Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):

Some weeks ago I placed a question on the order paper regarding the leasing of No. 1 elevator in Vancouver. The answer I received conveyed the idea that nothing was under direct consideration. I desire to bring the matter again to 'the attention of the government and must do so with some considerable force because of a distinct conflict of information emanating from government sources. To make my point clear I would like to read an editorial appearing in the Morning Star of Vancouver, under date of June 4:

According to an Ottawa despatch the conference in progress over the proposal that the wheat pool lease No. 1 elevator here have ended in a "settlement agreeable to both sides". If the terms of the settlement are those contained in the telegram there need be no doubt that they are satisfactory to the wheat pool. "The elevator", it is stated, "will continue to be operated this summer by the harbour commissioners, but it is agreed that by the end of October the commission will notify the pool whether or not the elevator will then be leased to it. If it is to be retained under the harbour commission the pool will then be free to go ahead and provide such facilities of its own as are required."

This is simply so much camouflage. Beneath the smooth phraseology which implies that the disposition of the elevator is still an open question may be discerned the intention to hand it over to the wheat pool next fall. The commissioners will continue to operate during the siunmer-when the elevator is doing little or no business-but before the end of October the pool is either to step in or "be free to go ahead and provide such facilities of its own as are required". The pool, however, as everybody knows, is perfectly free to go ahead at once and provide its

own facilities in Vancouver. Moreover, it cannot wait until October before it makes its arrangements for handling the new crop through this port. It follows that it would not delay beginning building operations a single day were it not very sure that the government would provide it with facilities by surrendering No. 1 elevator through the harbour board.

There can be no reasonable doubt, if the despatch is authoritative, that when Colonel Kirkpatrick returns to Vancouver he will have a very clear idea of the decision the harbour board is to render four months hence-when protest will be futile in the face of the accomplished fact.

I wish most respectfully but urgently to request a clear, definite statement from the government on this important matter, and I also wish to direct attention to the fact that every large representative business group, the board of trade, the shipping interests, the merchants' exchange and others in Vancouver are deeply concerned and interested in this question. I am not expressing an opinion; I merely draw these facts to the attention of the government and in justice to those interests I think before a decision is finally arrived at a definite statement should be given by the government officially. If the government are not prepared to make this statement to-day I would ask that a statement be given as soon as possible, and that the agreements or correspondence be laid on the table of the House in order that we may know exactly what is in the mind of the government and what proposals are under consideration.

Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):

For the present I may say

that a request has been made by the people to whom my hon. friend referred to the harbour commissioners to lease No. 1 elevator, and representations have also been made to the department. A meeting was held in Ottawa between representatives of the pool and the president of the harbour commission of Vancouver, and it was agreed between the parties that everything would be maintained for the present as it is now; no change is to be made. It is understood that by the end of October a decision will be reached one way or the other, and the harbour commission will give a definite answer then. This proposal has been accepted by the representatives of the pool, who have agreed to wait until the end of October for a definite answer from the harbour commission. So for the present the position is absolutely unchanged, and if any change is made a definite answer will be given in October next.

Mr. STEVENS:

One further question, if

I may be permitted. Is there any understanding between the government and the pool that the harbour commissioners are to give a decision granting the lease?

Civil Service Salaries

Mr. CARDIN:

No, there is no understanding.

Mr. STEVENS:

Will the harbour commissioners be at liberty to make the decision they think best at that date, namely, October 31?

Mr. CARDIN:

Yes.

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):

I would

like to ask the government a question based on an article appearing in the Edmonton Journal of June 2. This is a despatch from High Prairie, dated June 2, headed:

Alberta neexls Liberal government to get favours, says Captain Shaw.

It quotes some other remarks made by Captain Shaw at this meeting, and says in part:

He spoke on long term credits, educational and health matters but doubted if a Liberal government at Ottawa would sponsor any legislation promoted by an Alberta government other than Liberal.

I would like to ask the government if the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta is correctly interpreting the attitude of this government, and if he has received any authority from this government or any member thereof for making such a statement.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I would not like to be drawn into participation in the general election which is taking place in Alberta at the present time. I would say to my hon. friend, however, that so far as co-operation by this government is concerned I do not imagine any legislation would be prejudiced by coming from a Liberal government anywhere; but I would also say that this government is ready to co-operate with any of the provincial governments irrespective of party affiliations in measures which are for the general good of Canada.

Hon R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):

I have a telegram here, Which I imagine has been sent to a number of the members, in regard to civil service salaries. It is from the amalgamated civil servants at the head of the lakes, who wire:

General meeting of Amalgamated civil servants demands the immediate completion of personnel of Civil Service Commission, also a satisfactory revision of the civil service salaries before the end of the present parliamentary session, with increases made retroactive to April 1, 1924.

Perhaps the Prime Minister would care to make a Statement in regard to that.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

The only statement I

would have to make in regard to that particular telegfam if it reads as I think I heard it, that certain- persons demand that certain things be done, is that the government is not inclined to respond to requests preferred in that way.

Mr. MANION:

That is a matter between the Prime Minister and the amalgamated civil servants. I was simply asked to bring the telegram to the attention of t'he government.

Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):

I would like to call the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to a telegram received by me from the civil servants in the city of Edmonton, expressing dissatisfaction that the salary revision of the civil servants has not been effected, and asking whether anything will be done this session, and that the increases be made retroactive. I would like to know if -the Prime Minister can make any statement in that regard.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

All I can say is that this matter is receiving consideration. The government has had numerous representations from civil servants as to the position of their salaries, and we are as anxious as any hon. member to have the matter adjusted as speedily as possible, but the government does not wish 'to have a large bill for increased salaries run up without the matter being carefully inquired into, and we will have to use due caution in that regard.