
S10.000	or $15,000, the public treasury is the loser.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: How does it happen that Quebec never publicly calls for tenders?


Paul Mercier: We are not in Quebec but in Ottawa.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Fortunately.


Paul Mercier: According to the act in force, any dominion contract for an amount over $5,000 must be awarded after public tenders have been called for by the Public Works department. The present bill will do away with this provision of the present statute. The member who is fortunate enough to obtain work for his county will be master of the situation. In the Christmas tree erected in June-it is the first time I see such an event in midsummer-blue and red stockings hang. You Conservatives will find in your blue stockings the jewels, the work which your party will award you, while we Liberals, will find nothing or almost nothing. You placed potatoes in our stockings, but from now on until the dominion election, you will discover that your contracts of public works will change into cabbage leaves and that our potatoes will turn to sweet potatoes; and this under the magic rod of the Canadian people.

In 1930, we had voted funds for numerous works. To-day the government places in the schedule of the bill works which should have been included in the budget. And what became of the work recommended in 1930? An item of many thousands of dollars had been approved for a post office in the constituency which I have the honour of representing. It disappeared like a cloud in the skies of St. Henri. What became of the suppression of level crossings in the same county? If the contract of the Canadian National had been carried out such as enacted in the dominion statutes, we would have to-day the free circulation of traffic in the western part of Montreal.
In connection with unemployment work, how far advanced is the construction o.f the tunnel under the Lachine canal at Cote St. Paul, linking the municipal wards of St. Henri and Cote St. Paul? The act authorizing the construction of this tunnel was approved on January 15, 1931, by the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec. It will be found at chapter 124 of the Quebec statutes, 21 George V, 1930-31.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Did
you vote for it?


Paul Mercier: That was in Quebec and I sit in Ottawa. As a member of this house I am in favour of the immediate construction of this tunnel. His Worship the Mayor, Camilien Houde, at the request of the citizens of the western part of Montreal, had this measure enacted. In 1931, when he ruled in Montreal and was leader of the opposition at Quebec, his executive and councillors went down to Quebec to press the passing of this act, authorizing the construction of two tunnels under the Lachine canal, one at Wellington street and the other at Cote St. Paul, which were to link the municipal wards of St. Henri and St. Paul. With that in view he had then obtained from the legislature the authorization of making a loan of $5,500,000 for those two tunnels. He is again in office in 1934; he is at the head of the municipal destinies of the city of Montreal. He 'will soon be granted, through the cooperation of his friends opposite and ours, an amount close to $4,000,000. With these $4,000,000 he will undertake the work promised at the time, and which he requested and had adopted at Quebec. The preamble of the act reads as follows:
. .. there will result considerable advantages for the public as regards traffic and the help which the execution of such works will bring to the unemployed.
However, this statute will only come in force inasmuch as unemployment prevails in

Public Works Construction-Mr. Mercier
the city of Montreal. Section 2 chapter 124 of the statutes of Quebec, 21 George V, 1930-31, reads as follows:
The said city is authorized to enter in such contracts as it may deem advisable with the federal government and the Montreal Tramways Company for the purpose of obtaining from one or the other or from both a contribution in money to assist it to pay the cost of such undertakings.
A delegation in 1931 interviewed the government and the latter immediately approved of the construction of the tunnel under the Laohine canal at Wellington street. According to the act these $5,500,000 were to serve to build the two tunnels, however, realizing that the funds were not sufficient, another delegation the following year went down to Quebec, and the $5,500,000 were increased to $7,000,000. I now find in this act, chapter 106 of the Quebec statutes, 22 George V, 1931-32, an act amending the statute 21 George V, chapter 124, passed on February 19, 1932, the following:
The cost of the Wellington tunnel must not exceed four million two hundred and twenty thousand dollars and the balance of the five million five hundred thousand dollars must be applied towards the cost of the other tunnel.
That is clear. The tunnel of Wellington street was to only cost $4,420,000; if we deduct this amount from the total of $5,500,000 for the two tunnels, there remains a balance which the city of Montreal must have in their treasury for the construction of this second tunnel so as to relieve unemployment as stipulated in the Quebec statutes. The municipal administration which is again in office in Montreal must have in the treasury for the construction of the second tunnel, an amount of $1,280,000. As the work on this tunnel, according to the figures of a competent civil engineer, Mr. Jean-Paul Lalonde, of Montreal, would cost $1,114,474, there still remains sufficient to build the tunnel of Cote St. Paul. The amount of $1,500,000 which is the difference between $5,500,000 and $7,000,000 must certainly be [DOT] applied to the necessary expropriations for the two tunnels, that of Wellington street and Cote St. Paul. There still would remain enough, a few hundred thousand, to carry out the necessary expropriations of the streets ending at the tunnel of Cote St. Paul, and those on the St. Henri and St. Paul sides. I maintain that the dominion government are directly interested in this work. They have indirectly pledged themselves to build these two tunnels. Let them provide work for the unemployed of Quebec. When statutes were jointly enacted by the city of Montreal and the Quebec legislature,
authorizing such work as a special relief for the unemployed; when, on the one hand, the government has already placed in the supplementary estimates an amount of $785,300 as its quota to construct the Wellington street tunnel, I state that, if this work is carried out, the government would be providing work for our workmen. Out of the total cost of this undertaking amounting to $1,114,474.67, $582,251.85 would be applied to material and $186,440.35 would be paid to labourers, the unemployed who prefer to work rather than receive dole cheques. That is how the government could help the unemployed and at the same time, carry out an undertaking indirectly contracted by recognizing this statute and by partly applying it to the construction of a tunnel under the Lachine canal at Wellington street and partly to another tunnel at Cote St. Paul.	_
I am not the member for Jacques Cartier, however, I appeal to my hon. friend the representative of that county (Mr. Laurin), that he may plead with the government, as the latter wishes to decrease the unemployment, especially when the city of Montreal must have in its treasury $1,280,000 which has not been expended although authorized to do so. The government can help to complete this work by its contribution as it did for the construction of the Wellington street tunnel.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Are you
for or against this bill?


Paul Mercier: What bill?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: The bill
in connection with public works submitted to the house.


Paul Mercier: 
Alfred Edgar MacLean: Mr. Speaker, just before this bill goes into committee I would like to make a few remarks and bring to the attention of the house a resolution that has been passed by the board of trade of the town of Summerside. In looking over the amount that is allocated to Prince Edward Island, I notice that it is less than $100,000; in fact, it is only $97,000. If we take proportional representation over the dominion, an amount of $40,000,000 would mean an average of about 84 per head.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is my hon. friend taking into consideration in any way whatever the general vote out of which substantial amounts may be spent in his province?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think the minister should wait until I get started. If he wants to know about the general vote I think I can make a good long speech on that, because in the general vote there is nothing for Prince Edward Island. There is an item for the province of about $50,000, but in the past years we in that province have had amounts ranging from $229,800 in 1928 to $339,800 in 1927. Now my hon. friend comes along and says: We will give you $96,000, and because there might be some repairs made out of the main estimates you had better sit down and keep quiet. I am not going to do that; I am going to present my case. If we got our just rights according to population we should receive out of this grant some $332,000. People may say: There is no unemployment in Prince Edward Island. So far as unemployment money is concerned that province has received less consideration from this government than has any other province. We could have used the money there very well, but the people are not built that way, to use a common expression, and they get along in the best way they can. But when the minister says that they are going to spend this money only where there is unemployment he can come to Prince Edward Island and he will find that our people down there can use a good portion of this amount. The board of trade of Summerside have sent me the following resolution, and I have
The Royal Assent

written to the minister in connection with the same:
I am directed to communicate to you two resolutions adopted by this board of trade at a meeting held on the 11th instant. These were sponsored by the recently formed agriculture committee of the hoard and thought to merit support.
1.	That in the event of a government grant being available for public works, serious consideration be given the construction of rustproof warehouses for potatoes at various rail-road^stations throughout this province/'
2.	"That the department of public works be asked to fortify against frost the warehouses on the government wharf at Summerside, by papermg and sheathing the studding inside the building and by stopping the drafts under this building."
This is signed by R. A. Gordon, secretary of the board of trade.
Now, I have no objection to this work being done, but what we all wonder at is why this program was not brought down in the regular way in the main estimates. I think my hon. friends opposite will have a lot of difficulty explaining to the country why they told the country they were saving
817,000,000 in the estimates, heralded it in big-headlines all across the country from coast to coast, and then at this late date come in with this bill to expend 840,000,000. It is only a belated effort, it should have been in-the main estimates as in former years. In-the province of Prince Edward Island we have always received from $229,000 to $340,000 per year for public works under the Liberal government.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house m the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, had been pleased to give in His Majestys name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
An Act for the relief of Doris Jones Earp
Am	Act	for	the	relief	of	Jean Gordon
Worden Ellis.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Mary Alice
Beatrice Featherston Moxon.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Ethel Irene
Jrrobert.
An Act respecting Courts of Admiralty.
An Act respecting the Caughnawaga Indian Keserve and to amend the Indian Act.
An Act to amend the Inquiries Act.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific .Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate Ancient Foresters' Mutual Life Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Bureau of Translations.
An Act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act
An Act respecting the Canadian National Hallways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1934, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
An Act respecting Dominion Companies.
An Act to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act respecting Banks and Banking.
An Act to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
An Act for the relief of Mary Mabel Taylor Johnson.
An Act for the relief of Blanche Marjorie Short Hanson.
An Act for the relief of Fenwick William Smith.
AclandACt ^ reIief °f Edward Hea<Bey
An Act for the relief of Ella Gertrude Bush Adamson.
An Act for the relief of Helen Cohen Levine. An Act for the relief of Annie Rosner.
WesUafeMacLarem ^ °f GraySe Irene An Act for the relief of Naomi Willard Lyman Robertson.
An Act to amend the Meat and Canned -roods Act.
An Act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
An Act to amend the Dominion Notes Act. An Act to repeal the Finance Act.
A" Act„ to repeal Chapter four of the Statutes of 1915.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1935

[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Aziz Koudsy, otherwise known as Eddie Coudsy.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Seymour Hammond Zavitz.
An Act for the relief of Lucille Margaret Turbin Kelly.
the relief of Esther Liverman
Kazenel.
An Act for the relief of Aileen Marie lhompson Robb.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Stewart (Leeds) for the second reading of Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada.
Alfred Edgar MacLean: I notice that $56,000 of the amount allocated to

Public Works Construction-Mr. MacLean
Prince Edward Island is for dredging. No doubt all hon. members will agree that that is an operation which is taken care of almost every year in the general vote. In looking up the estimates for the year 1929 I noticed that for the maritime provinces there was a vote of 8540,000 for dredging. I think hon. members will agree with me that dredging is a work which will not give very much employment to those who are out of work. Two dredges have been tied up in the province of New Brunswick since 1930 when they should have been doing important work, and they have remained tied up ever since this government took office. Now, on the eve of a general election, these dredges will be put into operation and sent over to the province of Prince Edward Island to do work costing $56,000. No doubt my good friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) will see that a crew of good New Brunswick men are on the boat when she comes over to my province to do the work. If that is the case I do not suppose the men in Prince Edward Island will derive very much employment from those dredging operations.
Section 7 of the bill provides that works up to $25,009 may be done without tender. When only a few years ago hon. members now sitting on the government side sat in opposition they were strong in their condemnations of the government then in power because it did not call for tenders even on contracts below $5,000. The Public Works Act states emphatically that works costing over $5,000 must be let by public tender. I regret that the department has departed from the old regulation and by the present legislation has overruled it. I believe that is one feature of the bill which the people will look ijpon with a little suspicion and they will wonder why the government has taken such action. In 1930 there were appropriations for a great many public works in the province of Prince Edward Island, but I regret to say that when hon. members took office they saw fit to cancel them. I remember that certain of our people have been asking ever since confederation for a vote for a boat harbour at Skinners Pond in the constituency I represent but no government had been good enough to put an amount in the estimates for that work until in 1930 we succeeded in getting an amount of some $30,000, and it would have been of great benefit to the fishermen of that community if the work had been allowed to go forward, but the Minister of Public Works has seen fit to cancel that very important work, and the fishermen in that community
have had to labour under very great disadvantages ever since.
I would like to point out again that instead of Prince Edward Island receiving $332,000, which would be our share of this appropriation on the basis of population, actually we are receiving only $97,000. I can scarcely understand why that should be so, because there are three very strong supporters of the present government sitting on the other side of the house, and one of them is a member of the cabinet. I had really hoped that this program of public works would have been much larger than it is. There are a great many ways in which money could be spent to splendid advantage in the province of Prince Edward Island. Works are needed to be done and the money could have been spent in that way for the relief of unemployment. I hope that even at this late date my good friend the Minister of Public Works will see fit in the supplementary estimates which he will bring down before the close of the session to provide some larger amounts to take care of the needs of the province of Prince Edward Island.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the purpose of this bill, No. 113, an act to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada, is more or less to provide relief for unemployment. I should like to know from the Minister of Public Works on what basis the relief has been apportioned to the various constituencies throughout the dominion.
Yesterday the leader of the opposition attempted to build up a case apparently to show that his constituency of Prince Albert had been neglected in this, program of public works because it happened to be represented by himself, a Liberal. My complaint to-day is that the constituency of North Renfrew, as well as the constituency of South Renfrew, and we can hardly consider them yet in the Liberal fold, have not received any consideration at all in Bill No. 113.
More than that I notice that this good city of Ottawa, and you could hardly say it has been represented by a Conservative member for many years-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Naturally my good friend from Ottawa feels very pleased with the appropriations that are made in this bill for the city of Ottawa, because the city of Ottawa manages to get in this bill about $2,464,000, while up in the Ottawa valley, where we have Conservative members, we receive absolutely
4410	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Cotnam
nothing. So the government cannot be accused of political partisanship in the way in which these moneys are being apportioned.
We have in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and more particularly in the town of Pembroke, a very serious unemployment situation. In that town we have a population of 10,000 people and during the last three or four years our unemployment situation has been very acute, for various reasons probably more or less geographical in character. In the Ottawa valley industry in that particular locality has been largely confined in the past few years to the lumber trades. We had two large mills situated in that locality, but they have scarcely operated at all in the last four years, and that is also true of the branch factory of the Eddy Match Company where they manufacture match splints for export. Unemployment has been rife in the town. We have between 350 and 400 families at the present time drawing direct relief, and the town is now in the hands of a board of supervisors,.
On various occasions in the past it has been necessary to carry on certain dredging operations in that locality. Last year during the period of low water in the Ottawa river, and that situation was more or less prevalent throughout the Dominion of Canada, the water was so low that for a time it seemed that even these wood-working plants that were operating would be compelled to close down because their logs were exposed, and it was almost impossible to bring them into the mills from the areas where they were boomed in. That condition became very acute, and this year it has become aggravated, as the minister well knows, because of the fact that the Timis-kaming dam went out a few years ago, adding to our difficulties in the lower stretches of the Ottawa river. When these logs are out of the water and exposed to the sun, the management there tell me that eventually the logs become almost unfit for the purpose of making match splints.
I have urged on the minister at various times the necessity for taking some action that would be more or less permanent in character. At the present time they contemplate rebuilding the Timiskaming dam, and claim that if that is done it may relieve the situation but I would like to point out that even when the old Timiskaming dam was on the upper stretches of the Ottawa river we still had our difficulties with low water levels on the lower Ottawa, and it is not at all certain that the Timiskaming dam even when it is rebuilt will relieve our difficulties in the town of Pembroke and in those localities situated

below the town. At various times dredging operations have had to be carried on, but as everyone knows they are not of a permanent character, and have to be repeated year after year. In a locality of that kind it would appear that you do not get much for your money spent on dredging because in the end the silt and dirt fill up the part that was dredged and it is only a matter of time until you are as badly off as before.
I have urged on the minister at various times the necessity for having his engineers study the local water situation on that section of the Ottawa river at the town of Pembroke. It has been proposed that a regulating dam might be constructed below Pembroke two or three miles to take care permanently of the low water levels on the Ottawa river. There has been a very strong agitation in the ' town of Pembroke and also in the county of Pontiac across the river in the province of Quebec. On Allumette island we have about four thousand people, and during the late fall months when the ferry does not operate and again in the spring these people are practically marooned on that island for from four to six months. They have no hospital facilities, and consequently there is a very serious situation of times for these people. For many years there has been an agitation that a bridge should be constructed which would link the mainland of the Ontario shore with Allumette island across the river. I think plans and specifications have been drawn up in the Public Works department, but the proposed structure was always too expensive apparently Moreover, this entailed the cooperation of the provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario and the federal government at Ottawa. Probably the first demand should be made by the people of Quebec, as the people living on Allumette island are the ones who would be primarily interested in having a bridge at that point. On the other hand, such a bridge would be of decided benefit to Pembroke and that section of Renfrew county. Pembroke is a natural market for the farm products of the island as well as the wood products which are sold in large quantities to the wood-working plants in Pembroke. As I say, during the spring and fall of the year these people are shut off from their natural market sometimes for weeks at a time.
A regulating dam at Morrison's island, just below Pembroke, would take care of the low water level situation which affects the woodworking plants in Pembroke and at the same time it could be so constructed that if at some time in the future Ontario and Quebec were willing to enter into an agreement with the federal government, it could be utilized as part

Public TUorfcs Construction-Mr. MacDonald
of a bridge project. The lack of a bridge is a very serious matter to the people on Allum-ette Island. I am pleading as much for the people of Pontiac county in Quebec as I am for the people of Pembroke. If this regulating dam were constructed its cost could be considered as the contribution which the federal government might wish to make to a bridge project which might be carried out eventually.
I cannot conceive of a more opportune time to carry out this work. It would provide employment to the 350 or 400 unemployed in Pembroke. Employment would be provided during this coming year and until the lumber industrj' comes back a little more than it has up to the present time. I urge the minister to give this Tory constituency a little more consideration in this Bill No. 113. Perhaps out of the generosity of his heart even at this eleventh hour he may be able to give us a little consideration. I am vitally interested in the providing of work for the unemployed of Pembroke and I cannot conceive of any other undertaking which would prove to be of more benefit to those people than the erection of this regulating dam.
Mr. FINLAY MaoDONALD (Cape Breton South):	Mr. Speaker, I had intended reserving my remarks until the item in the schedule in which I am particularly interested was reached but as most hon. members have been making their appeals on the second reading and as it may facilitate the passing of the schedule as a whole, I want to take a few minutes to present the case of Cape Breton South. There is but one item in the schedule, one for 811,500 to cover a warehouse extension at Sydney. Of course, we are very grateful for that but I want to point out to the minister, as I have already pointed out, that this amount is totally inadequate to meet the requirements of Sydney as far as wharf extensions are concerned. In order that the business now passing through Sydney harbour can be handled, a large extension should be made to the wharf erected by the late government. The expenditure of $200,000 is needed to furnish proper facilities to handle the freight now passing through this harbour. We now have five lines of steamers serving a population of 70,000 within a radius of fifteen miles. The present wharf is capable of holding but one steamer and the warehouse will not accommodate the freight landed from that one steamer. Numerous representations by the city council and the board of trade of Sydney have been made and some severe condemnation has been passed upon my humble self for the lack of activity in securing this vote. I want to assure them that this has not been from any want of diligence on
my part. I think the minister will testify that I have bothered him quite often in connection with the matter and at one time I thought I had convinced him as to the justice of our case. If it is at all possible, I appeal to him to give some consideration to this matter. We have the Newfoundland and Canada steamship line; we have the Provincial steamship line; we have the Nova Scotia steamship line; we have the Canada steamship line and in addition we have been given the promise that two large ocean liners will call at Sydney next summer. None o,f these boats can be accommodated at the present wharf. I am not entirely hopeless in regard to this matter as I know that when the minister is convinced of the necessity of this extension, it will be put through.
There is one other appeal which I want to make and which is possibly based on stronger grounds. I refer to the construction of a public building in New Waterford. This is a mining town of about 8,000 population and is possibly one of the most up-to-date towns in eastern Canada. It has a hospital, school, water service, concrete sidewalks, paved streets -and a post office in a shed on a back street.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I have one like that.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: Not quite as bad as this. The former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) visited this town in 1930 and was so convinced of the necessity of a public building that he made strong representations to the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott). He did not succeed in convincing that hon. gentleman of the necessity of the work. But in 1931 the present government was convinced of the necessity of it and an item was passed in the estimates for $45,000. The site for the building was secured; tenders were called for, plans and specifications provided, and the contract given for the construction of the building. The contract was cancelled before construction began and from that time to this we have been pleading in vain for a public building there. Naturally the people of that town are very much incensed. It is to be expected that they will pass, and as a matter of fact they did pass, very censorious resolutions on the government and on the humble individual supporting that government; but I have no doubt on this point, that the minister will admit there must have been an oversight in connection with this building for which provision had already been made in the estimates in 1931. But preparations will be made for the erection of the building before many months have gone by.
There is one thing that is rather amusing to the people of the island of Cape Breton.
4412	COMMONS
Excise Act

Senate Amendments
For many years that island has been the water earner and the wood hewer for the rest of the province of Nova Scotia. Cape Breton has been carrying Nova Scotia on its back for over a hundred years. We have the natural resources in that county, and the coal royalties have contributed the large portion of provincial revenue; but we get very little in return for it. Before 1820 Cape Breton was a separate province, but in 1820, through the characteristic stupidity of some of the English aristocrats of that day, it was tied on to Nova Scotia and ever since then it has been the tail of the dog. So that it is rather natural that we should feel a little resentful when large amounts such as appear in this bill are sprinkled over the rest of the province on the ground that they are for national ports. May I tell this house and the country too that the natural national ports of Canada are in the island of Cape Breton. Artificial ports have been built up at Halifax and Saint John and many millions have been spent in their construction; but the time will come when the very forces of geography will work so that the town of Louisburg will come into its own, and the city of Sydney as well. Let me give one illustration of the injustice perpetrated on that little town of Louisburg. In 1758 it was taken by the English. At that time it was the most important French fortress in Canada. By the taking of Louisburg the taking of Quebec the following year was made possible; had Louisburg not been taken Quebec would never have been taken. At that time over $25,000,000 had been spent in fortifications in Louisburg but they were all destroyed and Halifax was built up. Since that time millions upon millions have been spent decorating the Plains of Abraham in Quebec city while Louisburg, a town of such historic importance, has been languishing.
I want to close with one last appeal to the minister. I hope, and I have reason to hope, that within the four corners of the act itself some provision will be found to remedy what we at least consider a great injustice to the county of Cape Breton.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT



FREE CONFERENCE WITH THE SENATE IN VIEW OF AMENDMENTS

Robert Charles Matthews: By unanimous consent
of the house I move:

That a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with Their Honours to consider certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 89, an act to amend and consolidate the Excise Act, to which amendments this house has not agreed and upon which the Senate insist, and any amendment which at such conference it may be considered desirable to make to said bill or amendments thereto.
That the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stewart (Leeds) for the second reading of Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain, public works and undertakings throughout Canada.
Mr. CAMERON R. MeINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, before Bill No.
113 is given its second reading, I should like to make a few observations with regard to its negligible operation in the northern part of Saskatchewan. I recognize the principle of a public works program in the curtailment of unemployment; I believe that is a generally recognized principle on and off this continent. I recall, I think it was in 1928, the Senate of the United States appointed a special committee to investigate unemployment and to report thereon. If I remember correctly, about the same year a committee of the House of Commons in Great Britain was appointed to investigate unemployment conditions and to report thereon. In both those reports the principle of a public works program was accepted; I might say that it was only accepted as one factor therein because it was not the only solution put forward for the relief of unemployment. Another principle was education; another, immigration; another, monetary reform; still another, industrial reorganization and, lastly, freer trade. But we are dealing to-night with a program of public works and I would like to speak briefly in a general way for Saskatchewan and in a particular way for the constituency of North Battleford.
I would like to deal with three points and, as I said, somewhat briefly. First, in looking at the preamble of the bill I notice that the argument is put forward that the construction program outlined therein will be for the general advancement of the country and to accelerate recovery. Possibly it may accelerate recovery; I believe it will to a certain extent, but this acceleration will be only sectional and not national. Consequently I fail to understand why the word

Public Works Construction-Mr. McIntosh
"national" is used in the preamble, because it seems very evident that the legislation is in a paramount way sectional and not national.
If we look at the bill from the standpoint of a percentage basis, what do we find? We find an approximate appropriation of $39,000,000 for Canada and as Canada has a population of slightly over 10,000,000, that means about $4 per capita. Saskatchewan has a population of approximately 1,000,000, so at $4 a head we ought to have on a mathematical or percentage basis about $4,000,000 spent in the province. How much is to be spent in that province? We find that the only amount to be spent in Saskatchewan is $675,000, or practically one and one-half per cent. There- * fore, if we look at the problem from the standpoint of population, the proportion ought to be around at least ten per cent, which would mean well over $3,000,000 or $3,900,000 odd.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: In arriving at these figures does the hon. member in any way take into consideration the large general votes for that province?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, I do not, and so far as northern Saskatchewan is concerned there is no large vote. As I will show by the time I have finished, there is in the main estimates hardly a dollar for northern Saskatchewan.
Again, if hon. members will look at the problem from the standpoint of area, Saskatchewan has an area of one-thirteenth or one-fourteenth of that of Canada. If you divide the amount by thirteen or fourteen, you will still get about $3,000,000. So, on a double count, from the point of view of population and area or of special need Saskatchewan is not getting a fair deal in the legislation now before the house. That is one point.
Let me proceed now to deal with the performance that we are going to get under this measure. From a percentage or mathematical point of view the thing is absolutely wrong so far as Saskatchewan is concerned; it cannot be defended, and as a representative of northern Saskatchewan I want to protest and to put some facts in a very plain and emphatic manner before hon. members on both sides.
I reviewed the percentage principle that is lacking in this legislation; let me go on to see what the performance is. The performance is simply spending in Saskatchewan $675,000 out of a total of $39,000,000. Where is this money to be spent? In two Conservative ridings in that province, one in the constituency of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), and the other in the constituency of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks). To prove that this is a political bill, I may say that the hon. member for Rosetown went home during the provincial election and on the platform in Saskatchewan used the argument that there was going to be a bridge built over the South Saskatchewan river at Outlook and in that way he tried to hold one of the local ridings for the Tory party. He could not do this; he hopelessly failed, 'but the very fact that he used this argument is proof positive that the foundation of this bill is to a very large degree political.
Let me go just a step further. In 1931 we had a letter from the Dominion Unemployment Relief department, Ottawa, under date of August 7 of that year and we were asked to report on undertakings in our constituencies that would alleviate or somewhat reduce unemployment. I fancy all members from western Canada, whether Conservative or Liberal, did report. Personally, I know I reported but there was nothing done. What was reported on about three years ago? I said: If you want to handle unemployment in northern Saskatchewan there is much work to be done. For instance, my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred the other day to colonization roads. That was one of the undertakings I recommended three years ago. Colonization roads should be built for the farmers of northern Saskatchewan if the government was going to undertake any relief program. Then certain other roads could be built for better transportation facilities. Further, the Beaver river, 200 miles north of North Battleford and 100 miles from Meadow Lake could be cleared of some of its rocks in order to improve transportation facilities between that great northern area and northern, central and southern Saskatchewan. But in this bill nothing is to be found with regard to any of those greatly needed facilities. More than that, I also recommended that the bridge at Ceepee on the great traffic artery from North Battleford to Saskatoon be built over the North Saskatchewan river, if there was to be any real undertaking started with a view to solving the unemployment problem in that part of the province. I have here a telegram from the North Battleford board of trade on that point. It reads as follows:
North Battleford. Sask.,
June 21, 1934.
C. R. McIntosh, M.P.,
House of Commons. Ottawa.
Executive of North Battleford hoard' of trade keenly disappointed that there is no provision in announced relief program for work in northwestern Saskatchewan. Strongly urge

4414	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. McIntosh
representations be made to government to steel St. Walburg-Bonnyville railway; also to construct traffic bridge over North Saskatchewan river at Ceepee.
F. Wright,
Commissioner.
So you have in that telegram the North Battleford board of trade supporting the request for the building of this bridge at Ceepee, and also strongly backing up the placing of rails on about seventy miles of grade north of St. Walburg towards Edmonton. But in the bill there is not a word about these two great undertakings in the constituency of North Battleford.
Then I have a resolution here from the rural municipality of Great Bend, No. 405. It reads as follows:
Whereas there is a possibility of a bridge being constructed across the North Saskatchewan river in the near future, as a relief measure;
We, the council of the rural municipality of Great Bend, No. 405, wish to go on record as petitioning that this proposed structure be at the present Ceepee ferry crossing, believing this to be the logical and strategical point for the same, as records will show that this ferry crossing in the past has carried the heaviest load in the province, and is also on the main No. 5 provincial highway.
We would also urge that this work, once approved, be commenced at the earliest possible date, as it would be of considerable assistance in alleviating the relief burden of the adjacent municipalities.
There you have a resolution from a rural municipality and a wire from the North Battleford board of trade backing up what was recommended over three years ago, and this government has been in power now going on four years and has made no attempt to use a dollar of relief money in building colonization roads in the north, or improving transportation between the north and south or doing anything else in a constructive way to help unemployment conditions in the whole of that great northern area.
Mr. QUINN; Their representative in parliament is not effective.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	If my hon. friend will
just attend to Halifax that will be all he can do in the next election. My hon. friend has sung his swan song; his political dirge has sounded.


Mr. QUINN:: Will the hon. gentleman
come and run against me in Halifax? I challenge you now to come down there.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	I might consider that.
May I say it would be a very easy run. My hon. friend would be buried with ballots. I might invite him to come to North Saskatchewan and be politically submerged.


An hon. MEMBER:: He cannot get over the bridge.
Mr. MeINTOSH: There is one thing more I want to mention. This bill runs true to form, true to the policy of high protection that has been guiding the destiny of this country for the past four years. It is eminently selfish. Whenever we get a Tory government putting forward high protection principles under the cloak of unemployment relief we can bet our last dollar that the essence of the legislation is selfish, and sectional, and costly. If unemployment is going to be cut down there is only one way to do it. This program may help, but it will not solve the problem. What must be done is to take down the tariff barriers between Canada and the empire and the world. We have to liberate internal trade by ending artificial price control and trade restrictions. In this bill there is no attempt to do that, consequently as far as a solution of the unemployment problem is concerned I am afraid it will be at best but a half way measure. Then we have to liberate external trade; internal and external trade go together. We have to liberate trade in every direction to help Canada and to enable Canada to help liberate the world. By doing that the Liberal party believes we shall get business, and the moment we get business our industries will get busy, our farmers will be able to sell their produce at home and abroad and unemployment will gradually disappear. In other words, we desire to promote trade with all nations, not only with the empire, not only internal trade, but trade with all the nations of the world, by abolishing the extravagant increases in tariffs that have taken place from 1930 on.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Look at your own record for the last nine years.
Mr. MeINTOSH: Only thus can a contribution be made to the solution of the unemployment problem. In closing let me again express my regret that the Minister of Public Works has done nothing constructive to help conditions in northern Saskatchewan; he has made no attempt to work out a bill on a sound and fair basis; he has done nothing that will mean really anything to northern Saskatchewan. Lastly he has done nothing that will help to free internal or external trade and thereby overcome the serious difficulties that to-day affect the whole of Canada from one ocean to the other.


Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Before the question is put I would like to have just a minute or two to mention three items that affect the constituency of West Lambton

Public Works Construction-Mr. McIntosh
which I represent. First may I thank the minister for including in the estimates provision for the completion of the public wharf at Sarnia by placing on it the warehouse the building of which I have been urging for t'he past three years. The minister is quite conversant with the need for. this, and at one time the matter had proceeded so far that tenders had been called, but then the rod pencil of the government struck it out. In making this grant for the completion of work begun by the late government we shall have brought it to a successful conclusion and will be in a position to utilize to better advantage the fine natural waterfront of the city of Sarnia.
In connection with the experimental cold storage plant for the onion growers of that constituency, I quite appreciate that this is an experiment. I do not believe that the amount is sufficient, but when one gets even a crumb from the table of this government I suppose he should be satisfied. I rise in particular to protest-I am sorry to do this, especially in view of the fact that I do not see in the house any member from t'he county of Essex-because I find included an item of 8600,000 to build an elevator at the c:ty of Windsor. In other words the government is going into the elevator business in competition with the Georgian bay ports, Collingwood, Owen Sound and Goderich. The hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) should be here. The minister kindly received this week a delegation representing these various ridings, consisting of three members of his own political faith together with the representative of the constituency of West Lambton. The views of these gentlemen and of the elevator owners, namely the municipalities in which they are built, have been fully placed before the Minister of Public Works. He quite properly stated that he is carrying out the building program which has been placed on his lap. He did not in any way attempt to shirk responsibility for the item, but he did state, and I believe quite truthfully, that the item of $600,000 had been placed in the schedule on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who, I am sorry to say, is not in his seat. The deputation was received by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is therefore quite conversant with the views of these municipalities. As I have said I am sorry not only that the members from the Essex constituencies are absent, but that hon. gentlemen representing the constituencies in which are Collingwood, Owen Sound and Goderich are not in their places 74726-279J
and are therefore not in a position to add to the protests I am making.
The reason given for including this item providing for the erection of an elevator at Windsor is that there is a need to stimulate the growing of corn in the great southwestern Ontario com belt consisting of Lambton, Middlesex, Kent and Essex. The facts have already been presented indicating that already there is at Walkerville an elevator capable of taking care of 400,000 bushels of corn. At that elevator they have the driers, cleaners and all the equipment necessary to carry on the operation. An attempt has been made to stimulate the growth of corn in those counties, and should the government desire to lease the plant it would be available at a very nominal rental. Yet, despite this fact, at least for the moment-and I say that because I still believe the government will give serious consideration to our representations which may not have been made until after the item was placed in the schedule- the situation I have described exists. First, as I have said, there is no need for this building, and although I have already placed the reasons before the house I shall repeat the chief one, namely that there are already facilities at that point. Secondly there is the fact that the municipality I represent-and I dc* not pretend to speak for the others-is already in the elevator business on the strength of the fact that elevator capacity sufficient to serve the grain trade was needed at these various points. In the city of Sarnia we constructed at a cost of $800,000 an elevator with a 2,000.000 bushel capacity. The municipality issued the debentures, and then by an agreement with the elevator company extending over a twenty year period, entered into an arrangement whereby there would be a return. At the moment the elevator company in Sarnia have managed to keep up their payments of principal and interest, but there is still the sum of $665,000 owing. If the Toronto Elevator Company Limited, owners of the Sarnia elevator, did not buy their own grain, bring it down, and look after it in the businesslike way in which they conduct their business, our elevator would not be filled today, and they would not be able to pay the interest and the principal as it falls due. Yet the government is now proceeding to enter into competition with these municipalities who have staked their financial backing in order to encourage the grain trade of the dominion. I say that if it were only a matter of stimulating the corn trade in the counties I have mentioned I would have no complaint.
4416	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. McKenzie
If we could label the elevator which the government proposes building with the words "for corn only," I would have no complaint. But it cannot be believed that this elevator will not enter into direct competition with the elevators on the bay ports, Goderich and Sarnia. The government is placing in jeopardy the faith of these municipalities in respect of the elevator companies when it goes out into competition with them.
As I have stated, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister are now fully conversant with the facts. Although the item will be reached again in committee I do not intend to repeat what I have said. I earnestly suggest to the minister that before the government enters into open competition with the municipalities who have shown their faith in the grain trade by investing in these elevators at various points, he should consider seriously the representations which have been made to him during the past week. I am glad to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce has now taken his seat, and I suggest he should instruct the Minister of Public Works not to proceed with the construction of the elevator named in the schedule which, I submit, would be in the nature of a duplication and an unnecessary expenditure.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I desire briefly to join with the other hon. members from the province of Saskatchewan who have preceded me in the debate, and to express my dissatisfaction with the amount of money to be allocated to our province. We find only two items; one is a bridge at Outlook costing $275,000 and the other a public building at Regina costing $400,000.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: About half a million
dollars.


Robert McKenzie: These votes would not
have a tendency to relieve the strain in that part of the country where relief is most needed. I have always had some doubt as to the advisability of erecting public buildings as a means of relieving unemployment, because a great deal of the money expended in such works goes towards the purchase of material and for purposes other than the payment for actual labour.
Speaking in this chamber on February 8, I drew to the attention of the government a proposal for the constituency I have the honour to represent, and one which I believe would result in more unemployment relief than either of the proposals outlined in the
[Mr. Gray.l
bill. I referred on that occasion to the proposal to erect a dam over the Souris river west of the town of Estevan. The purpose of the dam in the first place would be to control the flood waters of that river and to give a regular water supply to this growing town. It would also ensure a water supply for the developments which they hope to carry on at that point. The cost as estimated by the engineers who went over the ground a year or two ago was $125,000. The work consists in scraping down two hills into the ravine and river bottom, thereby forming a dam. The width of the space between the two hills is between 1,900 and 2,000 feet. The $125,000 which I have mentioned would to a large extent be expended on day labour and team work. There would be very little necessity for expenditures for material. Plenty of rock is available at the site for any work which would be necessary, and there would be very little need of any investment other than the payments to labour. This work would be of great benefit to the people in [DOT]that constituency who are in need not only of work but of a little money. I believe the town of Estevan has an industrial future. We look upon it as the coming industrial centre of Saskatchewan because of the coal and other natural resources in that area. For the development of these resources a supply of water is essential, and that is one reason why the town officials and practically all the organizations are so solidly behind this project. I understand that at one time there was some international dispute as to whether the Canadian government would be allowed to dam back this water but I am advised now 1 hat the people of the state of North Dakota are very much in favour of the proposal I have put before the house. If the government have the idea of relieving unemployment as much as possible by this schedule of works presented to the house, there is nothing I can think of that might be included in the schedule of this bill that would give more relief for the money expended than this proposal, and therefore I would highly commend it to the government for inclusion in the schedule before this bill passes. -
Mr. JEAN-FRANGOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I do not ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) for any favours, but I would remind him of his duty. He has dealt fairly with me in the past and I hope he will deal fairly with my constituents in the future, and especially during this summer. I ask for nothing. But I would remind the minister that in Temiscouata county, which was cut in the last gerrymander, there are still some very important places. On the shore of the

Public Works Construction-Mr. Pouliot
St. Lawrence river I would remind the minister that there is a wharf at Notre Dame du Portage, which by the will of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his supporters is now a part of the county of Kamouraska. The wharf there was kept in very good repair when the Liberal party was in power, but it has been destroyed since because the necessary repairs were not made. A resolution was passed by the municipal council asking that repairs be made to this wharf to relieve unemployment, but nothing has yet been done about it. Now is the time for the Minister of Public Works to see to it that this work is done this summer. I need not describe to the minister Notre Dame du Portage. It is one of the finest summer resorts in lower Quebec, and I simply draw his attention to the matter. This work was not proceeded with because of a foolish promise that was made by the Conservative chiefs in the parish saying that the government would spend $15,000. This amount was decided to be spent for the purpose by the former minister of public works, but the work was not done and it will be more expensive to do it now. I hope that the minister will see that that work is done.
Leaving Notre Dame du Portage I come to the present and the past. I would speak of the beautiful city of Riviere du Loup. May I tell the minister that important works have to be done there? I would remind him that in the past when I told him of the abuses that had taken place at Riviere du Loup he righteously saw to it that the wrongs were redressed, and that those who were guilty of padding the roll were obliged to refund to the government. I give credit to the minister for that. But now he should see to it, if some public works are to be done at Riviere du Loup that they are supervised by honest and reliable men, and that men of both political parties be given the opportunity to work. These are no ordinary items of supply, Mr. Speaker. This is the schedule of an act to relieve unemployment, and both Liberals and Conservatives have suffered because of unemployment and both should be given work regardless of their political creed. There are some very important works to be done at Riviere du Loup, both at the wharf and in the river. The minister knows what I mean and I shall not insist any more about it. The minister knows what is his duty and I leave it to his conscience and sense of duty to be fair with the people of Riviere du Loup, whatever may be their political creed.
Next is the beautiful summer resort of Cacouna. If the minister wants to know what Cacouna is he has only to look into the files
of his department and see what kind of works have been done at Cacouna in the past-t These works should be looked after. The wharf should be kept in good repair, and there must be some dredging done there also.
Next I come to Isle Yerte, and Notre Dame de 1'Isle Verte. There is a sea grass industry there which is of great importance. There are only two places in Canada where sea grass is cultivated; one of them is Isle Verte, and the other is in Nova Scotia. It is an industry which gives a little profit to the farmers in the summer time, and the minister should see to it that all those who are engaged in that industry are given a fair deal.
The wharf at Isle Yerte is also important. It is a means of communication with the north shore, and it needs repairs very badly. Let me tell the minister that Isle Verte is a very important farming community. It is also a place where people pick berries in the summer time for shipment to the north shore, and there is great activity on the wharf there. I direct the minister's attention to that and to all the work that must be done in the neighbouring rivers not far from the wharf.
Let us go next to Tobin, halfway between Isle Verte and Trois Pistoles. This is no longer in my constituency. By the will of the Prime Minister this wonderful place was annexed to the county of Rimouski. Nevertheless there is some work to be done there. Some work was to have been done in 1930 but the government decided otherwise. This time they have another chance to do it. There is a lot of unemployment there and the minister should see to it that in order to relieve unemployment important work is done there.
Next we come to the delightful place called Trois Pistoles, which by the will of the Prime Minister has been annexed to the county of Rimouski. I know the people there well. They are my friends. After an election I do not consider whether they have voted for or against me. I try to serve them all to the best of my ability, but let me tell the minister that he should see to it that these people are treated fairly. I am sure that the people of Trois Pistoles will be well looked after by my good friend from Rimouski, (Sir Eugene Fiset) as well as the people of Notre Dame du Portage will be looked after by my good friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). In spite of the fact that these fine parishes have been taken from my constituency I have still an interest in the welfare of these people and I direct the minister's attention to the important works that should be done there.
I have rendered the minister a great service in pointing out the abuses of which the Conservatives at Trois Pistoles were guilty when
4418	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Vcillance
they sold cement for twice as much as it was worth, and I congratulate the minister upon the action he took in that matter. I informed him of what was going on, that the man in charge of the patronage was selling the cement for twice what it was sold for before, and the minister gave an order that that man should refund the money or that the account should be reduced. After what I told the minister he succeeded in saving money for the Canadian exchequer. I did this not to cause harm to anyone but just because it is my duty. I am sure the minister appreciated my stand in the matter, as I did his.
We have a beautiful inland sea in the constituency of Temiscouata. Lake Temis-couata is twenty-seven miles long and there are many parishes along its shores such as Dame du Lac, Cabano and St. Juste du Lac, while on the shores of the Madawaska river is Ste. Rose du Degele. There is also the Squatteck wharf. After the erection of a dam on the Madawaska river the waters of the lake were much higher than they had been before and much damage has been caused to these wharves. I direct the attention of the minister to these matters. I ask him to look into the corrupt practices which are prevailing among the Tories in charge of the patronage in my constituency. I have no right to ask for favours for the Conservatives or the Liberals. My duty is to direct the attention of the minister to what he should do in the future. I am sure if he does not listen too much to those greedy ones who are trying to make abnormal profits at the expense of the state he will see to it that we get a fair deal when the money voted under this bill is spent. I leave it to his conscience as to whether he does his duty.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate
myself with the other hon. members from northern Saskatchewan in raising objection to the contents of this bill. I have been looking over the estimates for the years 1932-33, 1933-34 and 1934-35 and it is rather interesting to note that the total amount estimated to be spent under this bill is just about equal to the reductions which have occurred in the votes for public works. In 1932-33 we spent
81,060,000	upon public works chargeable to capital; in 1933-34 the amount dropped to $250,000, and this year we have dropped down to $220,000. This money really should have been spent during the last two or three years.
I must compliment the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) if he is responsible
rMr. Pouliot.]
for the item of $275,000 for the building of a bridge across the South Saskatchewan river at Outlook. In my opinion this bridge is very necessary and it will serve a great portion of middle and western Saskatchewan. The hon. member is to be congratulated. I notice that this afternoon, when certain hon. members were objecting to the appropriations given to their provinces, the minister drew attention to the fact that probably something might be done under the general items in this bill. I have gone through the bill very carefully and I can find only three items under which the province of Saskatchewan could benefit in a general way. The first item is No. 78 and reads:
Interior Department-
To provide for the construction and development of public buildings, campsites, electric light and telephone systems, highways, trails, water and sewer systems, recreational areas, wharves and river protection works.
The amount allotted to this item is $2,000,000 and it is possible that Saskatchewan may get some of this. The next item is $500,000 for the construction of Indian residential and day schools, and hospitals. It is possible Saskatchewan may get something out of that. The next item is No. 135, public buildings generally-improvements, additions, fittings, repointing, painting, repairs and so on. The amount here is $2,000,000 and possibly we may get something out of that. If the total of these three items is to be divided among the nine provinces there will be only about $500,000 for each province.
I should like to endorse what the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) said this evening. I do not think there is a place in northern Saskatchewan where a crossing is more necessary than at Ceepee. I think wdien the government was contemplating spending approximately $40,000,000 they would have been well advised to provide for the building of a bridge at this point. I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for North Battleford in his criticism of the government for not setting aside some portion of this $40,000,000 for the building of colonization roads. There has been a large influx of people into the northern areas and roads are badly needed. I was sorry to see that the government had not made any appropriation for this purpose.
No doubt when the minister is dealing with his supplementary estimates he will point out that considerable has been given to the western provinces. I notice there is an item of $7,000 for the purchase of an old bank building in my home town for postal purposes. This is not exactly a relief project although,

Public Works Construction-Mr. Denis
as has been suggested to me, there is probably a measure of relief in that $7,000 for the Canadian Bank of Commerce. If the minister goes through his estimates for the last two years and this year he will find that the reductions which have been made total about
839,000,000, which is just about the total covered by this bill.


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, before this debate
ends, I wish to reiterate my request of the other day with reference to the stone cutters of the city of Montreal. I requested the government to kindly specify in the contracts which it would award in erecting buildings in Montreal or elsewhere, that the contractors would have to employ stone cutters to carry out the work, instead of machines. It is obvious that such a provision would be of a nature to considerably decrease the number of unemployed in Montreal and elsewhere. Experts in the matter contend that a machine does the work of 25 men and, therefore, throws 25 workmen on the street. On the other hand, I am told that the stone cut by machines is of an inferior quality to that cut by expert workers.
Often there exists in the rock certain cracks, certain weakness which cannot be discovered by machine work; however, when a workman cuts it, he notices whether it is split, cracked or of inferior quality. The stone cut by machine detracts a good deal from the value of the building. Therefore, I request the government to furnish work to the stone cutters, who are, to-day, among the unemployed in Montreal.
I do not wish to congratulate the government for having submitted to us this bill at the end of the session. "The mountain in labour has brought forth a mouse 1" This government which thought itself important and capable of settling the unemployment crisis in 1930, submits to us, after four years in office, a bill which will permit it to expend $40,000,000 to relieve those who are unemployed since then. It seems to be an important event, but let me assure you, sir, that it does not amount to much. It is not a permanent remedy to cure unemployment, it is an artificial, a temporary measure which will amount to nothing, unless it be for a few months this year. The government thinks, thanks to such a measure, that the Canadian people will forget the 1930 promises and its inertia heretofore! Being acquainted with its rule for the last four years, especially during this session, the Canadian people realize perfectly that they were wrong in replacing the Liberal regime by this one and
will again repose their trust in us They will replace this government by a Liberal one. If one examines specially this session's legislation, one might conclude that the goverment did its utmost to create positions, carry on patronage and thus endeavour to capture the confidence of the Canadian people. I wish to protest, sir, because so little work has been set aside for Quebec.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: You
should cooperate, instead of protesting.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Let the hon.
member for Berthier-Maskinonge have no fear. When the time comes, I shall cooperate, as I have always done in the pa$t, especially for sound and rational measures; I have never refused to accomplish my duty in the house or elsewhere. It is not in introducing such a bill after four years, that the Canadian people will be led to believe that the government carried out its duty and understood the responsibilities that it had to assume in this respect. It is not because the government erects in the town of Berthier, a public building at a cost of $48,000 or $50,000, that it can imagine that it has performed its duty. The government in this respect only proves that it cares very little for the people's money and, to help in electing one of its friends, it has no compunction in having parliament appropriate an amount double to what would be necessary to satisfy the town of Berthier and the whole county. The government showed that it was incapable of administering the finances of this country. That is why the Canadian people will remember, when the polling day comes, to thank the government for its services to Canada
I shall not add anything further, sir, so as not to delay the house. I am aware of the servile majority of which the government disposes. When it is a question of championing our nationality and allowing bilingualism on our bank notes, our good friends opposite, with a few exceptions, thought fit to repudiate the rights of Quebec and the French language, by voting against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). One more thing to stir up the people's regrets and feelings-I shall not say of rebellion-of revenge towards those who, in the face of the country, have, so to speak, repudiated their language to servilely support their leader.


Alfred Duranleau: Will
the hon. member allow me a question? Could he inform us why, from 1921 to 1930, when the hon. member for Quebec East formed part of a strong government, supported by
4420	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Denis
almost 60 French Canadian members of Quebec, neither him nor any other representative of the French Canadians, among whom was to be found the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) dared raise their voice to request that the two languages be both printed on dominion notes, and never dared to request-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There was no question of a Central Bank then, and we had notes in both languages.


Alfred Duranleau: I did not put my question to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain).


Joseph-Arthur Denis: In reply to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), may I state that there was no question of a bank of Canada under the Liberal regime, from 1921 to 1930.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: There were dominion notes.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: May I point out one thing. If we have, to-day, stamps printed in both official languages of this country, we owe it to the Liberal administration which fulfilled its duty towards the French language, in this country.


Alfred Duranleau: You
have not replied to my question.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I replied to it, myself.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: That is no reason to invoke. If in the past errors were committed, if there was neglect, it is not a reason to always follow the same path. When means are offered to us to redress such wrongs and to adopt a reasonable suggestion, like the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec East moved, I see no reason not to acquiesce, when our good friends, the English Canadians of this country, are well disposed towards us I wish to thank these English friends on this side of the house, who unanimously supported the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec East and who proved thereby, that they desire union, harmony and bonne entente and, especially that they desire to give to the French Canadian race the legitimate share to which it has a right.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close my remarks by these few words.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What
would you suggest?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I would request the hon. Minister of Marine to forget
*Mr. Duranleau.]
the past, to fulfil the whole of his duty towards the people, the province of Quebec and the country.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In rising to close the debate on
the second reading of this important bill I desire to express my satisfaction at the very large measure of approval which the bill has received from those who have spoken upon it. I do not recall, as a matter of fact, that any hon. gentleman has condemned it outright. In fact, I think that nearly every speaker has found in it a measure of good, and the amount of good which has been found in it naturally varies as to circumstances and conditions. Some, for instance, say it will go a long way towards the relief of unemployment; others intimate it will be of very little value. Some say that it has been introduced about four years too late; others say it has been introduced too soon-it should not be introduced at all. Some say the amount is too large, others that it is too small. Well, I shall allow these criticisms to cancel each other and allow the great body of approval which this measure has received to stand as its commendation and in support of the motion for the second reading.
Now I am sure that hon. gentlemen who have criticized the bill will forgive me if I do not specifically deal with each objection and criticism that has been made. At this time, on the second reading of the bill, that is not expected and I believe that hon. gentlemen have taken advantage of the second reading to express opinions which perhaps otherwise they might feel it necessary to express at a later stage. I have no objection to that. I always welcome fair and candid criticism; it helps the administration of a department. And let me say, as to the suggestions that have been made, that each and every one of them will be considered. They will be taken up with the officials of the department, and I can say now that I know it will be possible to meet some of the requests which hon. gentlemen have made out of the general votes which are in the schedule of this bill.
The criticisms, as I have said, have been of a varied character and I think it proper that I should explain the basis upon which this program has been framed. The object has been to afford a measure of employment particularly in centres where unemployment is acute and where there is a large volume of it; not only that, but to provide a measure of employment that will be sustained over a considerable period of time. This necessarily involves undertakings of a larger character. Let

Public Works Construction-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
me say to those who seek to balance the expenditures in this schedule on the basis of population, on the basis of comparison of one constituency with another, that they are proceeding upon an entirely false basis. The bill has not been prepared with the object of. giving something to every constituency. It has not been prepared, as has been suggested by many hon. gentlemen, as an election program. If any of the hon. gentlemen who suggested that had been entrusted with the preparation of an election program and had made such a failure of it as I am sure they find in this, then I would say that it would have been a complete failure indeed. If I had been entrusted with the preparation of an election program, had consented to undertake to do so and did not produce any better results than this, I would be ashamed of myself.


William Richard Motherwell: We agree to that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sure hon. gentlemen will agree that had there been any such plan or purpose behind this measure there would have been found dotted all over the Dominion of Canada, in practically every constituency, small projects. That is not the plan, the purpose and the anticipated result of this program, and I am sure hon. gentlemen will agree that unemployment would not in a very large measure be relieved by a program of works of that kind, because when a small building is constructed, the time occupied is brief; when the building is completed the work is done and there has not been any sustained or large measure of employment provided.
It is well to remind the house of the basis upon which all governments have acted in their programs for the relief of unemployment. The former government, I believe, laid down the principle that unemployment was primarily a matter for the municipality in which it arose; that in the second instance it was a matter for the province in which the municipality was situated and that in the last resort it was a matter for the federal government. Tonight hon. gentlemen have made suggestions as to many undertakings that are not to be found within the scope of this bill. Some have suggested roads, highways, the drilling of wells and other works. Let me point out to them that those are not works in which the Dominion of Canada can engage; they are projects which must in the first instance be initiated by the municipality, by the province, and toward which in some cases, if the program is sound and approved, the dominion may make a contribution. This is not the only
measure which this government has introduced or may introduce for the relief of unemployment in this country and this is not the only program which may be undertaken for that purpose.
The leader of the opposition, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Mackenzie King), says that he finds discrimination in this bill; he speaks about his constituency and says that in this legislation there is nothing for Prince Albert and that he finds in it much for Calgary. On the surface of it he may be correct, but let me remind him of the general vote for his constituency. He was speaking of Prince Albert park, as I recall the matter, when he suggested that expenditures might be made. I have before me the expenditures made in that park during 192728, 1928-29 and 1929-30, and I shall give the figures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon. friend the figures for the parks in British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am dealing just with Prince Albert, the constituency with which my	right hon. friend dealt. One	constituency at a time is pretty good. .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon.
member will give the others I shall be satisfied.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The expenditures in that park are as follows:
1927- 28	 $ 32,223 49
1928-	29	
150,093	481929-	30	
93,632	24Total	
$275,949	21
Let us come now to the year 1933-34 when the expenditure in that park for that one year was $277,411.07, or more than in the three years when my right hon. friend's government was in power, a larger amount in one year than in the three years I have mentioned. I am sure my right hon. friend could not have been aware of that figure when he was speaking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have those
and I have the figures for the other parks also -relief camps.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am speaking
about Prince Albert expenditures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those are relief measures.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then he spoke about the city of Calgary and the large expenditure there for the barracks. This under-
44-~	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
taking has been under consideration for a good many years. It is for the permanent force, and this bill affords an opportunity of having the work done at this time and providing the largest possible measure of employment. It is a needed work, one that has been considered essential for a long period of years, a work that is past due and the completion of which at this time is from every standpoint fully justified by the circumstances.
The former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) offered a criticism of the measure and stated that provision should be made for public tenders. Let me point out to him that these works are not all to be carried on under the Public Works department. The bill is a comprehensive one, including works that would come under the Public Works department and other departments. Works in harbours are usually done by harbour commissions, and it includes work in parks and works of a kind other than those contemplated in the Public Works Act. In connection with similar undertakings I believe it has not been the practice in the past, either of the late government or of this government, to invite public tenders. I know of undertakings of considerable extent for which public tenders were not invited. But although it is not provided that public tenders must be called for it does not follow that they will not be. The principle has not been abandoned. These works have to be carried out under the direction of the governor in council, and assigned to the particular department and the minister which may appear to be best equipped to carry them on. Already, in anticipation of the passing of this bill, a large number of advertisements have been published by the Public Works department calling for tenders, and there is no reason to assume that the government is abandoning the well established and sound principle of inviting public tenders. I can assure my hon. friend that the government are as sensible of their responsibility in this matter as any member of the opposition can be.
As to the objection that this work should have been done earlier, I would say that in the ordinary course public works expenditures are made out of revenue, and until revenue showed some expansion I think we would have been open to criticism if we had done anything further in this direction than we did. It was necessary to curtail, and curtailment was made.


Peter John Veniot: Are all these expenditures
to be out of revenue?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They are to be out of consolidated revenue fund. Let me

remind my hon. friend that the revenues are very much improved over what they were a year or two ago.


Peter John Veniot: W'hat about the principle
laid down that these works are to be paid for by the inflation of money?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am pointing
out that in the past such expenditures were made out of revenue, and the revenue did not warrant it at the time.


Peter John Veniot: But do not say that these
expenditures are out of revenue.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, I do not
think the man who gets employment will worry very much whether these works should have been in the estimates or in this bill; or are paid for out of revenue or how. He will be very glad to get the work.
Air. A'ENIOT:	I just wanted to keep the
record correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I also am very
anxious that it should be correct, so we are agreed on that.
Now some hon. gentlemen have complained that there is no provision in this bill for anything in their constituencies. I wish they would meet some of my hon. friends behind me and discuss the situation with them. I think they would find that the grievances of members on this side are greater than any that I have heard expressed to-night from the other side of the house. However, let me candidly say that the day is long past, if it ever existed in Canada, when a government could go here and there and drop a public building or a wharf or a public work in a constituency purely for patronage purposes. If that day ever existed, or if that was ever done, the time has passed. The obligations of this country are such that a program of that nature cannot any longer be justified.


William Richard Motherwell: Will the minister
please tell that to the marines?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am telling it
to the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell).


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member
does not accept it.
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds): Probably I might as well tell it to the wind as tell it to him; however, it is a fact and the hon. gentleman knows it perfectly well.


William Richard Motherwell: Less than S3,000,000 going to Liberal constituencies and $37,000,000 to the Tories.

Public TUo?'fcs Ccmstruction


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On a fair balance that is not correct. I assure my hon. friend again that the program has not been prepared on any such basis. If it had been, the results might have been very different from what they are, because on analysis he would find that the larger expenditures are going to constituencies represented by my hon. friends on the other side. It happens so because the conditions in those constituencies are such as to justify these expenditures.
I do not want to delay the second reading of this bill. I say that this work will be carried on expeditiously, with due regard to the public interest, and with a full sense of responsibility, and I honestly believe it will assist materially in the relief of unemployment and towards recovery in Canada, which is already well under way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
title is correct, that it is a bill for the construction of certain public works, 'but I think that being for the construction of public works, these various sums should have been made part of a supply bill.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister indicated that he thought he would be able to meet some of the suggestions made by the opposition regarding certain works. How is he going to do that with any that we pass? Does he mean that he will bring down a further amount in the supplementary estimates, or will he add to this $40,000,000? I suppose that anything we pass cannot be changed afterwards.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would point
out that there are in the schedule two items of very substantial amount, one for $2,000,000 in connection with public buildings generally and one for $2,500,000 for harbour and river works and improvements. These public buildings are located all over the dominion, and I am sure we have some in the constituency of my hon. friend.


William Richard Motherwell: I was not arguing
for that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No. The intention is to go over these buildings, each of them, and to put them in first class repair; that is to say we will do painting, plumbing, wiring, heating, roofing and masonry and bring them up to the highest point of efficiency.


William Richard Motherwell: Where is that vote?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a vote of $2,000,000 in the schedule for public 'buildings generally. There is not a constituency in which there is a public building which will not receive some benefit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A little job
for everyone during the campaign.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh well, it will be done long before the campaign.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Authority to make contracts to execute and complete works.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hold that
section.


Peter John Veniot: It should be held until
we get to the schedule.
Section 2 stands.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Amount appropriated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a suggestion to make to the minister, namely to insert in the section words to make clear that the amounts are to be in accordance with those specified in the schedule.
The section reads:
The governor in council may pay out of moneys provided for that purpose in the consolidated revenue fund such sums of money as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of this act, not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of forty million dollars.
It would be well to insert after the words "purposes of this act" the words "in amounts as specified in schedule 'A' to this act." It just makes sure that the moneys in the schedule are appropriated and spent as therein designated.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assume the object of the suggested amendment is to prevent what might be called switching.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes that is it.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds) Well, under the recent amendments to the Audit Act I do not think that would be possible, because before any department may obtain authority to make an expenditure it must go to the comptroller of the treasury and outline the proposed expenditure. The comptroller must find that there is authority for that particular vote, and secure an encumbrance upon it. There is no possibility of doing what my right hon. friend suggests might be done. Such procedure might interfere with the last item in the schedule, which reads as follows;
Public Works Construction

General-
To supplement where necessary specific amounts hereinbefore provided, upon the authority of the governor in council, $500,000.
That item is in the schedule to be effective when we find that we are a little short, probably $5,000 or $10,000, on a construction work. In such an event part of this $500,000 might be used to effect completion. But I am sure if the right hon. gentleman had read the amendments to the Audit Act he would agree that there -would be no possibility of any department switching an item of expenditure from one building to another or from one purpose to another.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can say only this, that the wording of the item for $500,000 is exactly similar to the item which has been in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for years, and has been used for supplementing undertakings. There are some purposes for which the money may have to be expended which are not set out in absolute detail. I am afraid without really accomplishing any useful purpose the amendment might be calculated to defeat the object we have in view. For that reason I cannot 6ee that-


Mr. ELLIOTT:: May I point out to the minister that this bill provides for an expenditure of $39,690,050, and the insertion of

clause 4 simply means that the government is givep another roving commission to expend $310,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Campbell Elliott: That is what it means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Campbell Elliott: I say that already there are too many of that type of items in the schedule. But at the present time we are not discussing the schedule particularly. Let me call attention to the fact that already there are several general items, which the minister has mentioned. There is an item of $2,500,000 for harbours and rivers generally. Then there is an item of $2,000,000 for the Department of the Interior. Of course I realize that does not come particularly under the Department of Public Works, but the works therein indicated will be done as public works. Then there is an item of $2,000,000 for public buildings generally, and a further $500,000 to which the minister has referred. Clause 4 would simply mean an additional $310,000 all but $50. I say that that is not fair.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I submit that
under the provisions of the Audit Act and because of the necessity of going before the comptroller of the treasury you cannot do it, that is all.


John Campbell Elliott: If it cannot be done, why put in a section authorizing it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says it shall not exceed $40,000,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I think that is not a proper way to have it.


William Daum Euler: I was about to express my approval of the principle laid down by the minister when he stated that the basis for the allocation of the various moneys comprised in the vote of $40,000,000 was the needs of the various communities in Canada in which unemployment and the necessity for relief existed. I was going to ask whether or not his department had made a really careful survey of the various centres in which unemployment exists. Probably he will answer that question afterwards. I think no hon. member would accuse me of ordinarily making any sectional appeals, and I do not propose to do so to-night. But in looking over the list of appropriations made I find that in my native city of Kitchener-including the town of Waterloo which to all intents and purposes, except municipally, is one with the city of Kitchener, with a combined population of about 40,000 people-there are 3,000 people

Public Works Construction
even now on relief, and no appropriation whatever has been made for it. It does look a bit strange to me, although I do not desire to make a sectional appeal, that immediately to the right of us, only fifteen miles away, for the city of my good friend the Minister of Justice something like 8265,000 is appropriated, and directly to the south, for the city of Galt in South Waterloo there is 8161,000, and yet for this centre of 40,000 people where, as I say, 3,000 people are still on relief, nothing is appropriated. I would like to ask the minister whether he did make a survey and, if not, whether he will not do so in order to inform himself whether there is any justification for consideration not being given to that city. I say this particularly because I have to-day had handed to me by the mayor of Kitchener a request from the city council of that city for consideration on the part of the government, and expressing, not resentment exactly, but the feeling that the city has not been properly treated, that no survey has been made and perhaps not sufficient consideration given to that place.


Mr. J. A. VERVILLE (Lotbiniere) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) for having been so kind as to allow me to speak before replying to the questions put to him.
I observed, in the course of the debate, that all made their little speech, almost every one wants money for the work which is to be done. I also observed that few representatives of the counties along the St. Lawrence river requested anything. For my part I have not been exacting, because I think that it is specially in a period of crisis that one must practise thrift. Let me point out to my friends opposite that they wish to help many people by this bill. Let me also inquire of them whether they aie ready to carry out their promises of 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934; if they are willing to provide for the class of people they created and relieve the unemployed until they resign their office-which will be soon?
I shall ask them another question: Is it a fact that the government-I did not intend to broach that subject, but as all made their little speech, I deem it my duty to take part in the debate-is ready to support all the Tory leaders of the county of Lotbiniere who have been loudly proclaiming, for some time past, that a road, from St. Edouard to Joly and from the latter place to Nelson, would be built by money flowing out from the Dominion treasury? That is the question I put. My speech will be brief, however, I wish to be posted on the subject, when to-morrow or the
day after the session is prorogued. Will the road be built between Joly and St. Edouard, with the money which the Dominion government is having voted or will it not? Will the road from Lister to Joly, through the back (rang) row No. 1 and from there to St. Edouard be built by the Dominion government?
May I inform the Prime Minister (Mr. Ben-net) that in the county of Lotbiniere, there is a Tory leader at Joly by the name of Cinq-Mars who also promised the same thing.


Joseph-François Laflèche: He is a good fellow.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I shall inform the Prime Minister that there is also at St. Edouard de Lotbiniere, a Tory leader known as Laquerre who also promised the same thing.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Another
good fellow.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Will this
government build this road? That is all I wish to know, for the benefit of the Prime Minister who does not reside in our county, who even resides at a great distance away. This also applies to all his ministers who are not acquainted with my county-for I have a beautiful settlement about two miles from where I reside. I request the Prime Minister, all the ministers and the government to inform me whether they promised Mr. Laquerre and Mr. Cinq-Mars that a road would be built from St. Edouard to Joliette and then to Lister?
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Answer! Answer!


Joseph-Achille Verville: I heard a few replies, but, unfortunately could not quite catch their meaning. If the one who spoke will repeat his reply, I shall listen.
Then I do not request any work for Lotbiniere. Remember one thing, that last year, I refused the money for a wharf which was useless, and since then proof was furnished to me 'that the Tories of that parish were thankful that I did so. At present, I request nothing for my county; however, I desire that a just and fair distribution be made of the funds. If it is distributed in all the counties, I claim some for Lotbiniere. And if a promise was made to Laquerre of St. Edouard or to Cinq-Mars of Joly, let the government supply the funds to build those roads, they will be useful. Grant funds to the county of Lotbiniere, grant as much as you do to others. I apologize for wandering from the subject. I also

Public Works Ccmstruclion
apologize for giving the names of -two persons who are my friends. I do not wish to refer to the next election. They are Tory leaders, one never knows what .they -may do. Give Lotbi-niere the fair quota to which it is entitled.
Moreover, I wish to make a request. Cooperate with the Quebec government in granting funds to allow settlers to work their land at a fixed sum per acre. Let us cease helping the unemployed who expect a scrip from both dominion and provinical governments. Let us accept the system which I suggested and which was rejected. I live in a locality where I am understood and known where one knows how to figure. Let the dominion government grant a certain amount to permit the settler to clear, plough and sow the land, to clear and burn the brush and remain on the land. Within two or three years, through this system, we shall have settlers who will not depend on the dominion government, the provincial government and the municipalities, but who will provide for themselves. Thus will you have performed useful work. I shall suggest a means: Place the money that you have uselessly voted to help your party which will be defeated by the people who belong to your party and those of the Liberal party, place it in the hands of the parish priest who will distribute it and tell each one: "You, you are entitled to so much." And in two years, instead of having to help these settlers, you will have families who will be an asset to the country beside earning their own livelihood. That is the system which I suggest and I request you now to accept it and distribute the money through the medium of impartial people, who will do more for this country than we can do and more than you can do because you may have some election advantage to gain, and this is where your bill is repugnant and, so to speak

pardon the expression-shameful.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sullivan):: The question is on the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why should we make this difference from any other public works bill that we have passed?
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived on division.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler)
I desire to say that many of the undertakings in this program were suggested to the government by the Canadian Construction Council which made a survey of the whole dominion.


William Daum Euler: Is that a government organization?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it is an organization in connection -with the building and construction trades of the country. That was the basis for the selection of these items. We checked their recommendation very carefully. This survey included not only works which might be undertaken by the dominion government but those which might be undertaken by the provinces and the municipalities. Wth regard to Kitchener, I do not recall that there was anything in that report in connection with that city, nor do I recall any representations were made by the city council or by my hon. friend.


William Daum Euler: He is doing it now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my hon. friend will agree that it is rather late to be making a suggestion. Suggestions have been coming in very rapidly since this bill was brought down but many of them are of a character which do not come within the scope of our activities. They cover municipal works such as sewers, town halls, roads; they cover anything and everything except what this government constructs. I do not know what my hon. friend has in mind in connection with Kitchener when there have been no suggestions from any source whatever.


William Daum Euler: I asked the minister whether a survey had been made on the basis of the principle which he had laid down in connection with large allocations of money, and he said that the principle followed was the need in these towns in the way of unemployment. I told him that Kitchener had a large amount of unemployment and a large number of people on relief. I am amazed when he now tells me that instead of a survey being made by the government, it was made by a builders' association. This may be a perfectly respectable organization, nevertheless it is a private organization and the government has taken its recommendations. Without becoming excited over the matter, I would say that all this has no connection whatsoever with the principle of responsible government. The government has taken the recommendation of a private organization which, after all, is more interested in its own operations and profits than it is in the good of the people of Canada. I think it was the duty of the government to make this investigation and then allocate the moneys in the proper way.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the government should receive representations from any source that is' open and available.


William Daum Euler: And make none of its own?'

Public Works Construction


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Surely my hon. friend does not suggest that we should not listen to or consider representations made by associations such as the Canadian Construction Council.


William Daum Euler: No, not for a minute.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that their recommendations were not accepted wholesale and without investigation. The government assumes full responsibility for the items that appear in this schedule.


William Daum Euler: They may have been quite
right in some of their suggestions, but I am asking if the government made an independent investigation of its own. It should have if it is to be responsible.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Did the minister receive recommendations from public bodies such as boards of trade, chambers of commerce and municipal councils and also from officials and members of the House of Commons?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Representations were received from time to time from all the sources mentioned by my hon. friend.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Were the items in the
schedule based upon the recommendations received by the public bodies I have mentioned?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They were based upon all the recommendations received. Eull consideration was given to all the circumstances and to the requirements of the pub-lice service and the amount which was available. I might say that all the requests and suggestions received would have involved the expenditure of 8100,000,000.


Pierre-François Casgrain: As we take up the
items in the schedule will the minister be able to tell us what items were recommended by the association to which he has referred and what items were recommended by public bodies or individuals?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would involve a good deal of research to gather that information.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It is very important
that we should have it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That might
prove to be interesting information for my hon. friend and for the committee but I do not see what would be the advantage of it.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I protest, as did the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), against an organization outside the control
of parliament giving information and advice to the government as to what should be done in each riding.


Ernest Lapointe: Is section 5 the section under consideration?


John Alexander Sullivan: Yes,
section 5.


Ernest Lapointe: Under section 5 the
governor in council may from time to time place the administration, management, construction and execution of any of the works under such minister or department of the government as may be considered most advisable in the public interest. Practically all the works allotted to the city of Quebec are in connection with the harbour. There is an item of $463,000 to replace sheds number 24 and number 25 on pier number one. There is another item of $730,000 to widen pier number one. I wish to know whether the execution of these works will be under my hon. friend. Those sheds are owned, in trust of course, by the harbour board of Quebec and the works done there are usually carried on by that board, the money being loaned to the board, they issuing bonds and so forth. But this is a special work. This is an amount that is not loaned to the harbour board; it is an expenditure of money directly by the parliament of Canada. I wish to know whether the contract will be entered into by my hon. friend's department and whether that department will be in charge of the execution of the work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The explanation of this section lies in the fact that there is one schedule and one schedule only. Ordinary estimates, as my hon. friend well knows, are prepared under departmental heads, but here they are all gathered together and the work will be assigned under the direction of the governor in council. It has yet to be determined under which ministry the work will be carried on.	[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: But will it be carried
on under some minister rather than under the harbour board?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That will be
determined by the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the
minister has just said is evidence of the fact that this section is another election device. A moment ago I pointed out that half a million dollars was given to the government to play with at election time, so that the governor in council might assign a little here and a little there, and now we have another clause which gives them a chance to pass the
Public Works Construction

amount on to whichever minister they see fit. The minister has just said that in the regular way the estimates set forth the amount in detail, indicating what department of government will have to do with any particular expenditure; but here they are all lumped together as one and, he says, it has not yet been determined what minister is to do the spending. That is irregular, and I say that the section is framed as it is to allow the governor in council to use half a million of loose funds in any way that will best suit their purpose at the time the .campaign is on.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: How much did your government appropriate to play with, as you put it, in 1928?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not a five
cent piece.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That was your
appropriation for the unemployed, but you had 1800,000 in 1928 to play with under this very item.


Pierre-François Casgrain: With reference to the
amount of $156,000 for wharf extension at Pointe au Pic, is it proposed to carry on the same extension project mentioned in 1930, or is this a new program?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The conditions
now, I assume, are not the same as in 1930 at that wharf, and the item is put there for improvements and repairs that are necessary and recommended by the engineer at the present time.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Because more repairs
are necessary than in 1930?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suppose so,
although I believe that minor repairs have been done in the meantime.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The same program will be continued as was anticipated in 1930.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should think there must be some extension there in view of the size of the amount.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it
intended to deal separately with the various items in the schedule or will it be passed en bloc? I want to discuss a particular item in connection with Vancouver.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said before that every opportunity would be given in committee to discuss any item in the schedule. I do not intend to ask for the passing of the schedule en bloc.


John Alexander Sullivan: Shall the
section carry?


Mr. SANDERSON:: I take it from the minister's reply to my hon. friend from North Waterloo that there is no provision in this bill for such works as sewers, water systems, and so forth. Am I right?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Except possibly in the parks branch where these works have been carried on. That is in the Interior department, but it is on government property. What I meant to say, and what I think the hon. gentleman will agree with, is that in a municipality such works as sewers, town halls, hospitals or anything like that are municipal and provincial, the dominion in some instances making a contribution. But to do any of these works at our own expense exclusively is not our program at all, and anything of that sort which my hon. friend may find in the Interior department will be found, I think, to be on government property.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out to the minister the item in the schedule in connection with Chicoutimi, Quebec,-water system, $12,500; hydrants, hose, etc., $4,000; further gravelling of reclaimed area, $45,000; surfacing existing roads with macadam, $17,000; road at rear of new wharf $10,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is in the harbour of Chicoutimi, a public harbour.


Frederick George Sanderson: What is meant by water system?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a marine item, but I can say that there are some water connections or pipes. The minister in charge of that department could give the information.


Alfred Duranleau: Before the year 1930 large works were undertaken by the government of my hon. friends, the construction of a large pier, and we have to complete these works and instal a water system.


Mr. JACOBS:: There is water in the harbour now.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I remind the minister that in the session of 1930, under the previous government, there was an amount of $12,000 in the supplementary estimates for a public building in the county of Provencher. Tenders were called for, the money having been voted. The present minister did not accept the tender; the work was not proceeded with, and the reason he gave was that the government had to economize on account of the depression and the demands made upon the administration. I had no quarrel with the minister at that time, although I think he should have respected the vote of the House

Public Works Construction
of Commons which on that occasion was unanimous with regard to those estimates. The house had decided that a certain amount of money should be expended for the erection of a particular building in the county of Provencher and the minister should have respected the decision of the house at that time. The building, however, was not constructed.
I know the minister has had several demands from the county of Provencher for certain small buildings in centres where such buildings are. very badly needed, and when he is about to spend S40,000,000 for the construction of public buildings and other works throughout the whole dominion, I really think he should have opened his heart in order to rectify what I think was an injustice in refusing an expenditure which was voted by the house in 1930. In looking over this schedule I find that Provencher is entirely forgotten.
I want to remind the minister and the house that I represent one of the most historic constituencies in Canada, a constituency that has been represented here by men much more dis-. tinguished than I am, men who have been prominent in Canadian history, such as Louis Riel, Sir George Etienne Cartier. Therefore I cannot for the life of me see how the minister can sit in his seat and allow $40,000,000 to be expended in Canada and at the same time forget the county of Provencher. I do not think that is fair, and as I know the minister wants to be fair, the least he could have done would have been to insert in this schedule the amount voted in 1930 and provide for carrying on the construction of those buildings.
Unemployment in Provencher is not, I grant you, very great, but why should $250,000 be spent in the county of Selkirk; why should $20,000 be spent in the county of Souris; why should $15,000 be spent in the county of Marquette? If the hon. gentlemen representing those constituencies have been influential enough to get those expenditures in their ridings. I have no quarrel with them, but why discriminate? The discrimination is very plain. In view of the fact that the minister himself, after the money had been voted by this house to erect a certain building in Provencher, cancelled the expenditure after he came in as Minister of Public Works, I do not know how he can justify his present course and I do not think he can. If he does not see his way clear to take a certain amount of this money that is being voted for the relief of unemployment in Canada and expend it on the erection of certain buildings in 74726-280
Provencher, the party he represents will have to stand the consequences at the next election. Probably the Conservative party will have no votes at the next election, but if they have any in the county of Provencher, they are certainly shooting them all away in about five minutes in this chamber.
It is not my intention to delay the committee longer-I refrained from speaking on the second reading of the bill. I have tried to influence my friends on this side, but none of them will listen to me. May I again plead with the minister that even under some of the items that are not detailed, such as so much money for the Department of the Interior or any other department, he take steps to give the county of Provencher just a small expenditure to construct one or two small buildings.
May I also ask him whether he has had any representations from any organization in Manitoba to allow a certain amount of this money to be used in the way of guaranteeing bonds to construct a sugar beet factory in that province? If he has, why has he not given some consideration to that in these schedules? If a certain amount of money is to be spent to relieve unemployment, why should it not be spent on projects which will give employment? You construct a public building to-day and after it is erected there is a cost for its upkeep, but if certain concessions were given for the construction of, say, a sugar beet factory, that would give employment for years to come and I think the money would be better expended. I do not know whether the minister is in a position to answer me now, but if he cannot do so, I hope before he spends this money his heart will open up for the historic county of Provencher.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am very much moved by the eloquent and patriotic appeal of my hon. friend, and I quite join with him in his appreciation of the magnificent constituency of Provencher. But I want to point out to him that in every year in which estimates are passed there are many items that are not expended. The insertion of an item in the estimates does not create any obligation on the part of the government to expend the money; it just makes it available for the purpose if and when the government decides that it should be so expended. My hon. friend knows very well that in 1930 the estimates for public works were very large; they were larger than I think the revenues of the country warranted, and it was found that the revenues as they came in did not

Public Works Construction

warrant the expenditure of the amounts that had been placed in the estimates. Just as in other years certain items were abandoned, so some were abandoned in 1030, some were abandoned in 1931 and 1932 and some will be abandoned to a greater or lesser extent in every year by every government.
As to the building to which my hon. friend refers, I assume that it is of smaller type, and as has been said by several hon. gentlemen, that kind of construction does not contribute very much to the relief of unemployment which my hon. friend is frank enough to admit is not very severe in his constituency. So, bearing in mind the principle upon which the bill is framed, I do not think it is at all remarkable that he does not find anything in it for Provencher. As to the sugar beet industry, I do not recall any representation whatever. It would be entirely outside the scope of a bill of this character.


John Vallance: Will the minister undertake to justify an expenditure under this bill to-day when he cancelled expenditures that had been voted by this house for my constituency? I do not see how he can do it. I have no quarrel with anyone who can get a public building in his riding, but the minister when he came into power cancelled the construction of buildings in my riding for which tenders had been called, yet to-day he is voting money under this schedule for works which to my mind are no more essential than those voted in 1930.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If it is any
satisfaction to my hon. friend, I can assure him that his constituency is not the only one that has been treated in that way. Several hon. members behind me have the same complaint.


John Vallance: The reason my treatment is different is that the money had already been voted by the house for this building in my constituency.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are others. I could give my hon. friend a long list of others who were treated just the same.
Mr. "VALLANCE:	Well, if the minister
treated anyone else that way I think he did not treat them fairly.


Peter McGibbon: I was one.


John Vallance: If I had been treated
as you were I would certainly get away from supporting that government.


Peter McGibbon: I put the country before party, which the hon. member does not.
(Mr. H. A. Stewart.]


Mr. BOYES:: I have no disapproval to
express in connection with this bill, and while I am like my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) and some of the other hon. members who have already spoken, in that there is no provision in the schedule for any expenditure in the riding I represent, a,t the same time I heartily approve of the provision of $1,500,000 for a building in the city of London. A year ago I advocated in this house the provision of a new post office building in London. This bill takes care of that and also makes provision for other federal buildings. While that will help the riding of East Middlesex I feel that the riding of West Middlesex will also receive some benefit.


John Campbell Elliott: Most of it is farther away.


Frank Boyes: A little farther away. One
thing I wish to draw to the attention of the minister is that part of the city of London is in the riding of East Middlesex, and if it were possible for him when letting the contract for the work there to provide that a certain portion of it, for example, digging the basement or building the foundation, might be let by day labour so as to provide work for some of the unemployed in East Middlesex, it would be greatly appreciated. In the part of London which I have the honour to represent there are many unemployed and I hope some provision will be made to give them work.
There is another federal building in East Middlesex, the Westminster hospital. If the minister would have that building examined thoroughly I think it might be found that the roof and other parts need repair, which would give employment to some of these men. As I said before, I heartily approve of the expenditure provided for London, and if the minister finds it possible to comply with my request I shall appreciate it.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I decided not to say anything on the second reading of this bill because I was in favour of the principle, but now that the bill is in committee I want to draw the attention of the minister to one or two items which I think he has overlooked. I find for British Columbia three or four items specified, for Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster and Quesnel. I call the minister's attention to the fact that on several occasions representations have been made to the government and to himself by boards of trade, by the Conservative association in northern and central British Columbia, and by myself, as to the necessity for having a federal building for that district in Prince Rupert. The building that houses the

Public Works Construction
different departments there at the present time is a barn, not fit to be called a public building, yet the federal revenue from that district is approximately $200,000 a year. The government are paying rent for the shack they occupy in Prince Rupert. I know that the minister is tired of listening to me, and the minister who represents British Columbia in the cabinet, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), is watching me and I know he is also very familiar with this story. I fail to understand the omission from this bill of any item for Prince Rupert because I know that the boards of trade and other bodies have made representations; the government of British Columbia and the premier of British Columbia have made representations to the minister as well as to the Prime Minister, showing that this is a necessary work and one that should be carried on for unemployment relief. Yet nothing has been done, and as a representative of north and central British Columbia I ask the government what voice they listen to in regard to these matters. If it be the provincial government, if it be public bodies such as chambers of commerce and boards of trade, representations have been received from them. If it is recommendations made by the representative of the constituency that they listen to, I have made such representation. If all those representations are ignored I presume the one who is heard is the minister representing British Columbia in the federal cabinet, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I know that he has always been fair to the whole of British Columbia, not to a part only, so I fail absolutely to understand how it is that all these representations in respect to northern and central British Columbia have been entirely ignored. I might point out that while some money is appropriated for British Columbia, the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that those works are all in the southern part of the province, hundreds of miles or as much as a thousand miles from central and northern British Columbia. Is it reasonable to expect that men who need employment are going to be sent a thousand miles to get the benefit of this work, or is something to be done for them in their own district? I realize that there is a provision of $2,000,000 for miscellaneous works under the Department of the Interior. I appreciate that the government are finding something to take the place of the dole, which I was absolutely against from the beginning. But since this work is to be distributed to help unemployment the government should give some recognition to the suggestions from public bodies that are familiar with conditions 74726-280 i
in each district. I hope that when the distribution is being made of this money for rivers and harbours and buildings in general, something like $5,500,000, the needs of northern and central British Columbia will be given consideration. I should like very much to have a few words from the minister, because I believe he will appreciate what I have said, and the representations I have made. May I have an answer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What rather impressed
me as being a bit extraordinary was the reference the hon. member made to the building now occupied by the federal services in Prince Rupert. On one occasion he referred to them as barns, and on another occasion he called them shacks.


Olof Hanson: Yes. Both names apply.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He states now that that
is true. I recall that the government which preceded this one, and which he supported, entered into a five year lease on these buildings at a rate of about $5,000 a year, and I find it a little difficult to justify the payment of $5,000 a year for either a shack or a barn.


Samuel William Jacobs: There must have been extenuating circumstances.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member is on the horns of a dilemma. However, I have heard what he said, and have taken note of the fact that he appealed to me as a minister representing the province of British Columbia. Obviously every place cannot be cared for. Certainly no one is putting any obstacle in the way of a building being built where he has indicated. The matter of a building for Prince Rupert will in due course receive consideration from my colleague the Minister of Public Works and from me, so far as I have anything to do with it. I do not think it is perhaps possible for such a building to be considered this year.


Olof Hanson: In 1919 a Conservative government acquired a site for a federal building in Prince Rupert, and paid pretty close to $70,000 for it. They did a certain amount of excavating, and I am suggesting that by establishing a building at that point the government would not have to pay anything for the site or for excavation. Labour and supplies would be the only expenditures.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why did not my hon.
friend induce his friends who were in office for nine years to do that?
Public Works Construction


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He was not here then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was in the tie business.


Olof Hanson: Neither this government nor the former government have treated the port of Prince Rupert fairly.


Joseph-Achille Verville: In bill 113, under consideration, there are two items which particularly interest me because my constituency is situated on the south shore of the river, while a Conservative member represents the constituency on the north shore. I have much esteem for the gentleman. The following is What I find:
Champlain and Lorne Dry Docks, Que.-Repairs to buildings, caisson house, hose tower and concrete masonry, $18,000.
I also see:
Champlain Dry Docks, Que.-Keel blocks, $26,000.
This amounts to $44,000. This bill is intituled :
An Act to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada.
I am aware that the hon. member representing the constituency on the north shore has received his full share; $44,000 is being voted for his constituency. I wish to inquire of the government whether this $44,000 is included in the 40 or 50 millions appropriated to public works or whether it is included in the estimates of the Department of Marine? Moreover, whether this is a gift to the county of Champlain, exclusively .of other counties? Until I read the section of the act, I never thought that there existed a dry dock at Champlain. I was under the impression that there existed some dock to build'vessels, but as such docks could not exist everywhere, I began to wonder whether it was actually a gift so as to build a dry dock at Champlain. Is this amount included in the $40,000,000, or $50,000,000 or whether it is included in the estimates of the Marine department? Is there a dry dock at Champlain?


Vincent Dupuis: I am anxious to get some information from the Minister of Public Works. First of all may I say that it appears curious not only to myself but to the house and country that the government should bring at this late hour in the session a bill providing for an expenditure of $40,000,000, without giving proper time for the representatives of the people to discuss intelligently the items included in this bill. I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite realize what $40,000,000 mean.


John Alexander Sullivan: The hon. member is out of order.


Vincent Dupuis: Well, I am just coming to the items.


John Alexander Sullivan: The hon. gentleman is entirely out of order. We are considering clause 5, administration.


Vincent Dupuis: We have been told by the Minister of Public Works that opportunities would be given to discuss the matter fully.


John Alexander Sullivan: If there is unanimous consent of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Vincent Dupuis: I am merely asking the same privilege which has been extended to other hon. members.


Mr. RINFRET:: And further, if the committee will permit me to say so, we are discussing section 5, whereby the minister may transfer the expenditure of moneys to several departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The governor in council, not the minister.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That covers practically the whole program.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The governor in council has that power.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. It may transfer to the different departments the expenditure of this or that money. I submit that under section 5 it would be proper to discuss the whole bill, because every expenditure is involved.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Go on; go on.


Vincent Dupuis: With all due respect to the chair, may I continue my argument? Before proceeding to the questions I wish to ask I should like to observe that the people throughout the country think it strange that in the dying hours of a session, if not of the government itself, the representatives of the people should be asked to vote $40,000,000 to be expended upon the recommendation of a body-no matter how respectable it might be-the builders' corporation, I have been told. By the way, I should like to know if the association of builders are going to have all the contracts to be awarded under this measure. However I am not going to go too fast; we will wait and watch. Does the government realize that $40,000,000 is a very large amount of money?


Mr. DUPRE:: Some of the people say it is not enough.


Vincent Dupuis: If the Solicitor General, who has just interrupted me, will take the trouble to count $40,000,000, one dollar a minute, he will find that it will take him 1,388 days to

Public Works Construction
perform his task, and by that time he will be in the opposition, or back in his office in Quebec. Hon. members on this side are interested in this discussion, and yet we have not time to discuss matters. That is why we are bound to shorten our remarks. The Minister of Public Works is aware of the fact that last year and again this year I wrote him and interviewed him about dredging the Petite Riviere Montreal. That river drams about eleven thousand acres of the best land in the country, and upon that river there has already been spent jointly by this government and the Quebec government from $29,000 to $30,000. At a time when that expenditure was about to produce its effect, this government, because the riding is a Liberal one, refused to appropriate the further amount necessary to finish the work, though only about five thousand dollars more is required. I do not see any item in the schedule for that purpose, and I very respectfully ask the minister why such an item is not there.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There is no -adequate
reason.


Vincent Dupuis: Furthermore, in the town of Laprairie we have a brick industry, practically the only industry in the town, but due, I will not say wholly to the policies of this government, construction in this country is at a standstill and as a consequence the brickyards in Laprairie, four in number, are idle. We have at least four hundred families in Laprairie who are without work and in a state of starvation, despite the fact that the town of Laprairie, through the provincial government, backed by the request of Conservatives in my riding, by my good friend Mr. Gustave Monet, my opponent in the last election and a very influential representative of the Conservative party in Montreal, and also through myself, requested this government to contribute to the construction of a street called Ste. Rose in Laprairie. This government has been begged to do that work for the last -two years, and only last year this government decided to build the street under its relief policy, but that was at the beginning of December when it was -too late to begin the work. I do not see any item in this schedule for -that work. It would require an expenditure of approximately $10,000, but nothing has been done.
I see a large vote in the schedule of this bill for the Interior department and for the Department of Indian Affairs. I wonder if the government has in mind the building of a water system, as the Minister of Public Works indicated a short time ago, for the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. It is a large reserve and for many years they have been asking for a water system to be built at Caugh-nawaga, -but they are still obliged to fetch their water from the river because the village of Caughnawaga is built on a rock and there are no wells from which they can get water. This work is absolutely necessary and I would ask the minister if he has any amount for that purpose.
I also see an amount under the Department of Indian Affairs for the reconstruction of Indian residential and day schools and for hospitals. The Minister of Public Works knows perfectly well that Caughnawaga is badly in need of a hospital. Is any special amount being voted for that purpose? I should like to have an answer from the minister to all of these questions.
I am sorry that the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) is not in his seat. I would like to know how so influential a member of the government has not been able to get a larger -amount for his riding. I have been told all around here that this money has been appropriated upon the influence and recommendation of friends of the government. I am surprised that a minister of the crown so near to the government has got only $40,000 for the county of Chambly, just for a dyke. What about the Chambly canal, repairs for which are so necessary that it is impossible at the present time for a boat to pass through the canal because it is pretty nearly full up, like some of the ditches in Ontario were filled up during the last election campaign, making it absolutely necessary that they should be dug out again.
I strongly protest, Mr. Chairman, against this policy which the government presents to parliament in the last hours of the session, and I also protest strongly against the government appropriating moneys where it is not needed in many cases, and appropriating nothing for many other places where there is urgent -need for public works. I am speaking not only for myself but for the people I have the honour to represent in this house, and the country as a whole I believe will resent this policy of the government, coming down and asking parliament for an appropriation of forty million dollars just to be used for electioneering purposes, and doing it in the dying days of the session after the people of this country have been waiting for four years for redress and for fulfilment of the promises which hon. gentlemen opposite made during the last election campaign. I think the people have a right to know that the government is following such a policy, and if the government.
Public Works Construction

is unable to give an answer, one thing I am sure of is that the people will give the proper answer if opportunity is afforded them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend, who is a prominent member of the opposition, seems to have provided me with a very strong argument to answer the contention of some of his friends that this is a political measure. He has pointed out that one of my -colleagues, as he says, an influential member of the government, is getting practically nothing for his constituency. I am glad to have had that comment by my hon. friend. In connection with the Indian reservation, I would ask him to wait until the item of $2,000,000 for the Department of the Interior comes up. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) will give an explanation in connection with that. It comes under that department and I Teally know nothing about the matter. In connection with the construction of a street in Laprairie, this is a matter which should come through the municipality and the province in the way in which matters of this kind have come in the past. I do not think it is a matter which should find its way into this bill.


Vincent Dupuis: Is it not true that the minister has received petitions asking that a contribution of one-third be made by the government for the building of that street in Laprairie due to the fact that nearly everyone in the town is unemployed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My friend is quite right. Requests of that kind have been received, but again I remind him that that is not the way the matter should be handled. It should go through the province.


Vincent Dupuis: It has been there.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then it goes to the Department of Labour.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Tenders.
Mr. BURY:: I should like to say a word on the question of tenders. I should like to urge that where tenders are called for, especially for works which are not very large, as far as possible they should be confined to the particular locality provided there are a sufficient number of contractors of repute to ensure proper and reasonable competition. I take it that the purpose of the bill is to provide work, and I am a little bit afraid that a wide call for tenders would mean cut-throat competition and the benefits of the work would be practically nil. I suggest that in calling

for tenders for works involving $200,000 or $300,000 the invitations for tenders should be confined as far as possible to local contractors where there are a sufficient number to ensure bona fide competition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has special reference to Edmonton tenders?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No, I have not. I am referring to tenders for works of a comparatively moderate character, no matter in what city they may be. If tenders are to be called for over the whole province or over two or three provinces, it will mean that the local people will not get the benefit of the work. Many local contractors have been without work for a long time and they will find that the contracts are being awarded to large contractors who have underbid. In such cases the large contractor generally brings in some of his clerks and higher paid employees from some other city. If the purpose of this bill is to provide as much benefit as possible, consideration should be given as far as possible to the local places in which the work is done.
There is another matter which I should like to emphasize, and which has been emphasized already by hon. members on both sides who have spoken. Special care should be taken to ensure that the fair wage clause is inserted, not merely in the original contract- I know it will be-but in the subcontracts as well, and that this clause is enforced in connection with all contracts. I know that in many tenders let by the government, not for construction work but for the supplying of goods, the fair wage clause is scandalously ignored. Work is being done under government contracts under conditions of practically sweated labour. The prices paid in some instances are so low that the work cannot be produced on terms of fair wages or fair working hours. I ask that special care be taken to see that these conditions are observed in connection with this relief bill.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister was good
enough to let me have a copy of the amendment which he proposes to move to section
7.	I had already prepared an amendment to take the place of sections 6 and 7, and I was wondering if there would be any objection to considering the two sections together.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Section 6 provides that tenders shall be invited "except as hereinafter provided." The principle of that section is absolutely sound, and it is the basis of all operations under the bill. It is what my hon. friend has been contending for. I think we should start with that prin-

Price Spreads
ciple, that tenders are to be invited except where the governor in council decides otherwise. I believe we should retain that principle.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister will bear in
mind that my objection to section 6 is that the tenders are not to be publicly advertised. I think this question of tenders should be settled along the lines of the suggestion of the Prime Minister, that it should follow the provisions of the Public Works Act. Even with the amendment which my hon. friend proposes to move to section 7, I submit that the objects of the bill will be better served by putting in section 36 of the Public Works Act, which would cover both section 6 and section 7 of the bill. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot):
That sections 6 and 7 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"6. Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or
(b)	in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department, or
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
2. Whenever in case of any work tenders are required to be or are invited, the minister having charge of the department concerned shall submit all tenders received therefor to the governor in council, and the contract for the work shall be awarded under the direction of the governor in council.
And that present sections numbered eight, nine and ten be renumbered as seven, eight and nine.
In moving that, I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to what I said yesterday in regard to this matter. It will give us public advertisement of tenders and will do away with the necessity for the two sections 6 and 7. I understand that the minister proposes to concede, in section 7, pretty much what was advocated yesterday by other members on this side as well as by myself. I wish to say one word which I did not stress yesterday and it is partly in answer to what my hon. friend from Edmonton has said in regard to the persons from whom tenders are received. It is a pretty dangerous thing to attempt to limit the scope of the tender. In tenders for Canadian business, it seems to me that if you are going to get the best value for your money you should not attempt to limit to any one province or section the people from
whom tenders may be received. That has been the practice in the past and it is the proper policy. I believe that all the advantages suggested by my hon. friend from. Edmonton can be obtained by imposing upon whoever gets the contract the conditions that are requested with regard to the labour that shall be used upon that contract.


John Alexander Sullivan: This amendment is not in order. We are considering section 6 and this is an amendment to section 6 and 7. Standing order 76 provides:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.


John Campbell Elliott: I made the suggestion, and I thought it was concurred in, that 6 and 7 be considered together.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have been contending the very opposite, that 6 should stand on its own merits. I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


John Campbell Elliott: I have some further remarks to make.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 29, 1934