The custom has been to take Votes 10, 11 and 69 together.
Committee on Finance. - Committee on Finance.
It is for the Committee to decide.
Take 10 and 11 together.
The point is that the whole of the administration of the schemes will come under No. 10, while the money would come under 69. At any rate, it is quite impossible to keep the two separate.
Would it be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to make an all-embracing statement, but to let the Board of Works Estimate be debated separately?
There will be separate votes taken on each of the Estimates.
It is a question of separate debates as much as separate votes. To meet the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view, I was suggesting that he may wish to make a comprehensive statement which would include No. 69. I would prefer that the debate would start afresh on No. 69. That would be the view of a number of people on this side of the House. I do not know if I am interfering myself on No. 69 at all.
The idea, of course, is to meet the convenience of the House in the matter, as the Deputy knows. If it is desired to discuss Nos. 10 and 11, that is, salaries, and staff of the Board of Works and the works which the Board of Works do, apart from relief works, they could be discussed, but then we would have to keep relief works altogether out of those Votes. Otherwise, we would have the same thing all over again. Or, we could take the three Votes and then we could discuss any portion of the activities of the Office of Public Works. That has been the custom, and up to the present it has worked well.
Mr. Morrissey
Employment Schemes is practically a new Estimate. It has been the custom always to discuss Nos. 10 and 11 together, but No. 69 is a new Estimate.
My difficulty is that the whole of the administration is done through officers who deal with Vote No. 10.
May I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that I think, both from his own point of view as well as that of the House, it would be much better and we would have a much more satisfactory discussion if we could take the discussion on No. 69 separately. I do not think there will be much difficulty whatever in keeping off relief schemes on Nos. 10 and 11. Let us deal with the ordinary functions of the Board of Works on Nos. 10 and 11, as we have done hitherto, and let us leave over any question of relief schemes until No. 69.
I am perfectly satisfied to do that.
Mr. Morrissey
It seems to me that you are going to have a very unsatisfactory discussion from every point of view, both from the Parliamentary Secretary's as well as that of members of the House, if you are going to have relief schemes and rotational schemes mixed up with the ordinary work of the Board of Works. I suggest that it would be easier to discuss No. 10 and 11. We could agree that the Chair would rule out of the discussion in Nos. 10 and 11 any reference to relief works and to confine that to No. 69.
If the understanding were that on Nos. 10 and 11 we would keep off employment schemes that would be perfectly satisfactory.
Reference might be made, but there would be no discussion on it.
We could have a gentlemen's agreement, if I may use the term, that, as far as possible, we would keep the employment schemes out of Nos. 10 and 11, and then you could discuss on No. 69 even those portions of the Board of Works estimates which would be concerned with administration.