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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Mr. 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.