Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

My hon. friend complains about information not being given. In the estimates of the department for years no details are given-just specific amounts. If hon. members desire information in regard to these items it will be cheerfully given, but we ask to have an opportunity of giving it before we are condemned for not giving it.

My hon. friend speaks about the schedule of last year containing details as to different buildings. When you compare the scope of the schedule of last year with the scope of the schedule of this year it will be apparent that just as much information is given this year as was given in the schedule of last year.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

No.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

With regard to any of these items upon which information is desired I can only say that so far as they come under the control of the Department of Public Works we are prepared to give information. My colleague has given information in connection with the railway crossings-

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

We did not get very much.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

As to the second item my hon. friend speaks about, geological surveys and investigations in the Northwest Territories and elsewhere in Canada, my hon. friend knows that the Northwest Territories are under the control of this parliament and that the other areas are to a large extent, particularly in matters of this kind, under the control of the provinces. That is why the wording is as it is. Again I say that in

Public Works Program

this bill there are only fourteen items as against over a hundred in the other bill, and these items are of an altogether different character. Where it is possible to give the information it has been given. With regard to the amount for buildings, it is the same kind of item as was in the bill of last year. We are prepared to give all the information that the committee desires, and as much sis we give in connection with the regular estimates when they are submitted to the house.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I am very much interested in the explanations that have been given so far as to the details of these various items-

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

They have not been given ye,t.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I think the best explanation was given by the Minister of Public Works when he said that whereas there were one hundred and eighty-five items in the Public Works Construction Act of last year there are only fourteen in this-

Mr. CASGRAIN:

Fourteen points.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Surely that is the best evidence we could possibly have that these iniquitous items in the schedule of last year, Nos. 75, 78 and 135, the blanket items to which this committee objected so vigorously, have just had the effect of leading on the gentlemen who prepared this schedule to think that this year they could get away with the whole of the estimates in that way. Now let us carry that a step further. Why not put in the amount of 817,940,000 and say, "for public works generally throughout Canada"? Apparently that is where we should be next year if it were possible for this government still to be in power at that time.

Mr. MacNICOL; They will be; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

A first class joke.

Mr. MacNICOL:

It is no joke, and you know it.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

May I say this also-and I think it is very interesting in view of the splendid explanation given by the Minister of Marine in regard to the architects: my hon. friend will remember that last year I made a complaint, and made it again last night, with regard to the great number of departments involved in this work and the comparative absence of responsibility in connection with these various works. I was interested in a report appearing in the Ottawa 92582-179

Citizen to-day; I was reminded of it when I heard the explanation of the Minister of Marine with regard to architects and engineers. This is a summary of the report of the civil service commission, and the heading is:

Civil Service Commission Criticizes Government Policy Sharply . Points to Undesirable Effect of Ban Placed On Permanent Appointments and Promotions

This is a long report; I will read just this:

Likewise the commission is critical of the government's actions in placing outside the commission's jurisdiction the staffs of new Dublic bodies being set up, for example, staffs employed under the Natural Products Marketing Act and the Public Works Construction Act of 1934.

That is the report of the civil service commission with regard to the iniquitous effects of the system that is bound to grow up under a program of this kind, of engaging architects and engineers here and there and paying them apparently whatever salaries those gentlemen consider they should get, and what the ministers consider they should be paid.

I think the Minister of Railways and Canals should give us some details with regard to the railway grade crossings, as to the way in which this work is to be done. For a number of years I have -been urging that one of the best ways to utilize money for unemployment relief would be to eliminate a number of the level crossings that exist throughout the country and that have caused a great deal of trouble and many fatalities in recent years. I think we should have some idea as to how that work is to be done. I think it desirable that to a very large extent it should be done in the rural sections, because what has been done already has given better protection in the urban areas. In a time of great difficulty for the people living in the rural sections it would afford employment and a certain amount of relief, and I think we should have those details.

I should like to say a word with regard to these geological surveys, which have been dealt with so well by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Surely the Minister of Mines does not expect this house to pass this item without knowing where and how this money is to be expended.

There is another protest I want to make at this time. A night or two ago, I think, the minister said this Public Works Construction Act was passed on June 30. My recollection is that it was passed just before the house closed; it was introduced only a couple of days before. With a program of this kind is it fair to ask the house, when we expect to

Public Works Program

adjourn within a day or two, either to hold up the adjournment or to adopt the program without knowing all the details? Now that the acting Prime Minister and these various ministers are present I want to ask the government if they think the members of this houSe can discharge their responsibilities to their electors and at the same time allow this schedule to go through by six o'clock tomorrow evening. Is that a reasonable proposition, with this large expenditure? Is it a fact that this measure has been delayed while we talked about the tourist traffic and various other matters that do not mean a thing to the people of this country-including the budget debate conducted by the other side-until this time, with the idea that it might be put through without the members of this committee knowing exactly what it meant? That happened last year, and we thought we were being rather imposed upon then, when we had 185 items covering the public works construction program. It is true that a number of those items dealt with large amounts with which they should not have dealt. It is true that extracted from some of those large amounts, as I mentioned last night, were sums to build wharves, breakwaters and other things that should have been submitted to the committee in a separate list. Under this program almost anything can be done unless these sums are allocated. What I say, and I take full responsibility for it, is that these items should not pass this committee until we get details reasonably similar to those furnished last year. Do the government think that is an unfair request? Last year if it was intended to construct a little building costing 86,300-and some buildings cost much less-it was considered advisable to tell the committee where that building was to be constructed and what was the need for it. Do this government think they have increased in popularity and in the confidence of the people to the extent that this year they can get away with a thing like this? They know better than that.

I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the members of this committee will not be discharging their full responsibility by allowing this bill to be put through in this way. So far as I am concerned, and I think this is the general view of the committee, unless we get details somewhat similar to those that have been given in connection with public works until this year, ever since we have had a public works department, I say this schedule should not pass.

fMr. Elliott.]

Mr. MANION:

The hon. member who has just spoken, and particularly the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, apparently have worked themselves almost into a sort of intoxication-and when I say that I am not referring to spirituous intoxication-in regard to this terrible crime which we are committing in passing or proposing to pass such a bill as this in the dying days of the session. Hon. gentlemen opposite, including the leader of the opposition and half a dozen others, have boasted on many occasions that if we asked for 850,000.000 or 875,000,000 or $100,000,000 they would give it to us at once, but they said, " Don't ask us for a blank cheque." Now we ask them for 818,000,000, and they are still troubled.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

May I ask a question?

Mr. MANION:

Mr. MANION:

object to it. I do object, however, when hon. members opposite take their holier-than-thou attitude and seem to think we are committing a crime by not giving details which they never gave and which no government has ever given. I say they are stooping to humbug of the worst sort. I will tell them now that so far as I am concerned if this bill is held up by tomorrow at six o'clock, when we leave here, they may take the responsibility.

Oh, oh.

Mr. MANION:

Yes, they may take the responsibility. If there is no money spent on railway grade crossings they can take the responsibility.

Oh, oh.