Mr. MANION:

If there is no money spent on geological surveys in connection with one of the greatest industries which we have-

Mr. CASGRAIN:

You spent only about $3,000,000.

Mr. MANION:

We have much of it to spend yet, but we passed it in a regular Dill which has nothing to do with this one.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

There was enough to spend.

Mr. MANION:

Geological surveys are

most important. One of our greatest industries in Canada to-day is the mining industry. If the bill is not passed this most important work will not be done. Then, we come to the amount for the Montreal harbour improvement and deepening. The Liberal member who spoke for the buying of railway equipment in Montreal can take the responsibility if this bill is not passed.

Then we come to the Quebec harbour improvements and maintenance. The hon. members for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and Quebec South (Mr. Power) can take the responsibility if the money is not spent in Quebec harbour.

There is an item fo* the tunnel at the western entrance to Toronto harbour. The Toronto Liberal member may take the responsibility for that. And in connection with the other items, right down the list, hon. members opposite will have to take the responsibility. So far as I am concerned I do not care whether the bill passes or not, except in this way, that I believe that had it been three or four times as great it should have passed as quickly. My hon. friends opposite mean nothing at all when they stand up in this house and say, "Take $50,000,000 or $100,000,000, but do not ask for a blank cheque." It is

f\Ir. Manion.l

the responsibility of hon. members opposite, if the work is not given to the people in different parts of Canada. My hon. friends can take the responsibility, and they will certainly get it so far as I am concerned.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I say to the minister who has just spoken and to his colleagues that, if the government are unable to give us before we are asked to pass the bill by six o'clock to-morrow night, the reasonable information which we have requested, we are quite prepared to stay here the rest of this week and the rest of this month.

Mr. MANION:

We will probably take you at your word.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

We are preprepared to remain here continuously until we get the information from the government. If the government are considerate of the unemployed, and if it is urgent that the money be voted, they will perhaps consider the convenience of the unemployed and the country, rather than their own convenience in the matter of the adjournment.

May I point out just how unreasonable in its present position the government really is. Let us turn to the main estimates as they were presented to this parliament and see what the government proposes for the geological survey. We find at page 47 of the main estimates for the fiscal year 1935-36, what the government is asking for as this year's appropriation for geological surveys. These are the words:

For explorations, surveys, and investigations; for publication of English and French editions of reports, maps, illustrations, etc., relating thereto; and for salaries and wages of explorers, topographers and others, $190,060.

According to the estimates, that is an increase of $8,750 over what was asked for in the previous year. Let us now turn to the schedule in the bill. Item two of the schedule is as follows:

Geological surveys and investigations in the Northwest Territories and elsewhere in Canada, $1,000,000.

The words "in the northwest territories and elsewhere in Canada" might as well be stricken out, because they are embraced in the general item for geological surveys and investigations. What is the position? We have in the main estimates, placed before parliament in the present year, an appropriation of $190,000 only, for the expenditure of which the government must give a full explanation; and we have in this one item in the schedule an amount of $1,000,000 for exactly the same services. There are the words-geological surveys and investi-

Public Works Program

gations. In the main estimates the amount was

8190,000, and in schedule A it is 81,000,000. I ask hon. gentleman is it reasonable that this house: should be asked to vote 81,000,000 vvithout any explanation in detail as to how this money is to be spent, when explanations in detail are given in the main estimates? And what is true with respect to the geological surveys and investigations is equally true . with regard to the other items in the schedule.

Last year we had exactly the same situation to face. A little earlier in the session the government attempted to bring in its request for additional supply for relief purposes in the form of lump sums. We indicated very plainly when it came to the bill for relief purposes that, unless vve could get the specific amounts in connection with the items, and reasonable information given, the government could not expect us to pass those items without very considerable debate and discussion. Well, the government found it possible to give us the details. We are just as anxious as hon. gentlemen opposite to make provision for all that is necessary in the way of providing employment and unemployment relief, and I would suggest that, between now and the time we meet to-morrow afternoon, the several ministers who are asking for appropriations under this particular schedule get together the details they know will be expected and have them ready to give the house when we take up this measure again. As has been pointed out, this schedule is really a supplementary estimate affecting six different departments of the government. In respect to some of them, it not only duplicates but actually increases the moneys voted in the main estimates. In the case of the geological survey, for example, the amount is increased five times.

Mr. GORDON:

Do you object to it?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I object to not getting information, most distinctly so. I object to voting one million dollars for any purpose without an explanation from the government.

Mr. MANION:

With all due respect to my right hon. friend, we have had no chance to make any explanation at all.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I point

out that in the main estimates there is printed an explanation in very considerable detail. The total appropriation for the Mines department, for instance, is in the main estimates, given under three or four headings. An explanation of the geological survey is given in considerable detail, with reference to salaries, wages and the like. When, in committee of supply, the minister is asked for

information on those details he has his deputy in front of him with a prepared statement with respect to all the particulars. There is not a deputy minister on the floor of the house to-night although six different departments of the government are affected by this bill, and not a minister is in a position to give the details.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

I am certainly ii a position to give details on every item.

Mr. MURPHY:

I am prepared to give details, and my deputy has been prepared to come here for over an hour, but he has not had the opportunity yet.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I have no

doubt the minister will be in great need of him to-morrow. I just wish to repeat that, so far as we are concerned, we are quite prepared to sit on here steadily until the proper information is given, I suggest to the government that they get the information which will enable us to pass these items before there is an adjournment of this house.

Mr. RHODES:

May I suggest to my hon. friend that the opposition and the house are entitled to full information with respect to these items, but I submit to him with the utmost deference that we have not had the opportunity to submit any information which we have every intention of giving, and which we are prepared to give. My hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) took up a very considerable portion of the evening, as did my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), and on one or two occasions when ministers rose offering to give information hon. gentlemen opposite said, "I have the floor." Now I submit that if it is information that is required, all that is necessary is for the right hon. gentleman to say: Item No. 1, what do you propose to do with that money? When he fails to get an answer, then it will be time to complain, and not when the ministers have not had an opportunity to give information owing to the length of time that has been taken in speeches. I assure my right hon. friend that the information will be given in extenso if the ministers are furnished with an opportunity to give it.

Mr. POWER:

I have not yet received

the information with regard to last year's expenditures, although I spent an hour or two asking the minister to table the orders in council with respect to the expenditures of last year. I asked him a week ago to give me that information. I asked him on Jan-

Public Works Program

uary 21 of this year to give me the orders in council with respect to that expenditure, and he has not yet given them to me. How can we expect to be able to get all this information that is required about these items when we have not been able to get in three months an account of the money that has already been spent? I submit that I was perfectly justified in asking the minister to give me the information. Not only that, but he could not tell me the salary he was paying to one of his prize engineers. He said he did not know, and I believe him. He said after a while that he could get it in five minutes, but four hours have passed since then and I have not got it yet.

Mr. DfJRANLEAU: I have got it now.

Mr. POWER:

May I congratulate my

hon. friend?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

My hon. friends

opposite have been addressing the house for two hours and have not given us a chance to give any information. I have been paying to Mr. Gohier in Three Rivers, under contract in due form, the sum of 810,000 on a $400,000 job.

Mr. POWER:

What about Chicoutimi?