INTERPRETATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 74 to amend the Interpretation Act.
He said: This bill is to correct a clerical error which has 'been called to our attention by the Supreme Court of Ontario; we intend to change the word " in " to " to " in one of the clauses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. GOBEIL:: 1.	Was a contract for the repairs to the wharfs and buildings of the quarantine station at Grosse Isle, Montmagny county, awarded to Messrs. Lemelin and Brousseau, in 1929?
2.	If so, what was the contract price?
Motions for Papers

3.	What are the names of the persons who signed such contract?
4.	To whose order were the cheques in settlement of such contract made payable?
5.	Who endorsed such cheques?
6.	If such cheques were endorsed by only one of the two contractors, was the department given a power of attorney authorizing it to accept such signature on behalf of the two contractors?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes, a contract was awarded to Lemelin & Brousseau for repairs to buildings on November 4, 1929.
2.	S9,981.65.
3.	Henri Lemelin, contractor; Omer Brousseau, contractor; J. B. Hunter, Deputy Minister of Public Works; N. Desjardins, acting secretary, dept, of Public Works.
4.	Lemelin & Brousseau.
5.	Lemelin & Brousseau, par Henri Lemelin.
6.	No.


LEVIS, QUE., WHARF
Mr. DESROCHERS:: 1.	Is the government aware that an amount of $40,000 was voted for the construction of the wharf at Levis?
2.	Is the government aware that that amount was used to build an extension to the Canadian National railway wharf, known "ice-breaker"?
3.	What was the amount actually spent on the construction of the said extension to the Canadian National railway wharf?
4.	What was the original estimate of the public works department engineers for the construction of the said wharf?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes, vote No. 421 for the fiscal year 1931-32 contained the item "Levis-contribution towards cost of wharf-$40,090."
2.	The ice-breaker or ice-deflector was part of the work constructed at the cost of the city of Levis, towards which work the department contributed $40,000.
3.	The cost of the work done by the city of Levis was $126,000.
4.	No estimate by the engineer of the Department of Public Works of cost of work done by the city. Estimate by the consulting engineer for the city was $126,000.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. VERVILLE:: What was the amount paid to the undermentioned persons, respectively, for supplies or services in connection with Valcartier unemployment camp, during each of the following years, 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935, to date, viz: Jos. Gingras, Barnabe Parent, M. B. Berry,
[Mr. Gobeil.1
and A. J. Blondeau of Loretteville, and Georges Theberge, J. E. Blondeau, Georges Gosselin and Gaudais Letellier of Quebec?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	For a copy of all resolutions in the possession of any department of the government favouring the resumption of immigration from Great Britain and/or of the Hornby settlement plan, received between January,
1934,	and this date; and
2.	For a copy of any letters or resolutions
received by any such department in that connection from the following city and town councils, boards of trade, or other bodies:- Saskatchewan:	Wolseley, Melfort, Prince
Albert, Lashburn ajnd District. Alberta: Vermilion, Tofield, Mayerthorpe, Grand Prairie. British Columbia:	Prince George,
Vanderhoof, Prince Rupert.


REBATES UNEER CUSTOMS TARIFF
Mr. STEVENS:: For a list of all rebates granted under tariff item 1035, schedule "B" of the customs tariff, during the period June, 1934, to April 1,
1935,	such list to show,-
1.	(a) The names of the firms applying and the names of the persons making application on behalf of the firms.
(b)	The amount claimed for rebate in the original application.
(c)	The amount actually rebated.
(d)	The date of the importation of the goods for which rebate is sought.
2.	A copy of the minute of the treasury board or order in council, as the case may be, authorizing the refund in each case described in the preceding paragraph.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: On Monday last when this .motion was before the house the Prime Minister requested that it be allowed to stand and intimated that it was his understanding that it was contrary to the practice of any government to produce in this chamber the names of those to whom rebates had been granted under the Customs Act. I merely desire to confirm this understanding. It is contrary to the established practice of the Department of National Revenue to give information which would disclose the private business of any individual or corporation and I would therefore suggest that the motion be dropped.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to transgress the rules of the house by debating the motion, but I should like to make one observation in regard to this matter as it involves, if it is dropped, possibly the establishing of a precedent in the house which I think the house should be cognizant of before such action is taken. I quite understand the practice of refusing to disclose the business of any private firm in connection with its invoices .or docu-

Unemployment Relief Camps
ments submitted for the passing of goods through the customs houses or customs offices of the country. But this is something different from that. The point at issue here is simply this: that certain revenue having been collected and entering into the consolidated fund of the country, under certain practice and rules of the department, rebates are made under the statute. All that I am asking is that when a rebate is paid between certain times-all I am asking is when a rebate is paid out of the consolidated fund-the name and the documents authorizing such rebate should be laid on the table of the house. If it is now decided not to do1 that, I should like to intimate to the house that in my opinion it is rather an extraordinary ruling that the House of Commons is not entitled to information dealing with the important matter of the revenue of the country and the manner in which it may be handled in so far as rebates are concerned.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


SANTO DOMINGO TARIFF
Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence including letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the government of Canada or any member thereof or any official of said government, and the government of Santo Domingo or any minister or official thereof, or between the government of Canada, its ministers or officials and the minister to Canada from Great Britain or the Secretary of State for the Colonies or any of his officials, relative to the great increase in duties on fish, potatoes, onions, etc., when imported into the said island of Santo Domingo from Canada.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the motion carry?


Mr. BENNETT:: Subject to the exception that dispatches that may be of such a character as are usually not brought down will not be brought down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Passed, with the reservation indicated by the Prime Minister.


ST. RENE BEAUCE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all correspondence between J. N. Maheux of Saint Martin de Beauce, or any other ex-soldier, and the Postmaster General, or any other member of the government. during the year 1934 and up to the present date, with respect to the appointment of a postmaster at St. Rene Beauce.



CARIBOO-UPPER MUSQUODOBOIT, N.S., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of all notices, tenders, contracts, letters, telegrams, memoranda, correspondence
and documents, dated since January 1, 1934, in the possession of the Post Office Department, with respect to the contract for carrying the mail between Cariboo and Upper Musquod'oboit, Halifax county.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CAMPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has yet received the report of the commission investigating conditions in the relief camps in British Columbia. If so, will he submit it to the house?


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member was
good enough to let me know that he was going to ask this question. The chairman of the commission has kept me aware from time to time of the progress being made by the commission. The last communication I received was a week ago, in which he intimated that the evidence which the commission proposed to take in Vancouver was complete, but that the commission proposed to take a little more evidence in Vancouver island, and then would hasten to the preparation of its report. In a previous communication he had intimated that the secretarial work of preparing the evidence for consideration was well in hand, and I anticipate that within the next few days it is probable that the report will reach the government.



PAYMENTS OUT OF FEDERAL TREASURY TO PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: A few days ago a question was
asked by an hon. member as to what the contribution of Canada to the province of Ontario was per month. I stated at the time that I believed it was $600,000. My observation was interrupted by the suggestion that it probably was larger because Quebec was receiving that sum, and I then suggested $750,000. The fact is that when the agreement was arrived at in July last a provisional amount was paid for the months of August and September, subject to adjustment, of $750,000 in the case of Ontario and $600,000 in the case of Quebec. Subsequently, when matters were finally arranged, the amount paid and agreed to be paid was $600,000 per month in the case of Ontario and $500,000 in the case of the province of Quebec.
Public Works Program



PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will give instructions to have the committee on industrial and international relations called together to deal with the question of pensions for the blind, which was remitted to it for the second time before the recess. A few days ago the Prime Minister in answer to a similar question indicated that it would be dealt with in due course on the order paper, but he was not aware at that time that in his absence the report had been brought down and remitted back for further consideration and action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that the hon. gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the ability of the First Minister to deal with a committee. I cannot direct a committee to do anything-I am very pleased to be able to make that statement-but I will bring the matter to the attention of the chairman, who doubtless will be made aware of it by what has been said by the hon. gentleman himself.



PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 63 to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)- Mr. Morand in the chair.
On schedule A, item 11-Interior Department-To provide for the construction and development of public buildings, camp sites, electric light and telephone systems, highways, bridges, streets, sidewalks, landing fields, air-harbours, trails, water and sewer systems, recreational areas, wharves, and river protection works; to provide for the development of historic sites including buildings, repairs and restorations; to provide for the purchase and acquisition of building sites, also to provide for the construction of the Golden-Revelstoke (Big Bend) section of the trans-Canada highway, $1,506,000.
Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask the Minister
of Public Works if his colleague the Postmaster General is in town. If so, will he call him to the house in order that some questions may be put to him in regard to the work done at riviere du Chene?


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I really am not in control of the
Postmaster General as to his movements either in the house or out of it. I do not know whether he is in town to-day or not.


Jean-François Pouliot: What my hon. friend has just said reminds me of one of the first men who lived on this earth when he said: "Am I my brother's keeper?" I am surprised that my hon. friend should assume that attitude. In Hansard of May 23 at page' 3006, the Postmaster General is reported as follows:
The island for which I paid $100 I offer to the hon. member for Temiscouata for $25- condition, cash. Is it accepted?
I have delayed my answer until now, but now I accept the offer and I have the money ready. I am sorry the Postmaster General is not in his seat because I want to buy that island in order that no more of the public money may be wasted.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I say is quite
relevant. A challenge was made to a member of the opposition. I have the money here; it is ready to forward to the Postmaster General and (I want to buy his island. When a minister of the crown makes a challenge, it must not be disregarded by the house. I have here 125 of perfectly good money.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to buy the island. Nothing on earth can prevent me from buying it. What I have to say now is quite revelant and I will tell you, sir, why it is on a point of order. It is because the schedule is a part of the whole bill to which every section refers.


Mr. GOTT:: Will the hon. member go to the island and stay there?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will give my answer only after the deed is completed.
The committee was all wrong when it was decided to pass the schedule. Every section of the bill refers to the schedule, and therefore while discussing section 2 or section 3 we can refer to the schedule, to the works that are mentioned therein. Further, one can mention any expenditure made by the Department of Public Works, and moreover every expenditure made by the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Marine the Department of National Defence and the Department of Agriculture. One can refer to any expenditure made in any department headed by any one of the ministers involved. Therefore I am quite in order when I speak of vast expenditure which has been made under the control of the Minister of Public Works around an island which is not greater than one's hand, on which theTe are four trees and which belongs to the Post-

Public Works Program
master General. I want him to come down to the house, to show that he is a man and that he was not fooling the committee of the house when he offered his island for sale for $25. I waited until now to give my answer. My answer is: Yes; here is $20 and here is $5 more, making $25; I want to send the money to him. The Minister of Public Works does not know where he is. I want the Postmaster General to come down to the house and I hope the Prime Minister will send for him right away in order that he may give an answer and get the money. This is a loss for me, but I do it for the benefit of the country in order that no more public money may be made on and around the island.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might permit the business of the house to be proceeded with and forget this, because there is a rule that when an offer of that character is made, it remains open for only a reasonable time for acceptance.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would agree with the right hon. gentleman under different circumstances, but if he remembers well, I supported the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) when he opposed adjourning the house for a holiday over the twenty-fourth. I wanted the house to sit on the twenty-fourth, Friday last, and then I would have accepted the offer. But there is another reason why I did not accept it right away; it was because the Postmaster General was mumbling when he made his offer; I did not catch it very well and it was only when I read Hansard the day after, when the house was not sitting, that I realized he had offered his island for $25.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: If the hon. gentleman
wishes to buy an island, he can buy it outside the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: The offer was made in the house; I have to buy it here; I do not see the Postmaster General outside the house and I do not see him in it all the time. I do not refuse that offer; I accept it and I am sorry the Postmaster General is not here to get the money. There are two pages present and he can get the money right away. Moreover, the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin) who is a notary has agreed to prepare the deed without cost. He will be here to-night and if the Postmaster General accepts, and not only accepts, but is true to his word, is straight enough to sell his island for $25, the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm will sign the deed. If not, I will
sue the Postmaster General for completion of the deed. I regret very much there are slackers who do not appear in the house when questions of such importance are being discussed, and I hope before long we will see him coming here accepting the money which I have shown to the whole committee.


Eccles James Gott: When will the hon. member
go to the island?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will go to the island
when it is my own property. There will be no waste of public money there; the Toronto tunnel will not be duplicated in two feet of water.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member has said that he will go to the island. He did not say whether he would stay there.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he has agreed to all sensible requests for dredging rivers since he has been in charge of the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does my hon.
friend ask whether we have agreed to all sensible requests for dredging of all rivers in Canada since I have been in charge?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say no; we have not had funds to agree to all that. That would take a great deal of money.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was a request made to the hon. gentleman for dredging in St. Urbain in the county of Chateauguay. He declined it. Did he decline it because it was not a sensible request?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot be
expected, I submit with all sincerity, to carry in my mind details of requests for dredging throughout the dominion. Really I think the matter referred to has nothing to do with the bill or the section under consideration. I suggest that we have spent a great deal of time and it would be well to endeavour to make some progress. This is not a real estate agency or an occasion when we can be expected to give details on anything.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would not have said
anything more about the matter had the minister not said that it was irrelevant, but it is relevant; every expenditure from one cent up may be criticised here; we have a right to do this and no one will prevent us from doing it if we see fit to do so. The minister knows very well that I have a lot of consideration for him personally. Therefore he should not take this so lightly; it is a serious matter. He has already expressed his appreciation of some matters that I have brought to his personal
Public Works Program

attention. Here I tell him that he has been fooled by one of his colleagues, and that a considerable amount of public money has been wasted in improving a private property of one of the cabinet ministers. I am most indignant, and I cannot understand how the hon. gentleman takes it so lightly. But as he does it is useless to discuss the matter any further.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like the hon. member to explain the whole thing to his constituents.


Eccles James Gott: Send some of Jack Miner's birds to his island.


Mr. SPENCER:: It is not an island about which I wish to speak, but some valuable woodland north of Ottawa. The matter was brought up in this chamber last week by the leader of the opposition, and I concur entirely in what he said. Tremendous damage is being done to-day by unnecessary wood-cutting north of Ottawa, spoiling these wonderful hills that are so valuable to the people of this city. I would like to know if there is any possibility of even a small sum from this $1,500,000 under item 11 being used for a survey to learn what might be done to save these parklike woodlands and do something to preserve this splendid wild .country north of the city.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say at once that no portion of this fund would be available for use on any land that is not the property of the crown. This wood-cutting is taking place on private property, and without the formation of a federal district or the assumption of some overriding control we have no right even to go on the property. That is my view of the situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was rather amazed to find the suggestion made that this parliament could deal with this matter. This parliament has the same jurisdiction over this matter as it has over the private property of any citizen of any province. The lands, mines, minerals and timber of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec are under the control of the crown in the right of the province.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: And every other province.
M,r. BENNETT: Yes. The only properties we have are in the Northwest Territories, the national parks and our experimental farms. With respect to reforestation the position is the same. We discussed the matter with the provinces on one occasion, but this dominion

has no authority over these woodlands near this city and no control, direct or indirect, remote or near; neither can it touch them in any way, shape or form unless there were legislation specifically directed to that end, and then the question would arise of the conflict between the crown in the right of the dominion and in the right of the province, and the purposes for which the crown right of the dominion desires to exercise its powers of expropriation. The whole matter was considered in a case that went to the privy council in connection with the right of way for a railway in northern Ontario, and the supremacy of the crown in the right of the dominion to expropriate provincial crown land for that purpose under the Railway Act as against anyone else was upheld. But as far as this particular question is concerned, we can talk about it, but the only authority that can deal with it is the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario as the case may be, unless we amend our constitution, which the formation of a federal district would involve. For a federal district comprising parts of two provinces would of necessity require a change in the British North America Act itself, having regard to the provisions concerning our parliamentary representation.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the right hon. Prime Minister that what I suggested as certainly within the competence of this parliament and government was a conference with the provinces concerned. I saw no reason why my right hon. friend might not call into conference with him the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, and direct their attention to the fact that the land immediately adjacent to the capital is being denuded of its forest wealth. My right hon. friend recalls that when Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister he appointed a royal commission, which after considerable trouble and expense made recommendations as to the improvement of the capital of Canada and how the suggested improvements might be developed. Among the suggestions was the creation of a federal district which would take in a large section of the wooded country round about the capital. Up to the present time that recommendation has not been carried out. However, it is wholly probable that in the course of years some means will be found whereby there will be created a federal district which will have to do not merely with the beautification of the capital itself, but also of its immediate environs.
Unless some action is taken immediately, however, an amount of damage will be done

Public Works Program
to the whole area adjacent to Ottawa that will be irreparable. I do not know whether my right hon. friend has seen some of the areas that within the past year have been cut within a very few miles of the city. If not, and if he can possibly spare the time for the purpose, I understand that to-night at 7.30 there are to be shown in one of the rooms of this house some lantern pictures which disclose just what has taken place within the last few years. Hon. members who see those pictures will find that the only appropriate comparison for some of the areas that have been shorn of their woods are the devastated areas of the battlefields after the great war. Many acres of beautiful woodland adjacent to the rivers or to the highways have been ruthlessly destroyed. I say ruthlessly, because they have been cut for a mere pittance, the owners receiving very little, and some unemployed men who have done the cutting but a very small amount of pay. There is an obligation on the federal government to have regard not merely for Ottawa to-day as the capital city, but to the capital of Canada for years and for generations to come.
The serious part to-day is that most of the forests -of which I am speaking are on hillsides which have very little soil upon them. The soil that is there has been the result of the slow accumulation of centuries, and, once the wood is cut, a few rainfalls are sufficient to wash away practically all the soil. Therefore it is not a matter that could be repaired by reforestation. These hillsides will become bleak areas of rock and stumps.
With the dominion government paying out money for the purpose of reforestation under a reforestation policy, it seems to me that there is an obligation to retain what we already have, especially where it is certain that in the course -of time we shall have to -do something in -the way of reforestation, if it can be done then, in order to make good a very serious loss.
I expected to find my right hon. friend sympathetic with any movement that would help to preserve the beauty of this capital and its immediate environment. I think he has that at heart. I believe that all that is necessary at this moment is for him to call in, as I suggested, representatives of the two provinces. He is pretty busy himself; let his ministers call in the ministers who have to do with the highways and parks of the provinces, have a conference and see if they will not agree to d-o something on their part in the way o-f conserving this forest wealth, provided the dominion makes some contribution, such as the Department of the Interior
is in a position to make out of unemployment relief funds, in giving employment if you like to unemployed surveyors. At this time we are sending lads to the mining camps and prospecting; a million dollars or more was asked recently by the Minister of Mines for great surveys, and it was urged that a lot of university men out of employment would thus find some work. Surely a few of these men might be retained by the Department of the Interior to do this work.
If I may I would point out to the Prime Minister, so that he will appreciate how urgent this is, that the areas nearest the roads and the river banks and the lakes are cut first, because it is cheaper to transport the wood from them. I do not think there is any desire to prevent the men who own these little properties from making what they can out of cutting some of their wooded areas. I believe even a word of advice would cause many of them to reserve the forepart of their grounds and premises immediately adjacent to the highways and confine what cutting they may have to do to the interior of their property. At any rate a reforestation policy which would have regard to not cutting timber below a certain size would help meet the situation-.
I appeal to the Prime Minister not to let this matter just go by with the statement that we have not the authority or that we must amend the constitution. In the past no one has been stronger on conferences than the right hon. gentleman, and conferences with the provinces are always possible. However, some government has to take the lead and certainly the federal government owes it to Canada to see that the immediate environs of the capital are maintained-, if it is at all possible to do so, with at least some degree of their original beauty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the right hon. gentleman has any licence to suggest that I am not sympathetic-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said I was
sure my right hon-. friend was sympathetic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -But if he suggests that I am lacking in sympathy because I point out the facts I might ask, in turn, why during the n-ine years he was in power he did not take steps in this direction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First may I
say to my right hon. friend that when I mentioned the matter on Thursday and again to-day I said one person who I was sure would be in sympathy with the preservation of this forest life was my right hon. friend.
The answer to the question of why I let nine years go by, may I say,
Public Works Program

is that all that I am speaking of has taken place only within the last two or three years. I think I can explain the situation in a word. What is happening is this: It was not the owners of this property who conceived the idea of ruthlessly cutting down these forests; it was a few men who discovered that by taking contracts they could go to the different farmers and offer them small amounts for their wood, I think something like fifty cents a cord is what, in many cases, owners receive; and a dollar a cord is what these contractors have been paying for the cutting of the wood. Times being hard, they have found a number of people who were prepared to accept their proposals and sell and cut the wood at that figure, and as I have said owners have been selling wood in many cases at as low a figure as from forty cents to one dollar per cord depending on the quality of wood cut. The contractors make what little they can out of the sale of the wood through the extensive contracts they have entered into. It has been only within the last two years that what has been happening along the roadsides, the river banks and the lake shores has taken place, and it is for that reason that I am saying to my right hon. friend that I am sure another winter will work a dtegree of devastation that will be completely irreparable.
I hope my right hon. friend will believe that I sincerely regard him as entirely sympathetic to a movement of this kind, which aims at the preservation of these scenic woodland areas in the immediate vicinity of the capital. I simply asked for his cooperation in this matter because I believed he should and would be willing to give it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only desire to make
this observation:	One must face the realities
of this situation. My right hon. friend suggested that trees below a certain size should not be cut, and I can only say that at the present time there is a law in that respect in the province of Quebec. That is a matter over which the province has control so far as crown lands are concerned. We have no more control over those crown lands than we have over the island of Newfoundland, as the situation exists at the moment.
I do entirely agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said as to the dangers of this practice, because twenty-five years ago I bad occasion to learn of the evils of denuding a watershed of trees. Near the city of Calgary there was a fairly good growth of timber, which was under lease from the federal government to a well known company. A fire took part of it and the rest was cut down,

with the result that the humus which had accumulated during the centuries was washed down by the spring rains. Now there is no longer moisture gradually finding its way to the river; it comes down in the spring in the form of freshets, and there is no regularity of flow in the river. I discovered this in connection with an enterprise with which we were then interested, the use of water for the purpose of power. At that time we endeavoured to point out the evils of this practice. The company in question had a contract with the government which precluded them from cutting timber below a certain size, but the fire did the rest.
Every year, I think, this government has made some contribution for the purpose of preventing forest fires, and now that the dominion has parted with its interests in public lands, so far as the west is concerned, that part of the country stands in exactly the same position as the old provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The right hon. gentleman knows that better than I, because he had to deal with the agreements. We have no power with respect to the cutting of timber in the provinces of Quebec or Ontario and, what is even more important in this connection, we have no power in connection with reforestation. The province of Ontario had a reforestation plan, and after this depression began our director of forestry here was asked to look into the matter in connection with certain works that were carried on at one of the relief camps for single, homeless men in the Kananaskis valley, which is well known to the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). The difficulty I see is that, with the best intentions in the world, this parliament cannot in any sense exercise control in this matter, since it lies with the crown in the right of the provinces to deal with questions of this kind. Eor instance, in the province of Quebec they have greatly improved conditions during the last few years by the reforestation of certain areas that have been denuded of trees. I understand that under modern methods they can carry on this work without very much expense, and I believe it has been demonstrated that it takes about sixty years for certain types of spruce to reach maturity for the purpose of being used for pulpwood.
So far as the immediate matter is concerned, I was not aware that the devastation to which attention has been directed was on such a colossal scale as has been suggested. However, I will ask the chairman of the federal district commission to communicate with the

Public Works Program
two governments concerned in order to ascertain from the ministers concerned in each of these provinces whether anything can be done to meet the situation. I am heartily in accord with the' principle that has been laid down, that the approaches to the capital city of Ottawa should be kept as beautiful as it is possible to maintain them, but I am also realist enough to know that unfortunately we have no power in the premises. If a federal district is to be set up, as I have pointed out, it cannot be done by this parliament alone; the district would extend into two provinces, and in the very nature of the action to be taken some modification of the existing provisions of the British North America Act would be involved. As I think the right hon. gentleman will remember if he carries his mind back, all these matters were discussed some time ago when the question of the federal district commission was being considered by the commission set up by the government of Sir Robert Borden shortly after he assumed office, which made a report on the beautification of this city, which to some extent has been carried out. As the years have gone by it has been found that the plans which have been carried out have resulted in this becoming a more beautiful city, and that work is being carried on all the time. If the approaches to the city are to be maintained, however, unfortunately it will require not only the expenditure of money; more than that it will require legislative action which is not competent to this parliament but which, in its ultimate analysis, will require some modification of the existing provisions of the British North America Act.
I shall direct the attention of the chairman of the federal district commission to the matter at once. I have no doubt he has had his attention directed to it already, because he and his commission have been most farsighted in trying to secure properties at reasonable prices in, order that the beautiful approaches to this community might be maintained. For instance, across the river an old mill burned down, and the commission were able to acquire that property at a very small price. Out near the research building two small properties were acquired for which we had to provide an amount in the estimates, in order to maintain just what has been suggested by the right hon. gentleman, the beauty of the community as a whole. But we will have to deal with the question of the approaches from an entirely different angle. I oannot do more than submit what has been said to the chairman of the commission, to whom I will send a copy of Hansard. However it may be desirable for him to go to Quebec and Toronto to see if anything can be done for the purpose of taking immediate action, for I had no idea that it was as serious as the right hon. gentleman has indicated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I at once thank the Prime Minister. His remarks bear out what I have said. I felt sure no one would be more interested in the matter than my right hon. friend, once he appreciated the situation. I think the step he has suggested, namely that of conferring with the chairman of the federal district commission and enlisting his active cooperation is an excellent way of going about the matter. I have no doubt that with the Prime Minister's powerful influence behind him much affecting the situation will be accomplished. I am sure the chairman of the Federal District Commission will find the provinces sympathetic, once it is proposed that the matter be taken up as one of joint action.


Mr. BRADETTE:: At this point I should like to make a request of the Minister of Public Works. I notice that a certain amount of money is to be spent upon railway grade crossings. A situation exists in my section of the country along the National Transcontinental extending from the Quebec border to a point a feiw miles west of Hearst whereby the railway commission has the power to decide where they shall or shall not build fences. Apparently so far as the railways' administration is concerned, if they decide in certain sections around Kapuskasing not to build those fences the farmers have no rights against them.
Under the present scheme I should like the government to ear-mark a certain amount of money so that fencing may be carried out along the railway line from the Quebec border to a point west of Hearst. The committee and minister will readily understand the injustice this section of the country has suffered, and I believe we would do well to ear-mark a certain sum of money which could be spent in building fences along that portion of railway I have just mentioned.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The appropriation mentioned in the schedule is for the purpose of eliminating crossings, and not for that of building fences, which latter procedure would appear to be the responsibility of the railway concerned, acting under the direction of the railway commission. I would think that if my hon. friend's constituents have a grievance they should bring it to the attention of the railway commission and endeavour to secure an order
Public Works Program

against the railway company for the construction of fences. I doubt however if we would have any right to build fences on railway property; I believe it would be a dangerous precedent to establish. However I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways and find out if anything can be done.


Charles A. Stewart: First I should like to say to the minister that, as I pointed out on a former occasion, I see no reason
why these expenditures should not have been included in the estimates. We do not have the same opportunity to discuss an expenditure under a relief measure as we would have to discuss a like expenditure appearing in the estimates of a department. In the present year the minister's department is asking for $1,678,000, representing an increase of $54,000 over the amount voted last year. There would be no objection to that, but we find that under the guise of relief the department is asking for a further sum of $1,500,000 all of which, with one or two exceptions, is to be spent for purposes identical with those mentioned in the general estimates.
I shall ask certain questions, and as I proceed the minister may answer them. I would understand that this work will be done under the supervision of officials of the Department of the Interior, and that regular rates of wages will be paid. That is my understanding. So far as I have knowledge of the situation there are no twenty-cents-a-day men in the parks. The work will be carried on under the supervision of the superintendent of highway construction in the parks, and regular rates of wages will be paid.
Then, I note a further provision for the construction of air harbours, landing fields and sewer system. I should like the minister to inform the committee where these improvements are to take place, or in what particular parks the work is to be done. At this point I shall wait for an answer, because there are one or two further questions I should like to ask.


Mr. MURPHY:: At the present time in
one of our parks a certain amount of work is being carried on by camps similar to those under the control of the Department of National Defence. Those camps will be closed very shortly, and works will be carried on under the provision contained herein.


Charles A. Stewart: Would you give me the location of the park you have in mind?


Charles Murphy: Riding Mountain national park. In any work carried on under this

measure regular wages will be paid, as was done last year. Works will be carried out in various national parks throughout the dominion, namely at Banff, Jasper, on the Golden-Revelstoke highway, * Elk Island national park. Glacier national park, Kootenay national park, Prince Albert national park, Riding Mountain national park, Waterton Lakes national park, and Yoho national park. A certain amount will be allocated for engineering supervision of work on certain historic sites, and, as is mentioned in the item, an amount will be spent for the continuation of the Golden-Revelstoke highway.


Charles A. Stewart: Where is
the sewer system to be constructed?


Mr.   MLTRPHY@: An amount of S10.000 is
allocated for extension of the water and sewer system in Jasper national park, an amount of $20,000 for sewer system in Kootenay national park, $7,500 for Prince Albert national park water, sewage and drainage and $26,500 for water system in Riding Mountain national park.


Charles A. Stewart: I understand it is not for the construction of a complete new sewer system; it is just a continuation of existing water and sewer systems?


Charles Murphy: In Jasper and Kootenay
national parks amounts are allocated for extensions and improvements to the existing systems. In Prince Albert and Riding Mountain national parks new work is to be done.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the govvernment constructing sewers in these thinly populated places? The population of both these parks is very small.


Charles Murphy: In Riding Mountain and
Prince Albert national parks we are providing water rather than sewage systems, but the amounts are allocated under one heading.


Charles A. Stewart: What about the landing fields?


Charles Murphy: The sum of $5,200 is
allocated to Banff national park, $17,400 to the Northwest Territories and $40,000 to the Yukon. The $40,000 allocated to the Yukon includes expenditures on certain roads. I would point out to the committee, as was pointed out formerly by the Minister of Public Works when, upon my unavoidable absence he was in charge of the item, that these amounts are tentative, and it is possible that the work may not be done in accordance with these exact figures. It may develop as the season goes on, that owing to climatic or other conditions, we may wish to make slight changes.

Public Works Program
I believe in the main however that these figures are as accurate as at present they can be given.
Mr. STEM7ART (Edmonton):	I am not
concerned with whether or not this money may complete the work or only do a portion of it. Will this levelling work on the landing fields be done by day labour under the supervision of the department or by contract?


Charles Murphy: It will be done by day
labour under the supervision of the chief engineer of the department or the superintendents of the various parks.


Charles A. Stewart: Is there
any portion of this vote to be spent on the Lake Louise-Jasper highway?


Charles Murphy: It is proposed to spend $110,000 on the Banff end and $115,000 on the Jasper end.


Charles A. Stewart: In connection with the Revelstoke or Big Bend highway I should like to know if the section up to the Canoe river has been completed?


Charles Murphy: There is a stretch of
about 16 miles to complete although certain grading work has been done. As the hon. member knows the department is obligated to build a bridge over the Canoe river and that work will be completed this year under this program.
Mr. STEM7ART (Edmonton):	How much
is being allocated for that?


Charles Murphy: $185,000 out of this vote but in addition there are certain moneys which were provided for by the act of last year but which were not expended. It is estimated that this section will be completed this year.


Charles A. Stewart: In the neighbourhood of $200,000 is to be expended on the continuation of the Jasper-Lake Louise highway.


Charles Murphy: $225,000.


Charles A. Stewart: $180,000
is being expended on the continuation of the Revelstoke highway.


Charles Murphy: $185,000 out of this vote and $100,000 which was provided for by the 1934 act but not expended.


Charles A. Stewart: There will
be no expenditure with a view of continuing the road westward from Jasper to connect with the Revelstoke highway and the trans-Canada highway.


Charles Murphy: There is no money
allocated for that.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
protest against the expenditure of this money. I cannot understand why the government is constructing a highway from Lake Louise to Jasper before a trans-Canada highway is completed from coast to coast. Much relief work has been provided by highway construction but so far as I can understand very little progress has been made on the construction of the highway to the Canoe river from Golden. The Jasper-Banff highway leads eastward instead of westward and no provision is being made for a trans-Canada highway through Jasper to connect with the Golden coast outlet. To use the mildest language, it seems to me to be the height of folly to build a highway over a mountain peak 6,000 feet in the air and expect that the people from northern Alberta will be able to use such a highway more than one month in the year. An opportunity is offered of building an outlet to the coast at a height of little more than 3,000 feet which would be open practically as long as the roads are open in the province. The government has spent a considerable amount of money on the construction of this highway and yet no outlet to the coast is being provided. There will be great difficulty in keeping this road open, even in the summer time. Down at the southern end of the province a road was constructed around Crowsnest lake and it was found possible to keep it open only six months in the year. Finally a road had to be constructed at the lake level before it could be of any use at all. Yet the government is constructing a road up over 6,000 feet.
I am protesting against this money not being spent to provide a connection with the trans-Canada highway, in connection with which so many promises were made in 1930. Considerable money has been spent on certain sections of this highway but the construction of other sections remains in abeyance and no outlet to the coast is being provided for the people of northern Alberta.


Charles Murphy: The road being constructed from Lake Louise to Jasper is a scenic highway which lies wholly within the boundaries of our parks whereas the road advocated by the hon. member lies to a great extent outside the boundaries of the parks. Last year the hon. member took exception to the expenditure of money on the Lake Louise-Jaspei highway and advocated the completion of the west leg of the Big Bend highway and a connecting road from Jasper to Big Bend. Both
Public Works Program

these roads would lie outside the parks and it would naturally follow that the dominion would have no jurisdiction. The hon. member will recall that during his term of office correspondence was exchanged between this government represented by himself and the government of British Columbia in connection with the building of the western leg of the Big Bend highway from Revelstoke to the Canoe river. This year the dominion government will complete its part of the bargain by finishing the highway from Donald to the Canoe river. Owing to insufficient funds and possibly other reasons of which I am not aware the government of British Columbia have not fulfilled their part of the bargain. Certain work was done on the west leg of the Big Bend road during the past three years by camps under the jurisdiction of the Depart-of National Defence and certain boards of trade and other bodies have asked the dominion to take over the construction of that road. The fact that the dominion government is to-day constructing roads within our parks for scenic purposes does not prevent the undertaking of other road projects. The hon. member will recall that much money was expended upon scenic roads in the parks during his term of office and the building of this Lake Louise-Jasper road is simply a continuation of that policy. As far as the utilization of the road is concerned I have it on the authority of the chief engineer that the road will be available for traffic during the tourist season. I take it from the smiles of the hon. member that he does not agree with the chief engineer.


Charles A. Stewart: I would not agree with any engineer who made any such statement.


Charles Murphy: And naturally I would
take the opinion of the responsible engineer, as I think the hon. member himself would under like circumstances. That is their job. Again, I say that the building of the scenic route within the park, which is our responsibility and which will provide, I am informed, one of the most 'beautiful scenic routes on the continent, does not prevent the construction of roads outside our national parks. But of necessity, if the dominion government builds roads outside the national parks and on provincial lands, some agreement must be entered into with the province concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: A good deal of complaint has been made by the government about expenditures which they have been forced to make on relief. In Ontario, as my hon. friend well knows, and in the other

provinces as well, the federal government have been joining the provincial governments in the construction of what is known as the trans-Oanada highway. True, at the present time in northern Ontario there seems to be a disagreement between the two governments with respect to what they will do about the matter; but the well known policy of this government was to join the provincial governments, for relief purposes, in the construction of these highways; and my protest here is, first, that despite what the engineer or anyone else may say I know enough about the mountains to know that snow will not be out of passes six thousand feet in the air for more than one month. I know that from past experience because I had to construct a highway in southern Alberta where the summit is only five thousand feet, getting down to lake level at Crowsnest lake. Every engineer knows that, and any engineer who tells the government that a pass six thousand two hundred feet in the air will be open for more than one month in the year is straining his veracity to a great extent. What I am pointing out to the minister, as I pointed out last year, is that this government made very spacious promises in 1930 with respect to this trans-Canada highway. As a matter of fact, the electorate thought that the government were going to build this highway quite irrespective of any contribution by the provinces; and when the minister speaks of the cooperation we offered British Columbia with respect to the Golden-Revelstoke highway, let me point out that that was done for the purpose of avoiding an impossible route across Glacier park. We did it to avoid construction through the park at that point. There was no trans-Canada highway thought of at that time except for the general idea that we should get one across Canada, the provinces constructing every mile within provincial boundaries and we doing our part wherever it passed through crown lands, whether in the national parks or elsewhere. And with that in view the highway was projected to Jasper. We improved a good many years in advance of the arrival of the provincial government at the eastern boundary of Jasper park, the highway through the town itself to the boundary of the park, with the intention of extending that highway westward. At that time we had an agreement, or we were negotiating an agreement to take in Mount Robson park and add it to Jasper park, which would have entailed a good deal more mileage of highway within the park boundary. What I want to point out however is that the construction of the southern end over the summits, which they have adopted, is not going to provide a high-

Public Works Program
way for any very lengthy period during the summer unless the snow ploughs are kept at work.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman is
referring to the Lake Louise-Jasper highway?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. My
second point is that before the project was entered into there should have been an outlet from Jasper westward to the coast. If this expenditure that has been made on that highway had been placed on the other we should have been that much closer to having a national highway through Canada. I quite appreciate the fact that this work will be prosecuted and the other will remain in abeyance, and the worst feature of the whole thing is that we are rapidly coming to the point in this country where we shall not be able to make capital expenditures. If we are to add seven or eight hundred millions to the capitalized debt in a period of five years, the chances in this direction will be mighty slim, and the prosecution of the trans-Canada highway may be delayed for years, while money is being spent on what my hon. friend is pleased to call a scenic highway. That is my objection to the whole thing.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman advocates the construction of a highway from Jasper westward, and he states-


Charles A. Stewart: I am advocating both-first the completion and then any extension.


Charles Murphy: And secondly he advocates the completion of the highway westward. May I point out that these areas are outside our national parks.


Charles A. Stewart: Had the
minister included Mount Robson park in Jasper park, which it was intended to do and ought to be done with the utmost dispatch, when he had reached the boundary of Mount Robson he would have contributed materially to the highway running down to connect with the southern route.


Charles Murphy: I am not in favour of the tu quoque style of argument, but the hon. gentleman when he was minister had exactly the same opportunity and it was not done.


Charles A. Stewart: There was
not a dollar spent on this project.


Charles Murphy: Mount Robson park was
not included within the boundaries of Jasper part at that time.


Charles A. Stewart: An arrangement was made in the agreement to take it and add it to Jasper park. It has not been done.


Charles Murphy: There was nothing to prevent the consummation of the agreement at that time.


Charles A. Stewart: What has
prevented it?


Charles Murphy: Just a moment; I say that there was nothing to prevent the consummation of that arrangement to take the Mount Robson area and add it to Jasper park when the hon. gentleman entered into an agreement with British Columbia for the building of the Big Bend highway. But it was not done. I do not know why; he has the answer to that.


Charles A. Stewart: There was
an arrangement with respect to the transfer of resources.


Charles Murphy: It was not an offer of
cooperation with the province in the building of the Big Bend highway but a definite undertaking between the two governments. It was not an offer of cooperation as the hon. gentleman said it was.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
say anything of the sort. What I said was that we agreed to build that portion in consequence of the abandonment of the road through Glacier.


Charles Murphy: Hansard will bear me
out to-morrow that the hon. member-whether inadvertently or not I do not know-used the words " an offer of cooperation " in regard to the building of the Big Bend highway. I am pointing out, however, that it was an agreement entered into. He complains of the using of moneys within the park areas rather than using certain money for building the trans-Canada highway, but under the agreement entered into between British Columbia and himself as representing the government of the day, British Columbia gave a definite undertaking to build that portion of the road, and it has not been fulfilled.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite true; there is no argument about that.


Charles Murphy: Then I fail to understand why the hon. member complains because this government has not gone ahead to date and spent money on that portion of the road which British Columbia itself undertook to construct.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
minister want me to tell him why again?


Charles Murphy: I fancy I know the
reason; the reason is that they were hampered by lack of funds.

Public Works Program


Charles A. Stewart: That is
not the point at all.


Charles Murphy: That is the point, if the
hon. gentleman will permit me. They agreed to do it and they have not done it. Now whether the dominion government should at the present time complete that portion of the Big Bend road which it was agreed should be constructed by the provincial government is a matter which can be discussed between the two governments as it was discussed in the first instance with the hon. gentleman when he was minister. I have no objection in the world to the hon. member pressing for the completion of that road. Various undertakings have been entered into in the form of agreements between other provinces and the dominion as regards constructing certain portions of the trans-Canada highway and the door is not closed to negotiations between the dominion government and the government of British Columbia for the building of that road.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a question raised last week by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Vanoouver North (Mr. Munn) in regard to the damages sustained by Stanley park due to unprecedented storms last January. This matter was, I believe, drawn to the attention of the Minister of Public Works last week by the two hon. members I have mentioned. I addressed some remarks to the Prime Minister just before he took ill and he promised to give the matter his earnest consideration. Since then it was also taken up with the Minister of Public Works and the correspondence directed to that minister was forwarded by him to the Minister of the Interior. I am sure the Minister of the Interior is conversant with the representations that have been received fnom the parks commissioner and other authorities of the city of Vancouver with respect to this work. An appeal was made to the city council and some assistance was received from them. A sum of $25,000 was received from the provincial government- and an appeal was directed to the Prime Minister for a grant of $50,000. I just wish to take this opportunity of reiterating what was said last week by my two colleagues from British Columbia and to emphasize to the minister the absolute urgency of this work, because this park is in every sense a national asset and its scenic beauty is unrivaled in the dominion. Tremendous havoc was occasioned by what was really an act of God, and I

appeal to the minister to make some grant towards the restoration and repair of that park in order to obviate a fire menace that undoubtedly exists at the present time.


Charles Murphy: This matter was drawn to my attention as well as to that of the Minister of Labour some weeks ago. After consultation, a joint recommendation was made to council and on May 10 an order in council was passed authorizing the Minister of Labour to enter into an agreement with British Columbia whereby a sum not exceeding $25,000 might be made available for -the purpose of clearing away the debris and putting into force silvicultural practice; further, a representative of the forestry branch of the Department of the Interior will be on -the ground and his services will be available to the commission or whatever body is chosen to prosecute the work, and moreover, that the value of the debris, which should amount to a considerable sum, 1 believe as much as $40,000, would also be expended for the purpose of clearing away the debris and doing as much repair work as possible.
Mr. STEiWART (Edmonton): May I just point out again to the minister what I stated with respect to the British Columbia agreement for the construction of the Golden-Revelstoke highway. I made no such statement as the minister indicated I did, but I pointed out to him that the federal government was spending large sums of money in conjunction with the provinces in order to complete this highway. I also pointed out that the general impression was, rightly or wrongly, that promises were made in the 1930 election that this highway was going to be a national undertaking from ocean to ocean and was going to be constructed as such. All of this has now apparently been abandoned by the federal government and the provinces are to do this work subject to whatever assistance the federal government is willing to give. As the British Columbia government have shown every evidence of being, to say the least of it, very dilatory in this construction, it seems to me that steps might be taken to render some assistance. I am not suggesting that it be done out of the vote under consideration. Might I point out to the minister that in my opinion this vote would have been better spent on the prosecution of the road from Jasper westward than on the construction of this scenic highway which he describes through the park. I am not objecting to the scenic highway, but it should be made secondary to the other. I want to register a very serious objection to

Public Works Program
making the summit some six thousand feet in the Rockies. That is a serious blunder and I do not mind saying so most emphatically. But that it should be commenced at all while the through highway remains in abeyance is something I do not understand and I wish to register a very strong protest in that regard. I hope I have made my position clear.
May I ask the minister this question:	In
Calgary they are leveling an air port. I brought this matter up the other day-I do not know what department it would come under.-and I thought I should have been here on Thursday night to receive an answer. New machinery at a cost of $35,000 was purchased by the contractor and put to work on that undertaking while literally hundreds of men are standing around unable to get employment. The answer I got from the Minister of Public Works was that in some cases it is cheaper to get the work done by machinery. What under heaven are we voting this money for, if not to give employment? If it is for the purpose of utilizing heavy machinery, then it is not relief work at all. I again wish to protest against what has been done in Calgary and to point out to the minister and indeed to all the ministers because every one of them seems to be interested in the expenditure of this appropriation, that it does not matter whether the work does cost a little more, for heaven's sake let human labour rather than machinery do the work and give employment to people who need it very badly. I want .to make that protest very strongly. I know I cannot lay the blame at the door of the Minister of the Interior because I have a pretty fair knowledge of how his work is being prosecuted and that all labour possible is employed. But when you find, as I discovered in Calgary, a situation of that kind, I want to protest most vigorously against that procedure being followed when work of this character is undertaken. Let those steam shovels and other machinery rust for a year or two and give men employment.


Charles Murphy: The work which is being done in Calgary is not being prosecuted under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. I presume, although I am not certain, that it is being done under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence. But may I say to the hon. member that in many cases where the question of employing mechanical machinery or labour of human hands is under consideration, it has been decided in favour of utilizing the services
92582-194J
of man rather than of machinery. That to my knowledge has been done in many cases. Whether in this particular case hand labour can be advantageously employed or not, I do not know and I am not in a position to state.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no question about it.


Charles Murphy: But I wish to point out that in many cases the question has been decided in favour of hand labour when the cost of employing labour by that means is-not too excessive. In regard to this particular case I cannot speak with any authority and therefore I do not propose to discuss it..


Charles A. Stewart: In every case-, quite irrespective of cost, the work should be done by human labour. It is all nonsense for the minister to say to the house that a contract is let and the contractor purchases a new machine for $35,000 that can displace daily the labour of one hundred men. I do not deny the fact that machinery will do the work cheaper, but that is not what the parliament of Canada is voting this money for. This money is voted for unemployment relief. I protest in the strongest terms. No minister has yet come out and stated that as far as. this year's work is concerned it will be done-with pick and shovel rather than by machinery. We are anxious to have such a statement from the ministers. We had the same statement last year, and yet this year we find' work being done in that manner under the guise of unemployment relief, while three hundred men stand around asking for a job and none is to be had. I would like every minister who is in power to spend that money to state that that is the method by which it is going to be spent this year.


Mr. MUNN:: Coming back to Stanley park, and the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), did I understand the minister to say that they had salvaged $40,000 worth of material in clearing up the park?


Charles Murphy: No, I did not intend to say that. What I said was that there was a great amount of debris which it had been estimated would produce about $40,000 if sold.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is in addition to the $25,000?


Charles Murphy: Yes, which perhaps as far as we are concerned should be spent in clearing the park of debris and carrying on other operations there
Public Works Program


Albert Edward Munn: Has there been an amount set aside from this vote for that purpose?


Charles Murphy: No, as I explained, an order in council was passed on May 10, empowering the Minister of Labour to enter into an agreement with the government of British Columbia. Under the terms of that agreement an amount not exceeding $25,000 would be granted by the dominion government to assist the provincial government, together with the city of Vancouver, in removing the debris and so forth.
"Mr. MUNN:	It is the property of the
dominion, although under lease to the city, so why should they ask the province to contribute? The condition of Stanley park today is a very serious matter. I doubt very much if anything like half that amount of money mentioned will be actually salvaged, because most of the fallen timber should be cut into wood and delivered around town to people who require fuel. In Stanley park to-day certain sections are cleared up, but the park is still a very bad fire hazard. If fire happened to start on the west side with a westerly wind blowing nothing would save the park, all the fire equipment in Vancouver would be useless. Worse than that, the west end of Vancouver is the oldest part and the buildings there are chiefly wooden buildings. If fire ever got started with a westerly wind it would sweep all through the west end of Vancouver. Last session in this house I asked the government to take note of Stanley park. It is their property, it is under lease to the city but the city is not able to take care of it. There should be some work done there. Twenty-five thousand dollars is only a trifle, there should be at least $100,000. Every bit of dead and down timber should be taken out. The dead timber is a breeding ground for beetles that destroy the green timber. Once it is cleaned up there will be practically no trouble or expense in taking care of Stanley park. This is a serious matter. This government during 1932 and 1933 built a retaining wall around the park, and that helped, but this is even more urgent. The minister has to my knowledge an application from the parks board, independently of the provincial government, and I ask him now if it is not possible to make a special grant at once out of this vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Referring to this order in council of May 10, authorizing the Minister of Labour to enter into an agreement with the provincial government, by which this government is to spend $25,000,

does that entail the expenditure of a similar amount by the provincial government before this government would make their contribution?


Charles Murphy: No, there is no stipulation of that nature. But I understand that the province and the city of Vancouver prior to the passage of this order in council appropriated certain money for the purpose.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
correct.


Charles Murphy: There is no stipulation
in the order in council that such a clause as the hon. member mentioned should be incorporated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has any
action been taken by the Minister of Labour under that order in council?


Mr. GORDON:: The money is available
at any time.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Following the remarks of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), in 1930, early in this depression, two very substantial bridges were built between Winnipeg and St. Boniface, one over the Red river and the other over the Assini-boine. The money that was expended for those bridges would have given employment not merely to hundreds of men but to thousands. As a matter of fact employment was given to only a mere handful, because the excavation and the pouring of the cement was done by machinery. To-day in Winnipeg the federal government is erecting a large building, and the excavation is being done by these giant excavating machines.


Charles Murphy: Pardon me, is the hon.
member correct in that statement?


John Power Howden: I have seen machines working in the basement.


Charles Murphy: I do not wish to contradict the hon. member, 'but I am sure he would not wish to make a statement that is not correct. I visited Winnipeg not more than ten days or two weeks ago and I was informed at that time that the excavation for the caissons and so on is being carried on by hand labour.


John Power Howden: If that is so I am very glad. I did not pay very close attention but I saw one of those excavating machines in the basement, I do not know the technical name of it. I understand there are only some seventy-eight men working there, and I should think they could put five hundred men in there with shovels. Certainly I have been informed that seventy-eight is the largest number that has been employed at one time

Public Works Program
in that basement. I may be mistaken concerning that, but I am not at all mistaken in stating that the work on the Norwood and Assiniboine bridges was done by machines. In driving past the site of the new government building one does not get much of a view because the space is boarded up, but I was sure I saw an excavating machine in there the other day. I shall be glad to know if I was mistaken; certainly this work should not be done by machines but by men with shovels and wheelbarrows.


Charles Murphy: My time was limited and I did not visit the work in question, although I intended to, but I shall be very much surprised if I am wrong. In talking the matter over with the contractor he informed me that hand labour was being employed in excavating for the foundations of that building, and the architect also conveyed the same information. I have no doubt the hon. member did see certain machines there at work, but this work is being done by contract and the number of men employed would be decided practically entirely by the contractor having regard to the number he could employ to advantage in a given time. That is a matter with which he would have to deal. May I repeat that I am quite certain the excavation is being done principally by hand labour.


John Power Howden: I have just been informed by the member sitting beside me that he visited the work while passing through Winnipeg and that it is being performed by excavators and trucks.


Charles Murphy: Trucks are being used; that
is correct.


John Power Howden: But the excavators are pouring the earth into the trucks. It is not being done by men with shovels, as we were led to believe.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: As I understand the minister's explanation the total amount of $1,500,000 provided under this vote is to be expended on parks, historic sites and so on belonging to the federal government. That is what the appropriation provides for. I must say that as the item is drafted it is extremely misleading. There is nothing to indicate that this money is simply for federal properties; the only thing that suggests that this vote is for such purposes is the title itself and the fact that the money is to be administered by the Department of the Interior. The wording of this item is so loose that it has entailed a great deal of trouble for some of us. It has been reported in the press that some of the $1,500,000 provided under this item could be
spent on electric lights, sidewalks and so on, and as a consequence I have received five or six applications from different municipalities for the allotment of certain sums out of this vote. So I would like the minister to state definitely that the whole of this appropriation will be required and will be spent on parks, historic sites and federal property generally, in order to dispose of the rumour that is being circulated at the present time.


Charles Murphy: The wording of the item this year follows very closely the wording of the item last year. For the information of the hon. member for Rimouski may I say that last year the money was spent as indicated on national parks, historic sites and lands or property administered by the crown in the right of the dominion, and we propose to follow the same system this year.


Eugène Fiset: Therefore all the
applications we are receiving from different municipalities are absolutely useless?


Charles Murphy: Quite so.


Mr. MARCIL:: Is all this money to be
spent in the west?


Charles Murphy: No, a certain amount is
to be spent on historic sites in eastern Canada.


Charles Marcil: Could the minister tell us how much and where it is to be spent?


Charles Murphy: Fort Louisburg, restoration, preservation and improvements, $5,000; Fort Anne, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, completion of repairs, alterations and improvements to buildings, $3,500.


Charles Marcil: That is the whole expenditure in eastern Canada?


Charles Murphy: Yes, under this item of
this part of the bill.


Charles Marcil: Will any part of this money be spent on Indian reserves?


Charles Murphy: No.


Charles Marcil: I have two Indian reserves in my county. The Restigouche reserve is the oldest in eastern Canada; it is opposite the town of Campbellton. On that reserve there is a road that is a disgrace to the department and the dominion. A magnificent boulevard has been built by the province of Quebec; there is a ferry connection so that people can visit the old church, but the road on the reserve is practically impassable, especially in the spring and fall. Last year I pleaded for some money to be spent on
Public Works Program

that road, but I could not get it. Then in connection with the Maria reserve I forwarded the claim of a poor returned soldier, amounting to $25, for the maintenance of the road during the winter time, but even that [DOT]claim was turned down by the department. We hear about scenic roads in the west, climbing five thousand or six thousand feet into the air. I should like the minister to give some attention to these cases I have cited in the east, to see if he cannot spend some money on the terrain des vaehes, as we say in French. These roads of which I speak are used the year round; they are not used only one or two months a year by the rich people. I see something for the Lake Louise road. I suppose that is intended to attract people to the Canadian Pacific hotel there.


Charles Murphy: No, that road is already
built.


Charles Marcil: 
Henry Elvins Spencer: The suggestion has been made to-day, and it was made last week, by some members of the official opposition that the government should do away with machinery. that they should let the machinery rot or rust and keep more people at work Lv giving them picks and shovels. In my *opinion to adopt such a suggestion would be simply to turn back the hands of the clock. 'To be logical why not go a little further; why not take away the picks and shovels and give the men trowels or even teaspoons? Then everyone would be kept busy. Surely we should approach this question in a different manner. In giving work we want to produce goods or those advantages for which the people are looking. If we have too many people idle to-day may I suggest that we could very soon get rid of a great many of them by reducing the age at which they would become eligible for old age pension, to sixty years. If that were done two hundred thousand people would be taken off the labour market. To-day we have no less than eighty thousand people over the age of seventy years who are still working. If full IMr. Marcil.J
advantage were taken of the old age pension, therefore, a very large number would be taken off the labour market.
Surely to-day we must realize that we should enslave the machine to mankind rather than turn it the other way around, as has been suggested, and enslave mankind to the machine. I strenuously object to turning the hands of the clock backward. I am in favour of using machines to the limit, so long as we see that the people have sufficient purchasing power with which to buy the things that are produced.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I should like to direct a matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways, though it may not come directly under this item. A portion of the trans-Canada highway is being constructed in the province of- Prince Edward Island, and I sincerely trust that that province will be given some consideration in connection with the grade crossing fund. I regret to say that in recent years there have been some very serious accidents on our highways, and that very little of the grade crossing fund has been spent in that province. I am glad the Minister of Railways is in his seat; I feel sure that he will direct the attention of those in charge of the expenditure of this money to this point, so that Prince Edward Island will get its share of the grade crossing fund.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Just while we are on the question of level crossings, the Minister of Railways was going to give the committee some information as to the number of level crossings that have been eliminated in the rural sections of the dominions in each of the last two years.


Mr. MANION:: I thought I gave all the information my hon. friend asked for. I did give quite a bit of information dealing with the number of grade crossings eliminated, but I do not know that I remember the point he has just made. However I shall look into the matter and give the information which at the present time I have not' at hand. I do not think that information was asked for.
I did get the information covering some years, which appears in Hansard, but whether I gave it as the hon. member wishes it, I do not know.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister said he had not the information with regard to the number which had been eliminated in rural sections, -but that he would get it. I should be very glad if he would, because it is a matter which is of great importance to the people in the constituency I represent. In passing may

Public Works Program
I state that I concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Prince. I do not know of any expenditure which could have been more advantageously made at the present time than one which would have had the effect of eliminating level crossings under a procedure which would have to be carried out by teams and hand labour. This work would give real employment, and I should be glad to learn the extent to which the crossings other than those in cities and towns have been eliminated by expenditures made in the last couple of years.


Robert James Manion: I shall look into the matter. Further, I shall be pleased to call the attention of the board of railway commissioners to the remarks of the hon. member for Prince because, as I have previously stated, the work of eliminating grade crossings is one which rests almost entirely in the hands of the board.


Charles Marcil: I should like to have that point cleared up, because I know the minister is always ready to give us all the information he can. I know however that it is no use to apply to the government to do away with level crossings; we must apply to the railway board.


Robert James Manion: Correct.


Charles Marcil: It is entirely in their hands.


Robert James Manion: Yes, except in one regard
which, in connection with this vote, I should like to explain, so that there may be no misunderstanding. I stated the other evening that generally speaking the board of railway commissioners can give only a certain amount towards the elimination of grade crossings,- 40 per cent up to $100,000 were the figures I gave. I did say however that there might be occasions in connection with this vote where some municipality or railway might take the attitude that at the present time it could not afford to contribute its share, and I indicated that if in certain instances great dangers existed the government might, under this vote, contribute more than the 40 per cent to some of the smaller-and these would be rural- grade crossing eliminations.


Mr. EULER:: Has the railway commission
absolute power to decide the proportions which shall be paid by the municipality and the railway company?


Robert James Manion: I think that is correct;
the board of railway commissioners has full power, in the event of their being approached by a municipality, a railway company or a province asking to have a certain level crossing eliminated. They look into the case, and in
the event of giving judgment that it must be eliminated they allocate the expenses to the municipality, railway company or other parties interested.


William Daum Euler: There is no fixed proportion?


Robert James Manion: No. For example, if the
road was built before the railway crossed it, then the greater responsibility would be on the railway company. If on the other hand the road were built subsequent to the building of the railway greater responsibility would be on the municipality which built the road. The dividing up or allocating of expenses in connection with the elimination of a crossing is a matter which rests entirely in the hands of the board of railway commissioners.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: There is a grade crossing
in the incorporated town of Borden which was brought to the attention of the board of railway commissioners. They looked over the situation and although the railway at that point is elevated high enough to permit the building of a tunnel yet we could not persuade the commissioners to take up their share of the work. I am very sorry to state that a very fine couple from the province of Ontario met their death at this crossing while touring in the province. The tracks are high enough to permit the building of a tunnel and in my view the board of railway commissioners are unreasonable in their stand. Of course it is not a very public crossing and yet as is indicated, it is dangerous. In addition, a section of the trans-Canada highway passes near that point. I sincerely trust that as the minister has promised we will get our share of the money.


William Daum Euler: In view of the many thousands of level crossings throughout the country it would seem to me that the amount appropriated for their elimination is very very small. Has the board of railway commissioners ever made any representations to the government indicating that they feel a necessity for a greater appropriation to meet legitimate demands?


Mr MANION:: Yes, representations have
been made to the government by the board of railway commissioners suggesting increased amounts. As the hon. member knows, for some years the amount has been $200,000 annually, but under relief legislation in the past two or three years on two occasions the government has allocated an extra $500,000, a total of a million dollars, to the board of railway commissioners for this project. That is in addition to the regular allocation of $200,000 per annum. It has been suggested that we
Public Works Program

make a regular contribution, but no decision has been made. The million dollars in this bill, together with the previous million dollars and the regular amount of $200,000 in each year would give a total of $700,000 for each of the past four years. This money has been given by the government to the board of railway commissioners.


William Daum Euler: Is that as much as or more than the board of railway commissioners thinks is necessary?


Robert James Manion: I do not remember off
hand, but I do not believe they specified any particular amount. They did think however we should increase the $200,000. I doubt whether or not they suggested a fixed amount.
I	believe $700,000 per annum would be an amount which they would consider fair.


Mr. REID:: Under this vote does the government contemplate spending anything at the historic site of Fort Langley? Fort Langley was the landing place of Sir James Douglas, and is one historic site in British Columbia which should receive consideration.


Charles Murphy: No expenditure for that
purpose .is provided under the measure.


Thomas Reid: Would the minister take under advisement the possibility of doing something at that point, because I believe it has been neglected. Does it come under his jurisdiction and is it recognized as a historic site?


Charles Murphy: I find that Fort Langley is now under the jurisdiction of this department, but that no provision has been made for an expenditure under the item now before us. However I shall be pleased to obtain an expression of opinion from the historic sites and monuments board, and this will enable a decision to be made.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Last Thursday the Minister of Public Works stated that under item
II	of the schedule, totalling $1,500,000, only $62,000 would be spent in the province of Manitoba. Would the minister verify that point?


Charles Murphy: We propose to spend in the Riding Mountain national park the sum of $62,000 and $18,500 on Fort Prince of Wales.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That is all that will be spent in Manitoba?


Charles Murphy: Out of this item of


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the minister propose to spend any money in the peace garden?


Charles Murphy: The hon. member knows that this garden is located in a provincial forest reserve and is not under the jurisdiction of this government. In making up the tentative program for this $1,500,000, no amount was allocated to that area. This garden has a national interest as it was established to commemorate 100 years of peace between this country and the United States and to further the cause of future peace between the two countries.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Can the minister take any part of this $1,500,000 and spend it at random any place he chooses outside of the national parks or the territories?


Charles Murphy: It is not the intention to spend this money at random. As I explained to the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) a few moments ago, it is intended to expend this money in the national parks and upon other projects which will be carried out in the territories.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the minister make it clear that his department will not spend any of this $1,500,000 except in public parks and upon dominion properties?


Charles Murphy: I endeavoured to make that clear when I replied to the hon. member for Rimouski. I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) has made a similar statement. Last year a similar item was passed and the moneys were expended in our national parks, upon historic sites and lands under the control of the dominion.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That is not very definite. With this $1,500,000 in his pocket the Minister of the Interior becomes a Minister of Public Works, in fact as far as money to be expended is concerned we have several departments of public works. I want to know if the ministers have the right to take any part of the moneys allotted to their departments and spread it around any place they choose in order to influence certain sections of the country? I think we should know just exactly where this money is going to be spent. I have received the same type of request as that received by the hon. member for Rimouski. Everyone seems to be under the impression that the different ministers can do just what they like with the money which has been voted to them. I think we should know what the situation is.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, something I brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works the other day. I

Public Works Program
have received information which I believe to be fairly authentic, although it is hard to prove, that on these public works a man must sign, seal and deliver a document that he has voted one way all his life and will continue to do so before he can obtain a job. This is a very hard thing to prove and if this condition exists in the department I hope the minister will see that it is remedied as soon as possible. I am not offering this by way of criticism of the minister as I have not been able to substantiate my information. If parliament is going to vote money to relieve unemployment I do not think party politics should enter into the matter in any shape or form. I told the Minister of Public Works the other day that in connection with the construction of a public building in Winnipeg less than one-third of the men employed had been on the unemployed lists. The Minister of Public Works indicated that that was a fairly large percentage and if that is so the government should do everything in its power to see that more unemployed are given work. I should like a definite statement from the minister that this $1,500,000 will be spent in the national parks and in other places belonging to the crown rather than at random.


Charles Murphy: I can give my hon. friend as definite an assurance as I am capable of giving that the money will not be spent at random. The tentative allocation of this money was given the other day by the Minister of Public Works and it is already on Hansard. With regard to the selection of men according to their political leanings, I may say definitely to my hon. friend that such is not the practice in the Department of the Interior and it will not be in the future. Perhaps he will forgive me for being a little jocular, but I believe it is very hard to obtain definite information as to the political leanings of anyone. My own personal experience has been that it is rather hard to find that out, and I think many other hon. members have found themselves in the same position.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Some of the officials in charge of this construction work may not be as broadminded as the minister and I am bringing this matter to his attention in order that he may look into conditions.


Charles Murphy: I think the best answer I can give to the hon. member is the statement that we have been conducting these national parks since 1930 without any charge of political patronage having been made against the department in connection with the choice .of labour.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister will understand that we are on the eve of an election.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I should like to know how much of the amount voted in the bill of last year remains unspent and whether it will be spent this year.


Charles Murphy: The unencumbered balance of the vote of $2,000,000 under the 1934 act is $979,234.43, which amount is available for expenditure during the current season. Whether it will all be spent will depend to a great extent on the progress that is made with various works, because it might be that some money would be unexpended this year, as was the case last year, on certain of the projects.


John Vallance: Perhaps the Minister
of Public Works could tell us how much of the total $40,000,000 voted last year was not spent last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The best estimate I can give is that about $2,000,000 had been spent up to the first of April.
Mr, VALLANCE: So that there is approximately $30,000,000 after the first of April. Then you have $3,000,000 and $17,940,000 that can be spent during this year. I want to say something in support of the remarks of my hon. friend from Rimouski. I think that when the public reads the title of this bill it may easily misconstrue it. This is an act to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities. Reading that, one might readily come to the conclusion that even in this item which we are now discussing in connection with the Department of the Interior bridges could be included. In letters I have received the question is asked whether it will be possible for the government, without designating the place, to build a bridge out of this $1,500,000. I see my hon. friend from Rosetown here. He and I are both interested in a bridge which was provided for in the act of last year, the bridge at Outlook. A good deal has been spent there and is being spent at the present time but so far only in connection with the approaches; on the bridge itself not very much has been done. What condition is the bridge in now? I see it from time to time when crossing on the railway bridge and I should like to get a statement from the minister. When can we expect that it will be open for use?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A contract for
the substructure has been awarded and the work is being proceeded with as rapidly as
Public Works Program

weather and the flow of the river will permit. The engineers are preparing specifications and we are about to invite tenders for the steel superstructure.


John Power Howden: I want to discuss very
briefly a federal building which is now going up in Winnipeg. It evidently was in the understanding of the Minister of Public Works that the work should be done by hand labour without the assistance of large machinery, but I gathered as I glanced through the open gateway-that is about the only view one can get of it-that excavating machines were at work on the basement. If it was the belief of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Public Works that the work was to be done by men using shovels, which would have afforded emplosunent to very many more men than are probably working at the present time, and if the contractors on their own responsibility are substituting machinery for hand labour, I think we ought to know about it. Was this work supposed to be done by men using shovels, so as to afford employment to a large number of men? If so, it should be seen to that machinery is not permitted to be substituted for hand labour.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was in Winnipeg recently and saw the work being carried on. The greater part of it is being done by hand labour.


John Vallance: In connection with the Outlook bridge, do I understand that the minister said he was inviting tenders or that he was advertising for tenders?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That has not yet been decided.


John Vallance: Is it the policy of the government to invite rather than to advertise?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the main the Public Works department have invited public tenders, but there are certain small works-


John Vallance: This is not small.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -in connection with which tenders have not been invited publicly. I have dealt with that on several occasions. Each case must depend on its own merits. If it is not possible to secure fair, reasonable and proper competition by inviting tenders,, then public tenders are called for.


John Vallance: The construction of the approaches has been done by day labour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The approaches were constructed by day labour but a contract was let for putting in the foundation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the order in council of May 10 available regarding Stanley park?


Charles Murphy: I will see that the hon. gentleman obtains a copy.


Albert Edward Munn: With regard to the $40,000 for salvage, walking out of the chamber I heard one hon. member from the opposite side remark, "That is good; $65,000 for Stanley park in one day. Twenty-five thousand would have been all right." I may tell the minister that the commercial value of all the timber in Stanley park would not be more than half $40,000 to-day. Will the minister give the name of the forest engineer or of the person who placed that estimate of $40,000 on the salvage ?


Charles Murphy: The information was conveyed to me in the form of a memorandum or letter, not addressed to myself, but which I saw, from the chief forester of the province of British Columbia. If I remember rightly, and I have a fairly good memory, he estimated that there were ten thousand cords of wood which he valued at $4 a cord, which would amount to $40,000.


Albert Edward Munn: It puts the parks board in a wrong light. It is not worth $4 a cord; you could not get more than half that. I have been in the woods all my life and in Stanley park, over every foot of it. A good many people think that it is virgin timber, but Stanley park was logged a good many years ago and the big trees are all gone. There are very few old timers. The commercial value of the timber there is not more than $20,000 to-day. It is only 600 acres. It is not fair to the parks board to say that they are salvaging $40,000 worth of timber. They might sell $40,000 worth of timber if they could cut it all off, but it would cost a good deal .of money.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I told the committee that I thought I could give some additional information in connection with the operations at Winnipeg. All the excavation is being done by hand labour. The only machine used is an air compressor to provide power for breaking rock.


John Campbell Elliott: Did I understand the
minister to say that the substructure of the bridge at Outlook had been let after public advertisement?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not say
that.


John Campbell Elliott: It was let by invited
tender?

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to ask the Minister of the Interior a question in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Bona-venture as to Indian roads. As I understand the matter, no part of this item is to be applied toward Indian reserves. Am I correct in that?


Charles Murphy: That is correct.


John Campbell Elliott: But there is in the estimates an item for Indian Affairs providing this year for an increase of $340,000 over the amount voted last year. I wonder whether the minister could give us an idea how much money was expended on Indian reserve roads out of the amount voted then, because there is great complaint particularly from one of the reserves in my constituency with regard to the condition of one of the roads. I have had it mentioned to me by people who have attempted to drive over it that the road about which I wrote the minister and was unable to get a grant of, I think, $100, is at present in a practically impassable condition. Is there any fund from which that could be repaired, or is it the policy at the present time to leave roads on Indian reserves in that condition?


Charles Murphy: The estimates of the
Indian department have passed the house and I am sorry I have not before me the information as to the allocation of moneys which may be expended this year on different reserves. I could have given the hon. member the information when the estimates were before the house, but unfortunately I am not in a position to do so this afternoon although I shall be glad to give it to him by correspondence. I think the hon. member had reference to the moneys voted under the parliamentary estimates and not to the moneys voted under the Public Works Construction Act of last year.


John Campbell Elliott: Quite right.


Charles Murphy: The hon. member says
that that is quite correct. Again I can only express regret that I have not the information before me to tell him whether or not any money has been designated this year for work on the roads which he has in mind.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will obtain the information, I understand?


Charles Murphy: I will be glad to see that the hon. member gets the information.


John Campbell Elliott: Could the minister tell
the committee what proportion of the money spent last year was spent on contracts that
were let by public advertisement, and what on contracts that were let on invited tender? Some of the contracts that have been let, for instance, for buildings, have been let without advertisement for tenders.


Charles Murphy: Is the hon. member inquiring about the vote of 1934 in the Department of the Interior?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I am inquiring particularly about moneys that were spent on buildings last year.


Charles Murphy: There have been only two structures on which tenders have been invited; a list of contractors were invited to tender on those two. One was a bridge and the other was a public building.


John Campbell Elliott: Shingwauk home?


Charles Murphy: The Shingwauk home was constructed by the Indian department, not the Interior. I understood the hon. member was inquiring about the vote in the Interior department.


John Campbell Elliott: It was by invited tender?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: And the Qu'Appelle building was by invited tender?


Charles Murphy: That is correct.


John Campbell Elliott: Of the buildings erected out of the money provided under the Public Works Construction Act of last year, how many were erected after published advertisement?


Charles Murphy: The buildings to which I have referred were built from funds provided from the Public Works Construction Act, and not from parliamentary appropriations. I believe we have constructed a few day schools by day labour under supervision, but the Shingwauk home and the Indian school at Le Bret, Saskatchewan, are the only buildings of any magnitude constructed by the Indian department under the Public Works Construction Act of 1934.


John Campbell Elliott: And they were both by invited tender?


Charles Murphy: Yes.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Acquisition of lands.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no change from section 3 of last year?
Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; it is the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Amount appropriated.
Mr. MANiION: Some weeks ago I submitted an amendment to clause 4, the amendment which I explained at the time rather briefly was that all the words after the word "arising" in the sixth line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Under section 9 of this act.
The effect of it would be that the $18,000,000 mentioned would not include whatever expenses we were put to in regard to railway equipment.
Amendment agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: There seems to be a change between the act of last year and the one this year. Last year section 4 provided:
The governor in council may pay out of moneys provided for that purpose in the consolidated revenue fund.
This year the clause reads:
The governor in council may authorize the Minister of Finance to pay out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund'.
What is the real difference, if any?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The change is made on the suggestion of the Department of Finance to make the matter a little more regular, a little clearer; that is all. There is no difference in effect.


Mr. COOTE:: Might I ask the minister whether all the money that was voted last year, that is $40,000,000, was spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; I have said that prior to, we will say the end of March we estimate about $10,000,000 had been earned.


George Gibson Coote: There was an understanding that the $40,000,000 to finance that project was to be secured through a change in the Dominion Notes Act allowing a greater issue of dominion notes on the gold then held. Could the minister tell us whether the $40,000.000 was provided in that way, and if so, whether the balance will be available for the purposes of this measure?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The legislation provides that this is to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and so far as I am concerned I do not know just how to answer my hon. friend's question; that is a matter for the Department of Finance.
[Mr. Elliott.l


George Gibson Coote: Speaking for myself, I do
not like to see the money for this work secured through taxation. The government might well have additional money issued which would not be at the expense of the taxpayers. The Bank of Canada is in a position to issue a good deal more currency on the basis of the gold they have in their charge now, even without revaluing the gold; that is on the basis declared safe by the orthodox financiers of the world. The international economic conference agreed that twenty-five per cent of gold reserve was sufficient for the issue of notes. It would be a very proper thing to provide that the moneys to be spent under this legislation might be secured in that way. There is a shortage of money in Canada to-day, and this would be a splendid way to make it up. I suggest that to the minister. It was understood last year in many quarters that the additional money which the government was allowed to issue because of the change in, I think it is the Dominion Notes Act, was to be used in payment for that construction program. If it was not it certainly should be used to finance the work provided for under this bill.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Tenders.


John Campbell Elliott: There is an amendment
of which I gave notice some time ago which I wish to move, to add the words "by public advertisement " after the word "tenders" in line 4. The section will then read:
Except as hereinafter provided, the minister or department of the government entrusted with the administration, management and execution of any of the works set forth in schedule A to this act, shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the construction and execution of such works, and contracts for all such -works and undertakings shall be awarded under the direction of the governor in council.
I do not think it necessary to explain the proposed amendment, because we discussed it before, and discussed it last year. Under section 7, in cases of pressing emergency where delay would be injurious to the public interest, or in which from the nature of the work it could be more beneficially executed under the control of the officers of the department, and where the engineers so certify, it can be done without public advertisement. There is no objection to that. That has been the practice for some time.

Public Works Program
But the great change which was made a year ago, and which I submit has worked badly is that tenders can be invited for practically any kind of structure up to any amount without public advertisement. This bill is to create employment by public works, it is really for unemployment relief. When the first unemployment relief act was passed after this government came into power it was explained by the Prime Minister, in reply to a question by Mr. Woodsworth as reported at page 66 of Hansard of September 10, 1930. The following is what was said:
Mr. Woodsworth: How is it proposed to allocate the amount between the various provinces?
Mr. Bennett: It is not intended to undertake that duty by this measure, but rather that the administration of the act shall be of such a non-political character that each particular claim will be dealt with on its merits without regard to any other consideration.
Now the very reverse of that has taken place. Take the two buildings built by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Indian Affairs, the new Shingwauk home, the lowest tender was $151,784, and for the Qu'Appelle residential school at Le Bret, Saskatchewan, the lowest tender was $164,926. Neither of these were let after public advertisement. According to the statement of the Minister of National Defence the only building which tenders were called after public advertisement by that department was the recreational building at the Royal Military College, Kingston. We have the barracks, block 2 at Calgary, $163,546 let without public advertisement, the mess building at Calgary, $147,250 let without public advertisement, the grading of the landing field referred to this afternoon, $128,756 let by contract with no public advertisement. We have the stable building at Calgary, costing $63,962 let without public advertisement.
The Minister of Marine stated that in practically every case contracts under his department were let without public advertisement.
The Minister of Public Works has let a great many contracts for regular public works after public advertisement; his iniquities have not been quite as great as those of the ministers in charge of some other departments. But he seems to think that the money voted under the Public Works Construction Act can be dealt with in a different way from that voted for regular public works, so he does not follow the system nearly as closely for those as he does for works done out of the regular
public works estimates. For instance he invites tenders without public advertisement for the substructure of the bridge at Outlook amounting to $134,522. He invites tenders not by public advertisement for the construction of the building at St. Joseph d'Alma, $24,100, also for the construction of the public building at Beauport, Quebec, $16,365 and for the public building at Berthierville, Quebec, $42,520 and for the alterations and additions to the building at Hull, $20,784. None of these contracts were let after public advertisement, while in a great many cases, as I pointed out the other day, he calls for tenders by public advertisement for buildings costing $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 and $6,000. I do not think there is any justification whatever for saying in regard to this particular bill, We just invite tenders, particularly when it comes to buildings costing over $50,000. And I have given cases of a number of buildings costing over $100,000. I do not intend to labour the matter. I just give these few instances to show the folly of expending public money in this way. Why is this done? Is it unemployment relief? It is not being carried out under the undertaking with regard to unemployment given by the Prime Minister, which I have just read and which appears at page 66 of Hansard for 1930. Is it intended to give an advantage to the friends of my hon. friends? I cannot speak with regard to a number of the buildings but I have made definite inquiry in some cases, and I am told that every contractor who was invited to tender was a Conservative.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend says why
not; that is exactly the point, and I have no doubt that is just what has been said to the various ministers concerned. This is not for unemployment relief; it is relief for the friends of the Conservative members of parliament who will be unemployed before yery long if the public really get to understand that this is their idea of how public money should be expended.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was the way you did it.


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all, and my hon.
friend knows that, if he knows anything of what he is talking about. The Minister of Public Works knows perhaps better than anyone else in this house that the life of the minister in charge of that department is not a bed of roses at any time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It has not been for the last week.
Public Works Program


John Campbell Elliott: It has been a lot easier in the last week than it was when he had some of his friends after him to invite tenders instead of advertising for them; I am perfectly sure of that. Not only does it make it much more difficult for him and the officials of the department, but it is most unfair to the people whose money is being spent. I have argued this before. I argued it a year ago without much success, and I may not have any greater success this time, but I believe the minister of Public Works will support me, because he knows the evils that have grown up under this practice. The other day we heard of the money spent around a little island, and we remember what the Minister of Marine had to say when his estimates were under examination. When we give the minister the right to let these contracts to those who happen to be the friends of the government in certain sections of the country, we place in the hands of his friends a weapon that they should not have. If you examine the estimates you will Snd this interesting thing, that you pay much more for the work, as a general rule, when tenders are invited than you do when they are let by public advertisement.
I do not propose to take up more of the time of the committee. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester:
That section 6 be amended by adding the words by public advertisement" after the word tenders" in line 4.
Amendment negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Cases in which tenders may not be required.
John Campbell Elliott: I have an amendment to this section, of which I have given notice. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester :
That section 7 be amended by striking out the word "fifteen" and substituting therefor the word "five" in line 15 thereof.
That will make the last part of that section read:
Provided that in the case of any one work the cost of which is estimated to be less than five thousand dollars, the minister of the department in charge of such work may proceed with such work under the direction of such minister or department.
My proposed amendment gets back to what was the law before this act was passed last year. It puts into force the old rule that has been followed in the Department of Public Works, and as a matter of fact in practically every department, since confederation. I urge that this is not the time to relax the safeguards that should be thrown around 
the letting of contracts for public works by tender after public advertisement. I am proposing to reduce the amount from $15 000 to $5 000, and I do not think I need argue the point further.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to say just a word in answer to my hon. friend as to why the $15,000 is adopted instead of the $5 000. It may be interesting to the committee to know that up to some little time ago the number of orders in council passed under the Public Works Construction Act of last year was 566 and that the number of orders in council for amounts between $5 000 and $15,000 was no less than 166. We have been criticized both in and out of this house for not getting on more rapidly with the expenditure of this money. I think my hon. friend will appreciate that it makes very little difference whether the amount is $6 000 or $15,000. If it is safe to entrust the minister of a department with responsibility of dealing with an expenditure of $5,000 it ought to be safe to entrust him with the responsibility in connection with an expenditure of $15 000. Surely you cannot measure his capacity up to $5 000 and say it stops there. But the main object in making this change is to enable us to get on with the work more rapidly. There were 166 times when we had to go to council for these little works costing between $5,000 and $15,000. My hon. friend knows that very often that involves unexpected delay. Much of this work is seasonal in its character, particularly in connection with small works in harbours and rivers, and the result is that in many cases the work has run into bad weather and we have not been able to complete it during the current season. Some of the work has had to be carried over, resulting in inconvenience and added expense to the contractor. That is why we are asking that the amount be $15 000 instead of $5,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I just want to say that I think that is the poorest explanation I ever heard.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend has said that with' respect to every explanation I have made.


John Campbell Elliott: I think there is a good deal of force in it with regard to them all. Let me just analyze the answer of the minister. First of all I think he said there were 166 orders in council passed for works costing between $5 000 and $15 000. That means that the iniquity is just one hundred and sixty-six times as great as if only one order in council

Public Works Program
had been passed in this way. It is less trouble for the minister and the officials of his department to have it so that they have to take the proper precaution in respect of all buildings over $5,000 than if the limit is left at $15,000. Then he states, "If $5,000, why not $15,000?" Why did he stipulate $15,000 at all, if $15,000 is just as good as $5,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thought it would satisfy my hon. friend.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister knew very
well it would not satisfy me or any other person who knows how the work is done. If he had followed his argument a step farther, he might have said, "If $15,000 why not make it $50,000?" I have heard him make some pretty thin arguments but without doubt this one holds the least weight of any I have heard him make.
The next part of his argument is just a little worse, namely that there was so much money to be spent and such a short time in which to spend it that certain things could not be done. I am telling the minister that he knows perfectly well that the reason they did not start these orders in council until the last season was .practically over was that there was no election in sight.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, no.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the reason. He
said it was getting along late in the season. I agree with him this far, that he could not have had them passed in time to have the work done last season if he did not pass the order in council for them until this year. That is what happened in connection with a great many of them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, a great many of them. I have gone over the orders in council; they have been streaming in in the last couple of months.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, because plans and specifications had to be prepared and tenders invited. The bill was not passed until June, and the hon. member must know very well that it takes months to have these things done. Then the winter season comes along. That is another bad explanation, I suppose.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, another terrible exT
planation, one so flagrantly poor that no one would pay any attention to it. The minister knows perfectly well he did not begin to put the estimates through last season until the season was well along. I am familiar with
the orders in council, and the suggestion that he and his officials did not have time to get them through within a reasonable period is no excuse whatever. However, I am not going to debate the point further. If he is willing to take the responsibility of leaving it at $15,000-and I had hoped he would make a change; in fact I understood he even suggested a change-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, I did not
suggest a change.


John Campbell Elliott: His alleged reasons are
just excuses. There is nothing in them. And the idea of raising the limit from $5,000 to $15,000 because the great bulk of the buildings come between those two amounts, so that he had to pass one hundred and sixty-six orders in council, is just a further evidence of how bad the measure is as it stands.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Power to guarantee equipment securities of C.N.R. and C.P.R.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are amendments to this section, which the Minister of Railways believes will make it more workable.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert James Manion: This is the section in connection with which I submitted two amendments some weeks ago. The results of these amendments are simple although the amendments themselves are perhaps a little complicated. The first amendment is in connection with subsection 1 and is to change the word " improvement " to the word " repairs." This makes the section a little more correct from a standpoint of the railways. The next amendment is to add to the end of subsection 1 the following words:
-and provided further that the governor in council may authorize the Minister of Finance to reimburse the Canadian National Railways out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, the amount of any further interest payable on account of any of its securities issued under the authority of this section for the purpose of repairs of railway equipment.
In short, this amendment is made necessary because of the fact that repairs cannot be charged to deficit. The effect of the amendment will be that the government may
Public Works Program

choose, in the case of the Canadian National Railways, to pay outright for the repairs. In other words, the Canadian National Railways would get the repairs as a gift whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway will owe the money for the repairs. There is another amendment to add a subsection 4, the effect of which is to permit the Minister of Finance, instead of guaranteeing the securities, to purchase the equipment, sell it to the railways and take back a lien. The bill as drawn provides that the Minister of Finance on behalf of the government may guarantee the securities for these equipment orders, but after consultation with the railways it may be decided that the government will purchase the equipment and take a lien upon it instead of guaranteeing the securities. There are technical difficulties in connection with equipment trust liens and this amendment will enable the Minister of Finance to do what I have just explained.


Charles A. Stewart: I think
there is some justification for the difficulty in which the minister finds himself. In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, would the mortgage taken be only on the equipment itself?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


William Daum Euler: What form of security would the government exact from the Canadian Pacific Railway? Would it be the same as we had in connection with the $60,000,000 loan?


Robert James Manion: The government would
take a lien on the equipment itself. The usual procedure is for the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian National Railways to pay a certain proportion, frequently twenty-five per cent, of the cost of the equipment. Equipment trust notes are then sold on a fifteen year basis to cover the other seventy-five per cent, and the notes are paid off gradually over that period. Instead of following that method, it may be decided that the government will purchase the equipment and take back a lien which would be paid on the same basis as the equipment trust notes; instead of its being paid to the holders of the notes, it would be paid to the government.


William Daum Euler: In all probability the loan
would not be repaid for a period of say fifteen years?


Robert James Manion: We have not gone into
that detail, but I imagine it would be repaid on the same basis as the equipment trust notes. The railways would not like to be placed in a more difficult position with the

government than they would with the holders of equipment trust notes. So far as equipment is concerned, this bill is largely enabling legislation. We are providing different methods by which we can accomplish this end and the details will have to be worked out with the railways. With the exception of the matter which we have just been discussing, .which was suggested by the Canadian Pacific Railway, these matters were all suggested by the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. BURY:: I understand the effect of this bill is to enable the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway to issue securities for the purchase of rolling stock and equipment and that there is nothing in the bill to oblige either railway to take advantage of its provisions. I should like to be confirmed in the further understanding that the decision as to the proportion of the money which will be allocated to the purchase of new rolling stock and to repairs will rest entirely with the railway companies. I assume that this decision will be determined by the repair facilities which the railway has. The city of Edmonton is particularly interested in any repairs which may be done under this proposal, as the shops in that city are all repair shops. The Northern Alberta Railway is operated jointly by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways, and its shops are all repair shops. I imagine I am correct in assuming that any decision in this connection will rest entirely with the railways themselves. The railways will first decide whether or not they will take advantage of the provisions of this bill and then make the allocation of the moneys as between the purchase of new equipment and the carrying out of actual repairs.


Robert James Manion: I think the hon. member has a clear grasp of the matter. The railways will not be forced in- any way to participate in this proposal, but I may say quite frankly that they are anxious to participate. I expect that there will be additional questions asked in connection with the shops, and if my hon. friend will permit I shall defer answering his question for the moment so that I will not be repeating myself unnecessarily.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have three or four questions I should like to ask. First, from whom came the request for legislation of this kind? Did it come from the Canadian Pacific Railway, from the Canadian National Railways, or from the contract shops? I think we should know definitely who made the request for this legislation.

Public Works Program


Robert James Manion: The hon. member must have been out of the house when I answered the question, speaking from memory. Frankly, I was not too definite about it and I am not too definite now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is one reason for my asking.


Robert James Manion: The whole proposal started so long ago that I am not sure who really put it forward, 'but I have an idea that it originated with the equipment companies themselves, that they did some pressing to get the work. They had had no work for practically five years-for over four years certainly-and they proposed it. They discussed it with the railways and the railways on a certain basis were agreeable, the original proposal being that the government of Canada should pay one-third and they the other two-thirds over a period of years, because they felt that on that basis it would be economical for them to get this equipment. Since then this proposal, as incorporated in the bill, has been offered as a substitute and it is claimed by those who have looked into the matter and calculated the actual amounts, capital and interest on the investment, that in the long run the proposal is very much the same as the proposal originally suggested. At any rate, both railway companies are anxious to have it go through at the present time.


Mr. HEAPS:: Is there any need at present for this equipment?


Robert James Manion: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: Has not that been customary?


Robert James Manion: Of course there has always been a certain amount of borrowing but not to the extent that there has been recently. He was in my office and discussed the matter with me and I have a statement dealing with another point which I shall give to the committee in a few moments. He took the attitude that from an economic point of view so far as the railways are concerned this proposal is advantageous to'them. I said to him, "You did not make that perfectly clear to the corn-92582-195
mittee," and he replied, "I shall have another statement to submit to the committee clearing up the point." He said that he had answered offhand. He is now of a different opinion. The committee meets to-morrow and he can be asked that question; he will deal with it. Both railways, however, are of the opinion that this is an advantageous proposal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been informed that it has been the practice of the railways on the North American continent to meet in conference from time to time and decide what amount of new equipment will be required and what proportion will be declared obsolete and scrapped. Is this proposal the result of any such conference?


Robert James Manion: I have not heard of that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am informed that that is the practice, and if the proposal comes from the equipment companies I can understand it because, again, I am informed that at least in some of the American companies certain highly placed officials have financial interests in the large equipment companies and naturally desire as frequently as possible to secure new equipment. I think that we as Canadians and as a parliament ought to know very distinctly whether, as the minister says, pressure has come largely from the equipment companies. I take it that the proposal is primarily for new equipment rather than for repairs. What kind of new equipment is needed? Is it high powered engines and steel cars; what precisely is the type of equipment contemplated?


Robert James Manion: I do not believe there is anything whatever in the suggestion which my hon. friend1 has made on the strength of information which someone has given him. I did say that the equipment companies proposed it originally and quite legitimately. After all, they had been doing a large business with the railways of the country and their business had gone to pieces; for four years or more they had done practically nothing. It seems legitimate therefore for them to look for business. The American equipment companies have nothing Whatever to do with it, and1 I do not believe there is anything in the suggestion that in some way the equipment companies got the railways to go into a deal which was not advantageous to the railways themselves.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not say that.


Robert James Manion: I do not say that my hon. friend made that charge, but from what he has said one might infer that those who gave him the information rather implied it.

Public Works Program


James Shaver Woodsworth: What I said was that the central association practically decides what proportion of stock will be required and what proportion will be declared obsolete.


Robert James Manion: I do not think there is anything in that; I do not think there is an atom of truth in it. I do not think that anyone but the railways themselves -decides what shall be declared obsolete.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It appeared in an American newspaper.


Robert James Manion: I read in American newspapers a good many things which I should not like to believe, and I am not sure that I have not read in Canadian newspapers things I should not believe.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My question was whether there had been a meeting of the *association of railways on this continent a.nd at that meeting it was decided what should1 be done in a general way with respect to new equipment.


Robert James Manion: I have never heard of any such meeting.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What kind of equipment is proposed?


Robert James Manion: The information I have is, I believe, correct, generally speaking; there may be some slight variations. The Canadian National will order refrigerator cars, gondola cars, snow ploughs, automobile cars and sand cars, as well as some diesel engines and passenger locomotives. The Canadian Pacific Railway will order box cars, refrigerator ears, mail express cars, coaches, coal cars and 'heavy locomotives and passenger locomotives. That is the list that has been given.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 'Could1 not that same equipment be manufactured in the railway shops?


Robert James Manion: I will deal with that later.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What kind of locomotives is it proposed to secure?


Robert James Manion: The Canadian Pacific
Railway is ordering heavy locomotives and passenger locomotives-technical details I am unable to give-and the Canadian National, diesels and passenger locomotives.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has the minister
considered the effect of such improvement upon the general labour situation? We have been told here that there are a large number of railway men unemployed, and with better equipment of that kind less labour is likely to be employed. I was told when I was in Winnipeg the other day that the possible effect might be to cut out the intermediate
[Mr. Manion.j
divisional point and have the trains driven straight through, say from Winnipeg to Calgary or Edmonton; the locomotive would not have to be changed. If that is the sort of equipment that is being proposed then it is a matter for serious consideration whether the present traffic necessities of the country demand motive power of that type, especially as it may have the effect of laying off a very large number of train crews who with the present type of equipment to-day are necessary. I should be very glad if the minister, who has become more or less an expert in railway matters, would inform the house with regard to this aspect of the case.


Robert James Manion: Of course I do not believe there is any truth in the suggestion made to my hon. friend and also made to me that this equipment will interfere at all with the present employment in the shops of the railways. That is the statement that is made; it has been stated to me that if the railways buy this equipment, because of having a little better equipment they will be able to give more efficient service and this will mean less work in the shops.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Less in the shops
and less in the running trades.


Robert James Manion: I do not believe there
is anything to that, though far be it from me to think I am in any way an expert in the matter. But that has been put up to the railway companies and they say to me that it is not correct.
As regards the work in the railway shops, it was the intention of the administration, as I mentioned in the house before, to ask the railways to give as much of this to the railway shops as they economically could. I find in the statement the railways have given me that they count on giving nearly $4,000,000 worth. I did use the figure $3,000,000. By the figures they have given me, the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National shops will get nearly $4,000,000 worth of extra work in connection with this $15,000,000.


William Daum Euler: Is it only repairs?


Robert James Manion: There are some refrigerator cars that the Canadian National are counting on making in their own shops.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why should not
all the equipment be made in the railway shops?


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will permit me, I will give the *information. The reason they do not make it all in the railway

Public Works Program
shops is that they are not capable of doing so, despite all the propaganda which has been sent out from practically every railway shop in the dominion. I am making that statement not on my own authority but on that of Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Coleman. I put that question u,p to them because from all over the country I have been receiving from every shop the statement that is implied in the hon. gentleman's remark that the shops of Canada should be and are able to manufacture these different types of equipment without, as they suggest-, practically any increase in capital expenditure, and1 that therefore this Should be left entirely to them. I put that up to both Mr. 'Coleman and Mr. Hungerford, and I have before me messages which I should like to read to the committee as coming from both those gentlemen, who are the best authorities I know of on the railway situation. The one from Mr. Hungerford I received just a few days ago, because I wanted to reply to these railwaymen. I said: I do not intend to attempt to answer them myself, but I think you men should put in writing your opinions. As a matter of fact I did not speak to Mr. Hungerford at all; I had my deputy draw the matter to his attention. iMr. Hungerford's reply is in the form of a telegram addressed to me from Montreal under date of May 23, as follows:
Replying to your inquiry as to how the railways would be affected if the various car and locomotive building establishment were compelled to go out of business. It has never been the policy of this company to construct m its own shops any substantial amount of new equipment. While some of our shops are equipped and are suitable for the construction of a certain few classes of equipment, they are not suitable or equipped for the construction of the general run of new modern equipment. If car and locomotive building companies in Canada ceased to operate it would be necessary to remodel and further equip certain railway shop plants which would involve substantial capital expenditure and be a duplication of existing manufacturing facilities.
S. J. Hungerford.
The reply from Mr. Coleman is in the form of a letter addressed to me from Montreal. also under date of May 23, as follows:
The shops of the Canadian Pacific, with the partial exception of one shop, were not primarily designed, or equipped, for the work of building new equipment. To adapt them properly for the construction of a considerable amount of such equipment, at a reasonable cost, would involve capital expenditures for new machinery and' other facilities, which the railway company does not desire to undertake.
The policy of the railway companies in this country has been to operate their shops on repair and conversion -work and to refrain from entering into general competition with Canadian manufacturing companies so long as they can obtain material and equipment from
such companies at fair prices. No departure from that policy should be undertaken without grave consideration because of the disturbance to industry which would be involved.
We would view with concern the permanent closing down of equipment building plants in Canada, as in their absence, with return to normal traffic conditions, the demand for additional equipment would place the railways to some extent at the mercy of foreign manufacture.
Yours sincerely,
D. C. Coleman,
Vice-President.
That is the opinion of the two railway companies. I might deal with this a little more fully; it will probably answer the questions as I go along, because I have had the same arguments put up to me by every railway shop in Canada. I suppose we are all sympathetic to the railway shop men, but we must not forget that the railway shop men of both companies have been kept at work at any rate to a certain extent throughout the depression, largely by the assistance of the government. Undoubtedly that is true of the Canadian Pacific, because on two occasions we lent them money to keep their shops open for certain periods of the year.


William Daum Euler: The government gave them
money.


Robert James Manion: So far as the Canadian
National are concerned, they have kept their shops open a little longer than the Canadian Pacific shops have been open, and we all know that the dominion government, for the people of Canada, have been paying the deficits of those shops. The fact remains that these equipment companies, owned to a large extent by Canadian stockholders, are taxpayers and have thereby been assisting in keeping the shops open. I submit with all due respect to the statements made by the railway shop employees that the owners of these equipment companies as citizens of Canada and as taxpayers have rights also to consideration. I may put on record at this point that the two loans to the Canadian Pacific for keeping their shops open amounted to almost $2,500,000. One of the loans was in 1931 and the other in 1933. It is pointed out by Mr. Coleman in this letter-and he pointed it out verbally to me very emphatically-that if these equipment companies were forced into bankruptcy, as was suggested quite frankly by a deputation of shop men who waited on the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley) and me, these companies would then, as he states briefly in his letter, in case of urgency of need of equipment. be placed at the mercy of foreign, that is United States, equipment companies. Their
Public Works Program


Mr. CANTLEY:: Far be it from me to
appear to contradict the minister concerning the statement he made to the effect that the original proposal in regard to new equipment came from the private shops, but that statement I am sure is not quite correct. More than eighteen months ago I saw a memorandum prepared by officers of the Canadian National Railways calling for some 3,300 cars, among them 500 refrigerator cars, some general service cars, and two other types. So far as refrigerator service is concerned no type of railway traffic has increased as much in the last twenty years as has the refrigerator service. This increase is due to two factors, the increased movement of produce from the West Indies and from the Pacific coast, and the fresh fish trade both from the Atlantic and from the Pacific which has developed greatly during the last fifteen or twenty years. Much of the original refrigerator equipment is totally out of date; it is not fit for refrigerator work and is now used largely for the conveyance of potatoes and other agricultural products that have to be protected from the frost in the winter months.
There is no railway shop equipment to-day that can begin to compete with two or three of the private car-building plants in Canada. I say that with great deliberation, for I know the essential facts. Some twenty-two years ago we built the Eastern Car Company's plant in New Glasgow. The first order we executed was for 2,000 cars for the Grand Trunk Railway. Then came the war, and we undertook to supply 2,000 cars of the largest capacity ever produced in America, for the Russian government. These wr undertook to deliver on the tracks at Vladivostok. We fulfilled that contract, and within the specified date. Soon afterwards we undertook to supply 4,000 cars to the French government, and we put those cars over when great numbers of boats were being torpedoed, but we fulfilled our contract and so contributed very materially to the success of the allies in the war. When I say that no existing railway shops in Canada can compete with some of the shops I refer to, I know exactly what I am talking about. The Eastern Car Company have a plant at New Glasgow that cost $2,500,000. There is

Public Works Program
no similar car building equipment in Canada that will compare with it for turning out railway cars economically. That statement cannot be successfully contradicted. It may be in the interest of the railways to do a little repair work in their own shops from time to time to keep their organizations intact, but generally speaking the railway men of this country have been very well treated during the past four or five years. There are other .people in the country as deserving of being supplied with work as they are. That is all I have to say about the matter for the present.


Miss MACPHAIL:: For a few .minutes I wish to discuss some railway equipment and service that is required by agriculturists, particularly the stockmen. For a long time I think we have known but did not like to admit that the railways were losing traffic to the trucks. That has been increasingly true in the last few years. There are I think three reasons why the trucks are taking more live stock traffic from the railways each year. One is that the truck picks up the stock at the farm. Particularly if people live a long way from the station this service is appreciated. It is expensive for the farmers, yet that has not prevented them from using trucks, because this service means much to them, particularly now when it is hardly safe-in fact I think it is not now legal in Ontario-to drive live stock on the highways. It is very difficult for farmers who are at a distance from a station to get their live stock to the station except by truck. From my district, which is between ninety and one hundred and ten miles from Toronto, practically all the stock is trucked into Toronto, and one can see the duplication there must be of trucks going over the same highway on the same day. Another reason for the great loss of traffic by the railways is that they have, rather stubbornly I think, refused to partition the stock cars, and it has been left to the shipper or loader to do it at his own cost, while the trucks have been willing, to put in partitions, if necessary, at no extra cost to the shipper. A third reason why the trucks are gaining and the railways losing in the business of handling live stock is the cost of stops to complete the filling of a car which has been partly filled, while the trucks will make stop after stop without any additional cost at all.
In view of this situation the railways should do a bit of heart-searching. I have here a letter from the United Farmers Cooperative Company, Limited, which I wish to put on Hansard. It reviews this situation, blames the railway companies rather severely, and
expresses the view that before we vote money for additional equipment for the two railway companies there ought to be some reckoning from the point of view of shippers of live stock.
This letter is addressed to me under date of May 14:
We are giving you a report on the question of live stock handling by the railway companies for the last ten years, in which the United Farmers' Cooperative Company, Limited endeavoured to persuade the railway companies to instal permanent adjustable partitions in live stock cars, so that different types of live stock would be partitioned off, which up to the present time has been done by live stock shippers, drovers or owners as the case may be.
^ We had the cooperation of the Eastern Canada Live Stock Union, the Western Canada Live Stock Union, the commission houses on the different markets in Canada, together with members of each live stock exchange in Canada, also stockyard companies and abattoir companies.
Eventually the different concerns above mentioned formed what is known as the efficient handling of live stock committee, of which we are members.
We have held meetings regularly each year, and have been before the board of railway commissioners at Ottawa, before a number of freight' traffic commissioners and officials of both of the railway companies of various kinds.
Our committee got a number of models from different people interested in the question and exhibited these models before the board of railway commissioners and other railway officials; they were built and installed in one car of the Canadian National and' one in the Canadian Pacific were sent out to various, parts of the dominion for demonstration purposes and proved to be just what was wanted.
When it came to the point where the committee expected some action we were surprised to learn that the railway companies came back with the decision that they were not financially able to install the partitions in stock cars even after they were offered the patent right for Canada free of charge. These gates were hung on a steel track in the roof of the car and when not in use could be moved to the ends of the car and only occupied four inches at each end.
Then they go on to discuss the next point.
The railway companies did' build a few portable gates which had to be carried in and out of the car and which required two men to handle and was at best only a makeshift, but they wanted to charge the stock men $1.50 for the use of two gates per trip,-
They certainly wanted all they were worth.
-and still persist in charging $3 for a stop off for completion-
And they give an example.
-such as loading part car at Chatsworth-
That happens to be in my constituency.
Public Works Program

[DOT]-and completing at Holland Centre, while truckers collect their load from various farmers with only the regular rate for the lot.
We come now to the point that we want to feature, namely that the railway company officials have treated the whole question with indifference due to lack of executive ability with the result that they have slowly but nevertheless surely lost enormous business to the truckers, so that the following figures will give you an idea how much the railways have lost in the movement of live stock to the Toronto market, to say nothing of the movement of stocker and feeder cattle going back to the country by truck.
For a period of nineteen weeks

And these were winter weeks.
-from the week ending January 5 to the week ending May 11, 1935, we find that there was the following volume of live stock come to the Toronto yards:
Total Receipts by Rail and Truck
Cattle. Calves Hogs.. Sheep.
107,999
37.271
63,847
56,720
Cattle.
Calves
Hogs. .
Sheep.
Total Receipts by Truck
56.105
27.393
33,965
9,378
Percentage by Truck
Cattle	
Calves	
Hogs	
Sheep	
73-49
16-53
A very large percentage of the receipts of sheep were from Alberta by rail.
If the trucks come to Toronto with live stock they are hauling back to country stores, to merchants and to farmers great quantities of freight, which was previously hauled by the railway companies.
In the light of all these facts we feel that when the railway companies appeal to the dominion government for additional loans or grants the government and the people of Canada should know how badly the officials have handled their business and' be forced to go back and show some effort on their part before any more money is entrusted to them.
Yours very truly,
The United Farmers Cooperative Company Limited
Live Stock Commission Department.
I came across an article in- a United States publication which confirms an idea I have often held and which has proved feasible in that country. I refer to the Chicago Daily Drovers Journal of May 6, 1935. At least three railways in the United States have established a pick-up service for live stock. The railways own or hire trucks which they send to the farms to pick up the live stock, which are transferred to the railway station. The first railroad to instal this service, I think, was the

Illinois Central, which established it last December. As of the date I mentioned, however, two other railroads, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy and the Chicago and Northwestern, were installing a similar service. Let me quote one or two brief sentences to show what the service is like:
The rail carriers advise they are desirous of serving fully and completely their stock shippers and apparently from the success- of the Illinois Central experiment the service in question is very much to the liking of the farmers and stock feeders.
This service provides that the railroads, through arrangements with truck operators at each of the stations, will pick up at the farm live stock offered for shipment to Chicago. The stock will then be transported by the carrier to the Chicago stock yards at the regular carload rate.
The truck operators are paid by the rail carriers for performing this service from farm to the railroad loading pens.
If the stock owner prefers to truck his own stock to the loading station, the railroad agent at the loading station will pay the farmer in cash, three cents per hundred pounds for furnishing the transportation to the loading pens.
And further from the same article:
The shippers using the new service contend that there is considerable saving made by using the rail service compared to truck service. They point out the saving in insurance, yardage, commission charges, etc., as well as the better prices due to the stock arriving in better condition as compared with their previous experience with trucking. _
J. M. Madden, one of the enthusiastic users of the new service voiced the opinion that this new arrangement will not only reestablish numerous shipping associations but also benefit materially the small town merchants and banks by again concentrating the movement through the rail shipping stations.
In the edition of the same journal dated May 8, 1935, I find favourable comments on the new service, which I need not quote with the exception of one sentence:
The farm pick-up service for live stock being inaugurated' by railroads has a strong champion in Harvey Brucker of Lee county, Illinois, who was on Tuesday's market with eighteen head of stock.
Then the article goes on to give this gentleman's experience. I do feel that the railroads are losing their business, and there, is no use getting new equipment if there is no freight or passengers to be carried by that equipment. I should like, therefore, to ask the Minister of Railways if they are contemplating the installation of these two services, first the partitioning of railway cars for the carrying of live stock, as has been requested from coast to coast, and second the pick-up service by which the trucks will go to the farms and act as the servants of the railways.

Public Works Program


Robert James Manion: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member's statement of the case. Both matters were drawn to the attention of the railways some time ago. In regard to the partitioning of the cars the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), perhaps prompted as my hon. friend has been-I do not know as to that-wrote me some weeks ago suggesting that I take it up with the railways. I did take it up with both Mr. Beatty and Mr. Fullerton on behalf of the two railways. My recollection of their answer is that they did not feel that they could afford the extra expense at that time, but they were giving the matter consideration.
In regard to the trucking, I think it is obvious to the most superficial observer that the trucks have been cutting very heavily into the business of the railways, and some two or three years ago we had a very full discussion of that matter in the railways committee. At that time the officers in charge of both railways went into the matter very thoroughly, and stated that while undoubtedly a great deal of traffic was being taken away by trucks and passenger buses, they were endeavouring in various ways to get back some of that business. For example, the one cent a mile tours, which they have been putting on and which have been very advantageous to the railways from a financial standpoint, were intended to help the railways compete with the motor buses. Both railways, in the section of Canada west of Toronto and between Toronto and the United States border, towards Detroit and Port Huron, instituted a pick-up service similar to that suggested by my hon. friend; they had trucks working in association with the railways, picking up at one end and deliverting at the other in competition with the motor trucks.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: For live stock?


Robert James Manion: No, I just mean a general service. I am speaking generally, and do not know if they used it at all in connection with live stock. Some two years ago, without any technical knowledge of the matter, I made some investigations. Although the hon. member has not mentioned the point, I had understood that the Pennsylvania railroad had carried on this work more than any other railway on the continent. I think for about ten years the Pennsylvania railway had been awake to the situation, and I must say frankly that I do not believe either of our railways on this side of the line were awake to it. This particular American railway had carried on a very elaborate service to compete with the motor trucks carrying freight. They instituted a system whereby the bodies on the automobiles could be lifted off, without first being unloaded, such bodies being built so that they could be replaced on flat cars, lifted off at the completion of the rail journey and placed back on the automobiles for delivery to Philadelphia, New York or other points. This practice met with admirable results and I believe efforts of the Pennsylvania railway in that regard have been eminently successful. Other railways may have adopted similar methods, but I have a blear recollection of having read about their attempt to cope with the trucking competition.
Both our railways, however, are giving every attention to the points raised by the hon. member, and are endeavouring to work out some system whereby they may regain some of the traffic which in recent years they have lost because of the use of motor trucks. It is obvious that some of the loss can never be regained, but I am of the opinion that over a period of time much will be regained. It is stated by many railway authorities that the development of motor traffic and the manufacturing of automobiles in Canada and the United States has probably given more back to the railways than it has taken from them. That statement has been made on many occasions, although I do not know whether or not by actual statistics it could be proven. However I hasten to assure the hon. member that the railways are looking into the matters she has mentioned, and I shall be pleased to draw her remarks to their attention.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would point out to the Minister of Railways and Canals that the railways cannot now argue that they cannot afford the measures I have suggested, since it would appear that they are going to spend large sums of money in the purchase of new equipment. The partitioning of stock cars now existing is more important than the building of new cars which at the moment do not appear to be greatly needed. Would the minister say that the railways still contend they cannot afford the changes I have mentioned?


Robert James Manion: I cannot argue the point, but obviously the railways have chosen that line of equipment which they think is best suited for their purposes. I will state quite emphatically that the railways have indicated the program which is to be carried out.
The hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) asked a question that I overlooked. He inquired whether the division of the program
Public TFor/cs Program

and the decision as to whether some of the equipment was to be built in their own shops and some in the equipment shops was entirely in the hands of the railways. The program from which I read a few moments ago, and in which the type of car was indicated, was made up by the railways themselves without any prompting from me, and the manner in which the work is to be divided, whether for repairs or for new equipment, has been the work of the railways. I have not urged them, except that I did suggest they should give as much as possible to their own shops. I did wish in all sincerity so far as possible to assist the men in the railway shops to a reasonable degree. But in the final analysis the whole program has been worked out by the railways, and the allotments, whether east or west, whether in repair shops or equipment shops, have been made by the railway companies themselves.


Mr. GEARY:: I should like to ask the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) one or two questions. I have listened with interest to her observations, and should like to know if she will inform me first as to whether or not shipment by truck is satisfactory to those using that service, and whether it is more satisfactory than shipment by rail. Is there any difference in cost in favour of the truck? Then, is there any advantage other than that of cost which enures to the track shipment?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I know only what I have observed. I think the farmer likes to ship by truck, if he can afford it, but at the same time he realizes that as a taxpayer he has to keep up the railways, whether he uses them or not. One of the evils which has crept in through the use of the truck is that of delivering live stock direct to the door of the packing plant, a process which is delivering the farmer into the hands of the packer. That condition was not so aggravated when stock was shipped by rail because the buyer had to go from the packing house to the stockyards to purchase stock.


Mr. SANDERSON:: On April 15, when this bill was before the committee, I asked the Minister of Railways for some information and I am wondering if at this time he has it for me. He did not have it on that occasion, and I am not blaming him. Perhaps he tias not yet received it, but I believe I should ask him. I inquired as to how many railway shops and how many privately owned car shops and locomotive shops there were in Canada.
(Mr. Manion.]	' t ' WD


Robert James Manion: I believe I have the information, and if the hon. member will proceed with his observations I shall try to find it.


Frederick George Sanderson: On that occasion while the minister was not definite-


Robert James Manion: I believe I have the information. I am informed that there are Canadian Pacific Railway main repair shops at Montreal, West Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. The Canadian National Railways have the same type of shops at Moncton, St. Malo, Leaside. Montreal. Fort Rouge, Toronto, London, Stratford, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Port Mann. That is the list I have been given. Then, speaking from memory, the equipment shops would be the Eastern Car Company in the constituency of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited, of Montreal, the National Steel Car Company of Hamilton, the Montreal Locomotive Works, Limited, of Montreal and the Canadian Locomotive Works of Kingston.


Frederick George Sanderson: On April 15 the minister gave as the amount to be allocated to repairs the tentative figure of $1,500,000, or perhaps $2,000,000. I think he said the amount might reach $3,000,000. To-night he makes it $4,000,000. and I am pleased to note that it has reached that amount. As I understand it this is a relief measure, and the government is coming to the assistance of the two railway companies by guaranteeing the amount of $15,000,000 for new equipment and necessary repairs. Although I am in sympathy with the expenditure, I believe owing to the fact it is a relief measure there should be a more equal distribution of the money and work than has been indicated to-night. Out of the $15,000,000, $8 000.000 of which will go to the Canadian National Railways and 7.000.000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, about $4,000,000 will be spent for repairs in railway shops. Is that correct?


Robert James Manion: Yes.
Mr. iSANDEIRSON: I say that is not an equal distribution. I fully understand that locomotive and car shops are looking for work because for tihe past four or five years they have been more or less idle. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) stated to-night that railway employees in this country had been better looked after and had fared somewhat better than any other class of employees. I take issue with him; I do not think he is correct.

Public Works Program


Thomas Cantley: That is your privilege.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not want to get into an argument with him. My point is that more than $4,000,000 should be expended on repair work to be carried on in the railroad Shops. The minister read a statement which he had received from the railroads giving the class of work and the new equipment which would be required. The new equipment included locomotives and cars of different types, and I want to say that in the past these railroad shops have built locomotives and cars. I do not pretend to say that locomotives and cars manufactured in these shops will not cost more than those manufactured by the private companies, but it must be remembered that this is a relief measure. The government is asking the people of this country to guarantee $15,000,000 for this purpose, and I have grave doubts of its being paid back. It certainly will not be paid back unless there is considerable improvement in the near future. In a relief measure such as this there should be a larger amount than $4,000,000 allotted to the shops. I ask the minister to take the matter into his earnest and serious consideration. I believe he wants to be fair in this matter and I put it to him again if he does not think that $4,000,000 represents an unequal distribution of the $15,000,000 which the committee is being asked to vote.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member has mentioned that back about April 15 I started with about $1,000,000 for repairs. He may be right but I do not remember ever being below $2,500,000 or $3,000,000.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is in Hansard.


Robert James Manion: The division of this money was left entirely in the hands of the railway companies. Like my hon. friend and other hon. members who come from constituencies in which railroad shops are located, I am anxious to help the men who work in these shops. I come from a fairly large railroad town, but I may say that the railways take the attitude that all that can be economically given to the shops is the allotment which I have mentioned. This allotment is not quite $4,000,000.
There is a certain amount of truth in the statement that this is a relief measure, but that is not entirely so. When this question first came up I stated that this was not only for relief; one of the paramount reasons for this legislation and one in which I believed very strongly was to help the heavy or capital industries to get going again. As my hon. friend knows, consumption goods are utilized even during a depression but the
need for capital goods disappears and the plants which manufacture such goods as equipment for railroads go out of business more frequently during a period of depression than do the manufacturers of consumption goods. I do not mind saying that I have been a very strong supporter of this measure because I thought that we should do everything to assist these heavy industries to get going. While it is true this is a relief measure, it is also a measure to help the heavy industries up the grade. I might mention to my hon. friend that the population of Montreal is over 1,000,000, that of Hamilton is approximately 150,000. Kingston has quite a good population and there is also a considerable population in the town in Nova Scotia from which my hon. friend (Mr. Cantley) comes, along with the surrounding towns. Over a million and a half people located in thickly populated centres will be indirectly affected by these equipment orders, and in addition there are the railroad shops from coast to coast. It is true that there is not an equal division as between equipment and repairs, $4,000,000 against $1:1,000,000, but I think the railroads themselves must be the judges of what is best. I have not urged them in any way as to the division and they have taken the attitude that this division would be about right. I do not think I need elaborate further on the remarks of my hon. friend.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I should like to give the point of view of the people in my own locality but not in my own constituency. I do not think there is any doubt that the railroads need new equipment, and I hope we are not going to take as long to deal with this matter as we did to deal with the Toronto tunnel. That tunnel could have been dug in the time it took us to decide whether or not it should be dug. Much of this work should have been started six weeks ago so that the people employed in the equipment shops could have been put back to work. This matter must be dealt with in a practical way; we must realize that the equipment shops are part and parcel of our transportation system. In the neighbourhood in which I live are many workmen usually employed in the car shops who have not been working for four years. In my judgment these men have some rights. Something has been said as to the division of $4,000,000 and $15,000,000, but it must be remembered that as far as repair work is concerned, the whole expenditure goes to labour. I am not a railroad expert, being a mechanic by trade, but I do not believe more than [DOT] seventy-five per cent of the money expended
307S
Public Works Program

for equipment will go to labour; therefore the division would seem to be fair. It must be remembered that an additional percentage of the amount expended for equipment will be paid to the people engaged in the fabrication of the parts necessary to build locomotives and cars. We are dealing with a practical problem and some recognition must foe given to the men and women employed in these shops which have been shut down for the last four years. I think justice should be given to the men employed in the running trades with whom I have been associated all my life. The fair wages policy as enunciated by the government in connection with the building program should be a part and parcel of this car building program. I thought it only right that I should point out the actual division of labour to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) and also try to obtain justice for the men who have been out of work for the past four years.


Mr. MULLINS:: I congratulate the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) on the contribution she has made to the live stock industry. The railways are responsible for the state the industry is in to-day. The trucks came into use as a result of railway rates on live stock. The rates are to-day twenty per -cent higher all over western 'Canada from local points and for through shipments. Only yesterday, coming down on the train from Toronto, I drew to the attention of the representative of the Globe, Mr. Anderson, and of my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) the number of live stock cars standing idle on the sidings, owing largely to the fact that trucks were operating. The trucks have ruined the cattle industry because they have put the old cattle dealer out of business; he is not in evidence. The live stock industry has been ruined on that account. As regards the stop-over charges, the hon. member for Southeast Grey is absolutely right. I took this question up with one of the railway officials in Montreal, pointing out the injury that the stop-over charge had done. I said that a man might have a half car at one station and desire to fill it up at another, for which they charged $3. Their charge is excessive on live stock. And then they have the-


An hon. MEMBER:: Audacity.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Well, I was going to use a strong word but I will hold it back; I will not use the western term I might use to describe what they have done to the live stock industry. They are to blame for the present situation and no one else. They have

killed the industry, and that is why the cars are empty. One freight traffic manager told me that they lost money on live stock. I asked him in what way and he said it was because they had to haul empty cars back. I can remember that in the old days every other siding between here and Winnipeg had a stock train on it. I can remember when hundreds of thousands of dollars went back into that western country. But you go west to-day and look at the sidings and you will see nothing but empty stock cars. It is about time the railways recognized the benefits of the live stock industry to traffic and assisted that industry by doing something in regard to the stop-over charge and also by providing proper accommodation. Let the railways put the rates back where they were. I had the honour of Shipping cattle on the first train that left Winnipeg, but to-day the rates are twenty per cent higher than they were at that time. They say that labour is to blame; I say it is not. You have a crew of five on the train and they are drawing seventy cars. Locomotives are pulling as high as seventy cars of live stock out of Winnipeg with a crew of only five, and though it is true that slightly more is paid in wages we must consider the tonnage that is hauled. We cannot therefore place the responsibility on labour; that excuse will not hold. The fault is with the shortsighted policy of those who sit in the offices in Montreal. They are the ones that dictate the policy which has put the cattle men out of business-I mean the legitimate cattle men and not those gentlemen who become cattle men over night. These men who buy a truck and go into the cattle business are pretty well known in the neighbourhood, and they get hold of the farmer's cattle and undertake to sell them though they do not know the first thing about the business. They are marks for the men in the stock yards who buy for the packers. It makes me wonder when I stand and1 look at the trucks going to the western cattle markets. I was told that 3,600 cars of cattle were moved to the Toronto stock yards by truck. This I admit is the line of least resistance, because it is easier for the farmer to load his cattle on the truck than to drive them to the station, there being so many motor cars on the highway. It is difficult to drive a herd of cattle, but I notice now that they have done away with that menace. Those legislators in Winnipeg, the solons who make the laws there, are permitting the cattle to run on the highways, endangering the lives of people, so that there is not so much danger now in driving a

Public Worics Program
herd of cattle when cattle are allowed to run free on the highways in Manitoba. Motorists are more careful.
As to partitions, I quite agree with the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I think they should provide partitions so that they might take mixed shipments. I speak from experience of many years and I think I should know something of what I am talking about. I am out of the business now so that I have no axe to grind, and I make this statement only in the interests of the legitimate live stock dealers, the few who are left in the country. I say that the only method which will make for success in the cattle industry is the old method; let us have the old time cattle dealer and the old time fairs at country points. In the town of Birtle, Manitoba, they held a fair on one occasion, and they had 338 head of cattle which were sold right in the town at good prices without having to be moved at all. That is the method that should be followed; let the cattle be sold on the farm or to the cattle dealer and brought into market, doing away with the so-called cattle men who have trucks running over the highways and ruining them without contributing to the success of the industry.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister will bear in mind some conversation and correspondence I had with him with regard to something along the line of what has been suggested about the difficulty in getting adequate accommodation from the railways. He will remember what I pointed out with regard to a valuable horse which was brought into this country from the south. It reached Carnia about two o'clock in the morning and was going to a station in the county of Middlesex. It had been expected to get into Sarnia not later than eight o'clock, and four trains passed, so that the horse left Sarnia quite late; and of course, coming from a much warmer climate, in our very cold weather he was chilled. Fortunately he did not succumb to his injuries but it was a very serious matter. The reason given was that the other freight trains that passed through were through trains and could not be stopped at the station to which this horse was being shipped. Will the minister tell me whether it is possible to meet the convenience of shippers an a matter of that kind by having the train stopped? What would be the cost of having a freight train stopped to let off the car that had this valuable shipment on it? Surely in a case of that kind there should be some more consideration than was given to this shipment. A veterinary was engaged practically all night trying to get the horse
out of the chill that he suffered from being left all day in away below zero weather in that cold car.


Eugène Fiset: Is he alive yet?


John Campbell Elliott: I am glad to say he is
still alive.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member took
the matter up with me, either in the house or by letter.


John Campbell Elliott: Both ways.


Robert James Manion: I took the matter up with the management who are in control of such affairs. I cannot remember the details, but I sent on to my hon. friend their explanation of the matter. As regards stopping a fast freight, I really know nothing about such a thing. It sounds quite easy of course, but I may point out to my hon. friend that I have had the same complaint from both sides of the house in regard to fast trains of one kind or ^ another, usually passenger trains, which will not stop at certain stations. I have had many cases up with the management, I merely acting to a certain extent at any rate as a sort of clearing house, presenting to them the arguments put up by those who write me. In most cases the management take the attitude that if those trains stop at this or that station, they cannot make up the time they are expected to make; they are schedule trains and the management claim they cannot make this time if they stop. Recently I had one hon. gentleman on this side see me not once but half a dozen times in regard to a matter of this kind, and I finally tried to get him to go down to Montreal and argue the matter out there because I did not feel I was in any position to interfere with the management of the railways. However, a discussion of this sort is the type of discussion that both railway managements might well read with perhaps profit to themselves. Certainly they should be out to get all the traffic they can in these days, because they are not getting enough to write home about, even though conditions are improving to a certain extent. I shall gladly draw to their attention the whole discussion that has taken place here to-day.


Mr. MacINNIS:: When the Minister of
Public Works was dealing with that part of the bill which comes under his department, I think he assured the committee that in regard to all expenditures under the bill fair wages would prevail. Gould the Minister of Railways give, in regard to this 815,000,000, the same undertaking as has been given by the Minister of Public Works?
Public Works Program


Robert James Manion: As regards the work that
will be done in the railway shops themselves, as my hon. friend well knows there are regular schedules of pay and no doubt they will be adhered to. As regards the contracts with the equipment companies, those contracts will be between the railway companies themselves and the equipment companies, and I shall gladly endeavour to have my hon. friend's suggestion carried out. I have no control over the matter, but I will try to see that it is carried out.


Angus MacInnis: That is just the point 1 wanted to get at. I quite agree with the hon, member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) that the men in the private shops have just as much right to a certain share of this appropriation as have the men in the railway shops. As the minister has now said, the work done in the railway shops will be under the conditions and wages prevailing in them, but when we come to the private contract shops tihe situation is altogether different; the men are not organized, and if there is sweated labour anywhere it is in those shops. I had a talk with a man working in one of those shops-I am not going to mention just where -and he said that so far as he was concerned he was not particularly anxious whether the work would come to that shop or not because the wages paid were so small the men could not live on them anyway; they might just as well be on relief. He said that the rate varied from sixteen to fifty cents an hour, but in the department in which he was working, only four employees in the whole department were receiving more than forty cents an hour; the great majority of them were receiving from sixteen to eighteen cents. He pointed out that others of them were on piece work and that the time for the piece work was set by some official taking a stop watchand timing the man while he was doing the work, then deducting so much for grinding tools and some other interference with the work. I am not particularly anxious that any of this money should go to keep companies working that have such wages and working conditions and I hope the house will see to it that if this appropriation passes, along with it will be passed terms that will ensure that conditions and wages in those shops will be such as now prevail in the railway shops.


Mr. MAODOUGALL:: Will the hon. member give to the committee the name of the shop to which he refers? The remark he has made is astounding.


Angus MacInnis: I will give it to the minister if he so wishes.
Mr. MACDOUG ALI.: Give it to the committee so that we may deal with it.


Angus MacInnis: The minister can deal with it just as well if he wants to do so.


Robert James Manion: I shall be glad to have it, because I have never heard of any such wages as those mentioned by the hon. member.


Eugène Fiset: In so far as the S4.000.000 for repair work is concerned, the minister will admit that this measure is a relief measure.


Robert James Manion: Largely that is true.


Eugène Fiset: I am sorry that when the minister read the list submitted by the officials of the Canadian National Railways of the different shops to which this kind of repair work was to be allotted, he omitted altogether the names of smaller railway shops that exist in small communities. I would like to mention for instance the terminal of Mont Joli and the terminal of Riviere du Loup. The two railway shops that exist there are not mentioned in the minister's list. I would like to call his attention to the fact that at Mont Joli, which has a population entirely of railways employees, nearly two-thirds of that population has been retrograded or temporarily suspended owing to lack of work; that the work being carried on in the shop there has practically speaking been nil and that the staff has been reduced from nearly 250 employees a few years ago to about twenty-five at the present time. The others are without employment, and the least that could be done as far as those small shops are concerned is that repair work within their own division should be given to them. I would appeal to the minister to try to induce the railway authorities to give a chance to that local population.


Robert James Manion: When I gave the names of the shops I merely mentioned the names of the main shops as given to me by my deputy who looked them up for me. That does not mean that the smaller shops may not receive some of the work. It is my desire, so far as I can influence both railway companies, to have them do exactly as my hon. friend suggests. These are what are called the main shops. There are also many little shops in other sections, as my hon. friend knows, to which I should like to see the railways endeavour to give some work, and so far as I can I shall try to have them do so.

Public Works Program


Abraham Albert Heaps: First of all I wish to say a word in regard to wages in those contract shops. I have had communications just as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) has, telling me of the very low wages that are being paid in certain of the contract shops in which it is proposed that some of this equipment should be manufactured. I am informed in these communications that the wages are about two-thirds and in some cases one-half of what they are in the railway shops. I feel that the answer given by the Minister of Railways is entirely inadequate to meet the situation. He cannot make the excuse that the contracts are going to be let by the railways to the contract shops and that therefore the government have no responsibility in the matter.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is public funds that are being expended, Where public funds are being expended we ought to insist on fair labour conditions being observed. Wherever the equipment happens to be made we ought to insist on fair wages being paid in those shops in exactly the same way as they are paid in the government railway shops. It is most unfair that shops in which wages are about one-half to two-thirds of those paid in organized shops should compete with shops where fair wages are being paid.
Assuming contracts are let, the committee have the right to know the basis on which they will be let. Is it to be by open tender? Are the government railways shops to be allowed to bid for this work? If the work is to be let by contract I think every railway shop that is equipped to manufacture such equipment should have an opportunity of tendering, including the government railway shops. In spite of letters submitted here from Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Coleman, I am prepared to accept the statement of mechanics working in those shops, men who have given a lifetime of service in the manufacture of railway equipment, when they tell me that such equipment can be produced in those shops. If contracts are to be let we ought to know whether they are going to be let at a fixed price or by tender, open tender, in which case the railway shops should be allowed to tender. I am informed by men employed in the railway shops that equipment can be produced there as cheaply as in the privately owned shops. It is correct to say that the contract shops have been closed now for quite a long time. That being so I assume very little harm would be done in many cases if they were allowed to remain closed and the work
*vere given to the shops that are at least equipped and prepared to accept the work which this sum of money involves, and where decent wages are paid according to Canadian standards. I am informed that the number of men employed in these private contract shops at the present time amounts to only a few hundred for all the shops. I am told that a few are employed at Kingston for the manufacture of locomotives, but very few at some of the other places; and I doubt whether any hardship would he inflicted if the work were not given to these contract shops. The argument of the minister that we should not allow these shops to go into bankruptcy may sound very well. I do not want to see any concern forced into bankruptcy, but I have heard it argued in this house-I do not know that the minister has not used the argument himself-that it might have been a good thing if the national railway system had gone into bankruptcy before the government took it over.


Robert James Manion: I did not say the national railway system; I said it might have been a good thing if the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern had.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, I did not put it quite as correctly as the minister has. The minister further objects to the government going into the making of equipment in competition with privately owned concerns. Coming from a gentleman so much in favour of public ownership, that argument sounds rather strange to me. In the first place we are using government money to pay for this equipment, but we are going to allow private contract shops to produce it and of course incidentally to take the profit. I think we ought to get a good deal more information from the minister in regard to this matter. I would like to know how many men are affected in the private contract shops; how many are working there at the present time; how these tenders will be let, whether by open and public advertisement, and whether the railway shops equipped to manufacture the same class of equipment will be allowed to tender. Finally I want to know whether the minister and the government will insist that wherever these contracts are let they will carry a fair wage provision.


Robert James Manion: As far as I can I shall answer the questions of my hon. friend, but I repeat that I am no railway expert, any more than, he is.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not.


Robert James Manion: So I shall just answer to the best of my ability. He said he under-
Public Works Program

stood that these contracts would affect only a few men in the equipment manufacturing shops. 1 am informed that they will affect quite a few thousand.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the minister say there
are a few thousand men working there at the present time?


Robert James Manion: Certainly not; there are
practically none, because these shops have been closed for some years. I say these contracts will affect thousands of men who would go to work. That is the argument, that these men and these equipment shops have not had any work at all for four years, perhaps five in most oases. The hon. member also said that I was a friend of public ownership. I have never particularly argued that I am a friend of public ownership. I am a friend of the Canadian National Railways, and as we have public ownership of that railway and of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario I am friendly to what we have. But I do not know that I have stated, and I do not think my hon. friend could find my words saying anything about my attitude on the question of public ownership. I am a friend of the Canadian National Railways, and have been endeavouring to show that I am in spite of a good deal of talk to the contrary throughout the country.
My hon. friend also said that I said we had no responsibility in regard to the fair wage clause or wages paid in equipment shops. I made no such statement. My hon. friend is usually fairer than that. In reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) I stated that I would endeavour to see that fair wages were paid in these equipment shops. It is rather a strange thing-I am wondering how much is just complaint and how much is argument-that in all the time that these equipment orders have been discussed in the press I have yet to receive from any employee of equipment shops a statement by letter or by word of mouth that he has not been fairly treated. Until to-night I never heard that there was anything unfair about the treatment of men in any of the equipment shops. As far as fair wages are concerned I repeat that my hon. friend although a labour representative has no greater desire for fair treatment of the working people than I have, or I think most other members of the house. I shall certainly endeavour to see that the men are paid fair wages. I shall look at the figures given by the hon. member for Vancouver South and I shall be glad to receive from him

the name of the shop to which he refers, because I can hardly believe that such wages are paid except possibly to some apprentice or something of the kind. If he will give me the name of the shop I shall gladly draw it to the attention of the railway companies and indicate that the government desires them to see that fair wages are paid for this work.
In regard to permitting government shops to tender on the building of this equipment, by all means that will not be done as far as I am concerned. I do not think it is any part of the business of the Canadian National Railway repair shops-because that is what they are-to tender on such work against any private company; not because one is a private company and the other a government company, but because that is not the business of the repair shops of the Canadian National Railways. I have no control over it, but suppose the Canadian National repair shops, say in the centre from which my hon. friend from Winnipeg comes, did tender on a job of this sort and then fell down. Suppose their tender was a million dollars and the work cost a million and a half; my hon. friend and I would have to chip in to pay the deficit, not the railway shop men.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What happens when the
private manufacturer falls down.


Robert James Manion: He goes into bankruptcy, and, perhaps unfortunately, the Canadian National Railways cannot be permitted to go into bankruptcy because we are on its bonds and unless we repudiate our debts we have to pay them. I do not think it would be fair that government railway shops, built for making repairs, shoidd be permitted to go into the manufacturing business and compete with the plants from which the railways get a good deal of their business.
As to the workmen who told my hon. friend that the railway repair shops can do the work as well as the private companies, it reminds me of the privates at the front who used to know more than General Sir Arthur Currie about running the war. I do not mind saying that during this discussion with regard to equipment I have received many letters from shop men, each of whom takes the attitude that he knows vastly more about the whole railway business than Mr. S. J. Hungerford, Mr. D. C. Coleman or even Mr. Beatty. With all due respect I submit that probably Mr. Beatty, Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Coleman should know a little more about the general

Public Works Program
economics of the railway situation than the employees in the shops. I am anxious to see that whatever work is done under this measure should be fairly divided throughout Canada and carried on in such a manner that the workingmen will receive fair treatment, and I shall do everything in my power to see that this is done.


John Power Howden: I am rather surprised to learn that Mr. Hungerford or Mr. Coleman or Mr. Beatty, or whoever it was, made the statement that the railroad shops were not in a position to manufacture and produce this equipment. In the Transcona shops, unless I have been told what is not correct, they have built locomotives and coaches to some considerable extent, as I believe has been the case in other shops of the Canadian National system and perhaps also of the Canadian Pacific. At Transcona we have a shop that is prepared to build anything at all if they receive the forms; that is to say, they are prepared to assemble engines, passenger cars, refrigerator cars or anything else. As a matter of fact they are building refrigerator cars, stock cars and freight cars all the time; it is part of their business. Originally one shift alone employed nearly three thousand men. At present there are only about 1.500 men working on one shift. Formerly there were often two and sometimes three shifts of men working; now there is never more than one shift, numbering in all about 1.500 men.
I understand that the back shops alone, of the two railway systems, employ some fifty thousand men, whereas the men who will be employed by these contract shops will not number more than ten thousand at the very outside. So it does not seem to me a very fair division of the money that is to be voted ' for the relief of the workmen of this country when fifty thousand men have only 34,000,000 divided among them in providing work and ten thousand men will get the benefit of the balance of the $15,000,000.


Robert James Manion: As a matter of information could my hon. friend say how many of the fifty thousand are at work at the present time?


John Power Howden: I cannot say, but that
was the full man force of the two railways when they were in full operation.


Robert James Manion: That is the figure the men used. I hope my hon. friend will pardon my interruption; the reason I asked the question was that I wished to point out that perhaps half or two-thirds of those men, for all I know, have been carrying on throughout, certainly not at full time in many instances but at least to a certain extent. That is the
point I am making. These men who have been carrying on can hardly in fairness be compared with the men in equipment shops who have not been carrying on at all.


John Power Howden: That may be so, but as
the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) said a few moments ago, many of these men are not making two-thirds of their former earnings. A man who formerly earned between $900 and $1,000 a year now earns less than $600. Together with some other members and some senators I had occasion to meet a group of these men, and they pointed out that they would be almost better off on relief than getting the wages they are receiving at the present time. It was pointed out, as I said a moment ago, that a man who formerly earned between $900 and $1,000 was now earning less than $600 a year. The wages of many of these men have been so reduced that they might have been almost as well off on relief.
There is another point that I think is worthy of note. The money that will be spent in order to provide work for men in the railroad shops certainly will go to the men in very large measure. On the other hand the contractors and syndicates who own the contract shops among whom will be spent the remainder of the money undoubtedly will realize a good share of that money and possibly only a very small proportion will reach the workmen in the long run. Under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, although $4,000,000 is a good deal better than $3,000,000, it seems to me even $4,000,000 is hardly enough. I wish the minister could see his way clear to make it at least $5,000,000, because $4,000,000 seems a very small proportion in comparison with the money that is to go to private shops.
I do not believe I need say anything with regard to the abuses that have grown up in connection with trucking, as it affects the live stock industry. There is no doubt that the trucks have taken business away from the railways, but as far as the farmers in my part of the country are concerned, transportation of live stock by trucks has been more or less of a godsend. Formerly the cattle were loaded in stock cars, which were allowed to hang around the railway for a day or two before reaching the stockyards. In many instances the farmers got very poor runs; in the end the charges were just the same and the cattle were very much worse off. As it is now the cattle get to the stockyards within a few hours, and it is very much to the advantage of the farmers to have the truck transportation even though it does work to the detriment of the railways.
30S4
Public Works Program


James Shaver Woodsworth: There appears to be a good deal of doubt as to just how far this is a relief measure. The bill is entitled "an act to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities." We are dealing now particularly with the railway equipment securities, but I take it that the real purpose of the expenditure of this large amount of money is to create a greater measure of employment.	It seems to me
there are really three groups that have to be considered. First we have the workingmen. I would join with others in suggesting that a much larger proportion of this money should -go to the railway shops which are now in operation, and that as much of this money as possible should be spent for repairs rather than on new equipment, because in connection with new equipment there is much less labour than in connection with repairs. I think the minister has made it clear to us that the second group receiving consideration -I think I might go so far as to say relief- consists of the heavy industries of this country or, as he puts it, those engaged in the manufacture of capital goods.
It does seem to me that this subsidizing of private industry is rather a new principle. In the past in this country private industry has been subsidized by tariffs and bonuses but now we are doing it in a new way, by directly contributing out of the public fund, in order to keep up private industries, some of which have been closed down for five years. A little while ago the minister said railway shops could not be permitted to go bankrupt, implying that private concerns might be allowed to do so. In this case the minister is insisting that the private concerns should not be allowed to go bankrupt; I think that is clear. In answer to my colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), with regard to the conditions of labour, the minister said that it was quite possible that private concerns might go bankrupt, but he is not permitting these heavy industries to go bankrupt. He is deliberately taking several millions of dollars belonging to the people of Canada to subsidize private industry.


Robert James Manion: That is not so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot see that I am unfair in my statement.


Robert James Manion: May I answer it, because that statement should not go out without a contradiction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If you wish; I want to be fair.


Robert James Manion: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, the_ Canadian _ National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am following the arguments of the minister to the effect that this money should be spent in the contract shops rather than in railway shops on the ground that the contract shops are in a bad way and should not be allowed to go bankrupt.


Robert James Manion: That is all right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then, I say to that extent we would be subsidizing private industry. It is a process of saving private industry from bankruptcy.


Robert James Manion: Is that not a worthy objective?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the workman?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Never mind him
for a moment; I have already discussed that phase of the matter. I say there are three groups to be considered. First there are the working men; I am in sympathy with the idea that they should be saved from unemployment. The second group consists of the equipment companies. The minister has said the reason for giving the work to the equipment companies instead of to the railway shop is that we cannot afford to let the equipment companies go bankrupt. I say that would be a subsidizing of private industry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister may
put it some other way, but that is the way it appeals to me. We are expending this large sum of money partly at least with the idea of keeping private industries going. I will admit that we hope to have something by way of equipment as a result of our action, and I will admit further that incidentally we are going to help to give jobs to a certain number of men. I have already made that statement, but I want to be clear in my thinking and I should like the committee to be clear in its thinking. Although there may be

Public Works Program
some help given, to employees the fact remains that one of the primary purposes of giving the work to the car and equipment companies is that of keeping them from bankruptcy.


Robert James Manion: That was not given as a primary purpose, at all. I read that in the letters of Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Coleman. My primary purpose, as I explained, was an endeavour to start the heavy industries going, something which is vastly different from my hon. friend's suggestion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall accept the
minister's words, that one of the purposes of the expenditure is th-at of endeavouring to start heavy industries going. You may call it what you like, but I shall call it the subsidizing of private industry. However, if the minister wishes I shall use his own words, namely that one of the purposes behind this grant of funds is that of starting heavy industries going. I believe those are his words.


Robert James Manion: But that is a purpose
different from that which the hon. member mentioned previously.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am trying to state, in other words, that I believe the principle involved is that of subsidizing private industries, a procedure which to my mind is a new departure. We have had subsidizing of industry in one forrn and another, by way of tariffs, bonuses and so on. Here we have it in another form. We are going to make an expenditure for equipment with the idea of starting privately owned heavy industries operating.
The third purpose is that of having better railway equipment. The minister has read letters which would indicate the companies are of the opinion that we need this equipment. It is rather significant however that the minister has also admitted that the pressure for the purchase of the equipment came not primarily from the railway companies but from the equipment concerns. That is a point which I suggest we ought to keep in mind. However, let us assume that the railways need the equipment, and that when they have this equipment they will have a worth while asset. Then, the two railway concerns are to benefit from a financial standpoint from the passing of this measure. One is the Canadian National Railways, for which the government has a very definite responsibility; the other is the Canadian Pacific Railway, a private concern. I submit that before we give one dollar by way of either grant or guarantee to the Canadian Pacific Railway, a private company, 92582-196
the books of that company ought to be open to the public. To-morrow we have meeting in this building a committee which will deal with the accounts of the Canadian National Railways, and upon which occasion the affairs of the national system will come under detailed scrutiny. Railway officials are brought here to the parliament building; they appear before the committee the members of which are free to ask any questions they may wish. So far as the public is concerned the privately owned railway company conducts its business in secrecy as most private businesses are conducted. In the past that procedure may have been justifiable because private companies were supposed to be entirely responsible for their own affairs. I submit however that when a corporation feels it necessary to come to the government, cap in hand, asking for favours and for a grant or guarantee-and the remission of interest charges involves an actual grant of money-that company should be prepared to open its books and to give a clear statement of its financial affairs. There are many business people throughout the country who would be pleased to obtain a guarantee of funds they urgently require for purposes of carrying on their affairs. A great number of commercial and industrial concerns would like to have that opportunity, but we do not extend a similar privilege to them. Apparently however we find no difficulty in giving guarantees and even money grants to a big railway corporation.
I have said that we have certain responsibilities so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned; we have not the same kind of responsibility in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do say however that we have a right to know why they choose to go on the dole. A poor man in any of our cities who asks for help to the extent of only a few dollars each week is immediately required to submit a statement indicating his financial standing. An investigator is sent to make inquiries, and a very careful scrutiny of the entire situation is made. We say that is necessary in order to safeguard public funds. If that is true in connection with giving relief of only a few dollars each month to a private family, I cannot for the life of me see why a great and wealthy corporation that seeks financial assistance should not give to this parliament full details of its financial affairs.
One further point: I am far from satisfied with the reply the minister gave my colleague with respect to conditions of labour in private shops. He said he would endeavour to see that the men are given a fair wage, and that he would be willing to draw the

30S6
Public Works Program

matter to the attention of the railway companies ordering the equipment. That is not enough. In connection with certain public works hon. members are accustomed to insist not only that there should be fair wages and fair conditions in works, directly undertaken by the government, but that the same should obtain in other concerns doing work to which the government is contributing certain grants. I believe the Minister of Public Works will bear me out when I state that clauses providing for this are inserted in bills dealing with the building of bridges, and so on. In some instances we are going further and insisting that goods supplied on such contracts should be produced under conditions of fair wages and fair living. I do not think we should recede from that position in a matter of this kind. It is not sufficient for the minister to say that he will endeavour to see that the men will receive fair wages, that he will bring the matter to the attention of the railway companies. I think we should have inserted in every contract clauses providing that fair wages be paid to the employees and decent conditions maintained in the shops in which the employees are engaged. I think we would be going back on what has been regarded in the past as the policy of the government if we permit anything less than that.


Robert James Manion: I do not intend to deal at length with my hon. friend's remarks but I shall deal with two or three of the points he made. In the first place he, along with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), took the attitude that more should be given to the railway shops. I repeat now what I have stated already a couple of times, that the allotment is made by the railway companies. They take the attitude that the amount of nearly $4,000,000 being provided for repairs is all they can economically spend at the present time for this purpose.


John Power Howden: Assuming that the railway companies had this money allotted to them for whatever expenditures they desired to make, is it the opinion of the minister that it would be expended according to the division he mentions now?


Robert James Manion: Absolutely. They are the people who are deciding how it shall be spent. I have not told them what should be done; rather I have urged them to spend more in repairs. Secondly, my hon. friend said and repeated that we were subsidizing private industry. We are doing nothing of the sort. Any one who has such a command

of the English language as the hon. member knows that we are doing no such thing. He knows that the term "subsidizing" is not correct. That means that the government is paying an amount in cash to some one, but there is no such thing being done in this instance. .Nothing is being given to the private companies other than the orders for equipment from the railways. Most of the money thus received will be paid in wages, either in the shops or to those manufacturing the steel, lumber and so on required for the manufacturing. There is nothing in the way of a subsidy to private industry.
Then he said that apparently we were anxious to keep the private companies from going bankrupt. I admit quite frankly that it gives me no pleasure to see any company in this country go bankrupt. I do not mean to be unjust to my hon. friend but after listening to the rather severe indictment of myself I cannot help but think that he is almost glad to see private industries go bankrupt.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is nothing
in what I said from which that conclusion could be drawn. I was answering the argument of the minister that a railway company should not be allowed to go bankrupt. He said also that a private company might go bankrupt if it did not fulfil its contract; I was answering that argument.


Robert James Manion: I certainly do not wish
to see any private company go bankrupt because the bankruptcy of any company is not particularly good for our country. I would point out to the committee the statements of Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hungerford who stated that if these companies were allowed to go bankrupt they would be forced to rely on foreign manufacturers for equipment. I did not discuss the question particularly myself; I took my statement from them. There is another side to this question. These private companies have not been able to give employment to their workers for four or five years, and these workers have the same rights as the workers in the railroad shops. The shareholders of these companies are also entitled to some consideration. I have not looked into the matter but I assume that these shareholders are largely Canadians. Many of them are taxpayers in a large way and along with the rest of us they have helped to keep the Canadian National Railways from going bankrupt. That company certainly would have gone bankrupt had it not been supported by the Canadian government and by the people who pay the taxes.

Public Works Program
In justice to the Canadian Pacific Railway I must say that we have not given any money to that company. We have advanced some money in order to keep their shops open but this is supposed to be repaid. Some time ago we guaranteed a loan of $60,000,000 but I understand a good deal of this is clear at the present time. Generally speaking we have not been giving direct assistance to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I	do not think there are any more points brought up by my hon. friend with which I should deal. He has a better command of the English language than I, and I am quite sure he understands that the word "subsidy" is not applicable to what we are doing in an effort to give employment to those engaged in the heavy industries. We are only trying to stimulate the upturn of business which we were all so glad to realize a year or so ago.


William Daum Euler: When this matter of the
$15,000,000 appropriation for equipment for the railway companies was discussed a few weeks ago, some hon. members, including myself, found fault with the government for making an appropriation of this kind, especially with regard to the Canadian National Railways. As has been stated frequently, the president of that railway stated very definitely before the committee that no equipment was required at this time. The minister tells us to-night that the president perhaps will take a different attitude tomorrow before the railway committee.


Robert James Manion: He said he would elaborate his statement.


William Daum Euler: He may elaborate his statement, but the fact remains, and it is on record, that when he was questioned with regard to this matter he stated that no such equipment was required.


Robert James Manion: Except at the peaks.


William Daum Euler: Except at the peaks, and
then he thought that the cars could be borrowed, the common practice with railways. I find fault with this appropriation because the Canadian National Railways is already heavily loaded with debt obligations. I do not like to strengthen the hands of my hon. friends opposite, and particularly those of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), who so consistently and strongly criticized the former government for expending such large sums of money on the Canadian National Railways. If this $8,000,000 is not required by the Canadian National Railways, as has been stated by the president, we have no right to load S2582-1964
up the company with this additional amount. The amounts which have been allowed the two railroads are not in proportion. The Canadian National Railways is to get $8,000,000 while the Canadian Pacific Railway is to get $7,000,000. If the total $15,000,000 is to be provided according to mileage or capitalization, especially capitalization, the Canadian National Railways would get almost all.
I shall not discuss the division as between the private and railroad shops, although I think there is considerable force in the minister's statement that the employees in the private shops are Canadian citizens and entitled to such relief as the government can afford. I cannot agree entirely with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) when he rather advocates that railway equipment, especially locomotives, should be allowed to go down for fear railway labour will be displaced. No one wants to see labour of any kind displaced. I cannot agree that progress in the way of the improvement of machinery and matters of that kind should be stopped for the reason given.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would not like
that to go out as my opinion. I asked the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) a while ago whether he had considered that aspect of the case and whether representations had been made along those lines.


William Daum Euler: I should like to see labour saving machinery invented and used to the greatest degree possible, but I should also like to see labour get the full benefit of the invention and use of such machinery. Desperate diseases they say require desperate remedies, and if this money must be expended to give employment and relief one cannot say a great deal, because every member agrees that we cannot allow any person in this country to suffer want and distress. But I do feel disposed at this moment-perhaps I shall be stepping on the toes of some of .my friends not only opposite but on this side-to challenge the propriety of continually, if not subsidizing at any rate financing private industry in business. We have had a good deal of that and I am afraid that this sort of thing is leading the national government almost to the brink of bankruptcy, if I may throw out so alarming a suggestion. We have guaranteed large sums of money of all kinds for private interests. For example, we have guaranteed all the wheat pools of western Canada, and perhaps my hon. friends from the west will disapprove of what I say. This concerns Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We have
Public Works Program

speculated in wheat to the extent almost of hundreds of millions of dollars and we do not know how much we shall lose-possibly twenty, thirty, forty or fifty millions. We have guaranteed the debt of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the extent of 860,000,000. We guaranteed 815,000,000 on account of Beau-harnois, for power which is now apparently not required. We have guaranteed or set aside $90,000,000 for the relief of debt mostly in western Canada. It is possible that this government will set aside the sum of $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 to promote housing, which may be a good scheme. And we are now again setting aside the comparatively insignificant sum of $15,000,000 for the purposes of this bill. Where is this sort of thing going to end? As an hon. member here said a few moments ago, there are many other lines of private business that are in distress, needing assistance. There are many industries in the country whose wheels have not turned once in the last three or four years and whose employees are out of work. The principle is thoroughly wrong, that we should go out and finance these private industries and play our favourites, if you like to put it that way. I say to the members of this committee that if the government continues in that way, if it continues to finance private industry, we shall very rapidly reach that point which would be approved of by my hon. friend and we shall have socialism sooner than you think. This country is now in debt to the extent of $4,500,000,000, over $3,000,000,000 on ordinary government account, consolidated debt of Canada, and $1,250,000,000 on account of the Canadian National Railways.
I assume I shall be criticized for what I have said to-night, though it does not matter a great deal. But it is my conviction, and I think the conviction of a good many citizens of this country, that neither this government nor any other can continue indefinitely and increasingly to finance and guarantee the debts and commitments of private interests. In this particular instance it seems doubtful that the $15,000,000 should be given in view of the fact that there appears to be no real demand for it, certainly not so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned; and in all that I have said I do not want to try to convey the impression that I am not absolutely in favour of doing everything that can be done to relieve unemployment and distress.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have listened to the inquest of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), but I would ask this question. What condition would this country

have been in if we had mot gone to the rescue of the farmers in the west when we could hear in the lobby talk about twenty-five cent wheat? What would have happened if we had let all these things go to the wall?


William Daum Euler: I did not suggest that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Everything works on
paper, even the capitalist system. However, I want to put this point of view to the committee as one who believes in public ownership; you have to work out a technique to make it function. As to the issuing of bonds instead of allowing shareholders to take their risks as others do in industrial enterprises, I question whether the policy we have been advocating in connection with public ownership is sound. Even in Russia they had to alter their direction and insist upon various industries standing on their own feet. The necessity for this has been proved fully there. It has taken them seventeen years and cost possibly the lives of ten million people to prove it. Evan a communist will not lend money to the government unless interest is paid on it. They are not different from anyone else. Here you have the hydro undertaking guaranteed by the province of Ontario and the vast Canadian National railway system guaranteed by the people of Canada. I do not think that these undertakings should stand, in relation to the financial structure of the country, so far as their indebtedness is concerned, on any different footing from an ordinary company. They should stand on their own feet. When profits are earned by these undertakings those who have invested in them should reap those profits; but if profits are not earned, then the taxpayers of this country or of Ontario or the other provinces should not be expected to foot the bill, any more than they should be expected to foot the bill in connection with other private undertakings. We are fast coming to the point of state ownership whether we like it or not. An absolutely new policy must be worked out whereby these undertakings shall stand on their own feet and be worked on a sound economical basis as other private enterprises are.


Mr. YOUNG:: Would you apply that to the Post Office?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely. The only argument for public ownership, and I am an advocate of public ownership, is that it shall be as efficient as private ownership and shall meet its obligations normally just as any other concern pays its way.

Public Works Program


Mr. WHITE (London):: As to the wisdom or otherwise of spending $15,000,000 at the present time in connection with railway equipment, I cannot say; I am prepared to accept the judgment of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in that regard. There is however one point which I wish to make and that is that we have a railway shop in London in connection with the national railways. A short time ago I was waited on by representatives of various trades working in the construction of these cars and also on repairs. I went to a good deal of trouble to get all the information I could. These men represented steel plate work, carpenters, millwrights and machinists, and they told me that up to August, 1929, they had worked five days a week and since then only sixteen days per month. They voluntarily reduced the working days per month in order that more men could be assisted to get a livelihood. These men advised me that the highest paid skilled workers .on the present basis of sixteen days a month received $87 a month. These, remember, are only the highest paid; others receive lower salaries. They also state that albout two hundred men in London are idle on account of reduction in activities. Their main fear was that in the event of all this new work being done, within a few months so much new equipment would be available that the railway companies would probably shorten up on the repairs which are now going through the shops in the ordinary way and that the work in the railway shops would be cut down further so far as these per month workers are concerned. I think, sir, you will agree with me that sixteen days a month is a very small amount for men to work. Those men have been very unselfish in the action they have taken and they should be commended for the way in which they have reduced their hours of labour or working days per month. They seem to be quite willing to carry on as they are, but they are fearful of any further reduction.
There is the other side of the picture which I have tried to present to them as a possible reason for a certain division of the $16,000,000. I know something about idle plants. It costs more by long odds, to keep a plant idle than to keep it running. There is the interest on the money invested; somebody has put the money in, perhaps borrowed it in order to do so, and there is no return. There is insurance to be maintained on the premises; there is the municipal tax bill which comes whether the industry is running or not, and there is also the care of the premises which
have to be kept up. Those expenditures cannot be maintained indefinitely by any company and if maintained too long, the result, as has been intimated to-night, is possible bankruptcy. In the event of bankruptcy of a company of that kind which has been idle for several years and has no prospect of getting work for some little time in the future, one can understand how no one would be willing to invest money in such a proposition, and the result would be that if bankruptcy takes place, the plant would be idle for many more years. The precaution taken by the government to avoid such a contingency is in my opinion a very wise one.
The matter of subsidy has been mentioned. I do not like the word; I do not think it is correctly used, but nearly every line of activity in this country has received during the life of this government benefit by some action the government has taken. We might for instance refer to the rail order that was given to the Sault mills and the mills at Sydney a few months or a year ago in order to help out employment in those centres. If all this construction were confined to the railway shops only, what with taking care of repairs and doing the work slowly as they would have to do, the work would be extended to an unreasonable length of time and I do not think that would be good business. The fact is that the Canadian National deficits are now being paid out of the public treasury and they have been for years. We do not call this a subsidy, but it is an expense on the taxpayers of Canada. Roughly speaking, it takes all the money collected in income tax throughout the length and breadth of this country to pay the deficits on the Canadian National Railways each year, and it seems to me that when this plan can be evolved and worked out in the interests of the companies which are undoubtedly in need, the government is taking a very wise precaution in saving a great many of these companies from disaster. The only thing that I could suggest to the minister is this-and I make the suggestion in all seriousness-that possibly the proportion given to the regular railway shops might be increased. Someone spoke of $3,000,000 out of the $15,000,000; a few minutes ago the minister said nearly $4,000,000. If that were divided perhaps a little more favourably for the railway shops, a great deal would be done along the line in which we all wish this money to be expended, that is to the effect of doing the greatest good to the greatest number of workmen.
Public Works Program


Mr. CAMPBELL:: May I ask the minister if there is any schedule proposed regarding the number of locomotives that are going to be bought by each railway?


Robert James Manion: These are the estimates made by the railways and I assume they are subject to change, but I think they are in a general way correct. Altogether they are going to buy about twenty of various kinds.


Charles A. Stewart: I have been greatly interested in listening to the discussion to-night in connection with this work. May I say first that if this is not to give employment, then I am against it. I have been given to understand that next to house building, this will provide more employment for unemployed men than will any other venture the government is proposing. If that is true and the unemployment situation is so serious as it is to-day, particularly on the railways and in the equipment shops, whether they are publicly or privately owned, then I am prepared to support this proposition especially on the statement of the minister that the railway companies are to be the arbiters who will make the decision. I have complained before about the interference of government in the management of the railways and I shall be prepared to complain about it again. It seems to me that the business of the government, so far as the national railway is concerned, is to see to it that proper management is provided and then let the management run the road. Interference from members of the House of Commons or from the parties would be disastrous to the operation of any enterprise of the size of the Canadian National Railways. If -we are going to give employment, as is the avowed object of this vote, and if it will give a larger amount of employment than almost any other vote that the government has proposed for relief purposes, surely it is a step in the right direction.
I have had communications from the railway shops in West Edmonton asking that a larger proportion of this vote be allocated to repair work and stating that a very large number of cars require repairs and that this would give a considerable amount of employment to men who have now been three or four years out of work, some of whom, having spent their substance, have had to go on relief and are anxious to get back to work. Naturally I would feel like supporting that position, but the minister has assured the committee-and I must take him at his word -that this is a matter that is left entirely in the hands of the management.

In regard to the Canadian National Railways, let me again say this: Whether national ownership is going to prove a good thing or not, the Canadian people who use these lines have the satisfaction, even if they are paying deficits annually, of knowing they are getting their freight and passenger rates lower than those charged on privately owned institutions in the United States. That is something we lose sight of every time we begin discussing this problem. If the rates on the Canadian lines were the same as those on the United States lines, with the traffic carried we would come much nearer to making our railways pay their way than they are doing at the present time. Therefore to my mind it is just a question whether it is better to take care of the deficits and pay the lower rates where we have a much sparser population than they have in the United States.
As the minister has pointed out, so far as this vote is concerned, it is a loan to the Canadian Pacific. I do not know what position the Canadian Pacific are in. I happen to know some of the stockholders of that company, who have received no dividends for the past few years, and I think that is a clear indication that the Canadian Pacific are not in an extremely prosperous condition. But I do not propose to go into that argument at all. If this will give as much employment as a housing scheme and will take up the slack of employment even for this year-and heaven knows the situation is bad enough- and until such time as we have a change in fiscal policy that will make it possible for our people to get employment without resorting to relief measures, then I am in favour of this vote and propose to support it.


Mr. COTNAM:: Before the Easter adjournment I had occasion to present to the house and the Minister of Railways a petition from the residents of the village of Beachburg and township of Westmeath requesting the board of management of the Canadian National Railways to build a small new station there. I pointed out that for the past four years there has been no station in that locality although about $80,000 worth of freight traffic originates at that point, and I do not know how much express and passenger traffic. The Minister of Railways was kind enough to refer the petition to the trustees of the Canadian National, and he received from them a letter in reply which reads in part as follows:
Beachburg is seventy-four miles from Ottawa on the main line to North Bay and fifteen miles east of Pembroke. The station at this

Public Works Program
point was destroyed by fire on February 27, 1931, and since then a combination baggage ear and coach has been used for the accommodation of the agent, passengers and freight.
Although the board of management have had four years to deal with this question they have left the people of that locality with practically no station accommodation at all, and according to the tone of this letter they propose to continue that condition. I understand that where the management of the Canadian National Railways have been requested to provide elsewhere in the country a coach or baggage car as a station at some wayside point they have refused to do so, on the ground that it would be unsightly and not in accord with the ideas of the management; yet they have continued that condi-at this point for the past four years. This accommodation is unsanitary; I believe that if the local board of health wished to take action they could compel its being closed. Two transcontinental trains, one each way, arrive there during the night. The management of the railways say that they provide for heating at night. That statement is not in accordance with the facts; the people tell me that this baggage car is not heated at night, and frequently women and small children arrive during the night and there is no fire and ' no accommodation whatever. Sometimes the trains are two or three or four hours late, and people have to wait. The railway people say it would be easy for people to telephone to Pembroke, a distance of fifteen miles, and find out whether the trains are late. But during the winter months people have to drive with horses perhaps ten or twelve miles to meet the trains, and they do not know just when the trains may arrive.
I also pointed out that it would be possible for the Canadian National to provide rapid transportation on the main line between Pembroke and Ottawa. There is no question that if the management were willing they could give a service between Pembroke and Ottawa in two hours or two hours and a quarter, yet when they had the diesel engine car on that route it was taking three and a quarter and three and a half hours to cover the distance. Then they say they discontinued the service because the people had taken to buses and automobiles. To show how little they know about the circumstances, there is no bus service in that locality. Of course the people use automobiles as they do elsewhere.
We had a peculiar spectacle in Pembroke a little while ago when an application was made by the Canadian National to close the branch line twenty-two miles long from Pembroke to Golden Lake. Although the board of management of the railway had absolutely refused to give us certain information requested prior to the sitting of the railway board, when the sitting came on and they were compelled to produce the information required, the chief solicitor of the railway came to Pembroke and said: "We are willing to give you all the information you want." Another peculiar thing was that the solicitor of the Canadian National Railways sat down with the railway board and tried to find out where people could get alternative routes by the use of country roads. He said: This road would be suitable for trucks; some other road would be suitable for trucks. I pointed out at the time that I thought the Canadian National existed for the purpose of giving service to the people of this country, not of diverting traffic to the bus or truck services. It seems to me they are pursuing a very short sighted policy in curtailing and restricting service on the branch lines at a time when service should be their motto. If we are going to provide money under this unemployment relief scheme to build new coaches, perhaps the management would at least consent to give us a new railway coach to serve as a station at the village of Beachburg. For my part I intend to protest most vigorously against this measure until accommodation is provided in that locality. I do not think the board of trustees sitting in Montreal and getting reports know the local situation at all. This whole letter is filled with inaccuracies. I intend to protest and to continue to protest until they give the people of that section the service they are entitled to. No one there can understand why they took off that day coach between Pembroke and Ottawa. I do not know whether they have an agreement with the Canadian Pacific to slow down their service, but they have a run of ninety miles from Pembroke to Ottawa and if they speeded up their service they could carry passengers over that run in two hours or two hours and a quarter. Instead of driving passenger and freight traffic to alternative methods of transportation the railway management should be looking for means of bringing that traffic to the Canadian National. I hope the Minister of Railways will, with me, continue to lodge protests with the management until the conditions existing there are rectified.
Public Works Program


Milton Neil Campbell: A few minutes ago I asked the minister as to the number of locomotives that were going to be bought under this bill, and he replied, about twenty. I point out that this probably means an expenditure of only one and a: quarter to one and a half millions out of this total of $15,000,000. It is further shown that only about $4,000,000 will be spent in repairs; therefore about $10,000,000 will go to the car manufacturers Which seems too large a proportion. I take it that the railway companies feel that twenty locomotives are all they need, so that I am not going to make any special plea for any locomotive manufacturing company. But I want to add a few words, not in defence of any private corn-pay, but to show that some of the utterances of some of my friends to the left on this side are a little severe as to where this money would go. I feel that any money spent under this bill would benefit the unemployed and the farmers and business men surrounding any city in Which any of these factories are located. I have asked several manufacturing concerns in Kingston for their payroll and their production during the years since 1920, and I have before me a table made up by myself from the data received from the Canadian Locomotive Works. I want to be brief, because the hour is getting late, but the table shows that on the average the company have employed 501 men yearly since 1920 and have paid these men $575,833.34 annually, or about $1,150 per man. They have built 238 locomotives, costing $15,353,000, or an average of 21-6 per year. The statement was made tonight that of the money spent for locomotives two-thirds would go in material and one-third in labour. It will be noted that in this case of $15,000,000 spent on locomotives over $7,000,000 went in wages. I believe in this plant wages are fairly high; I can assure my hon. friends to the left that if the Canadian Locomotive Works in Kingston is given some business probably the wages paid will be a little higher than those in some other shops.
Mr. MaoINNIS: Are the men organized?


Milton Neil Campbell: I think they are all union men. I think the hon. member for Kingston City will bear out the statements I have made.
Mr. MadNNIS: That accounts for the higher wages.


Milton Neil Campbell: This company has been paying about $40,000 annually in municipal taxes, in addition to provincial and federal

taxes. At the present time in the city of Kingston there are about 2,500 people on relief, the majority of whom are former employees and the families of employees of this company, and are permanent residents.
I should like to point out something further. Some hon. members have voiced the opinion that probably the car shops could build this equipment as well as it could be built by some of the private companies. This company has been in business for a long time; I am not sure when it was started. They have specialized in the manufacture of locomotives; their designers have kept abreast of the times, and to-day they are prepared to make any of the more advanced equipment used not only in this country but also on some of the United States lines. After their locomotive business was cut off in 1930 they tried to branch out in other lines; I remember that they interviewed me, as a mine manager, in connection with the manufacture of mining machinery. They opened an office in Toronto, sent salesmen through northern Ontario and did their best, but even with the prosperity that the mining industry has enjoyed they have been able to secure only about $150,000 worth of business annually, and to employ only some eighty men who are paid about $116,000 annually.
No doubt much of the equipment and power at present used by the railways is not as fast as it might me; probably much of this power should be renovated and made faster in order to give better service throughout the dominion. I would respectfully ask the minister to' pass on the suggestion to the railway companies that the equipment companies be given a fair share of this work. I think the railway shops are going to benefit to a large extent, particularly since only twenty locomotives are to be purchased, and I think as much business as possible should be given these equipment companies. Any work given the Canadian Locomotive Works of Kingston will benefit the people of that city, the labourers who have been waiting for the last three years for something to do, and the farmers and gardeners throughout the district who depend upon the workingmen for a market for their products, and it will help relieve this one city and two townships surrounding it at least of a large part of the cost of relief.


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to delay
the committee more than a moment. Earlier in the evening I mentioned what I had been told as to the wages paid in a certain equipment plant, and the minister stated that he

Public Works Program
was shocked to learn that such wages should prevail in any such plant in this dominion. May I say that I am shocked to find that the minister is capable of being shocked after all the evidence as to low wages and sweat shop conditions that has been brought to light in this country during the last year or so. I am afraid that the assurance of the minister that he will make efforts to see that fair wages are paid do not sound very convincing. I should like to know if the government would not consider setting a fair wage for this kind of work where no fair wage provision exists at the present time, or where the wages paid by any plant doing this work are not what the government think they should be. I should like the minister's opinion on that point.


Robert James Manion: I do not know what
power we would have to do that. Speaking generally the fair wage laws are enforced by the provinces.


Angus MacInnis: We have a minimum
wage law.


Robert James Manion: That is true. I must confess that I do not know enough about it to argue the point, but my understanding is that the fair wage laws are enforced by the provinces. However, I repeat that I shall gladly do everything I can to see that those employed by the railways or by the equipment companies are paid fair wages, because with all due respect I submit that I am as anxious to see fair wages paid in this country as my hon. friend may be. I shall gladly do everything I can to see that there is fair play in this regard.


Mr. ROSS:: I just want to ask a question,
and at the same time I want to say that I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell) does not agree with his seat mate the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). The hon. member has given an excellent statement of the history of the Canadian Locomotive Works. The statement has been made that one of these equipment companies was paying only sixteen or seventeen cents an hour. I give notice now that to-morrow I will ask the minister to tell me, if he has received the information from the hon. member from Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis), the name of the company paying this rate. I know that the company in Kingston does not pay any such wages. If the minister has not the information to-morrow I will ask him the next day, and I will keep on asking until I secure the name.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can assure my hon. friend that it is not the Kingston plant, because I know the organization that exists in the locomotive works in Kingston.
Section,as amended agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Orders in council laid before house.


Eugène Fiset: Since this is a general clause covering the entire bill1 I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the tripartite agreement that formerly existed is still in force; in other words, is it permissible for a municipality to apply to the provincial government to have some particular work undertaken and for the provincial government to refer the application to the federal government in order to have that work done? I am receiving numerous demands for information on this subject and I should be extremely glad if the minister could give me a definite answer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Any arrangement of that kind would be consummated under the provisions of the relief act rather than under this act.


Eugène Fiset: Does that arrangement still exist?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That depends upon the readiness of the province to undertake a scheme of work of that kind. In some cases the provinces are not prepared to go into any such agreement; they prefer to receive a fixed allowance and take care of unemployment themselves.


Eugène Fiset: That is exactly what I am trying to ascertain. In a province that has accepted a fixed allowance, say Quebec, with a fixed allowance of $500,000 a month, is it still permissible or feasible for any municipality to make application to the provincial government, and if it is recommended by the provincial government will it be considered by the federal authorities in the ordinary schedule approved by order in council, as in the past?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The matter will be considered, certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Railway Equipment Contracts
Tuesday, May 28, 1935