Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :

The leader of the opposition yesterday asked as to further legislation. Notices of five

measures are being placed on the order paper to-day, arising out of the price spreads commission's report. There are two or three other bills that arise out of that. There is the housing committee report on which legislation will be framed and a bill will be introduced to confer upon the government power to deal with the problems of what are called clearing house agreements and the sale of commodities through the use of exchange arising from the sale in our market of commodities of other countries. There may be some further departmental measures, but beyond those I know of nothing else. I think it well to say this to the right hon. gentleman and as soon as I have fuller information I shall furnish it to the house.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING

(Leader of the Opposition): I thank the Prime Minister for the information he has just given to the house.

In regard to sitting on the twenty-fourth day of May, may I say at once that whatever the government decides will be wholly acceptable to this side of the house.

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):

May I ask the Secretary of State when we may expect the French translation of the reports of the price spreads committee, the British North America Act committee and the housing committee?

Hon. G. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):

In regard to the price spreads commission report, the translation was completed on Saturday last and the final pages of translation were sent to the king's printer, who has been at -work upon the printing of those pages yesterday and to-day. This may take another day. I cannot give a definite statement as to the exact number of hours required to complete the work.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

What about the reports of the British North America Act committee and the housing committee?

Mr. CAHAN:

I have no personal knowledge of those being before the bureau for translations, but I shall make inquiries.

Mr. TURNBULL:

The British North

America Act committee has not yet reported.

Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he can indicate to the house when we may

Public Works Program

expect to deal with the resolution now standing in his name proposing to set up a wheat board or at least a grain board?

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :

When other business more pressing is disposed of that will be dealt with in due course.

Mr. BENNETT:

It will be dealt with in due course on the order paper as I suppose the hon. gentleman knows.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

When the house rose last night, I was answering some of the criticisms that .had been made of the attitude of hon. gentlemen on this side in regard to this bill. Since that time I have had an opoprtunity of seeing the order in council that was passed in 1913. One of the claims made and urged very strongly by my hon. friends opposite was that this was a compliance with an agreement that had been entered into at that time. I do not know that that is an altogether incorrect statement, but may I point out that so far as I am able to ascertain, no agreement was ever entered into between the government and the harbour commission. What took place was that an order in council was passed providing for the expenditure by the government of an amount that /was then estimated, including the bridges that have been referred to in this discussion, at $6,400,000. As regards the bascule bridge as a substitute for which the tunnel is now proposed, the estimate for that bridge has been referred to by some hon. gentlemen opposite as being $800,000. On looking at the order in council I find that the estimate for the two bridges, that is two bascule bridges, one over the 92582-1861

eastern entrance and the other over the western entrance to the harbour, is $800,000. One of those bridges is not now being asked for, and the western1 bascule bridge, as I understand the matter, would not cost any such amount as the $800,000 that has been mentioned. Those items may not be very material, but when my hon. friends opposite criticize the objections made to this bill and rather suggest that some hon. members on this side are objecting to this on the ground that it is wrong, I think they are not being quite fair to the committee. The fact is that whereas the estimate of the expenditure to be made by the government at that time was $6,400,000, the statement handed to me by the Minister of Public Works and read to the house last night shows that since that time the government have expended $9,542,459 in connection with the harbour of Toronto. Therefore it is quite apparent that the amount already paid is about one and a half times as much as the amount that was contemplated in the original order in council.

It is not the question of that difference that prompts me to take the objection that I have felt bound to take to this item. I realize how anxious members on both sides for that district are to have every expenditure possible made there, but there are many other districts that are not being given any expenditures at all at the present time. Further, as regards the airport which was given as the reason for building this tunnel, the plans of the airport as they appear at the present time seem to be dated at a time about April 25 and May 2, 1935, so that so far as the portion dated May 2 is concerned, the plans were made after this matter had been brought up in the house. We adjourned on April 17, so that those plans were prepared since this bill was introduced into the house with the suggestion that we should have only until six o'clock on the evening of April 18 in committee to consider whether the bill should go through as introduced.

Perhaps I have said everything that I can say in regard to the bill. I still feel at a time like this, that this is not the way in which public money should be spent. There are several other matters, as I and other hon. members on this side have intimated, upon which money could be more advantageously spent at the present time.

I do not know that I can add anything further; I do not want to take up more of the time of the committee, but I do think it my duty to direct attention to the fact that already about one and a half times the amount agreed upon, if you call the passing of the

Public Works Program

order in council an agreement-and I am not quarrelling particularly with that-has been spent.

Mr. SPENCE:

Then why mention it?

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I mention it just to show my hon. friend that we are not bound by an agreement to go on and do this work, that there never was an agreement. There was an order in council; the amount contemplated in that order in council has been expended, and fifty per cent more than that amount has been spent up to the present time. I think that is a pretty complete answer to the agreement question. So far as the airport is concerned, that matter has been dealt with already. Of course no one contends that the airport was in contemplation when the order in council of 1913 was passed.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Mr. Chairman, it

seems rather difficult for the ordinary member to determine, from what has been said in this discussion, just what really were the terms of the agreement. If it is an agreement I suppose we must go through with it, but I would join with others in urging that unless this is an iron clad agreement there are other ways in which this money might very well be spent to greater advantage. I suppose we cannot discuss railway crossings, housing and so on under this item-