1927-04-12

MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guysborough) presented the report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries as follows:
Your committee has had under consideration, matters in connection with the lobster fisheries in certain sections of the Atlantic coastal waters, and also the salmon fisheries of British Columbia.
Several meetings of the committee have been held. These meetings have been attended by the deputy minister, and the chief officials of the Fisheries branch, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, who have rendered much valuable assistance in determining policies in the best interests of the fishing industry of Canada.
Through resolutions passed during the meetings of your committee, the following recommendations are submitted to the consideration of the House;
That owing to very strong representations having been received from the fishermen of Kent county N.B., and Prince county, P.E.I., to have the present lobster-fishing season, of August 15, to October 15, on that section of Northumberland straits, beginning at a point ten miles south of Richibucto, Kent county, N.B., and extending to River Philip, Cum-32649-146
Motion respecting Private Bills
berland county, N.S., changed to commence on August 1 and end on September 30, your committee recommends that such change be made for the present year; and your committee further recommends that the Biological board be requested to make a thorough investigation of the lobster-fishing conditions in said section, before and during the period of the catch, and report its findings as soon as possible thereafter, in order to determine what injury, if any, would be caused by such change in dates of season.
Having regard for the best interests of the salmon fisheries of British Columbia, your committee recommends that:	Purse-seine-nets
used in British Columbia waters shall have a minimum length of one hundred and twenty-five fathoms.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. DUFF:: With the unanimous consent
of the House, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries presented this day be concurred in.


Hon. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queens):: Stand as a notice of motion.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the order for private bills be taken up on Tuesday, the 12th instant, at eleven o'clock a.m., and that rule 25 in relation thereto be suspended.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It is twenty minutes after eleven now, Mr. Speaker, and the motion calls for having the order for private bills taken up at eleven o'clock. Private members have an opportunity at eight o'clock this evening of taking up private bills for an hour, and I understand that as a result of conferences some of the difficulties that were anticipated have been removed. I think that we should allow the business of the House to proceed in the regular way and take up private bills at eight o'clock.


Archibald M. Carmichael: If we were perfectly sure that one hour would be sufficient to take care of the private bills on the order paper, or if we were perfectly sure that that hour would be extended to give ample time to take care of these private bills, I would be quite prepared to withdraw the motion, but we have no such assurance. We have had the experience in this chamber of the one hour allotted to private bills on Tuesday and Friday being wholly taken up with the discussion of one bill; in fact, we have had the experience this session not only of that one

2310	COMMONS
Motion respecting Private Bills
hour in the evening being taken up but of all of Monday being used on some two or three occasions to discuss one bill. At the present time there are on the order paper many private bills, some of which are of great importance, and I fail to see the wisdom or the justice of so carrying on our legislative affairs as to block any legislation that any person or any corporation desires. Therefore, I feel like pressing this motion, Mr. Speaker, until we have some assurance that justice will be done by those who come here for legislation.
I ask under this motion that rule 25 in relation thereto be suspended. Rule 25 provides that private bills may be taken up on Monday, also on Tuesday and Friday evenings for one hour from eight until nine p.m. As the session advances, we are aill well aware that the government takes over Monday for government business, and that cuts us down to only two hours in the week for private bills. During the greater part of this session we have been cut down to the two hours time, because, as I purpose to show, practically all of the other time has been taken up in what we might call a futile discussion.
We are also told in our book of rules what the object of a private bill is. Under rule 88, paragraph 670 says:
The object of a private bill is to alter the law relating to some particular -locality or to confer rights on, or relieve from liability, some particular person or body of persons.
I think we are agreed in this chamber that the legislation in regard to any private bill is more or less useful. We have a great many divorce bills brought in under private legislation, bills respecting patents, bills respecting railway charters and bills respecting the organization of different companies. These matters are of great importance, and during this session, our time has been expended in such a way that these important matters of private legislation have not had due consideration in this chamber. We met here on Thursday, December 9, and on Wednesday, December 15, we adjourned after sitting for five days. I think during those five days we made a record for disposing expeditiously of matters before the House. We met again on Tuesday, February 8, and this is the 12th day of April, a matter of forty^seven sitting days since our adjournment. Counting to-day's sitting, we will have sat for fifty-two days during this present session of parliament.
I am not going to deal with what has been done on all the days but I would like to point out how the time allowed for private bills legislation has been expended. We had Bill No. 78, an act respecting the Montreal,
fMr. Oarmichad.]
Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company introduced on Friday, the 25th of February. After our adjournment we met on February 8, and on Friday, February 25, this very important bill was introduced. It was discussed on Friday, again discussed on March 1 for an hour, again on March 4 for one hour, and on Monday, March 7, it took practically -the entire day. On Tuesday, March 8, it was again discussed for one hour. On Friday, March 11, it was again discussed for an hour and on Monday, March 14, another day was spent on it. On Tuesday, March 15, and on Friday, March 18, another hour of each sitting was consumed. On Tuesday, March 15, and on Friday, March 18, another hour each day was devoted to it. On Monday, March 21, it was taken up again. On Tuesday,	March	22,	another	hour	wasoccupied. On Friday, March 25, and again on Monday,	March	28,	another	hour	wasconsumed with this bill. So that four Mondays and eight other days, an hour each day, were taken up with this measure-a total of twelve of	the	allotted	days	forprivate bills was consumed in the discussion of Bill No.	78. I	am	not going to	say
whose fault that was. I am simply pointing out what has actually happened, and the result has been that it has so held up other legislation as to leave us in the position we are now placed in, and it is possible that the other private measures cannot be taken care of before prorogation.
If, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggests we follow the regular procedure and take up private bills to-night from eight until nine o'clock, that will give us one hour for the consideration of private bills. But our rules are so framed that one bill may take the entire hour, and then if unanimous consent of the House is asked to continue beyond nine o'clock so as to take care of the other private bills, it is possible for one objector to block that procedure. We have had evidence of that recently in this chamber. If we propose to extend the time beyond nine o'clock one member can object and thus block consideration of private bills. I need not point out to hon. members that to-night is the last opportunity we will have for taking care of private bill legislation in this chamber, and if what has happened on past occasions should occur to-night, one bill, or possibly two bills, may consume the entire hour, and if someone who is not desirous of seeing certain legislation enacted should object to an extension beyond the hour, private bill legislation will be blocked. I claim that is not fair. No private legislation is introduced

Motion respecting Private Bills
in this House unless some person or persons are interested in it and desirous of having it enacted. I do not say that all private bills should be passed in this House, but all of them should be given fair consideration. If the majority of members favour any private legislation which is introduced in this House, such legislation should be enacted into law, but it certainly is most unfair and unjust for this House to have itself tied hand and foot by rules so that it is impossible for any private legislation to be given fair consideration and enacted into law. After the consideration of private bills in this House they require to go to the Senate. I am not just sure how speedily the upper chamber moves, but if they move no more speedily than we in this chamber do it will take some time to consider before prorogation all the private bills on the order paper. I am assuming that prorogation will take place in the near future. In fact, it was stated on Saturday by the Prime Minister that they were prepared to go on with any of the estimates. The leader of the government told the House on Saturday that they were practically through with their legislation and that we could be prepared to deal with the estimates. In that case we can look forward to prorogation in the very near future.
Since the disposal of Bill No. 78 we have had experience of another bill blocking private legislation, Bill No. 107, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company. It was introduced as a private bill, was up for consideration on Tuesday, April 5, for one hour, and took the entire time allotted for private bills. It was before the House again on Friday, April 8, and took the entire hour. To-night Bill No. 107 will stand near the top of the order paper, and therefore it will come up for consideration in the early part of the time allotted for private bills, and judging from what has happened in the past, if we are to guess what may happen to-night, it is quite possible that Bill No. 107 will consume the entire hour allotted for private bills, in which case the other private bills will be left untouched. The purport of this motion which I present to the House is to give an opportunity for private bills to be considered. Some of them may be contentious. If so, the good points and the bad points should be brought out. I happen to be sponsor of one bill which is now so adjusted that it is not contentious. It did contain some matter of contention when it left the private bills committee, but that matter has been arranged, and I am prepared to present an amendment which will so direct the criticism of that bill that there 32649-1461	I, : 1
will not be any objection from either side of the House, or from any religious persuasion; therefore I claim that this bill should not be blocked. The people who are asking for this legislation asked in 1924 to have an act of incorporation passed. They approached parliament that year;, but did not follow up their initial move. Again in 1926 they came before this parliament for an act to incorporate their church organization. The bill was a private bill and received second reading, but did not get any further. This session they have done their utmost to have this bill considered and finally put through. The bill has not only been printed and received two readings, but it has been considered by the private bills committee and re-printed with the amendment as proposed in the private bills committee. The cost has been considerable. The printing alone-


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Would the hon. member allow
me to make a suggestion? I have great sympathy with what he has said in this matter, and I would suggest to my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he grant us an assurance that tonight, if it becomes necessary, we can continue after nine o'clock with private bills. I do not anticipate there is going to be much difficulty with private bills if we have a little extra time; perhaps we will not need any.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if I were in
a position to give the assurance required on behalf of the whole House I should be very glad to do so. Speaking for this side of the House, I have no hesitation in saying that we will be prepared to do what my hon. friend suggests; he no doubt can speak for his party; and the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Gardiner) can speak for his. If all three are agreed I think that will dispose of the difficulty which we are now labouring under.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?


Archibald M. Carmichael: No, Mr. Speaker,
I am not finished by any means. If the House is agreed that we shall have ample time this evening to consider private bills, I am willing to withdraw my motion; otherwise I certainly am not.


Hugh Guthrie: Let it stand.

Motion respecting Private Bills


Archibald M. Carmichael: The mere statement that if somebody else will do something the right hon. gentleman will do something is no assurance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. leader of the opposition has, I take it, given assurance on behalf of his party, and I have given an assurance for this side of the House. The only party from which no assurance has come is that in my hon. friend's own quarter.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of personal interest to some members in this comer of the House, and I have not had an opportunity of consulting with them. Consequently I cannot give any assurance.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Well, Mr. Speaker,
we have assurances from the largest group and from the second largest group in the House. Possibly we can use our persuasive power sufficiently to persuade the smallest group to follow suit. All I desire is that every private bill should get the consideration of this House. If the majority are against any bill they will of course defeat it, but the House should pass judgment and not any group or individual. I hope that that course will be pursued this evening.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Is it the hon gentleman's view that when a bill is brought before the House the House should have a chance to vote on it, and that it should not be deliberately obstructed?


Archibald M. Carmichael: Yes. After every
bill is reported from the committee that has considered it, it should then be considered by this House and disposed of.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion withdrawn.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon) moved:: That Bills No. 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, being unopposed divorce bills which have been reported by the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills be now read the third time, and that rule 28 be suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to on division.



ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. L. S. R. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) moved:: That the second and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the allied Indian tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in their petition of June 1926, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 336, to amend the Railway Act, 1919 (investigation of subsidiary of telephone or telegraph companies).
Mr. DUNNING:: Explain.


Mr. GEARY:: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to extend the jurisdiction of the Dominion Board of Railway Commissioners. There are companies, one of which is in my mind, having to do with telephones and telegraphs, under the jurisdiction of the board. These companies may have their affairs investigated by the board with a view to ascertaining their profits, or what return it is fair to allow them by way of price they charge the consumer of their product.
Such oompany may have a great part of its business in the hands of a subsidiary company, which company-as in the case in my mind- is controlled by the company under the jurisdiction of the board and feeds on the parent company by virtue of having practically a monopoly in the sale of the products required by the parent company. That subsidiary company may, and in the case I have in mind does, make tremendous profits. With the parent company it does upwards of twelve or thirteen million dollars' worth Of business out of a total turnover of twenty million dollars. The purpose of the bill is to enable the Board of Railway Commissioners to ascertain whether profits made by the subsidiary company should be paid in the form of dividends to the parent company instead of their being put away into reserve or dealt with in such a way as to be concealed. If the profits were turned over to the parent company they would to that extent relieve the consumer of the product.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Chief Electoral Officer



LETHBRIDGE MINE WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I would caJll the
attention of the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) to a situation that seems to have arisen at Lethbridge, Alberta, according to a telegram which I have just received. It reads as follows:
Resolution passed joint meeting sub district board miners union and coal committee board of trade, Lethbridge, whereas mines in this district practically shut down and other employment impossible for miners resolved that we press federal government to take immediate steps relieve situation. Wider markets essential. We urge that railway commission cost report be brought in at once.
Jas. Sloan,
Sub district board member.



ITALIAN IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. W OODS WORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of
Immigration (Mr. Forke) whether there is any agreement between the Canadian government and the Italian government with regard to the bringing out of Italian labourers?


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration) :: I do not think there is any
agreement whatever between the Italian government and the Canadian railways. ,


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am afraid the
mimster did not get the question; certainly he did not answer it. I asked whether there was any agreement between the Canadian and the Italian governments regarding the bringing out of Italian labourers.


Robert Forke: The best answer is no.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 119, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 172, to amend the Customs Act.
Robert Gardiner: What is the nature of
the amendments?


Mr. EULER:: The amendments are merely in the nature of corrections. There are only two; in the one case the Senate has changed the word "and'' to "or," as was intended by the Commons, and in the other case it has inserted the words "for duty" in connection with the value of $200 under which a smuggler may be prosecuted and sentenced to prison. The Senate has merely confirmed what we intended to do but omitted .from the record by oversight.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 260, to amend1 the Dominion Elections Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CANNON:: The purpose of the amendment introduced by the Senate is to make the bill clearer as to the time of its coming into force. The bill will not come into force before June 30, and the amendment provides that sections 1 and 2 of the act shall come into force on the thirtieth day of June, 1927, and that in the meantime the operation of subsection 2 of section 19 of the Dominion Elections Act shall stand suspended. I am satisfied with the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with the bill which has now passed both Houses for the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer, it is provided that the appointment shall be made by resolution of the House. I stated during the course of the discussion on the bill that I would confer with my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) to see whether we could not agree upon a name. We are in agreement upon .a name whidh I think will be acceptable to all. I would therefore ask the House for its consent to allow me
Chief Electoral Officer

at this stage to move the following resolution, which contains the name my hon. friend and I have agreed to submit to the House:
That, in conformity with the provisions of Bill No. 260, An Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act which was passed by both Houses of Parliament, Jules Castonguay be designated as the successor of Oliver Mowat Biggar as Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Castonguay has been for over twenty years in tlhe office which has had charge of the work of supervising elections. Formerly elections were conducted by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and Mr. Castonguay was appointed assistant in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery over twenty years ago. When the change was made and a chief electoral officer appointed some seven years ago, Mr. Castonguay was made his assistant. He has been a very efficient officer, is permanently in the service of the government, and this resolution is a recognition of his merit and proposes what we regard as a very appropriate appointment. Mr. Biggar, who has been Chief Electoral Officer, informs me that he cannot speak too highly of Mr. Castonguay's qualifications for the position.


Hugh Guthrie: I have only to say that it gives me great pleasure to second this motion. I have known Mr. Castonguay a very long time. While the Dominion Elections Act was under discussion in the House five or six years ago I had a great deal to do with him and an ample opportunity for ascertaining his qualifications for a position such as this. I know too that Colonel Oliver Mowat Biggar, the retiring Chief Electoral Officer, who has had very intimate relations with Mr. Castonguay, expresses the opinion that he is well qualified for the position. I have therefore pleasure in seconding the motion.


Robert Gardiner: This is the first intimation we in this group have had as to whom the government proposes for the position. The position is quite an important one, and naturally all sections of the House should agree as to the person to be called upon to assume it. So far as we in this corner are concerned, we have not been consulted in the matter; we knew nothing about the name to be proposed. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister to let the matter stand until to-morrow, and in the meantime we will make inquiries as to the fitness of the gentleman proposed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am agreeable to my hon. friend's suggestion if he considers it desirable to have the matter stand. May

I say to him, however, that there was no intention of being discourteous either to him or to any of those about him in not conferring with him in the matter. If he will refer to what I said when the subject was under discussion on a former occasion he will find that I made the statement that I would confer with the leader of the opposition. There are some questions regarding arrangements such as govern the Whole House in connection with which the government and the opposition as such must confer. It is conceivable that we may at some time or other have eight or ten groups in the House, in which event it would be impossible to secure agreement on anything. On these matters, I suggest, where the law lays down a course of procedure which recognizes a government and an opposition as such, it ought not to be inferred that there is any intentional discourtesy in following that course.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: It
seems to me that the .position taken by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) is particularly sound. I am quite sure the Prime Minister had no intention of being unnecessarily discourteous, but at the same time, having in mind the excellent spirit of cooperation that existed last year between our group and the Prime Minister's party one would have thought that in his own interest, and with the view to developing a cooperative spirit in the House, he would have been induced to consult our group as well as the leader of the apposition. His failure to do so does not however entirely offend me. It tickles my sense of humor to realize that the forecast I made in my budget speech, of a close coalition between Liberals and Conservatives, is being justified. The suggestion of the hon. member for Acadia is worth considering. I think the appointment is an excellent one, and personally I approve of the principle of promotion by merit in the sendee, so I do not think it will be questioned. But after all, we must have some respect' for the dignity of our own group, and I trust that in future the Prime Minister will see fit to consult with those who are always willing to cooperate in the public interest.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is my hon. friend the
leader of a thirteenth group?


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.

Alberta Coal-Mr. Garland (Bow River)


Hewitt Bostock: There was no notice
given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then let it
stand.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.



SUPPLY-ALBERTA COAL CONDITION OF MINERS-TRANSPORTATION TO EASTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB moved that the House go into committee of supply.
Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into supply I regret the necessity which compels me t'o introduce a subject which I would wish had not arisen at this late date of the session. During the past few days I have received a series of telegrams describing a pitiable condition in the province from which I come, and particularly in the constituency which I represent. On the orders of the day the leader of the opposition read a telegram from the Lethbridge board of. trade relating to conditions there, and I now wish to place on Hansard one or two other telegrams which describe very vividly the conditions in my own constituency. On April 2, I received this telegram:
There are about two thousand mine workers out of work at present in the Drumheller valley. This has caused great distress and we would urge upon you the necessity for parliament taking immediate action to relieve the suffering of these men and their families which is growing more intense each passing week in any possible way you may determine.
I did my duty on that occasion and drew the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) to the condition indicated by this telegram. While the reply he gave me may have been the only one he could give, it was wholly unsatisfactory and unsympathetic. In effect he said that an investigation was being made by the Department of Labour into these conditions, but in the meantime the suffering is continuing. I now come to the second telegram, as follows:
Provincial government investigation-
Which was undertaken much more speedilj' than the investigation by this government:
-discloses acute distress in Drumheller. Hundreds of miners idle owing to shut down and no credit available. Immediate resumption of work in mines best solution. Your immediate cooperation and action earnestly solicited. Work only possible solution, reply early.
That telegram is signed by the secretary and president of Local 59 of the United Mine Workers' Association of America. I now come to the telegram which I received this morning, and to which I would call the attention of the Minister of Immigration, reminding him of the pleas made from this side of the House from time to time that some action be taken to protect the people against the utterly unjust, misleading, inaccurate and false promises made by shipping immigration agents and others to induce people to come to this country in the belief that they will be provided with steady employment at remunerative wages. This telegram which is dated April 11, is as follows:
Immigrants arriving Drumheller promised work coal mines quite number here now without funds and charge on community. Please advise government unless they can provide work through Ontario market to have immigrants directed elsewhere. Our own unemployment problem with mines closed too serious to countenance further immigration here.
That is signed by the Drumheller board of trade, whose members certainly are not of the radical type, and who would not put words of this kind into a telegram for presentation to this House if the situation did not compel them to do so. The next telegram is the one placed on record by the leader of the opposition this morning, and is as follows:
Resolution passed joint meeting subdistrict board miners union and coal committee board of trade Lethbridge. Whereas mines in this district practically shut down and other employment impossible for miners, resolved that we press federal government to take immediate steps relieve situation. Wider markets essential. We urge that railway commission cost report be brought in at once.
This House will recall that just over a year ago, on February 13, 1925, as a result of the efforts made by members of the House from t.he province from which I come, the administration were induced to bring in an order in council instructing the Board of Railway Commissioners to undertake an investigation into the actual cost of transporting coal for a special seasonal movement, which order in council urged the railway commission to undertake an immediate investigation. It was not the intention of the government nor indeed of those associated with the government to have the railway commission unduly delay this hearing. Then what happened? First of all, the basis of the inquiry was to be the out of pocket cost, that is, the cost exclusive of the expenses the railway would have to meet whether or not this coal was moved; the railway board were directed to report on the cost both exclusive and inclusive of that expense.
On February 24, 1926, Mr. Woods, counsel for the province of Alberta, speaking on this occasion for the province of Ontario as well.
2316	COMMONS
Alberta Coal-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
asked the board to set a date for a hearing at which would be determined what information the provinces would need from the railways in order to complete their case. On April 16, 1926, such a hearing took place and the railways were directed to provide counsel with a great quantity of information which was considered essential. It took all summer for the railways to amass this information; there certainly must have been a great deal of it, or else there must have been some very unnecessary delay. The experts came together, but by the fall the board were engaged on the general freight rate inquiry, so the investigation into the coal rates drifted along. An attempt was made by Mr. Woods on behalf of Alberta and Ontario in December last, because of the urgency of this question and because of the absolute need of having the board report to parliament before prorogation, to have the board take up this inquiry as the first order of business after they reconvened in January, 1927, and it was believed that the inquiry would not take more than two or three days. This the board definitely refused to do under a judgment given on December 16, 1926, in which they stated that they would not take up the coal rate inquiry which was of such immediate importance until the general freight rate inquiry was concluded. On February 10, 1927, Mr. Woods representing Alberta and Mr. Lawson representing Ontario again brought the matter before the railway board with the object of avoiding any delay in going on with the coal inquiry as soon as the general freight rate inquiry was over, and the railways then insisted that they would need two months after their experts were released from the general freight rate inquiry, to enable them to prepare their figures for the second inquiry. As it was then thought that the general freight rates inquiry would be finished by March 15, the board ordered a preliminary meeting of the experts of the two provinces and of the railway companies on May 15. two months after they were expected to conclude the general freight rate inquiry. At this meeting both sides were to produce their figures of costs and the points of difference would be defined. The final hearing on these points was to take place on June 7, 1927.
An attempt was also made in this House by hon. members in the U.F.A. group to induce the Minister of Railways or the administration as a whole to take such steps they might properly take to get the railway board to expedite this hearing. The order in council which I have under my hand was particularly specific. It asked for an immediate examina-

tion and report upon the actual out of pocket cost of moving the coal. Why was it utterly necessary that this be immediate? Because we all understood that it would take some time to gather the facts and for the board to make and present its findings. That being the case, we realized that if action was to be taken at the coming session of parliament, the findings of the board should be in the hands of the government during the session and preferably early in the session. Every effort was made by this group and by our Alberta counsel before the board to have this action taken that was so necessary. The chairman of the board was advised again and again that if he delayed this hearing, the solution of the question as regards Alberta would go over for another season and it would not be dealt with until the next session of this parliament, with the result that no coal would move to Ontario for another year.
As a result of the decisions laid down by the board, we have now exactly the situation which we feared. We have a situation in which the board's refusal to make this inquiry in January last has now so delayed the question that the inquiry will not take place until after this House has prorogued and so too late for action by this parliament. That action by this parliament will be necessary is quite apparent from the wording of the order in council which does not give to the board any power to set the rate. All the board has power to do is to determine the cost rate on the values agreed upon between the railways and representatives of the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Once the board has found that and reported thereon to the government or parliament, its duties have ceased. It is then for the government to bring in statutory legislation making that rate effective.
As hon. gentlemen can readily see, the desperate conditions in ithe province in which I represent one constituency would certainly indicate that some remedial measure should be taken. I have simply this to suggest and I took the liberty of suggesting it the other day to the minister and following it up by letter. Having consulted with him previously in the matter, with his permission I will read a letter which I wrote him in that connection: Ottawa, Ontario, April 7, 1927. Hon. Charles Stewart,
Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Stewart,
Following up my conversation with you of yesterday, in which I brought to your attention the necessity for some action by parliament at this session to enable the government to bring into effect whatever cost rate may be deter-

Alberta Coal-Mr. JellifJ
mined by the Board of Railway Commissioners as a result of the investigation into the actual cost of the transportation of coal.
May I recall to your attention the nature of our conversation-you will recollect that an order in council instructed the board to make this investigation and no powers were given to your board to set the rate that might be determined to be used as the coal rate. It is therefore quite clear to me that should the board of its own volition, attempt to set this rate (which of course is most improbable) the railways would at once serve an injunction upon that body.
I expressed the opinion to you if the Alberta coal operators are ever to secure a portion of the Ontario market, it will be necessary for the administrators to introduce a bill providing for a special seasonal cost rate for the movement of the coal.
I do most earnestly urge upon you, as the minister representing the province from which we both come, the necessity to secure from this parliament before it prorogues the necessary powers to enable you to put into effect the rate that will be allowed by the Board of Railway Commissioners.
Yours very truly,
This is signed by myself. I have already briefly reviewed my reasons for doing this. Some exception may be taken by hon. gentlemen that to give such a blanket authority to a minister would be a dangerous matter. I submit that it would not in this case for this reason. If the out-of-pocket cost rate to be found by the board is to be at all effective in the movement of coal, that rate will have to be no more than $7 a ton. From my examination of this question, from the evidence given before our coal committees year after year by experts of both railways, I am satisfied that the out-of-pocket cost rate will vary somewhere between $6 and $7. I am satisfied therefore that the only spread, the only blanket right that need be granted in this matter is to set a limitation within a matter of a few cents. I would be quite satisfied if the administration could now take authority to put into effect the cost rate when it is determined, if that cost rate is less than $7 and not more than $6. That leaves them within a limitation of $1 for this coal rate.
May I repeat that the condition in my province justifies drastic action by this House? The miners there-and I know them only too well-have from year to year periodic, seasonal employment scattered over a period of from three to four months during only two of which they will have constant labour, and during the balance of the year they are picking up jobs wherever they can. No int'ellli-gent effort is being made by provincial or federal labour bureaux to transport these men at reasonable railway rates so that they may find employment during the slack season in some other occupation and to bring them back to
the coal mines during the winter. Surely we ought to be able to work out some scheme whereby some occupations which are distinctly seasonal might be combined in order to spread employment over the whole year. There is a possibility in that direction; but in the meantime the crying need is market's for our coal.
We have ample coal of the finest quality for domestic purposes and there is no question as to the favour with which public opinion in Ontario has received our coal. The whole matter now rests with the administration. The people in this great province of Ontario will take the coal if they can get it at a reasonable rate. They are willing to pay within a reasonable margin of anthracite prices for it, and in passing I may say they are well advised in so being willing because, taking all in all, the wise householder can get as much heat value and with much less waste out of our Alberta coal than out of anthracite. However, at this stage of the session I do not want to go into the relative merits of our coal; it is indeed already well and favourably known.
I wish to ask now that the administration state definitely to me and to the House what their policy is going to be in this regard. I have not asked too much; all I have asked is that the cost rate to be determined by the board shall, as soon as determined and reported upon, be enacted into an effective measure so that the movement of coal may at once take place. The coal could start moving during the summer months when the rate would be in operation. The people of Ontario will welcome it with open arms, and they are accustomed to get in their coal supply during the summer months. Give them an opportunity to do that and you will enormously increase the prosperity and comfort of two of the great provinces of this Dominion.


Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have the same telegram from the Lethbridge board of trade as that read by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) and referred to by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). I am deeply sympathetic with this message. The situation there is such that we have to find a remedy for it. It exists and comes forward to trouble our councils year after year, and it is time, Mr. Speaker, that some definite steps be taken to meet this problem. True it is that the winter is over and the prairie demand for coal has diminished, and the men who are engaged in the mines may expect less employment than they have had during the cold winter season. It is also true that more or
2318	COMMONS
Alberta Coal-Mr. Heenan-Mr. Forke
less employment can be secured in the seeding operations which will soon be in full blast throughout the district which I represent, but at the same time that does not permanently and efficiently solve the problem which exists there. We have been chasing this problem from one side to the other during the last five years in which I have been a member of this House, and still we seem to be little closer to a solution of'it than we were five years ago. We have tried through orders in council, through references to the board of railway commissioners, and through the taking of evidence month after month and year after year to arrive at some basis for a settlement of'this problem, but as I said we are no closer to a solution than we were several years ago. I have got to the point myself where I feel that this problem can only be met definitely and finally by the passing of an act by this parliament fixing a rate at which coal from Alberta can be carried to the central provinces. That would put the question beyond all peradveniture of dispute. After such an act is passed, we can determine from actual experience how it works out, and if it fails to work ofut well, if we find that it places too big a burden on this country or upon the transportation system, it will be an easy matter for us to repeal that act. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that we have a precedent, and a very good precedent, for dealing with this matter in the way I suggest in the action we have taken in regard to freight rates in the maritime provinces, and the rates on grain and flour under the Crowsnest pass agreement.
I urge upon the government to bring forward a measure fixing a rate more or less based upon the investigations which have been carried on into the shipment of coal in trainload lots during the last four years. Let us try this method out and see if it works, so that we can definitely settle this problem for the good of our great coal mining industry.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: In reply to the reference made to
the Minister of Labour by my good friend opposite, I may say that I received on April the first the same telegram that he did, and the very next day I had a man on the job looking into the situation, because I was not sure whether it was employment or unemployment relief that these men were asking for. The investigator is a very able man. He went into the coal district and there ascertained that the men were looking for work, not relief. I conveyed to the rest of my colleagues my suggestions as to the best ways and means of securing work for them, and that matter is still under consideration fMr. Jelliff.]	.	'
at the present time. I also took the matter up personally with Mr. Brownlee, the provincial premier, and he too is looking into the matter, all with the object of trying to provide work for the men in that district. I pointed out to Mr. Brownlee, when he was here, that if it was not a very serious affair and any financial assistance was required, I thought they ought to provide it locally, and he went back the same night for the purpose of going into the matter and conferring with me again.
The hon. member said that I did not give a very sympathetic answer. Well, the only thing I could do was to ascertain just what the real trouble was, and that message was the first intimation I had that there was any real trouble in the coal fields, and the very next day after receiving it I had a man investigating the situation right on the ground. He went right amongst the miners to find out what they wanted, and from all the correspondence it appears that they do not want relief, but work. That matter, as I say, is under consideration and I can assure my hon. friend that as far as I am concerned I shall do the very best I can.


Robert Forke: I might say a few words in reply to the hon. member's references to immigrants coming into this country. If we do not want immigrants, of course there is no more to be said. The trouble in Alberta in, the coal mines may be serious enough in itself, but after all, it is confined to the locality, and is a matter all by itself. There is no doubt that quite a number of immigrants are coming in, but the season has been very backward in western Canada and seeding has been delayed, and consequently there may be some little trouble for a time. Although I know and thoroughly believe that we need more population in this country, I am very well aware of the fact that you cannot have from 150,000 to 200,000 immigrants coming into a country in any one year without dislocating employment conditions to a certain extent. That is inevitable, but I have no hesitation in saying that six weeks from now no one will be idle in western Canada who is seeking employment.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): With regard to the problem brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), one would gather from his remarks that he believes that 'action by the railway commission, or by the government consequent upon extraordinary powers being

Alberta Coal-Mr. Dunning
given, to it by this parliament, might conceivably solve the present unemployment difficulty among the miners in Drumheller. I feel that he did not mean to convey that impression, but by linking the two things together he was apparently proposing a remedy for the presently existing disease.
I feel that he did not wish to convey that impression, but that was the impression I gathered from his remarks. On that point might I say this: I have very great doubts if any action by the railway commission or any action that is taken with respect to freight rates will eliminate the seasonal nature of work in the Alberta coal fields. Personally, having conducted somewhat of an examination into possible markets, I cannot see how it is possible to overcome completely the seasonal rush and the seasonal slack time in the Alberta coal fields with the markets at present in sight and in view of the time and manner in which the people in those markets wiH consent to take the coal made available to them by the mine operators of Alberta and other places.
But the problem goes very much deeper even than that. There is nothing to prevent the mines of Alberta from constantly enlarging their seasonal capacity. That factor, as my hon. friend well knows, is very largely the controlling one in mining operations. If there is a large seasonal demand, every mine will so equip itself with mechanical devices and labour to attempt to take the fullest possible advantage of that seasonal demand. When that is the case, inevitably there follows a slack time. I am not endeavouring to convey the impression that the problem is not possible of solution, but rather that it is not one that can be solved by devising some measure of freight rate relief as between Alberta and Ontario, although that, of course might be a mitigating factor. My hon. friend referred to the order in council of last February. I have it before me, and I think he will agree that -it does provide for the kind of examination into this matter which was desired by those most nearly interested, both in the coal producing sections of Alberta and in the coal consuming sections of Ontario.
I regret the delay on the part of the railway commission as much as he can possibly do. I might respectfully point out however that the work of the general rate inquiry has been very heavy. I am not now defending the railway commission, but I must remind the House that they are not supermen. There is only a certain amount of time in every day, and when counsel for the two provinces interested are also engaged in arguing the
matter of the general freight equalization, it is difficult to see how the railway commission could have moved much faster in connection with the coal rate inquiry. Everything the government could do to expedite the work of the commission with regard to this particular matter has, 'I assure my hon. friend, been done. I, personally, have made representations to the chairman in regard to the necessity for expedition. I now understand from what my hon. friend says-and it is confirmed in other ways-that a definite move is to be made, I think he said on May i5.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, the
hearing will be on June 7.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the preliminary conference of the experts was to take place on May 15. We can therefore expect a conclusion reasonably soon after June 7, in time for the government to be made aware of the nature of the report, in time for parliament to act as soon as it meets at the next session, in accordance with whatever policy may be decided on, as a result of the report of the board on the matter of cost, plus profit, or without profit, as the case may be. My hon. friend indicated in his remarks that the railway commission were asked to determine the cost. I would respectfully point out to him that the order in council goes much further than that. It asks for several methods of computation. I think there will be, as a ressult of the bottom paragraph on the first page of the order, probably four or five separate statements received by the government from the railway commission as ft result of the work. My hon. friend suggests extraordinary legislation. He suggests that parliament should be asked now to give to the government blanket authority to put into effect whatever rates it sees fit, as a result of this report.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I made my statement very specific, because I was afraid, if I did not do so, the minister would use the very argument he is now using. I suggested that they should take authority to set a rate provided it was within six or seven dollars-within that one dollar limitation.


Hugh Guthrie: Not less than six nor
more than seven dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: Between six and seven
dollars a ton. Well, I do not think that improves the suggestion.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is a
limitation of one dollar.

Alberta Coal-Mr. Dunning


Charles Avery Dunning: It is surely an unique
authority to place in the hands of the government, a suggestion I have not previously heard. But the point I want to make in connection with it is that such action on the part of the government, even if it had the power at the time, following a report of the board of railway commissioners in connection with the matter, would not relieve the present unemployment situation upon which my hon. friend rested his whole case this morning, to advance or to convey the idea-I do not suggest my hon. friend did so wittingly-that something could be done along this line which would have the effect of relieving the distressful conditions complained of.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think I
used that as an illustration of the conditions and the constant recurring need off some provision, as the strongest reason for immediate action by parliament in regard to special rates.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend in that regard. That was
certainly the impression I gathered! from his remarks, based as they were on telegrams calling attention to presently existing conditions. There is a very vital matter of principle involved, may I say, in any decision which may be reached by this parliament on this matter of freight rates on coal from Alberta to Ontario. We might adopt any one of several courses in relation thereto. For instance, should parliament say that the railway companies must haul coal without a cent of profit and let it go at that, or should parliament adopt the principle that the railway companies should charge a certain rate, and that part of the rate should be 'borne by the Dominion and part by the shippers of the coal? There are several ways of looking at the problem, and if I remember correctly, when it was my duty to introduce here not very long ago a measure having to do with the maritime provinces and their freight rates, the only opposition to it came from my hon. friends in that corner of the House, who are advocating in this connection the same general principle in respect of their coal industry with relation to the market of Ontario.


Edward Joseph Garland: I can hardly accept that statement as completely fair. We are not asking for any rate below cost. We are asking a rate at which the coal can move without loss to the railway. We are not asking for a twenty per cent reduction all through.
Mr. DUN Nils G:	My hon. friend draws a
fine distinction. Apparently he is willing, in

connection with this commodity and this particular haul, to say to the railways, "On this particular class of traffic you are not entitled to any profit." He draws a distinction between that and the measure adopted with respect to the maritime province freight rates of paying for the twenty per cent cut ordered by parliament. He is capable of drawing distinctions too fine for my understanding, because I can see very little difference between those two propositions in principle. However, that may be, the intention of the government with regard to the m'attter is well set out in the order in council, and I can say to my hon. friend, and others who may be interested, that the moment we get this information from the Board of Railway Commissioners as a government we will move in one of two directions. First, we intend to find out immediately from the nature of the re>-port received whether the railway commission would have authority to do anything to meet any of the recommendations made which might appear to have the effect desired. That would be one course. The second course would be that I might undertake, as Minister of Railways, immediately to confer with the management of the Canadian National Railways, at all events, and probably with the Canadian Pacific Railway, who, I presume, would also be willing to confer on the matter, as to how far the railways would be prepared to go in advance of the meeting of parliament, having regard to the information made available to the government as a result of the inquiry by the Board of Railway Commissioners. That is as far as the government is prepared to go at the moment, all with the objective of bringing if possible, some relief to the situation prior to the next meeting of parliament; but I do think this parliament will desire to express itself upon the principle involved in legislation which will create for the first time a special rate in respect of transportation of one commodity from one part of Canada to another part of Canada. A very wide and important principle is involved in that. But in so far as the government can move upon the basis of the information we expect to receive from the Board of Railway Commissioners, the government will move along lines designed to mitigate the situation and widen the market for Alberta coal.


Edward Joseph Garland: In view
of the position the minister has just' now taken, would he not secure the cooperation of his colleagues in order to remove the immediate distress in the district and bring into

Alberta Coal-Mr. Guthrie
effect a supplementary estimate, in order to help move that coal, until he can put into effect the policy he has just enunciated? That would immediately relieve the situation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot give an immediate answer t'o such a question. The hon. member is aware that it is much easier for hon. gentlemen to make suggestions than it is for the minister responsible to give offhand a reply as to a matter involving the expenditure of public money. My hon. friend well knows that this would be a subject of governmental policy. Efforts have been made in the past along that line, and they have not been attended with the very best success.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I have just a word to say in regard to this matter which has been introduced by my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland). The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has stated that in this question there are certain principles at stake, and he has discussed them. But one great principle he has not discussed. The situation to-day is this; the miners of Alberta want work, and the people of Ontario want coal. The principle at stake is: shall the Canadian people use Canadian coal? That is the principle which this government should undertake to apply. It should have a definite policy to lay before the House. For the last six years this has been a perennial subject of debate; but we have got nowhere-we have reached no conclusion, we have relieved no situation. Now, to anyone who takes an interest in this question-and my direct interest is only that of an Ontario consumer-it is discouraging when one recalls how the treatment of this subject has been delayed. I believe the order in council of February which has been referred to was not passed last February, but a year ago last February.


Charles Avery Dunning: February, 1926.


Hugh Guthrie: On that order in council passed in February, 1926, we have as yet had no action. The matter was referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners; there if rests. An intimation is given to the House to-day that probably in June some finding will be made by the Board of Railway Commissioners, or that they will begin to deal with the question.
That brings me to the constitution of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Justice is not being done in this country to-day in regard to railway rates, and has not been done for the last two or three years, the reason being that the Board of Railway Commissioners, as at present constituted, are unable to do the work which has been delegated fo them by the Railway Act and, in many instances, directed by this parliament. What are we going to do with that situation? It cannot go on as it is now. Is the government prepared to increase the personnel of that board and to divide it up, or is it prepared to divide up the present board, and allow us to have two boards sitting at the same time? If it requires the full membership of the present board to decide the cases which are referred to it, then it is quite within the range of possibility that there will be no finding on this coal question for another year, perhaps two years. What are the miners of Alberta and the people of Ontario to do in the meantime? There is a solution of this question, and so far as Ontario is concerned we complain of the delay in finding the solution.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines):: 
Hugh Guthrie: I hope so.
522	COMMONS
Alberta Coal-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend says he hopes so. That is the policy his party would adopt as a solution. It, of course, involves a higher price to the Ontario consumer. That is not the policy of this government. My hon. friend says we have delayed a solution of this problem, but I think he will agree with me, as will any other hon. gentlemen who have given the subject careful consideration, that it is an absolute impossibility to bring bituminous coal from Alberta into Ontario without increasing the price to such an extent that a very grave hardship would be imposed upon the manufacturing interests of the province. But we do think we can move lignite, and we have offered subventions for this purpose. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) last fall during the election campaign offered a subvention for the movement of 2,000 tons from Drumheller and another shipment from Lethbridge to Ontario. Only the movement from Drumheller took place. When we came into office, I conferred with the operators to see if they were not desirous of moving the balance of that coal, but in the course of the conference at Edmonton they pointed out to me that what they were anxious to get was a rate to move a large volume of coal as a seasonal proposition as provided for in the order in council.
I had hoped that that decision would have been made. As I say, I provided for the trial shipment by rail and water. But I am informed-I may as well be open about this -that our people in Ontario who will handle the coal have no faith in the movement, that the deterioration would be too great. They say the movement must be by rail alone. With .that view I am bound to say I agree, but I am prepared to carry out the recommendation of the committee. I am just as anxious as anyone else to secure the movement of a million or a million and a half tons of lignite coal from Alberta into Ontario. The people here are satisfied with that, but it is important that we move the coal at a price that will not increase the cost to the consumer.


Hugh Guthrie: The great question is,
when are we to get action? We have been waiting six years.


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: It has been maintained by representatives of Ontario and Alberta, who are on the board, that they can substantiate the claim that coal can be moved at $7 a ton, which will be out-of-pocket cost to the railways.


Mr. BENNETT:: No, not out-of-pocket
cost.


Charles A. Stewart: My understanding is that no overhead is to be charged in addition to the cost of moving.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we knew what that was last fall.


Charles A. Stewart: The railway companies dispute it. I am simply stating what representations have been made by the two provinces: they claim that they can substantiate this assertion to the satisfaction of the board. It must be a $7 rate or even lower than that before we can move the coal without increasing the price to the consumer. But if that can be done I see no reason why the quantity suggested cannot be transported. The statement is frequently made about -S100,000,000 now going into the United States and which could be saved if we mined our own coal. That is a most erroneous statement to make. It is not possible unless we shut out altogether the 17,000,000 tons of bituminous coal which is coming from the United States. And I have not heard anyone with the hardihood to suggest that. I am bound to say that in my opinion it would impose upon our manufacturing industries such a handicap as would make their survival impossible.


Mr. GOTT:: W hat was the situation when the American strike was on?


Charles A. Stewart: There was
no bituminous coal moved during that strike. Bituminous coal can be moved from Nova Scotia by an all-water route into a considerable proportion of Ontario, but not without increasing the cost. We have been devoting our attention simply to the domestic field, and I hope we shall secure the $7 rate which will enable us to move a million or a million and a half tons into Ontario. If that is not done I would even go so far as to suggest, as a member of the government, that we do something in this matter just as we did in connection with freight rates in Nova Scotia to meet a situation that does not prevail in other parts of Canada. I would say that parliament under those circumstances would be warranted in lending the necessary assistance to bring lignite into the Ontario field to the extent I have mentioned. On this matter I have taken the advice of members of the railway board and also of the legal department, and the two disagree. My officials are told by members of the railway board that this rate can be put into effect by order in council, but

Alberta Coal-Mr. Evans
that view is not shared by eminent lawyers.
I fail to understand how the Canadian National Railways could resist to put into effect a rate fixed by the board and accepted by the governor in council until such time as parliament miight deal with the matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: Sir Henry
Thornton himself, in a letter to the minister dated May 6 last, definitely indicated his attitude
We will not voluntarily depart from the $9 rate, and we must resist by every reasonable and legal method any reduction in our gross revenue which might take place should any lower rate be named by the railway board.


Charles A. Stewart: He was referring to the $9 rate. That is correct. He said they would oppose before the board the application of a lower rate. However, I do not see why he would not put info effect until such time as parliament might take legislative action, a rate suggested after investigation by the board and requested by order in council.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: It is
my opinion that' the best solution for our land settlement problem is to send an immigration officer into Drumheller and to give assistance to those men who are willing to go on the land. H we did that we could solve the unemployment problem that now exists. I admit that there is seasonal employment, but at the same time there are too many in the industry, both in Sydney and at Drumheller, in proportion to the quantity of coal we are using. I do not think that coal can be economically moved from Drumheller into the cities of Ontario. Sir Henry Thornton speaks of a $9 rate while the minister hopes to secure a rate of $6 or $7. Now we have been continually told in this House that western grain is hauled at a loss. From Saskatoon to Montreal, grain costs 34J cents per bushel or SI 1.49 per ton. If coal can be hauled at a rate of $6 or S7 a ton when grain cannot be carried except at a loss, paying $11.49, it is a mystery to me. There must be quite as much work in connection with the moving of coal as there is in moving grain: the trains would have to be broken up in every town and village. In other words, we are trying by uneconomical means to find a market for Alberta and Sydney coal, and that cannot be done. The natural place for Drumheller coal is across the boundary. The United States has for many years offered us free trade in coal, and I cannot see why we should not accept that as a solution for the present problem. Evidently the policy we are now
following is a failure, and taking one thing with another it seems to me that it is impossible to haul coal into Ontario from Alberta at such a rate as will be economical.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to make a last
appeal for the unemployed. Reference has been made to the unemployed in Drumheller. In the last few weeks I have received scores of communications from almost every industrial centre from coast to coast regarding the situation. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) says to-day with reference to Drumheller, that the men require work and not relief. He should not stop there. If there are in this country large numbers of people who want work and not relief it is the duty of the government to provide that work. It is absurd that we should be spending millions of dollars in an effort to bring men into Canada while there are already in the country thousands who need work. We must recognize that fact. The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) puts it off by suggesting that there may be some little trouble. Let me assure him that it is not a small trouble, nor is it local or temporary in character. It has existed year after year and has brought dire suffering to thousands of families. We may frankly admit that we have a great deal of seasonal labour in Canada, but simply to recognize that fact is not to absolve ourselves from doing anything further. To suggest anything of t'he kind is very wide of the mark. If we have considerable seasonal labour in Canada the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Labour ought to get together and devise some means of providing employment to those who need it, instead of allowing individuals to suffer. The situation is becoming more and more aggravated by the influx of large'numbers of immigrant's from Europe. I want to read to the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Labour^ a resolution passed the other day by the city council of Regina, the constituency of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). It was adopted on April 5, and was forwarded to me by some persons in Regina interested in the situation. It seems to me fairly to state the situation prevailing in a large number of our industrial communities.
Whereas from time to time men seeking employment of a seasonal or casual nature are stranded without visible means of subsistence in our midst, although the labour of these men is of primary importance in the production and harvesting of our field crops and in the development of our country generally:
And whereas the Dominion and provincial authorities by advertisement and the provision of special, low transportation rates to im-
Alberta Coal-Mr. Woodsworth

migrants and men seeking seasonal employment, encourage these men to migrate without seeing that some provision is made for their protection against possible destitution or starvation during unseasonable climatic conditions and periods of unemployment;
And whereas a large number of such men have been arrested in this city and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment as vagrants, while in some instances such arrests have been made by the police to protect men from the pangs of hunger and the danger of starvation;
And whereas in the opinion of this council the sentencing to jail of persons whose only crime is that of poverty and destitution is inhuman, unjust and anti-social;
Therefore be it resolved that we bring these conditions to the immediate attention of the premiers of the Dominion and of the province, to the federal Ministers of Labour and of Immigration and to the members for Regina in our parliament and legislative assembly, together with the urgent request that steps be taken forthwith to remedy the existing situation and prevent its recurrence.


Robert Forke: Might I just say now that
I had inquiries made in regard to these people who were apprehended for vagrancy in Regina, and I was informed that not one of them was an immigrant; most of them were people who had been drifting around the city of Regina and who will continue to drift no matter what may be the employment situation.
Mr. WOODSWORTH; That is quite true, and I was going to state that very frequently these men who are out of work are not newly arrived immigrants, although the majority ot those men have come from outside of Canada. The point is that newly arrived immigrants take the place of native born Canadians or older immigrants to Canada. The railways are constantly introducing new people who oust the older people from their
jobs. That is no solution of the problem___
rather an aggravation. The minister has made an investigation; I would like to ask him if he has investigated the situation existing at present in North Battleford, where a considerable number of immigrants were recently stranded. These are newly arrived immigrants, and I can say the same with regard to the Crowsnest pass district, where a large number of recent immigrants are already seeking work in the coal districts. I can refer to my own city of Winnipeg, from which I have had communications along the same Ime, and I can refer my hon. friend to the conditions of which I was told in Montreal *ast Sunday by some of the social service workers of that city. The fact is that we are not making adequate provision for the immigrants who come here and who, after

working a few weeks or months in the summer, drift into our cities and become a load upon the civic charities. Further than that, many of these people obtain employment for a time at the expense of those who are already at work in Canada.
Under these conditions I would urge upon the government that before bringing another immigrant to this country and before handing over to the railways the right to inundate this country with immigrants, they make adequate provision for the care of these people, and that they at least see to it that native-born Canadians or the older immigrants who have been living in this country for some time will get an equal chance to obtain work with those who are imported from central Europe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add a few words to the discussion upon this matter.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will not
detain the House at any length, but I cannot understand why, in view of the time that has elasped since this matter was first brought to the attention of parliament, nothing has been accomplished. The minister was good enough to refer to the fact that last fall he endeavoured to ascertain the out-of-pocket cost per ton of moving coal from the west to Ontario. It was originally contemplated that we should move three trainloads, one from the Edmonton district, one from the Drumheller district and one from the Lethbridge district. As a matter of fact the train that moved from the Drumheller district did not get into motion until, I think, about the day that the government disappeared from the scene. The hon. gentleman said that they did not think it desirable to move the trains from the Edmonton and Lethbridge districts.
The figures with regard to the actual cost of moving that coal from Drumheller to Toronto are in the hands of the department. They include a statement of what it cost for fuel, watering, grease, and labour from the time the engines were attached to the train at Drumheller until the train was abandoned by the engines in Ontario.
Mr. McGIBBON; Will the hon. member give us the figures?
Mr. BENNETT; I have not the details of the figures before me. They are in the department. The cost was something less than $2 a ton. Am I correct in that?

Alberta Coal-Mr. Bennett


Charles A. Stewart: That is the amount for the train.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In other words it cost a
little less than $2 a ton without including any charges at all for interest on the investment in rolling stock or for an allowance for cost with respect to roadbed or terminals or any matters of that kind. What I cannot understand is why the railway commission should be putting this matter off in the way in which it has, in view of the fact that the department at Toronto had this information all carefully collected and collated, and had put their freight expert, Mr. Oliver from Chicago, if my memory serves me aright, to work on those figures. After making every possible allowance Mr. Oliver arrived at a certain conclusion with respect to the whole matter. That conclusion I have not officially received in the sense that I do not know whether or not it has been made public.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
heard of that phase of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking of the
Ontario government, not my hon. friend's government. The Ontario government collected the data, and they secured the benefit of the services of the best expert they could get for the purpose of applying those sets of costs to the movement of that freight, and making adequate allowances for the cost and interest on investment in terminals, rolling stock, roadbed et cetera, in connection with the movement of that coal.
What I have been wholly unable to understand is why it should take so long to determine this matter. If one looks at the record, one finds that for several years at various periods of time the matter has been under discussion in this parliament. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), who was in this House two parliaments ago, discussed the matter then at length. It was discussed in the last parliament; it is now before this parliament, and no one has arrived at any proper conclusion as to the cost per ton of moving that coal from Drumheller or other parts of Alberta to Ontario. I hope the minister will not say that this is an expression of egotism with respect to what the government which was in power for a few months might have done; but I say this to the minister, that had the government that held office from July to September remained in office, we certainly would have known the cost of moving coal from Drumheller to Toronto. I can say that without boasting because there we had the first steps taken to have those figures analyzed by a freight ex-32649- 147
pert for the purpose of determining that question. Why should the railway commission treat us in this way? I think I am not saying too mudh, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Alotherwell) who, in days gone by, expressed his opinion of the railway commission with great, vigour and in terms that will not soon be forgotten by a long suffering populace-


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Was that opinion justified?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am about to come to that. It is so seldom that I find myself in such complete accord with my distinguished friend that I should mark this occasion by saying that I believe the railway commission is rapidly losing the public confidence of this country. I say that in no offensive sense, but with a due sense of deliberation and of responsibility. It is the duty of parliament, which created that body, to ascertain the causes of the delay. This is possibly neither the time nor the place to discuss this question at length, but the same reasons that induced my genial friend the Minister of Agriculture to arrive at his veiy definite conclusions and to express himself with that moderation which so characterizes him with respect to that commission, induce me with somewhat the same moderation to arrive at similar conclusions.
I suggest to the Minister of Railways and the Minister of the Interior that they should seriously take into account whether the railway commission has done everything possible in respect to the matter. From the casual investigation I have made I feel satisfied that, in the light of the figures we have as to the cost of moving coal this whole matter could be determined in one week's time, beginning on Monday and closing on Friday afternoon. That is my information, and I am making every allowance now for the delays that are incident to such an inquiry. I happen to know that the Ontario government has a vast mass of information carefully collected, carefully analyzed, and carefully collated. They have their experts ready to appear on a very reasonable notice. This government also has its figures ready, and the mine operators and the miners themselves are in a position to give any information that is required. So, if there was a desire to serve the public in this matter on the part of that great commission that has been set up by this parliament and is maintained at a high cost, I cannot understand why in a week's time it should not give us this information.
I agree with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that if we let this matter



Alberta Coal-Mr. Bennett
go on-the Minister of Railways must see this-if we leave this House with nothing done, we shall probably not convene again until next year; this is only April, and in the meantime the fall operations in the collieries of Alberta will commence along about September; I fancy it is not unfair to say that they begin to work the last week in August or the first week in September, and if we leave this House with nothing done in this matter what is going to happen?
I am not going to deal with the question of unemployment. I deprecate greatly the observations that were made in this House this morning by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), because if this country is ever going to make progress we have to get people into it, and the more people we get, the more work there is going to be. It is all nonsense to talk of a close preserve for occupations in this country, and everybody knows it; the idea is absurd. Instead of encouraging that sort of thing, we must frown it down. AVe are masters of our own fortunes and we must have the courage to grasp the situation and not tell people that they are coming to Canada to be pap fed, but that they must struggle, as we all have had to struggle, and as we must continue to struggle if we are to succeed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And no more fitting
illustration could be afforded than by the "hear, hear" of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. When I picture him with a seat in the mother of parliaments, expounding on some future occasion to an amazed populace the benefits that will accrue to them from adopting some of the forms of government that he has learned in this country, I can realize that the future of the British Empire is assured. But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but think that the minister can bring some pressure to bear, and that this parliament should not be impotent with respect to the railway commission. Surely a body that parliament created is not going to sit there and tell us it has so much work to do that it cannot do a week's work for us on a vital question.
I am not going to take up further time because the ground has been fully covered already, and reiterating what has been said is not going to serve any useful purpose. What was said by the hon. member for Bow River and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) as to the real problem was placed before this House in half a dozen sentences in such a way that it must commend itsdlf to
[Mr. Bennett.!
everyone. Are we going to permit our great natural resources to lie undeveloped without giving employment to thousands of men, merely because we have in the commission a body of men who say that they cannot give five days of their time to the solution of the question of what it costs to move these natural resources to the province of Ontario? I am not concerned with any other problem at the moment, but it does occur to me that we should not leave this parliament without making some effort to place on the statute book legislation to make effective any measure which the government desires to adopt in the light of the information forthcoming by reason of an inquiry before the railway commission.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before my hon. friend sits down, will he permit me to ask a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any question put by the minister will be received with delight, and answered to the best of my ability.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is based on what I know to be my hon. friend's desire to be constructive and for parliament to be constructive in this matter. In order to make my question intelligible, perhaps I might say that the government regards as positively scandalous the extent of time which has been consumed by counsel representing railways and some of the provinces, not all of them-I do not want to be unfair-in presenting their case in the general rate investigation. To be fair to the commission, I think my hon. friend will agree that several attempts have been made by the chairman of t)he commission and other members to expedite that inquiry. The question I wish to ask my hon. friend is as to whether he, being a member, and a very distinguished member, of the legal profession is of opinion that something could be done, without interfering with the rights of the people to present their cases, to limit the extent to which such presentations shall go. Possibly out of his experience, my hon. friend might be able to make some suggestion along that line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, Mr. Chairman, a frank question deserves a frank answer: Give me another chairman of the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hardly think that is an answer.


Mr. K. A. BLATCHFORD (East Edmonton) :: I agree with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) that it is high time the railway commission settled this freight

Alberta Coal-Mr. Blatchford
rate question which has been hanging fire for a number of years. I represent a coal province and a coal district, and I was elected on the coal marketing platform. I find that this government is dilatory in carrying on its work, and the so-called railway commission is even worse. I voted for the Duncan report and supported the legislation in favour of reduced freight rates for the maritimes, but the province of New Brunswick and the province of Nova Scotia, together with the board of trade of Montreal, were the very first people to attempt to take out an injunction to stop the introduction of the Crowsnest rates west and any reduction in the freight rates west through tihe mountains. If we had a 20 per cent reduction in our coal rates, as is proposed in the Duncan report, we could place our coal in Ontario for $7.20 a ton, and the operators in Alberta tell me that at that figure they could meet the American competition. I think we should decide right to-day as to whether this government has power to put into effect any finding of the railway commission on the coal rates. If it has not, then this parliament should give the cabinet power to put into effect whatever recommendations might be made by the board, and if the recommendations are not within reason, let us give the cabinet power to bring about a reduction in the freight rates so that Alberta tcoal can be delivered in Ontario at a rate that will enable it to meet American competition.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (MacLeod):: Coal mining in Canada is distinctly a seasonal occupation, and we are bound to have seasons when unemployment will be fairly general in that industry. I think, therefore, that the Immigration department should be very careful to see that that unemployment situation is not aggravated by the bringing m of immigrants who, within a very few weeks of their arrival in this country, drift into the mining areas to make the situation just that much worse than it otherwise would be.
I do hope that the government will press the railway commission for an early decision in the inquiry which they have been instructed to carry on to ascertain the cost of hauling coal in trainload lots from Alberta to Ontario. I hope also that' when that report is received, the government will take some action, if such is possible, along the lines suggested in that report. It seems to be the opinion of the government that they have t'he power to take action if the railway commission should find a rate in the neighbourhood of $7 per ton.
32649-147J
I hope also that when this report is received, some reduction may be possible in the rate on coal from the bituminous fields in Alberta to the city of Winnipeg. May I point out to the House that at the present time the rates from points in the vicinity of Blairmore, which is in the bituminous coal fields, to the city of Winnipeg, a distance of 855 miles, is $5.20 a ton. I think hon. members who are familiar with t'he coal trade will realize that when the coal producers have to pay a rate of $5.20 a ton, they are faced with a very difficult problem in supplying the market with bituminous coal. Winnipeg is our chief market outside of the railway companies.
The present rate on coal from points in Alberta, from Drumheller, say, to Toronto, a distance of 2,100 miles is $12.70 a ton. I believe that the Canadian National railway officials have said that they can haul it for $9 a ton. I would like hon. members to compare that rate for hauling the coal a distance of 2,100 miles with the rate of $5.20 for hauling it a distance of 855 miles. I think it would be quite possible to put into effect a summer rate which would not injure the railways, but might be to their advantage on bituminous coal from the province of Alberta to the city of Winnipeg, and I think the argument which was used by some hon. members in the debate on the maritime freight rates bill would apply here, namely, that the increased traffic due to the decreased rate would bring more revenue to the railway.
I want to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) this morning, when he said that the members in this corner of the chamber had opposed his bill granting reduced railway rates in the maritime provinces. I tried to make it very clear when I was speaking on that bill that I was not opposing that part of the proposal which had for its effect reduced rates on inter-provincial trade to overcome the long haul which separates the central from t'he maritime provinces. But I did oppose the bill in so far as it proposed to reduce purely local rates and to bonus them at the expense of the Dominion in general. If any proposal is made to subsidize rates on coal from Alberta to Ontario, it will be simply t'o overcome the long haul [DOT]which separates our source of coal supply in Alberta from the central provinces, where the bulk of the population is. That is an entirely different matter from subsidizing local freight rates in a compact area such as the [DOT]maritime provinces.
In closing I simply want to urge upon the government the desirability of dealing with this question as quickly as possible. We have
Alberta Coal-Mr. Coote

this situation of unemployment arising every year in Alberta in the coal mines. We will have a certain amount of it, even if some arrangement is made whereby Alberta coal can be brought to Ontario. In my opinion we will never get a satisfactory solution of the coal problem in Canada until we have nationalization of the coal mines. A provincial royal commission investigated the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia about two years ago. In their report they indicate that the miners should accept a ten per cent reduction on the 1924 scale. This would give them an average yearly wage, according to the Bureau of Statistics, of $895.28, covering an average of 202 days' work per man. If under this decreased wage they should secure an increase of fifty per cent in the days worked per year'-and I do not think it possible that they could be given 303 days' work per year

it would make their average yearly income $1,344.42. Evidence was given by Mr. C. W. Bolton, of the Department of Labour at Ottawa before the standing committee on industrial relations that the cost of a family budget for a year, on the minimum subsistence level, was $1,396.82. I think that goes to prove what I have already suggested, that if we are to have any real solution of this whole problem of Canada we must eventually have a nationalization of the industry.



SUPPLY-MARITIME CLAIMS

['That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the fourteenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, the fees and charges paid on bill No. 307, respecting certain patents owned by Warren Brothers Company, be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation.']
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to refer to a matter that I conceive to be of very great importance to my native province, and in doing so I shall take up as little time as possible. Following the example of the Prime Minister when dealing with a matter that he conceived to be of very considerable importance, I propose to read much of my remarks so as to ensure accuracy as to statements to be made.
In discussing the action of the government relative to the implementing of the Duncan report', I fully realize what has so often been contended, namely, that Canada is a country most difficult to govern due to its geographical and sectional handicaps.
I wish now to thank the government for what they have done by way of partially implementing their promises as to putting into effect the recommendations of the Duncan report.
The Prime Minister in this chamber on Friday, March 18th last, when making a statement on behalf of the government arising
rMr. Coote.l
out of the report of the royal commission on maritime claims, said:
In concluding this statement, may I say that the government hopes that, by accepting as we have, the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims, virtually in their entirety, parliament and the country will recognize in the attitude of the government a wish, to remove this great question as largely as possible from the arena of sectional discord and party strife, and a desire to give to our Dominion in the sixtieth anniversary of its founding, a renewed expression of the spirit which animated the fathers of confederation in their efforts to construct out of British North America a federal union under a system of government devised "to protect the diversified interests of the several provinces and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the union."
In those words he conveyed the impression that the recommendations of the Duncan report have been entirely met, or virtually so, which impression has been given to t'he country through the press, with which I cannot agree.
On t'he 7th April, 1926, an order in council, P.C. 505, was passed appointing the Duncan commission.
This royal commission was appointed as a result of the dissatisfaction existing in the maritime provinces with reference to economic conditions then and theretofore obtaining in that part of the country for several years.
Under the terms of the order in council it was pointed out that "it is most undesirable that any section of the people of the maritime provinces should entertain the opinion that their interests are being knowingly prejudiced, and that the public interest requires that every occasion for the existence of a feeling of grievance should, if possible, be removed."
In the Prime Minister's letter, dated April 17th, 1926, to the chairman and members of the commission he made the following statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of order. If at this late day in the session we start in *allowing hon. members to so far depart from the rules of the House as to read voluminous and carefully prepared speeches-as the hon. member is evidently doing-we will be starting something that may delay us very seriously.


Hugh Guthrie: If it is not permitted in
this case, perhaps hon. members may start something which will delay us a good deal more.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a rule of the
House with reference to reading speeches.


Mr. McGIBBON:: The Prime Minister did the same thing. He read a statement.

Maritime Claims-Mr. Cantley


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. member does not call it a speech.


Thomas Cantley: I want to put my statement on record and propose reading it for the same reason as that given by the Prime Minister when he recently read his speech.


Hewitt Bostock: I must say that, strictly
speaking, the hon. member is out of order. But he said he had carefully prepared a statement which he wanted to place on Hansard, which would take about twenty minutes to read. It is a very important subject, and under these circumstances, knowing the House is very indulgent towards hon. members I think perhaps the House might give the hon. member permission to read the statement.


Thomas Cantley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was proceeding to refer to the Prime Ministers letter. The letter reads:
My colleagues and I desire to emphasize our conviction that the commission should not interpret its instructions or its duties in any narrow or technical sense, but should take every opportunity for the fullest and frankest discussion of the economic difficulties facing this part of the Dominion, the endeavours which have been made to overcome them, the causes of any shortcoming in these endeavours, and the most effective and practicable remedies.
And farther down:
It is our earnest desire that the impartial and thorough inquiry which we anticipate will be made will result in clearing away any mis-derstanding or lack of appreciation of one another's problems, and will assist in working out constructive policies for the continued development of the maritime provinces and the W'elfare of all parts of our common country.
The commission entered upon its duties of taking evidence, and the prime ministers of the maritime provinces assisted by presenting the case for the people of these provinces, and altogether a formidable array of facts was presented to the commission, of which due acknowledgment is made in their report, and unfortunately as to one specific and most important part of the investigation no action was taken by the commission, the reason for which is stated in the report. I refer to the matter of the customs tariff in relation to coal and steel. On page 37 of the report it is stated in respect to this matter:
We do not conceive it to be our duty to express any opinion, since the question is, as we were informed by the chairman of the Tariff Advisory Board, who met us at our request, at the present moment under the consideration of that board. But we do regard it our duty to record that the significance of this industry to the maritime provinces was forcibly brought
home to us, not only in the manufacturing towns we visited in the maritimes, but also throughout the agricultural districts of the maritimes. We record this in order to emphasize the need for prompt action.
The findings of the report may, after analysis, be reduced to eighteen.
1.	Subsidy award.
2.	Twenty per cent freight reduction.
3.	The enlargement of the scope and power of the railway commission.
4.	Horizontal war freight increases.
5.	P.E.I. car ferry.
6.	Port development and maritime trade.
7.	Development of natural products.
8.	As to fishing projects.
9.	Coking plants.
10.	Customs tariff on coal.
11.	Steel customs tariff.
12.	Steel bounties.
13.	Recommendations as to more active advertising abroad of maritime provinces' attractions and advantages.
14.	St. John and Quebec railway.
15.	Kent Northern railway.
16.	Appointment of Deputy Minister of Fisheries.
17.	New geological survey of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
18.	Agricultural education to be regarded as technical education in the province of Prince Edward Island.
On August 25, 1926, before the Duncan report was made, but after practically all the evidence was in, and at about the period when the commission was making up its findings, the Prime Minister at numerous places in the maritime provinces-notably at the city of St. John on the 25th; at Windsor, in the county of Hants, and at Port HawkeSbury, in the county of Inverness-made definite, exact and specific pledges that if returned to power his government would introduce measures giving effect to the recommendation of the commission in 'its entirety. This pledge was made without reservation of any character, kind or description.
On March 18 the Prime Minister in the House of Commons-page 1332 of Hansard- made the statement already quoted.
As to the financial arrangements and subsidy award the commission recommended that immediate interim increases should be made to the three maritime provinces, as follows:
Nova Scotia	$875,000
New Brunswick	 600,000
Prince Edward Island	 125,000
and that these interim payments should be continued until the federal government has had time to complete its investigation and

Maritime Claims-Mr. Cantley
reassessment. These recommendations were based on the belief of the commission-no doubt founded upon the evidence and representations made to them-that the figures mentioned were the minimum addition that these provinces would have in any such revision.
The Prime Minister, in his statement of March 18, refused to accept this view, saying:
It is not possible in advance of the deliberations of the conference and of the detailed determination and assessment which the report recognizes is necessary, to accept the view for which no detailed grounds are advanced, that certain sums set forth in the report should be regarded as "the minimum addition that the three maritime provinces should have in any such revision.
The commission recommended that an immediate reduction of twenty per cent on all rates charged on (a) traffic which both originates and terminates at stations in the Atlantic division

including export and import traffic by sea; and (b) the same reduction on the through rates on all traffic which originates at stations in the Atlantic division-excluding import' traffic by sea-which is destined to points outside the Atlantic division.
Under Bill No. 224, which has now passed this House, the recommendations of the commission have been limited to:
A.	-Local traffic.
B.	-Traffic moving outward westbound, all rail; and
C.	-Traffic moving outward, export traffic, rail and sea.
The government has expressly excluded from the operation of the act:
A.	-All rail traffic to and from the United States.
B.	-Inward traffic, eastbound, from points in Canada not on the eastern lines;
C.	-Import traffic to Canada originating at points overseas.
These reservations and exceptions, particularly with reference to all rail traffic to and from the United States, are directly contrary to the recommendations of the Duncan report and	fail to	give relief	to the	fishermen	of the	province of	Nova	Scotia,the	growers	of potatoes	and agricultural	products	in the provinces of	Prince
Edward Island and New Brunswick, and the manufacturers of pulp, paper and lumber in the province of New Brunswick-industries of the greatest magnitude, in which millions of capital are invested and which directly affect the whole population of these two provinces.
With respect to enlarging the scope and powers of the railway commission direct refusal was given to this recommendation.
'Mr. Cantley.]
The Prime Minister stated on March 18th that this recommendation would bring about a radical change in the fundamental powers of the railway commission, affecting the whole of Canada and that it has no immediate bearing on the right's of the maritime provinces any more than other parts of Canada. With respect to that statement we enter our emphatic protest; to argue the matter here would involve lengthy detail of a technical character and we register our position by this affirmation.
As to the horizontal war freight increases, the commission called special attention to this very important feature of the railway situation. We-


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend pardon a question? He keeps using the word, "we." I wonder if he will be kind enough to tell me for whom he is speaking?


Thomas Cantley: For myself.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just alone?


Thomas Cantley: For myself.	The comr
mission called special attention to this very forcibly in regard to the railway situation and stated that the reaction of the burden which it imposes is so great that, in their view, it should be dealt with as a special problem. These horizontal flat percentages result in great hardships to the maritime iron and steel industry, the burden of which it has to meet now, as compared with Ontario plants, being much greater than it was prior to 1016. As to this most serious situation, no action has been taken.
As to the Prince Edward Island car ferry, the commission drew attention to the inadequate car ferry service and pier arrangements, and pointed out that the railway administration admitted there was need for either a second ferry boat or a special freight boat. As yet no action has been taken in this matter.
With regard to port development and maritime trade, the commission stated its belief that:
It is in the public interests of Canada and in the interest of the future growth and expansion of its activities that its Atlantic ports should be developed, just as it has been that its railways and canals should be developed.
This means, if it means anything, the true nationalization of the ports of St. John and Halifax, their equipment and development as national works for the general advantage of Canada in the same manner as the canal system of Canada has been developed and maintained. The creation of haibour boards it St. John and Halifax is accepted as a firet

Maritime Claims-Mr. Cantley
stop in this direction. But may I be permitted to point out that with respect to traffic to these Canadian ports very substantial steps forward will have to be taken by the government, the railways and the railway commission of Canada in order to bring about that which lies nearest to the' hearts of the people of St. John and Halifax, namely, the ultimate utilization of their ports as the Atlantic gateways of Canada.
As to fishing projects, the commission recommended the extension of markets for the fishing industry of the maritime provinces, and in this connection the Prime Minister took occasion to refer to the attitude of his party on the question of reciprocal relations with the United States. May I suggest that if the government seriously contemplate taking up the question of reciprocal trade with the United States or with any other country, it should revise the Canadian tariff in order that they may have some weapon to bargain with, just as Australia, the French republic and other countries have done in the recent past.	.
Now, as to coking plants. The commission recommended that immediate practical steps be taken by the federal authorities in regard to the question of coking plants. Bill No. 233, "an act to encourage the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada" was recently enacted by this parliament. This act, Mr. Speaker, will be of practically no advantage to the Canadian coal industry either in the maritime provinces, Alberta or British Columbia while tariff item No. 1049 remains in effect, which item reads as follows:
When imported after March 24, 1925, by proprietors of by-product recovery coke ovens, and converted into coke at their by-product recovery coke ovens, provided that no drawback shall be paid under this item on coal converted into coke at a gas retort plant or at a plant using any other process than the by-product coke process; also provided that drawback payable under this item is in lieu of drawback payable under any other item.
Officials of the government have been advised as to the governing facts in the case. Further, Bill 233 as enacted is unfair to existing coke oven plants and should be amended so as to apply to any by-product coke oven now existing in Canada, provided the coal used in the operation of such plants-


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is now clearly out of order. He is discussing a measure which passed this House this session after being fully debated.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the intention of the hon. gentleman to discuss Bill No. 233?


Thomas Cantley: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Then he is out of order.


Thomas Cantley: Do you rule that I cannot proceed at all?


Hewitt Bostock: No, but it is not in order to refer to a matter that 'has been decided this session.


Thomas Cantley: .Well, Mr. Speaker, I will let that go. But I may say that the policy of the government reflected in the present customs tariff as to coal and coke is a repudiation of the clearly expressed policy of the Liberal party as expounded by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. I suppose I can say that? Speaking at Amherst, the capital of one of the coal counties of Nova Scotia, namely, Cumberland, on August 5, 1921, before an audience estimated at five or six thousand, the right hon. gentleman repudiated his free trade policy and then announced the policy of his government with respect to coal and the transportation of coal to the markets of the upper provinces. I regret the Prime Minister is not in his seat, because I do not like to criticize any hon. gentleman in his absence. On that occasion the Prime Minister said:
Free trade is not the policy of the Liberal party. If it were I would oppose it because I believe it would bring disaster to our industries and remove from the farmers the home market, which is practically the only market they have left. Free trade may be all right for the wealthy grain growers of the west whose wheat goes to the foreign markets and who do not have to worry about selling their produce at home. But it would mean paralysis in the maritime provinces.
The right hon. gentleman proceeded:
I am a firm believer in the establishment of a national coal policy for Canada. No country, especially a country with cold winters, which depends on a foreign nation for its fuel, can claim to be independent of that nation.
He then announced his policy:
Every pound of coal purchased by the government should be mined by Canadian miners and transported over government railways to the points of consumption. Coal required by other consumers in Canada should be carried at cost.
That was the policy which the right hon. gentleman announced, and upon which he received the solid support of the constituencies of Nova Scotia in 1921. Had the government of the right hon. gentleman put that clearly declared policy as to coal into effect, Nova Scotia to-day, I submit, Mr. Speaker, would be in a quite different industrial and financial position, and Canada's political, economic and financial independence of the United States more fully assured. I submit that the difficulties with regard to the coal trade of Nova Scotia would now

Maritime Claims-Mr. Cantley
have been satisfactorily settled had the right hon. gentleman put that policy into force five years ago.
It is also submitted that the drawback on coal used for coke employed in the steel manufacturing is, in effect, the bonusing of industry to the extent of the rebate of duty, because no compensating advantage is given to Canadian coal so used,*and the production of Canadian coal is very definitely discouraged, whereby the main object of the import duty on coal is frustrated. This rebate constitutes a very serious discrimination against the coal producers of Nova Scotia. The effect of the drawback is also to lower the production costs of companies competing with Nova Scotia steel producers.
In this connection, the commission also stated:
We have thought it right to give consideration to a point which was emphasized in the course of evidence, namely, that a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty is given when imported coal is used for metallurgical purposes, and that this is tantamount to giving a bonus of that amount, since it means that the Dominion is yielding up money which otherwise, under the general policy in regard to bituminous coal, would accrue to it. While there are, no doubt, other angles from which this concession can be regarded, it does in this operation have the effect of a bonus, and it is difficult to say how the same bonus can be denied to native coal. The commission in this connection recommends that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture and that such bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.
The commission further state that calculations show that as a result of the operation of the customs tariff if the labour employed in the production of iron and steel and its raw products is taken as the unit of measure of productive value, the protection afforded Nova Scotia labour under the present tariff is only 28 per cent, whereas elsewhere in Canada the protection to labour is between 85 per cent and 100 per cent and assistance was asked for in respect of the steel industry by way of appropriate tariff adjustments and bounty. They further add that it was submitted that the tendency of the tariff as affected by successive changes had been to lessen the protection upon the primary products of iron and steel and to greatly encourage their importation from other countries.
Having regard to the facts set out in their report, the commission recommended that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.
TMr. Cantley.]
As to this important recommendation, no action has been taken by the government.
As regards customs tariff on steel, it is pointed out by the commission that it was submitted that the tendency of the tariff, as affected by successive alterations, has been to lessen the protection upon primary products of iron and steel, and to encourage the importation of steel as the raw material for the fabricating of agricultural implements, and other manufacturing industries in Canada. In respect to the matter of tariff, the commission state that they do not conceive it to be their duty to express an opinion save to emphasize the need for prompt action. Here we note that the royal commission, in refraining from investigating and recommending remedies as to tariff tendencies and lack of adequate protection in the matter of steel, due to an intimation that the Tariff Advisory Board was considering the matter, in our judgment failed to act up to the full scope of the order in council and the terms of reference, particularly as stressed in the letter of April 17 last addressed to the chairman of the board by the Prime Minister.
Here it may be noted that the Tariff Advisoiy Board was created by P.C. Order April 7, 1926, the same date as that of the order creating the Duncan commission. The duties of the tariff board, as set out in clause 1 of the order in council of April 7, 1926, were as follows:
The duties of the board shall be to inquire into and hear representations on all matters pertaining to the tariff and other forms of taxation, as may be directed by the Minister of Finance, and to advise the minister in regard thereto.
It is apparent that the tariff board could only deal with the matter of steel bounty and duties as and when directed by the Minister of Finance. Parliament has been informed as to the number of cases which the board was asked to investigate, and it was understood that thirteen cases only had been reported upon. But the House has no information as to the findings made in these cases. Both boards were created on the same date, April 7, 1926. The Duncan commission completed their investigation and submitted their report on September 23 last. The case of the steel trade of Nova Scotia was submitted to the Tariff Advisory Board on January 18, 1,927, but so far as the House is aware no report has yet been submitted to the government by that body. At any rate, if such has been made, the findings or recommendations in the case are not within the knowledge of parliament.

Maritime Claims-Mr. Cantley


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: The steel men
have not yet completed the statement of their case to the Tariff Advisory Board.


Thomas Cantley: I am not aware of that.


Edward James Young: It is a fact.


Thomas Cantley: The Prime Minister,
referring to the matter on March 18 last, stated:
Owing to the uncertainty of conditions surrounding the iron and steel industry in the maritimes the government does not feel in a position to make at present any pronouncement as to bounty on steel.
The Prime Minister did not there infer anything of the kind suggested by the hon. member for Weybusn. We now enter our emphatic protest against the attitude of the government in this matter and the reason given by the Prime Minister for the government's inaction.


Mr. RALSTON:: When the hon. gentleman says "we" does he mean "I"?


Thomas Cantley: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: We may take it, then,
that the plural pronoun in every case in which the hon. gentleman uses it, nominative, possessive or objective, is meant to be singular?


Thomas Cantley: I am speaking for myself.
I do not know that it makes' any difference whether I use the singular or the plural.


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. gentleman
speaking for the person who wrote that brief, or for himself?


Thomas Cantley: The person who wrote
the brief and myself are one and the same.


James Layton Ralston: Then "we" is really
singular-it refers only to the hon. gentleman? If that is so, Mr. Speaker, I again urge the point of order already taken. The hon. member is reading from a document in which he is constantly using the plural pronoun, evidently for the reason that he is embarrassed by the necessity for having to depend upon a written statement. I would ask that either he desist from reading, and make his address in the usual way, or, if he persists in reading from the document, that he use the singular pronoun and make the necessary changes in the statement as he has it.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not a point of
order. The only point of order has reference to the hon. member's right to read from a document, and Your Honour, I understand, has ruled on that question. There is no point of order apart from that.


James Layton Ralston: I did not understand the Speaker to give a ruling. I thought the Speaker intimated that through the indulgence of the House the hon. gentleman might read from the document. All I ask is that, if he continues to read from the paper he has in his hands, he transpose the pronouns and use the singular instead of the plural.


Thomas Cantley: I have no hesitation in
declaring that I speak for myself. At the same time I believe I speak for the large majority of the people in the eastern section of Nova Scotia, and whether I use the singular or the plural I take full responsibility for the statements I make.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think that exception may be taken to the pronoun which the hon. member chooses to use. Sometimes personages of high degree use the plural in reference to themselves. Indeed, no document bearing the imprimatur of royalty appears with the singular pronoun. I would point out to the hon. member, however, that he gave the House an undertaking to conclude his remarks in about twenty minutes. He indicated that inasmuch as the question he wished to discuss was of a technical nature he preferred to use a written document, but he promised, with the indulgence of the House, to conclude the statement as briefly as possible. May I suggest that the indulgence of the House will soon be exhausted. I do not want to prevent the hon. member from concluding his remarks, but I would suggest that now and then he depend upon his memory and not refer exclusively to the document.


Thomas Cantley: I do not profess, Mr. Speaker, to be as experienced in debate as the Prime Minister-yet. I point out though that I am only taking advantage of the same privilege which the right hon. gentleman availed himself of when discussing his subject.


Hewitt Bostock: All authors on parliamentary procedure are agreed in the positive statement that only the leaders of the House, on important occasions, may read their statements. With the indulgence of the House a new member may also resort to a document. I take it that the hon. gentleman is a young member.


Thomas Cantley: Thanks for the compliment, Mr. Speaker. Had I not been interrupted I should have completed my remarks by this time. There are several other matters which I should like to refer to, and I shall make a brief reference to them in their order.
2334	COMMONS
Maritime Claims-Mr. Cantley
Now I come to the recommendation as to more active advertising abroad of maritime provinces' attractions and advantages. The Prime Minister, in his statement of March 18, made no allusion or reference to this, beyond saying that the federal authorities would cordially welcome the larger measure of cooperation on the part of the provinces which the commission recognizes as fully desirable and necessary. No specific proposal to give effect to the commission's report in this regard has been brought down by the government, or action contemplated.
With regard to the St. John and Quebec Railway the commission stated-page 41- that in their opinion there was need for further investigation into the question of the alleged promise of the Dominion authorities to take over the railway, or into the grounds upon which the belief is founded, that such a promise was made and that a further opportunity should be given to the province to establish their case, and recommended that the government should, with the concurrence of the province, set up an ad hoc tribunal to inquire into the circumstances surrounding this matter, with power, if justified, to arrange the terms and conditions on which the railway should be taken over by the government. In other words, the commission recommended that this railway matter should be made the subject of a further full and fair investigation on its own merits, disentangled from any other railway problem in the maritimes.
The government does not take this view, but alheres to the view that the whole question of the acquisition of branch lines in New Brunswick and in the traffic area must be considered together. This is not in conformity with the commission's recommendations, and will not give satisfaction either to the government or to the people of the province of New Brunswick, their contention being that the matter is one which should be dealt with on its merits, and on its merits alone, and in accordance with the recommendation of the commission. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, in his statement of March 18, said that the matter would be taken up at the present session of parliament. In view of the imminence of prorogation, it is evident that no legislative action is to be taken for another year, against which I respectfully, but firmly protest.
With regard to the Ivent-Northem railway, the recommendation of the commission was that the present was an appropriate time to reopen negotiations for the purchase of this branch line. So far as any pronouncement
[Mr. Cantley.}
from the government is concerned, it "should appear that this specific recommendation had been disregarded.
The government has given immediate effect to the recommendation that a deputy minister of fisheries be appointed, and in that respect is to be commended. The appointment of an experienced and properly qualified man to the position of deputy minister will be welcomed, but if the position is to be filled by a political appointee without experience and without the necessary qualifications, the benefit of the recommendation will have been largely, if not altogether, lost.
On the question of a new geological survey of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, a definite pledge has been given by the government to carry out this recommendation of the commission, which pledge is welcome, as is also the acceptance of the recommendation that technical education legislation should be given a broad application, and that agricultural education should be deemed to be covered by the term "technical education." The Duncan report is disappointing in that it does not deal more definitely with some of the matters which most vitally affect the maritime situation, notably so as to discrimination in class and commodity freight rates on iron and steel products, coal and coke; also on domestic rates on cattle feed and grain products for human consumption.
Further, since the issue of the Duncan report, it has been discovered that for a number of years there has been in existence a secret rate on foreign import coal and ore of fifty-four cents per gross ton for a distance of 140 miles. This rate is 12.3 per cent of the class to which the traffic belongs, or 3.4 mills per ton mile, and is the lowest rail rate in force in Canada. It will be remembered that in January of last year members of this House asked the government to put in force a. special rate of 3i mills per ton mile, on a small tonnage of coal from h*ova Scotia to Montreal as a temporary relief rate, which request was then refused, and has never been available to Nova Scotia coal.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Did he refer to an import rate on coal?


Thomas Cantley: That is what I am referring to.


Edward Joseph Garland: At what
ports would such coal be landed, lake ports or ocean ports?


Thomas Cantley: Lake ports.

Maritime Claims-Mr. Cantley


Edward Joseph Garland: That would be American coal, then, with a special rate of 54 cents per ton?


Thomas Cantley: Yes.


Edward James Young: Does everyone
enjoy that rate? The hon. member said it was a secret rate.


Thomas Cantley: If my hon. friend will
wait a moment I will give him the information. Were Nova Scotia given the same class rate on the maximum standard mileage basis, the rail rate on coal from Sydney to Montreal would be $2.05 per gross ton of 2,240 pounds instead of the tariff rate of $4.50 per net ton of 2,000 pounds now charged, and Nova would be shipping one to two thousand tons per day to Quebec points and so would be able to provide steady employment for Nova Scotian colliery workers and railway employees. The same thing would apply to the coal operatives of the western territory referred to this morning. The people of the maritime provinces accept in good faith what the government has announced will be done in connection with the various matters on which action has been taken, and will hold the government accountable for the final completion of the whole program.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before my hon. friend
leaves that phase of his speech I wish he would give me some information regarding the secret rate tariff to which he refers. Can he give me the schedule reference number, or when it was approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Thomas Cantley: Yes, I will give it to you later on. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your indulgence, and I want to add in conclusion-


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend please answer my question?


Thomas Cantley: I will give it to you later.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would prefer that it be put on Hansard, because it is a serious thing to say that there is a secret freight rate in existence. Our law does not provide for the existence of secret freight rates; all freight rates must be public. I think my hon. friend should put the full information on Hansard in order that it may be in our possession.


Thomas Cantley: I cannot give you the railway tariff, but I can tell you that the traffic originates at Point Edward in Ontario and is carried from there to Hamilton, Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: And is the rate approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Thomas Cantley: So far as I know the Board of Railway Commissioners did not know anything about it until recently; no one else apparently knew anything about it except the railways and the parties enjoying that rate. It has been in existence for ten or twelve years perhaps rather more; it was originally made with the Grand Trunk Railway and has been continued until the present time. That is my information, and I think it is correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is some illegal proceeding if that is being done, and I would like to get enough information to check it up.


Thomas Cantley: I quite agree with the minister, and I want to tell him further that while the opinion is prevalent in this House and throughout the country that Nova Scotia has enjoyed an exceptional freight rate on the Intercolonial railway, the fact is that Nova Scotia is discriminated against in regard to a score of rates in which the advantage is wholly with points largely west of Montreal as against the interests of the maritime provinces. I have a lot of information here and a mass of detail in my room with which I do not propose to trouble the House at this time, but with which I will deal at some future time, I will give the minister all the information in my possession in regard to that particular import coal and ore rate, because I know he will be interested in it. I give him credit for knowing nothing of what has been done in that regard, and so far as I know no one until recently knew about it except those directly interested. I learned of it a few weeks ago.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all the members of the House and ask that, irrespective of provincial affiliation, they view this question of maritime claims on broad and patriotic grounds. If national unity is to be maintained; if confederation is to endure, if in this great country we are to remain undivided it can only be by the exercise of mutual forbearance, mutual goodwill and mutual fair treatment as between all the provinces of this Dominion. Such sympathetic understanding, such goodwill, such equal justice and fair treatment, we of the maritimes now ask of all our fellow Canadians as represented by the members of this parliament here assembled.


Hon. G. B. JONES (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I think it neces-

Maritime Claims-Mr. Jones
sary to make a brief statement with regard to the Duncan commission. It is my belief that" the report of this commission has not been implemented to a very large degree. At the present time I am going to speak about one of the largest industries, the lumbering and wood products industry, of our province. The legislation so far brought down has not afforded any relief to this industry. I wish to read a telegram which I received, copies of which were sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Postmaster General and myself. This telegram, which is dated St. John, April 5, 1927, reads:
New Brunswick Lumbermen's Association strongly protests against reduction to United States points being left out of Maritime Freight Rates bill. Lumber and wood products are the principal industry in this province and it was a realization of the importance of this industry to these provinces that prompted recommendations for modifications respecting international freight rates in Duncan commission report. Further united protest will be made if lumber and wood products are not given full benefit of recommendations made by Duncan commission.
New Brunswick Lumbermen's Association,
W. E. Andekson,
Secretary.
The lumber and wood products industry constitutes more than 36 per cent of the entire trade of our province. The lumbermen's association appeared 'before the Duncan commission and made their recommendation, and that is why the commission reported in favour of this reduction of 20 per cent in the freight rates.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is again discussing a matter which has been debated and passed upon this session by this House in the form of the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


George Burpee Jones: The bill which has passed
this House is now before the Senate and there is no relief for the lumber industry of our province.


Hewitt Bostock: I may say t'o the minister that the old principle applies-grievances before supply.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand the Speaker to rule that on a motion to go into supply a debate can be revived on any bill that has passed this House this session?


Hewitt Bostock: There is nothing to prevent' an hon. member from speaking on a question which is a dominant question to-day in the Dominion parliament. Even though the government has legislated on the basis of the Duncan report, this can not prevent the 
hon. member from expressing his grievance that some other matters dealt with in the report have not been adjusted.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member is debating a specific measure which has been enacted under the form of the Maritime Freight Rates Act and a matter which is expressly dealt with in the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not find in the
speech of the hon. member anything which I could prevent him from expressing at this stage of the session. I think the hon. member spoke about one particular article, namely lumber.


George Burpee Jones: I was saying that we had
not received any benefit in connection with the recommendations made in the report of the Duncan commission.
I would like to refer briefly to the subsidy and particularly to the statement made by the Prime Minister when, in dealing with the subsidy question, he said that it was his intention to implement the report of the Duncan commission in the way of subsidies for this session only, but that the whole matter would be reviewed at the conference of provincial premiers which will take place this summer. That statement is all right providing that they carry out the recommendation of the Duncan commission that the minimum subsidies be $600,000 to New Brunswick; $875,000 to Nova Scotia; and $125,000 to Prince Edward Island.
4 Another matter to which I wish to refer is the Valley railway or the St. John and Quebec railway. The Duncan commission said' that it was impossible for them to deal with that part of their work and they recommended that the government appoint a commission to make further investigations. I only hope that the government will carry out that part of the commission's report; that they will appoint a commission, and let us prove our claim that there was a distinct understanding that the St. John and Quebec railway was to be taken over, but that on account of conditions during the Great war that was found impossible.


Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: I will take only two or three minutes of the time of the House in presenting to it the sentiment prevailing amongst all the maritime members with the exception of perhaps three. The great majority of them endorse this statement. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) could not see his way clear to fall in line with the rest of us, but he has presented his case and not ours to

Maritime Claims-Mr. Black (Halifax)
this House. Most of the hon. members on this side of the House from the maritime provinces feel it desirable before the close of the session to make a brief statement as to their position regarding * the action of the government in implementing some of the recommendations contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims. We are not disposed to minimize in any way the benefits that might accrue to the maritime provinces from the legislation that the government has introduced in connection with those recommendations, and we beg to express our appreciation of what has been done.
Further, we are not disposed to be unreasonable in insisting on immediate fulfilment of all the recommendations contained in the said report as we realize that some matters intimately affecting maritime claims are now before the Board of Railway Commissioners, and others before the Tariff Advisory Board, and we are prepared to wait a reasonable time for the findings of both these bodies, and the government's action thereon before expressing any approval or disapproval. It must be noted that there is a number of matters of very vital importance to the maritime provinces that have yet to be dealt with, and we hope that when these are ripe for decision, the government's action will be such as to justify the Prime Minister's somewhat premature declaration that all the recommendations have been virtually met. Among the matters yet to be dealt with we may mention such important matters as:
1.	The restoration to Canadian ports of Canadian trade now passing through foreign ports.
2.	The acquisition of certain railway lines in the maritime provinces.
3.	The question of affording adequate protection to the steel and coal industry.
4.	Additional ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and the improvement in the railway and transportation service on the Island.
5.	The enlargement of the scope and power of the railway commission.
6.	Further consideration of the question of reduced freight rates, either by agreement or otherwise, to points not now covered by the present legislation.
7.	Further attention to the great fishing industry of the maritime provinces, including curing, storage and transportation facilities to central markets.
In conclusion we beg to express our great satisfaction that the report of the royal commission has been such as to completely vindicate the stand taken by the maritime members at the last session of parliament. We cordially appreciate the attitude taken by hon. members of this House from the various provinces in their reception of the said report, and we close by expressing the hope that when all the recommendations are fully implemented, that the obvious handicaps under which our provinces have been labouring will be removed, and these provinces will share in the general prosperity of Canada, and enjoy to some extent the happiness that is their due.
I may add to what I have said that the .great majority of us dissociate ourselves from what the hon. member for Pictou at this present time has placed 'before this House.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion which
has just arisen necessitates a clear statement of my position on the important matter of maritime claims, especially as I cannot agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). He has read a carefully prepared statement, but I think that the time is inopportune and the occasion does not call for much that was said.
I fully agree with the statement just made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) which represents the opinion of many of the maritime Conservatives.
So far as my own position is concerned, let me say that I adopted the attitude of supporting the government in its implementing of the recommendations of the Duncan report.
I have consistently done so, and I shall continue to do so until I find reason to adopt another course. My view is that the government has placed the maritime claims-and mark you, the maritime claims is a broader question than the Duncan report-in the hands of three different organizations: the Duncan royal commission, the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the Advisory Tariff Board. We have heard from the Duncan commission. Certain of their recommendations have been implemented; others have not as yet been implemented. The railway commission have n-ot yet reported on their portion of the inquiry into maritime claims, and let me remind the House that their inquiry was with reference to the extent to which Canadian trade which now passes through American ports could be recovered and directed through Canadian ports. That is a very big question, and the report of the railway commission upon it has not yet reached the government. It is true also, I believe, of the Advisory Tariff Board inquiry with reference to coal and stehl. That being
2338	COMMONS
Maritime Claims-Mr. MacLaren
the case, how can anyone come to a final judgment on how far and how completely the government will implement the maritime claims? They have gone a certain distance this session, and under all the circumstances I think a considerable distance.
As our statement says, we must be reasonable; we must give the government a reasonable time to complete its action. There are such questions, for instance, as the disposal of the maritime railways, the action to be taken regarding the recovery of our trade from American ports to our own ports, and the question of steel and coal, and other matters. A solution of all these questions can hardly be looked for, I submit, at this session of parliament. But we have them in mind, and we expect action to be taken on all these questions, but I maintain that the fair thing to do is to let our position be made plain, that we are willing to allow the government a reasonable time to implement their promises. We expect them to take action on all these matters, but in the meantime I propose to adopt what I believe is the proper attitude towards the government, and give them a reasonable opportunity of satisfying maritime claims.


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: I want to say that I cannot at this time associate myself with the protest which has been uttered by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), nor will I associate myself with protests made by any other member on this side of the House at this time in connection with the government's attitude on maritime claims. I realize that all the recommendations of the Duncan report have not been implemented by the government at this session, but my attitude is that as the Prime Minister has not closed the door with respect to the matters not dealt with, I am willing to give the government a fair chance to implement the complete Duncan report later, and I believe that most people of the maritimes are of this opinion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Agriculture-live stock, including grants to exhibitions, feeder shows, etc., $1,280,000.
William Richard Motherwell: As some hon. members would
like to leave before this evening, I think I will take the three major votes first, Nos. 44, 45 and possibly 46. The item No. 44 has been under discussion intermittently all session, and I presume something will be said with regard

to it. This vote includes grants for exhibitions, which account for nearly $300,000, leaving a little less than $1,000,000 for live stock.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: What exhibitions are benefitting by this grant?


William Richard Motherwell: This vote covers
both summer and winter 'fairs throughout Canada. A certain number of summer fairs are allocated to each province. Starting on the Pacific, the four western provinces have two summer fairs allotted to them, for which they receive $5,000 each. The two older provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have three summer fairs allotted to them and they receive the same amount. The three maritime provinces are each allotted one fair, and they receive the same grant. I think that lonstituites about seventeen of what we call 'A" fairs, all capable of drawing as high as $5,000 each. Then there are about twenty-one "B" fairs, a grade lower than the others. They are not allocated according to provinces and seem to have no particular plans in connection with their establishment-no particular getting-on place or no particular getting-off place. These get a flat rate of $1,500 each. In addition to that there are about eleven or twelve winter fairs extending from Amherst on the east to Vancouver on the west, including Ottawa, Toronto, Chatham and London, in Ontario, and Valleyfield, Three Rivers and Ste. Scholastique in Quebec, Amherst representing the three maritime provinces. In the four western provinces, Manitoba has one, Saskatchewan and Alberta have two each, and British Columbia one.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister give us his opinion as to how a grant to one of these big fairs is any encouragement to the live stock industry?


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend mean the larger fairs, the "A" fairs, Toronto or Ottawa, or any of them?


George Gibson Coote: I am referring to class " A " fairs. Is the grant made direct to the society?


William Richard Motherwell: Direct to the association. It is generally understood that where live stock growers assemble their products in competition with each other it always stimulates a desire for better and greater production, and it is a means of advertising, without which the stock men usually would be out of luck. As a matter of fact it usually costs the stock man about as much to pay his way to the fair as the prizes amount to. Then they have the advertising, which means that there is a balance coming to them. The

Supply-Agriculture
people get to know about their class of stock, and a friendly competition is usually such a stimulant that it develops stock raising to a great extent. This applies to all the exhibitions whether large or small. The most primitive or youngest exhibition in a little village of two or three hundred inhabitants, representing a large rural district, will perform in a small measure the same object for the people locally. But it is not so notieable because they are not quite in the same class as the breeders of pure bred live stock.


George Gibson Coote: Why do you not spend the grant by giving prizes for live stock?


William Richard Motherwell: The major portion of these grants, in fact all of them, were given on the basis of the live stock exhibit. That is specified. My hon. friend knows that it was a perambulating exhibition from one province to another. It never went to Prince Edward Island, but they got a special grant instead. Just before the war this perambulating Dominion fair was held at Victoria. Subsequently it was divided into interpro-vinoial fairs, these developed into "A" and "B" fairs, and these again into winter fairs. I have been endeavouring for some time to find a getting-off place so as to withdraw from this expenditure.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity of speaking to the minister not long ago on the subject of cooperative marketing, and I was pleased to find that he shared my enthusiasm. I call cooperative marketing the business end of farming. I believe if we had to choose between this form of marketing and fairs we would favour the former as conferring the greater advantage on farmers. In the Department of Agriculture, and perhaps in the Department of Trade and Commerce, there should be officials who are specialists in this subject, for it is no easy matter for a number of farmers to take up cooperative marketing. The average farmer may not know exactly what to produce, and what he does produce he sometimes finds difficulty in disposing of at remunerative prices. This is where the cooperative marketing specialist will be useful. I hope the minister will take steps along the lines I have suggested. I believe that if such an official explained to farmers in different parts of the country the practical advantages of up-to-date cooperative marketing it would add very materially to their welfare.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman,
cooperative marketing has taken a decided grip not only of the people of Canada but of
the whole continent. I think nothing gave such a stimulus to cooperative marketing as the difficulties which faced our farmers after the war. Twenty years ago it became an objective on the prairies, where we were having very hard times, and we adopted it as a measure of necessity. The great wheat pools on the prairies are farmers' organizations, and to-day they are conducted without any governmental aid. This applies also to Ontario. But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the time is ripe for the federal authority to become active. I have taken the ground recently that we might very well drop off some of our provincial activities and turn our attention to cooperative marketing. As a matter of fact, while we have not a distinct branch devoted to this work, we have been engaged in these activities for some time and have encouraged the cooperative marketing of poultry, eggs, sheep and swine. As soon as I knew the nature of the Duncan fruit report of two years ago I took the responsibility of calling the fruit men from all over the Dominion to a conference in this city. We paid their expenses and discussed with them the best methods of national salesmanship in view of the selling methods that the Duncan report had condemned. If my hon. friend has a first-class man available for this work of cooperative marketing I am in the field for one if I can get him past the Civil Service Commission.


Murray MacLaren: Are you referring to me?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. There is another limitation. I have branches of my department in about eighteen buildings scattered throughout the city and across in Hull as well as on the experimental farm, and I rather dread the thought of establishing one more branch in one more building. We have this year in the estimates half a million dollars for a departmental building. The hon. member for St. John-Albert and all others who believe in cooperative marketing will facilitate the establishment of a branch devoted to the subject if they will help me secure a wing of this prospective building so I may have my staff within immediate call to confer on any particular question. Until that time arrives I hesitate to appoint any more branch heads.


George Gibson Coote: I suggest to the minister that he might hasten the time when he will have completed the new office of the Department of Agriculture. By eliminating grants to class " A " fairs he would have a good deal of money to secure the building he needs and he would use the rest of the grant to maintain a bureau of cooperative marketing. Such a
Supply-Agriculture

bureau was established in the United States two years ago and I remember seeing in the Congressional Record the statement that they had appropriated $200,000 per annum as a start. The minister might very well reduce the vote of $200,000 to these big fairs, or cut it out and use the money for the creation of a bureau of cooperative marketing. It may be that the grant to these fairs does some good, but I believe the fairs would run just the same whether they got the grant or not. The minister since coming into office has adopted the policy of cutting down the grants particularly to the small fairs, and if the small fairs can get along without this assistance the larger ones surely ought to be able to do so. The larger fairs are held in places where there is a large population. The gate receipts are good and the fairs can carry on without a grant. I labour this point now because I think it would be of much more assistance to the live stock industry if the minister were to establish a bureau of cooperative marketing such as I suggest, than continuing grants to fairs. I want to compliment the minister for the sympathy he has shown towards cooperative marketing, as evidenced in the live stock bill brought down the other day. He tried to meet the wishes of the cooperators in that regard and I wish to thank him for what he has done. I hope however he will go further and set up a bureau of cooperative marketing and, instead of asking for more money from parliament, take from the grants to the class " A " fairs whatever he needs for the purpose. The minister might tell us what is done with the million dollars that are voted for live stock. The farmers are anxious to know to what use the money is put. The minister proposes to cut off the money he has been spending in furnishing pure bred sires to cattlemen. He has been cutting down the grants to the smaller fairs and still he is asking for the same amount he has been voted before. What use is made of the grant under live stock?


William Richard Motherwell: I have been trying to eliminate the votes to fairs and I hope to have in my hon. friend a champion in this regard.


George Gibson Coote: You will so far as the class " A " fairs are concerned, anyway.


William Richard Motherwell: The live stock vote is divided as follows: For the horse division there is $149,000. My hon. friend is familiar with the horse club policy inaugurated in 1913 or 1914 throughout Canada. That policy, I think, has done a lot of good. I do not know how long it will be continued but I

may observe that there has been no agitation for its abolition. To the cattle division there is devoted $260,000. There has been some discussion in the House off and on with regard to some alteration in policy in that direction, but the vote has not been reduced inasmuch as we have 1,400 bulls throughout Canada at the present time, and the cost of upkeep is considerable. The cost of service therefore, during the next couple of years, will be practically what it has been all along. For sheep and swine we are asking $230,000, and very much the same form of assistance is given in this regard. It has been a question with me-and I frankly admit it-how far we should go in promoting poultry, sheep and swine production in the various provinces. I have had a strenuous time, as my hon. friend realizes, endeavouring to get the provinces to take over some of the work in this field, but there is still a good deal left to be done in the maritime provinces. We have felt rather sympathetic towards them. No one loved them, and I wanted to let them know that at any rate the Department of Agriculture did. But we have been engaging in activities that are decidedly provincial and I think we shall continue for some time yet to do so. When we have had so much difficulty in weaning the rest of Canada from some of these services hon. gentlemen will realize what a whale of a time we shall have in the maritime provinces. I do not want to make life miserable for myself by eliminating too many of these activities all at once. It is all good work and whoever initiated it deserves our commendation. For the administration of the various stockyards, of which there are eight or ten in Canada, we are spending $50,000, and for exhibitions and judges the amount allotted is $200,000. The latter is exclusive of the winter fair at Toronto, which receives $35,000 per annum. We do not set up exhibits in regular places, but at the semi-provincial fairs and the smaller fairs throughout the country we do so whenever requested. They are anxious in some of these places to have the experimental farm set up an exhibit because it helps to advertise the products of Canada while at the same time it makes for the success of the exhibition. The national live stock movement, as the committee understands, embraces a vast number of live stock associations. The organization comprises live stock institutes from horses down to foxes, with pedigrees that are recorded in the National Live Stock Association. Mr. Brant has charge of this section.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. KENNEDY:: How nearly do the fees
in connection with live stock pay for the work?


William Richard Motherwell: This is a straight grant. The officer referred to is not in the department. The money helps the association to carry on its work.


Mr. McMILLAN:: What is the amount of the grant?


William Richard Motherwell: $27,000.


Mr. SPENCER:: With regard to the cost
of the administration of stock yards, the $50,000 is rather high, is it not?


William Richard Motherwell: There are several
yards-two in Saskatchewan, two in Alberta, one in Manitoba, one in Toronto and one in Montreal. We have to keep a staff of at least three, and of course the cost in connection therewith comes out of the amount. For printing and stationery the amount asked is $43,000; general, $15,000; and advertising $25,000. We have not done very much in the matter of advertising for the reason that the vote would not permit anything extensive. The total of the amounts thus expended is $1,280,000.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The minister said his
department loved the maritime provinces. How is it that while agriculture is recognized to be the best industry in that part of Canada the Duncan report contains no recommendation in its behalf?


William Richard Motherwell: I fancy Sir Andrew Duncan thought I was doing all that was good for them at the present time.


George Gibson Coote: Does the grading of live
stock come under this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: How much is used for
grading?


William Richard Motherwell: There is only one
class of live stock in the world graded on the hoof, and that is hogs. Sheep and swine together take up $230,000, and for grading purposes we have a staff of twenty-two, established three years ago. I will give, later on, information in that regard.


Thomas McMillan: Is there any change in
the grading system?


William Richard Motherwell: There wa3 very
nearly a pronounced change about a month ago, but I took the responsibility for calling a conference of those who constituted the original gathering in the fall of 1921 which 32649-148
met to formulate a policy in connection with the building up of a better bacon trade in Canada based on a sound bacon hog. That conference was held in 1921 and at it there were representatives of the departments of agriculture of the nine provinces. I do not know whether all the departments were represented, but at any rate they were invited. Invitations were extended also to the railway companies, the swine breeders' associations and the live stock unions. Since that time two or three organizations have come into existence, and they of course will add to the representation at the forthcoming conference. The conference is to be held towards the close of next week to ascertain the next step to be taken in the matter of developing the bacon trade of Canada in the light of present conditions.


Thomas McMillan: It is to be held in
Ottawa?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, the packers
have taken the ground that they cannot afford to pay the 10 per cent premium. They have been losing money, they claim, on that account and also because of changed conditions in Europe, but I persuaded them not to depart from the undertaking of 1921, at least until all those who had entered into that arrangement had had an opportunity of talking the matter over.


Mr. CAYLEY:: What advertising is being
done now?


William Richard Motherwell: In the year just
passed we spent about $10,000 in advertising in the farm papers, and occasionally in others. We have done some advertising also in the old country papers.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I do not agree with my
hon. friend (Mr. Coote) in his proposal to wipe out the grants ,to fairs. I have been brought up, I might almost say, in the live stock industry in Canada, and having observed the development of these exhibitions I know what work they have done towards the improvement of our cattle business. I do not think we have yet reached the point where we can afford seriously to cramp the work of these exhibitions. At the same time I fully realize the importance of assisting cooperative marketing wherever we possibly can, because I am a firm believer in the fact that the farmer is certainly entitled to whatever he earns, whether through live stock or the cultivation of the soil. I want to see the farmer assisted in every possible way, not only through cooperative marketing but through every other means that will bring to

2342	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture
him the greatest return for what he is doing. I would like to see the cost of shipping his exportable products to tide-water reduced to the lowest possible figure as well.
Now I propose to take up a few minutes of the time of the House in looking over the cattle situation as it is to-day and as it affects the live stock producer of Canada. We in Canada have three markets, the British market, the United States market and our home market; we export about 15 per cent of all the beef cattle produced in this country, which means that we must consume about * 85 per cent of our production at home. The British market has been a great help to us, since it has created a competitive market for our products and has a stiffening effect upon our prices at home. This market was good from the removal of the embargo until 1926, increasing each year until that period, when it fell off to some extent. Our exports to the British market in 1925 were 110,000 head, but in 1926 this number was reduced to some 70,000, which is explained by several causes. First there was a severe coal strike, which reduced their consuming power; foot and mouth disease was also rife in the country, making it dangerous to handle cattle. There was a depression of business as a result of the strike and also a meat war in the Argentine between British and American packing interests, with the result that a vast amount of cheap Argentine beef was thrown on the market. This all had its effect on the British market and accounted for the falling off in our exports during 1926. However, I think prospects are better for the future, remembering that the freight rate has now been reduced to $15 per head, and that in addition there is a general improvement in the mother country. I had the pleasure the other day of meeting a gentleman just returned from the old country, a man in business on the Pacific coast, and I was very glad to hear from him that a feeling of optimism was being developed in England that the Britishers are gradually regaining those markets which they lost some time ago, and that they expect better business in the near future. This should assist to a great extent in providing a better market for our Canadian beef producers.
The market in the United States, of course, is one with which wTe would naturally fall in line if it were not for the barrier raised against us. In 1920 I think we reached the peak of our exportation to the United States, when we shipped something like 520,000 head of cattle. The emergency tariff came into effect m 1921, followed by the Fordney tariff
fMr. Tolmie.]
of 1926, with the result that our shipments to the United States have been very much reduced. Last year we exported to that country only 90,000 head of cattle, and the year before we exported about 85,000 head.


Thomas McMillan: I think the figure is
290,000 head.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Exported to the United
States last year?


Thomas McMillan: Yes, for the year ending March 31, 1926.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No. In 1925 we exported
to the United States 86,748 head, and in 1926. 90,000; those are the figures I have. That United States market takes about 65 per cent of our feeder cattle, that is, cattle which are taken to the corn belt and fattened up foi the market at a later time of the year, and I think we can be proud of the fact that on the ranges of western Canada we produce a very high type of feeder, perhaps as good as can be produced in the world. The market in the United States would be very suitable to us on account of its close proximity, but because of the tariff we are not able to take advantage of it to the extent we would wish.
Perhaps a brief glance at the cattle situation in the United States may be of interest. The cattle population of the United States before the war was about 58,000,000 head, in 1921 this had risen to 67,184,000 head, and in 1922 to 67,264,000, while in 1926 the figure receded again to about 58,000,000. In 1914 the human population of the United States was 97,927 516; in 1925 that had risen to 115,378,094, oi an increase of 9 per cent in eleven years. The beef consumption per capita in the United States is 61.1 pounds, and in Canada 74.9 pounds. The marketing of cattle in the United States has not shown any increase from 1919 to 1925; in fact there has been something of a falling off. In 1919 the cattle marketed amounted to 24,623,000, while in 1925 that figure had fallen to 24,067,000. About 40 per cent of that includes dairy cattle, stockers, feeders, and calves, and so we must deduct that from the other leaving about 14,978,920 head of cattle in the United States for slaughter purposes. Those cattle average about 506.16 pounds per carcass, so that the total beef production of the United States is about 7,581,730,147 pounds. The yearly consumption amounts to 7,049,601,543 pounds, so that there is a surplus of 532,128,604 pounds that must find a market somewhere oustide of the United States, or enough to support S,-723,255 of an increased population in that country. The average annual increase in popu-

Supply-Agriculture
lation is 1,586,416, so that unless the United States is able to secure new sources of supply of cattle, the gradual increase in population should get rid of that surplus in a period of about six years, and then the United States would cease to be an exporting country in regard to beef cattle. I do not say it is impossible for them to increase their production of beef, but no doubt that beef will be produced at a higher cost, because in the United States the ranching country where cheap beef is produced was about gone some time ago.
I do not think the 90,000 head of cattle that we sent to the United States last year seriously interferes with the market in that country because it is so small in proportion to the large volume of beef that is handled. As an indication that this might be true, let me say that the secretary of agriculture in his report of 1925 refers to the splendid, beneficial effects of the tariff as affecting dairy produce, fruit, wheat, sheep, flax, sugar beet and sugar cane, but he makes no reference whatever to its advantage in connection with the beef industry.
We come now to our home market, the most important one of all as I pointed out a while ago, using about 85 per cent of our products. In 1926 about a million head of cattle went through our live stock yards. Probably half a million more are slaughtered in country places, on farms and so forth. We find however that a tremendous raft of scrubs go through our live stock yards; more than 50 per cent of the animals passing through our yards are graded as common and look as though they were raised in some cases for speed and trained a little fine at that. There is a difference of about $30 a head between grades good and common, showing what a tremendous loss our farmers are suffering as a result of, first, losing in the weight of the animal and, second, on account of its poor quality having the price lowered again. Less than six per cent of our cattle as they pass through our yards are of sufficiently good quality to compete with the 2,000,000 Argentine cattle that are exported every year. Only about 10 or 15 per cent of our cattle going through our yards are of sufficiently high quality to obtain the highest average price. Therefore this is a clean-cut indication that 85 per cent of our cattle are badly in need of improvement not only in breeding but in more liberal feeding.


Peter McGibbon: How do our cattle compare in Great Britain with cattle from the Argentine?
32649-I4SJ


Simon Fraser Tolmie: As regards the quality of
Argentine cattle, I never before saw such uniform beef as I saw in the Smithfield market from the Argentine. The beef that the British market has taken from the Argentine is on the average considerably ahead of ours.
What do we find in regard to our beef as it goes on the market? Consumers in Canada have very little knowledge regarding the quality of meat. We eat more beef than we do of all other meats in Canada and we would eat a great deal more if we were only sure of the quality. We find that in Canada we buy tender steaks instead of tasty steaks. That is why we find on many of our tables what I call a two-way steak, probably secured from an animal that is poor, a steak that is taken from a tenderloin. I call it a twoway steak because in addition to being tender it is also tasteless. The cheaper cuts are usually bought by the working people, and in this regard again no knowledge is shown of the improved quality between beef from the finished animal and beef from one of the poorer kind. We find too that much of our beef going on the market is tough and unpalatable, and after living around our boarding houses in this country for a number of years since I entered politics about ten years ago, I have come to the conclusion that we in Canada are a tough, strong-jawed people. What does this cheap trash do? It takes up the goodly part of the market that would be supplied by the better quality. The man who buys, let us say, a roast for his Sunday dinner, finds that roast is of poor quality, and the result is that he simply gives up the eating of beef for a week or ten days and buys mutton or pork or chicken. Herbivorous people became numerous during the war and immediately after; a campaign was started to encourage the eating of more salads and fruits, and this was carried to such an extent that it reduced the consumption of beef by some millions of pounds on this continent. In fact some of these people pushed the matter so far that they became almost wholly herbivorous and would have become cud-chewers in another generation or two. This might have reached the stage where they would have simply turned their families out on the lawn in the summertime and they would rustle for themselves.
What are we going to do to meet the situation? I was much interested in the Live Stock Act which was brought up the other day for amendment in which there was a proposal for beef grading. This would be of great advantage; but we must carry on a campaign of education and teach our consumers to buy the better cuts, so that w*
Supply-Agriculture

may in that way bring back the higher prices to the man who takes the trouble and goes to the expense of producing an animal of high quality. The great difficulty is this, that while the United States. Canada and some other countries are much interested in beef grading, they have not yet evolved a plan that will protect the consumer. Under ordinary conditions a man might buy a second class or No. 2 cow, cut her up into steaks, and I would defy anybody buying those steaks, in many cases to tell the difference between them and a steak from a No. 1 steer. The result is that there must be some means of educating the people and of clearly designating the difference between No. 1 and No. 2 beef.
That is the problem which is being faced in the United States now where they have several committees created which are being backed up with a good deal of money. These committees are carrying on a careful investigation, and in a year or two we shall be in a good position to benefit from what they have learned and to avoid the mistakes which they are bound to make in their experiments. I sincerely hope some plan will be evolved to mark permanently that beef as No. 1 quality so that the marks will be found in the steaks and roasts as they are cut off.
It is estimated that our farmers, on account of the production of poor beef, are losing at least $10,000,000 a year on their animals as they market them. I pointed out a few minutes ago that the average weight of a carcass m the United States is about 506 pounds. I remember very well going through an abattoir in Toronto a few years ago where they were putting about 700 head) of cattle across the floor on that particular day. I was astounded to find that those carcasses weighed from about 275 to 320 pounds, indicating that they were cheap, common trash. I do not say that all1 our cattle are like that, but what I saw on that particular day impressed me most forcibly with the importance of improving the quality of our cattle. That indicates, too, hat this problem is largely in the hands of the producer, and that he must cooperate with the government in the improvement of our beef.
I have shown the great importance of the quality of our live stock. It must be remembered that we have no less than $7,000,000,000 invested in this great industry of agriculture in Canada, and if we can bring about even a small proportion of improvement in that industry, you can readily see what a great benefit that would be to the general business of the country. Under these conditions it is most surprising to me that our Minister of Agriculture and the government

have seen fit to cancel the pure-bred sire policy which was introduced in this country a few years ago, in 1913, by the Hon. Mr. Burrell, then Minister of Agriculture. That policy has rendered a most excellent service to those people who are settled in the newer parts of the country, settlers, say, in northern Ontario, in New Brunswick, or in the northern part of British Columbia, men who under ordinary circumstances would never have enough money in five years to buy a purebred sire. It was in these districts that we formed little clubs, of five or ten farmers, and sent to them a pure-bred sire. We would loan it to them for so many years, would take it to the station, pay the freight on it, and all they had to do was to take him home and give him enough to eat. After a period of five years we would find, in the first place, that the cattle in that district were very much improved, and in the second place, those ten farmers would have been educated as to the great value of the use of pure-bred stock. So the policy was rendering a splendid service to the country, and I was very much surprised to find that this year the Minister of Agriculture is proposing to eliminate entirely that policy which has been of such benefit to the cattle men of the country. I know that he is a man of high intelligence, a gentleman with a good knowledge of the live stock business, and that he appreciates the value of this policy, and why he should be eliminating it I cannot quite understand. Perhaps he has had some of the experience I had during the time I had the honour of occupying that position, when I found the greatest possible difficulty in trying to drive into the heads of the lawyers and the other men who made up the remainder of the cabinet the value of agriculture in Canada. It is strange, too, that just at this moment when the minister is proposing to eliminate this pure-bred sire policy in Canada, our friends in Ireland, our greatest competitors in the British market so far as cattle is concerned, are introducing that very policy and are going to put it into general effect.
There is another point I cannot quite understand. We will all recognize the fact that the winter fairs in this country were created for the purpose of improving the commercial live stock of the country. I remember very well when the Royal Winter Fair was started at Toronto. As minister, I had the pleasure and the honour of assisting in establishing that fair, and Toronto was selected as the most suitable place to hold the fair because it is one of the best exhibition cities in the world. The Canadian National Exhibition

Supply-Agriculture
has rendered a splendid service to this country in training our people to like exhibitions, and the result is that when an exhibition is staged in Toronto it is largely patronized by the people of that great city. The object of that winter fair, I remember very well, was to improve the quality of the commercial live stock, because we had watched the splendid results attained at the great International Live Stock Show in Chicago. Clearly that was the object in establishing the Royal Winter Fair. Now during this very session when the minister is proposing to eliminate the pure-bred sire policy, something like $35,000 a year is being offered to the Royal Winter Fair for a period of twenty years. This is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, and in this case Peter needs the money worse than Paul does.
Before taking my seat, I want to say a word about the World's Poultry Congress which is to be held in 'the city of Ottawa during the coming summer. This congress is one of very great importance. It is a world show, and it is being held on this continent for the first time. There will be representatives here from all over the world, and I sincerely trust that 'the congress will receive the patronage of the Canadian people. The government, I understand, has dealt liberally with it, and a very excellent show should be staged. Let me point this out: We shall have here on that ocoasion representatives from all over the world interested in poultry and, no doubt, in every class of live stock, and I hope that an effort will be made to have these delegates travel clear across this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, going by one route and returning by another, so that they will have an opportunity of seeing what a wonderful country this is and what great opportunities it offers for settlement. Some people think that chickens do not amount to very much. I would1 just like to point out what one little three-pound hen has done for the province of British Columbia. This was a hen bred at the University of British Columbia, and entered at the egg-laying contest at Agassiz farm last year, the Dominion farm, so she was under Dominion supervision. This hen produced in 365 days 351 eggs. Hon. gentlemen will realize what a wonderful record that was when I say that the average biddy in Canada produces only 86 eggs per year. They have refused over $1,000 cash for this hen. Her stock is already booked for sale in 1927 to the amount of $1,275, and they have other inquiries pending to the amount of $1,000 more. It required two stenographers to answer the
correspondence with regard to this particular hen for some length of time after this record was made and had had time to reach out to different parts of the world. Inquiries came from Africa, from all parts of Europe, Asia, the United States and other parts of the world. Now if that one hen has done so much to advertise the province of British Columbia, hon. gentlemen can get some idea of what this wonderful poultry congress can do for Canada if only it is handled right.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Would the
minister tell the committee what the annual grant for the Maritime Winter Fair and Live Stock Show held at Amherst, Nova Scotia, amounts to, that is, what amount is to be allotted this year, and also the amount' allotted last year? The reason I ask this question is that last year there was a provincial exhibition held at Amherst as well as the Maritime Winter Fair and Live Stock Show, and I would like to know if the minister would feel inclined to grant the same amount this year to the Winter Fair and Live Stock Show as was granted to the two exhibitions last year, as this year I am told only one show is to be held; they are not having the provincial exhibition.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend, I
presume, knows the story of the Amherst fair, of how they struggled along for some time with old and inadequate buildings. Inasmuch as it is the only winter fair, I think, in *the maritimes, it was felt that it was really a rallying point for the live stock industry of the three maritime provinces, and consequently we are giving them a special grant. These grants, of course, are very dangerous things to start, because you never know where you are going to get off at, but, and this is in line with the remarks I made a few moments ago, we did not know what was going to be done in connection with the Duncan report', and so we adopted a policy of reasonable generosity towards the maritimes so far as my department is concerned, and here is one of the evidences of it. This winter fair at Amherst is getting $7,000 a year; there is no specified period during which the grant will be continued, but that is $2,000 more than the ordinary grant given to the regular summer fair.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I am glad indeed to know that the minister is giving special consideration to this important show. I may say that it has been in operation for twenty-seven years, except for a period during the war, and it certainly has made great strides in the standardization and scientific breeding and raising of fat cattle for commercial purposes in the maritime provinces. The attitude of
Supply-Agriculture

the government in increasing the amount for the maritime winter fair will, I can assure the minister, be deeply appreciated.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought, from
memory, it was $7,000. My deputy tells me it is $8,000-one better. But there is something else that we must bear in mind. Before the war Halifax had a provincial exhibition, and if they ever come back with proper buildings-and I understand they have been living in expectation of that for the last five or six years-then we will have to consider the question as to which of these two will have the federal grant for Nova Scotia. We may be able to come to some arrangement between them whereby the fair will be alternated, the same as it is between St. John and Fredericton, but as the matter stands at present, only one fair goes to the maritime provinces and sometimes there are two equal claimants. However, it is quite possible that when Halifax comes back to her former position Amherst will claim to have a vested right and will not want to give it up, and we may have to alternate between the two. I simply mention that to show that the fair at Amherst is not a fixture. Halifax is showing evidence of coming back to life after the great disaster during the war, and when that city does come back there will be a difficult question to solve.


Mr. MAYBEE:: Does this vote include a grant to the Cobourg horse show, and if so what is the amount?


William Richard Motherwell: That was one of the little shows that got the better of somebody's good-nature at some time, and I am going to try to get rid of it. I have nothing against the Cobourg horse show, but we have got to stop somewhere. I think the grant was given up to two years ago. Was there an exhibition last year?


Milton Edgar Maybee: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought it was dropped. At any rate that was a straight horse show, a fancy show and a very nice show, but I am getting away rather from the principle of giving grants to every place that has a show of some kind or other. I wish to make the exhibition grants federal in nature and stop some of them, and I am afraid we will have to discontinue that grant.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Does the minister think the encouraging of horse breeding is commendable, as well as the breeding of other live stock?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes, it is. It was a small grant of $1,000, but we are giving

substantial grants to horse breeding through the grants to winter fairs practically from one end of the country to the other. These small shows are springing up all over the country, and we will have the same trouble in connection with all of them. There will not be a small fair in the Dominion that will not sooner or later claim a grant and unless I draw the line of demarcation somewhere between where the Dominion will stop and the province begin there will be no end of requests.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: I was
interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) when he painted the picture of improved marketing conditions and improved demands for our beef cattle in the old country. I was interested in his resume of conditions in the United States. Further in his remarks he made reference to the quality of our beef cattle in Canada and I want to deal with that point for a few moments. For fourteen years we have had a policy in Canada, wisely adopted I think, and it has been improved during the years, of loaning pure bred sires to clubs, but for some reason or other the minister has seen fit very recently to discontinue that policy. I think possibly that is of more vital importance to the cattle industry of Canada than anything else that can be done, and I regret very much that the discontinuance of this policy has been decided upon. Now that we are, on the eve of prosperity in the agricultural line, and our products are reaching markets further and further every year, with the possibility of the United States market opening up to us in the near future, I would ask the minister seriously to reconsider his decision on the sire policy that has been discontinued. We have $15,000,000 for defence, and we have a paltry $6,000,000 for agriculture. We have half a million in the estimates for house and grounds at Washington, and we have many other items in the estimates to which I could draw the attention of this House that seem to be out of all proportion to the grant which is given to the great basic industiy of this country. Nobody will deny that. We hear it every day. I think the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., was quite correct when he said that it was very hard to drive into the heads of professional men the value of agriculture. If we are' going to improve the live stock in this country in any great volume we must get back to the man who is hesitating as to whether he will go into beef cattle or into the scrub class. The policy adopted so many years ago has done


Supply-A gricultwre
more to improve the quality of live stock than all the class A and class B fairs in the country. Those are more or less superficial in their nature. I do not condemn them in any way. That is where the men with fancy cattle meet and contest for prizes. But the man who produces beef which goes into the foreign market is the man to whom the hon. member for Victoria made reference. I ask the minister again to think seriously before he decides definitely to discontinue the policy. He says he has a staff on hand, is retaining 1,400 animals, and it will take very little more to continue that policy. I can assure my hon. friend, from first-hand knowledge, especially in western Canada, that that policy is reaping more profit for the beef industry of the country than any other expenditure that has been made by us.


William Richard Motherwell: I intended to make a reply to the hon. member for Victoria, but he is not in the chamber. However, as the hon, member for Last Mountain referred to the same matter, I will make a statement with regard to it. I refer to the abandonment of the bull loaning policy. I do not say that that policy has not done good work, but I think we can introduce something that will do better work. Anything you can get for nothing is never appreciated. Without going into the weaknesses of the system, I am quite free in my admission of the good work that has been done and the improvement of the live stock industry under it. Nevertheless I think we can evolve a better policy.
I had my first experience of this system in Saskatchewan in 1908, when the provincial government, of which I was a member, introduced the policy of the sale of live stock, both male and female, to settlers on easy cash terms. That policy was inaugurated following two exceedingly bad years, 1907 and 1908, for the live stock industry, and it has continued to this day. What Saskatchewan has done any other province can do. Let me pay this tribute to the eastern provinces. Over fifty years ago the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and at least two of the maritimes assisted in the distribution of bulls through the agricultural societies, and they are still continuing that policy. Consequently only a small number of the provinces have been relying entirely on Dominion assistance in this respect. So far as Manitoba and Saskatchewan are concerned, we have already made tentative arrangements, particularly with Saskatchewan. Later on I expect to see the represenative of the Manitoba government when possibly we shall be able to
complete arrangements with him. The Saskatchewan government are purchasing on an average about forty bulls a year at the regular bull sales and selling them on easy terms. I had an opportunity of meeting Mr. Hamilton recently and concluded with him a tentative arrangement under which the federal government will bear half the loss up to 15 per cent incurred by the provincial authorities in the distribution of these male animals.
I freely admit that good work has been done, but there are two sides to this question. I believe we can do better work through the purchase and sale of animals in the manner I have described. Even in poverty-stricken Russia the government sold to the peasants on long-term payments the horses which they purchased from Canada. I am receiving numerous communications like the following, which is from a gentleman named James Moffat:
I am in perfect sympathy with your policy, and hope you carry it out. It is time people were trying to walk alone without being "pap fed".
That is frank, but it is the situation. Under the loan policy we have great difficulty in keeping the animal? in condition, and sometimes it takes fifty dollars to put them in good condition aftei they have been on circuit and the club has decided to discontinue operations. Let me put on Hansard a letter, a copy of which I have supplied to several members, indicating the reason why we adopted this new policy:
Ottawa, March 8, 1927.
Dear Sir:
Your representations, relative to the federal bull loaning policy, have been duly noted.
Replying, I may say that while it is freely admitted by all that a great deal of good has come out of this method of encouraging the improvement of Canadian live stock, still, I think it must be conceded that a free distribution of anything such as this, is usually unsound as a permanent policy, it being much better to adopt the wiser program of helping those who help themselves. Besides, it is generally admitted, I think, that any agricultural activity so directly related to production as this is, naturally devolves upon the provinces to take care of it, if they so desire. As an evidence that this has been so looked upon, by at least some of the provinces, might I draw your attention to the fact that in 1908 the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture, over which I had the honour to preside, inaugurated a policy' of selling cattle to pioneer settlers who were unable to finance the undertaking themselves, on small, initial cash payments and credit term subsequent payments, which is yet in vogue.
Shortly afterwards, the adjoining provinces of Alberta and Manitoba adopted somewhat similar policies, all indicating that provinces whose conditions seemed to warrant such an
Supply-Agriculture

enterprise were prepared to take it on as a provincial duty. Indeed, the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan still operate an annual live stock train, in which they feature very prominently the advantages of using pure-bred bulls and pure-bred males generally. Carlots of stock and suitable lecturers accompany this train, making the sales as they travel from point to point.
This is educational work of a high order with the sales part conducted on a purely business basis. Since, therefore, education has always been recognized as peculiarly the prerogative of the province, what justification is there for the federal government butting into such essentially educational work as these provincial train lecturers engage in, and worse still conducting the commercial end on a gift basis, with all its obvious weaknesses, instead of on a business basis, with all its obvious strength? In addition to this, overlapping of the federal and provincial work ensues, which should be reduced to the lowest possible minimum
Further, if the western provinces, as well as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec (the last three through the medium of agricultural societies) can engage in this worthy enterprise when necessary, it would appear quite reasonable to expect that the remaining provinces could do likewise. It is not, however, very likely that such remaining provinces will take it up as a new venture so long as the federal continues in this provincial field.
I find also in actual practice that it is very difficult to get proper amounts allocated to federal agriculture in the annual estimates so long as considerable portions of such estimates are devoted to what are admittedly provincial activities directly associated with production. For many years this department has been criticized for its overlapping policy with the provinces, and this is one more attempt on my part to remove as far as may be possible any justification of such criticism.
We have been endeavouring for some time to find some line of demarcation between provincial and federal agricultural activities, but this is not easy to define clearly. Generally speaking, those activities directly associated with production are conceded to be provincial, while the agricultural activities associated with the standardization, grading and marketing of exportable farm products, together with the health of farm animals generally, are usually conceded to be federal.
With this in view, we have been gradually dropping some distinctively provincial work, preparatory to taking up new work of a more federal or national character, also having in mind that we can more justifiably and more effectively urge for larger and more generous estimates when the expenditure is confined a nearly as possible to federal services.
In conclusion, I may say that when any one of the nine provincial departments of agriculture shows a desire to take up, resume, or continue the distribution of pure-bred cattle to farmers on an easy sales basis, the federal department null be prepared to discuss it with them, with the view of working out some mutually agreeable business policy, under which some tangible federal encouragement and cooperation could be afforded and defended.
In the meantime, the 1,400 federally loaned bulls throughout Canada will be continued in commission.
[Mr. Motherwell.!
I would appreciate it very much if you would endeavour to see these angles of the question, although it is not easy to do so, I admit, except by one who has had an opportunity to administer this work from both the provincial and the federal standpoint.
Commending these views to your very best judgment, I remain,
Yours very truly,
W. R. Motherwell.
We are not scrapping the original policy, we are simply changing it from a loaning to an easy sales policy, with the Dominion cooperating with the provinces to the extent of carrying half the loss up to 15 per cent.


Mr. ROWE:: The hon. minister says that
he is changing the original scheme slightly to the extent of making it to an easy sales policy. Well, let me remind the minister that although he has been good enough to give to the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto an annual grant of $30,000, he apparently proposes to take it from the agricultural industry at the rate of $100,000 a year, because the cost of this federal sire system to-day amounts to over that sum annually. He says he is ready to cooperate with the provincial governments on very easy terms. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the farmers throughout the Dominion will accept his proposal as readily as those of us who are anxious to see parliament prorogue. In many parts of the Dominion undoubtedly this better sire service scheme has been of great advantage to the agricultural industry. The minister admits that himself, every member of this House admits it, and yet we find to-day he has abandoned it entirely so far as his department's responsibility financially is concerned In answer to the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Maybee) the minister said he did not know there was a horse show at Cobourg last year.


William Richard Motherwell: How should I know? I was 'otherwise engaged at that time, and very successfully too.


William Earl Rowe: I admit it, but I would remind the minister that the Cobourg horse show was very successfully staged last year, as it generally is, and it is one of the best shows in the Dominion.


William Richard Motherwell: Sure.


William Earl Rowe: I know the minister is interested in live stock production, and this being so, surely it is not good judgment on his part to withhold the grants from the agricultural shows that are endeavouring to put on better exhibits every year, but yet have sometimes to struggle along at a loss. I think there is

Supply-A gricidture
money in the production of horses, and a horse show of the magnitude of that held at Cobourg should surely be recognized especially at a time when the department is reducing agricultural estimates to the extent of $65,000, while asking the farmers to endorse the payment of $35,000 per annum to the royal show at Toronto. We do not object to that, but when, as I say, the department is saving $65,000 in agricultural expenditures' it is hardly right to withhold consideration from horse shows. I am not speaking particularly for the province of Ontario because I know that province will not be materially affected At the present time only about fifty-two sires are maintained in Ontario while in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec-where from $20,000 to $25,000 is being withdrawn from general expenditures- there are from 300 to 330 sires being maintained. These provinces are therefore suffering in this respect to the extent to which expenditures for agricultural purposes are being curtailed, while being correspondingly generous to other departments of the industry.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend, I know, really wants to know the facts. We should like to make a grant to Cobourg but we must cut our coat to suit the cloth, and we have not enough cloth to go round.


Peter McGibbon: You are cutting the
cloth in the wrong way.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
from Dufferin (Mr. Rowe) is under a misapprehension regarding the alleged relationship between the grant to the winter fair at Toronto and any change that has taken place in the bull loaning policy. There is no connection whatever between the two. As a matter of fact it is now two years since the government was first committed to the grant to the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto. And let me make it clear that the grant is not to the city of Toronto, but to the live stock industry of Canada. My hon. friend represents the constituency of Dufferin: Et tu, Brute! Does he object to this money being voted for the fair at Toronto? Surely the fair must be established somewhere, and the object is to provide some place in which to house the pure-bred live stock of Canada. That is the primary object, and we believe Toronto to be the most convenient centre. I repeat, there is no relationship whatever between grants to fairs or to anything else and the policy of the department regarding sires, because before the latter policy was even thought of, two years ago next June, if my recollection serves me, an order in council
was passed committing us to the principle of granting assistance to the winter fair at Toronto. What possible connection is there between the two, and why should my hon. friend wish to misrepresent the situation and convey the suggestion that Toronto is getting something at the expense of the farmers of the country? Where could we put the buildings if not in one of the large centres? My hon. friend knows that, but I want to draw his attention to it, and I am sure he will not continue to misrepresent the situation as he has unwittingly done.


William Earl Rowe: I cannot let the minister place the statement on Hansard that I am dangling anything before the people of Toronto, and I say to him that I am quite capable of looking after myself in my affairs with that city. I have not been misrepresenting the situation, and the minister has verified what I have said. He has carefully misrepresented the statement I made, when he said that I expressed the opinion that the grant should not have been given to the Royal show in the city of Toronto. Hon. members of the committee will remember that I said we had no objection to the grant being made.


William Richard Motherwell: But my hon. friend said that it resulted in the impoverishment of some other place.


William Earl Rowe: I want to make it quite clear t'o the minister just what I did say, although I think he understands it fairly well; with his experience in parliament he does not need to have it explained to him more than twice, surely. I would be one of the last to oppose *this grant; I have been an exhibitor at the Royal show and have been interested in it since its inception; as a matter of fact, I would *have been keenly disappointed if that grant had not been made. What I did say was that the Minister of Agriculture has given this grant to the city of Toronto, and to that no member of this House has ever objected. The minister poses as a great agriculturist, and as one interested in the agriculture industry, yet he has taken from that industry $100,000 annually, which would amount t'o $2,000,000 in the next twenty years, to give to the city of Toronto, $35,000 a year for the next twenty years, a total of $700,000. I do not want to be misrepresented, but I think the people of this country will quite understand.


William Richard Motherwell: What does my hon. friend call that if it is not' dangling? He has mentioned it now half a dozen times.


William Earl Rowe: I hope the minister will allow me to make it clear to him, because I am sure the people of Toronto will understand it quite
Supply-Agriculture

readily. They know that no member of this House has objected to this grant of 135,000 a year, and I ask the minister if he has ever received a protest from either side of the House against this grant. It does seem strange, however, after saying that this better sire scheme which has been carried on for a number of years and which has done splendid work for the live stock of this country cannot be continued, and that he must cut his cloth according to his measurements, that the minister now proposes to continue this grant of $35,000 to the Royal show in Toronto. I would not object if that grant were increased to $50,000. The minister has shown that he is interested in the large shows but that the small shows, such as the Cobourg horse show, do not' matter. That show has had a great reflection cast upon it to-day, although it is one of the best horse shows in the province of Ontario. The grant to that show has been eliminated while t'he city of Toronto is to receive a grant of $35,000 a year. I would not object, as I have already said, if that grant were increased to $50,000, because by the abandonment of this scheme which the minister has said is a splendid one, the department will be saving enough money to permit of such an increase. The minister is merely passing the buck, asking the provincial governments and the farmers to cooperate, and assuring them that he will do everything possible to make it easy for them.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course I know
passing the buck is quite a favourite pastime for some, but I want to tell my hon. friend that nearly twenty years ago the provincial government of which I was a member started the first policy of buying and selling live stock to farmers on small cash payments down with the balance distributed over a considerable period. Now I am suggesting to the provinces that' if they will do as Saskatchewan and Manitoba have done, and as Alberta has begun to do, the federal government will get behind them and help share the loss up to 15 per cent. Surely that should not be deprecated; it was at least good enough for the first' province to which it was offered to accept immediately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is just a word I would like to say. I am not a farmer or an agriculturist, but I do know that this departure from the policy heretofore followed by the department has had a very distressing effect upon the pure bred sales which have been conducted in Calgary during the last twenty years. The people of that city have heard the news of this departure with very great sorrow, because this has had a stabilizing effect upon their business by 
reason of the purchases made at spring shows by the government. I think the minister will admit that it was most advantageous, and this departure has certainly caused a great deal of surprise, because it is not felt that the alternative suggestion will be of nearly the same benefit to the community. I am not speaking with any degree of authority, of course, but I wish to represent the view expressed to me from time to time. I recently received some communications which I brought to the attention of the minister and which indicated that the effect of the announcement of the change of policy had been very injurious upon the spring pure bred sales. I thought possibly the minister might find some method by which this policy could be continued for another year, but he quite properly pointed out to me that when you do give notice at the expiration of a period such as this, there is always the same opposition to a change as there would be if the announcement were followed up immediately by the act itself. I can quite understand that. I think the sum of money saved in this way is very great and will be a loss to the industry except in a broad way with regard to the Royal show in Toronto.


Mr. LLCAS:: Would the minister say if
class "B" fairs are receiving anything?


William Richard Motherwell: They are getting
the $1,500 flat.


William Russell Fansher: There
is some misapprehension as to the hog grading. Would the minister give us a little outline of that work?


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend is in Ottawa I will give him an invitation now to be an interested spectator at the coming conference. I do not know what the result will be. The packers, swine feeders and other interested parties entered into a gentleman's agreement in 1921 which resulted in a great improvement in our bacon hogs, and it would be very lamentable if anything should happen at this time in any way to interfere with this improvement. Our swine have been so improved that Canadian bacon to-day is on a parity with the best bacon sold on the British market. I shall be glad to have any suggestions as to an alternative policy which will be nearly as good, and that is the purpose of the conference.


Robert Gardiner: Then the grading is
not compulsory at present?


William Richard Motherwell: It is compulsory
for stock yards and producers but not in the country.

Sun Life Assurance Company


Robert Gardiner: Is it true that an intimation has been received from the packers to the effect that they desire to discontinue the agreement?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. They wanted to discontinue it some time ago, but I prevailed upon them to continue until representatives from all the interests concerned could meet together.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister tell
us anything in regard to the demand for Canadian bacon in Great Britain, whether it is falling of! or increasing?


William Richard Motherwell: The demand is
splendid. Our bacon is sometimes very scarce on the British market, which is the reason for the good prices.


Robert Gardiner: Does the question of
compensation for the slaughter of animals come under this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: No. That comes
[DOT] under item No. 46.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms, $1,600,000.
Mr. MILLAR:: This grant is quite large:
but I do not think it is too large. One of these experimental farms lies almost at my door, and I have had an opportunity to observe the good work which is being done.
Progress reported.
REPORT OF COMMITTEE Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West): Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to revert to the presentation of reports, and with the leave of the House to present the fourteenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. PARENT moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the fourteenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, the fees and charges paid on bill No. 307, respecting certain patents owned by Warren Brothers Company, be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton):: By leave of the House I beg to move:
That bill No. 338 for the relief of Fanny Mayer, being an unopposed divorce bill which has been reported by the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, be now read a third time, and that rule 28 be suspended in relation thereto.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.
Motion agreed to on division.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 305, to incorporate Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe).

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 107, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada-Mr. Gahan-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Capital stock.
The CHAIRMAN:: Section 2 has been
amended by adding after the word "shareholders" in the thirty-first line the following: Of the capital stock hereafter issued an amount limited as hereinafter provided may be designated as ''Class B" stock, the voting power of which shall be vested solely in the directors of the company, including both those elected by and representing the stockholders and those elected by and representing the participating policyholders under the provisions of any act of parliament, each director being empowered to vote, in person or by another director as his proxy, an equal whole number of shares to be found by dividing the total number of issued shares of such class B stock by the total number of directors then in office. Any issue of class B stock shall be made by a special resolution of the board of directors and approved by a majority of the votes cast at a special meeting of the stockholders duly called for considering the matter. Capital stock now issued or issued hereafter not being class B stock shall be known and designated as "class A" stock. The amount of class B stock issued and outstanding at any time shall not exceed twenty per centum of the total stock, classes A and B, then issued and outstanding.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if whoever is sponsoring this bill will be good enough to explain to the committee this very lengthy and what seems to rne to be a complicated amendment. The bill has not been reprinted and we have not the amendment before us.


Mr. CAHAN:: The matter was discussed
in committee, and the committee added a clause that 20 per cent of the additional stock issue might be voted by the directors of the company including both those who represent the policyholders and those who represent the

Sun Life Assurance Company
shareholders. This is simply a provision to make it difficult for foreign companies to buy up and control this Canadian company. I could explain it at greater length, but the time is short now and there are many other bills to be considered. The matter was fully explained before the committee and this is the substance of it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, without discussing the first clause of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River, I accept it at once on behalf of the company. As to the second clause, I must object to that. Section 104 of the act of 1917 dealing with insurance, which is chapter 9 of the statutes of 1917, provides by enactment of this parliament that the participating policyholders shall be entitled to 90 per cent of the profits arising from the participating policyholders' business, which leaves to the stockholders 10 per cent. The Sun Life Company, by a by-law of its own, 'has reduced its share from ten to five per cent, and, in the bill before the House, they propose to reduce it still further to three per cent. Having reduced their share to three per cent, and leaving the remaining 97 per cent to the policyholders, they think that is fair since under the general law they are entitled to 10 per cent.
That part of the amendment of my hon. friend from Battle River which would provide that never in the future Shall the company pay over 15 per cent to their stockholders is utterly unfair, because this company, which was incorporated just before confederation paid to its shareholders in cash dividends on its subscribed stock for nearly forty years never more than 2i per cent, and frequently less than that. In that way they have accumulated as a guarantee to their policyholders over 130,000,000, which belongs to the stockholders and is the stockholders' money, and to say that at no time in the future shall they pay over 15 per cent, if this company should in the future be in a position to distribute more, is utterly unfair, and I say that this parliament should not insert such a provision on account of the forty years during which the stockholders got practically nothing.
I am not going to deal with the matter any longer. I accept the first clause, and if it is possible, Mr. Chairman, I would like you to put these clauses to the vote of the committee separately, so that we may have a separate vote upon them. If that is not possible, I will have to move in amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Battle River that the second clause of his amendment be struck out.

Sun Life Assurance Company


George Gibson Coote: Could the hon. member inform the House in which years the company was paying the stockholders only 2J per cent?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The rate per cent of cash
dividends paid to the stockholders was as follows:
Year	Rate per cent
1871		 Nothing
1872		 "
1873		 6/10 of 1 per cent
1874		 "
1875		 "
1876		 "
1S77	 1 3/10 per cent


Georges Parent: How many shareholders
were there then?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know. I am
dealing with the rate per cent. It got up to 1J per cent in 1883, and then went down to 7!Koo of 1 per cent in 1887, came back in 1889 to H per cent; 1890 and 1891, li per cent; 1892, 1.69 per cent, and so on.


Georges Parent: The same shareholders all
the time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know whether they were or not, but they were guaranteeing the policies of this company, and receiving com-parativelv little return on their liabilities. In 1898 the" rate went up for the first time to 2J per cent, in 1910, 1.58 per cent, and in 1911, 3.75 per cent, and so on. I am not going to discuss this amendment at length, Mr. Chairman, because I think that every word I utter is preventing other private bills from getting through this House.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member has
spoken of the small percentage the company has been paying. At the same time, I understand that the total actual cash paid into this company by the shareholders was $380,000. The hon. gentleman has just stated that the company has accumulated $30,000,000 which is the property of the shareholders. It seems to me the shareholders have done pretty well.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for
St. Lawrence-St. George has indicated his willingness to accept the first clause of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River, and has asked that the clauses be put separately. That is a matter for the committee, not the chairman, to decide.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I will not stand for the
amendment being divided, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I move in amendment
to strike out the second clause of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River.


George Gibson Coote: I do not want the committee to be under any misapprehension as to the dividends which this company has paid. 1 do not want to delay the committee at all, but I would like to quote from the evidence given before the royal commission on insurance in 1906, where at page 2810, of volume 4 of the evidence, Mr. Macaulay was asked this question:
Q. Then for 1893, similarly, you take interest $4,256.07 and then 6 2/3 per cent of the profits; it is only $2,046.50 this year?-A. Yes.
Then on the next page I find the following:
Q. Then in 1897 you seem to have carried down interest the same as before, $5,871.13. It is a little more, but your capital was increasing then and instead of six and two-thirds per cent of the profits you seem to have gone down to five per cent of profits declared.
A. Yes.
As the committee is so insistent on having this matter put through, I simply say that if they would read the evidence taken before this commission they would find out that they were paying fifteen per cent. I will quote from a further question put by Mr. Macaulay:
Q. Then from 1898 to 1905 inclusive the dividend has been fifteen per cent on $105,000, or $15,750 per year?-A. Yes.
And the answer is yes. It is stated very clearly many times in this evidence that the rate of dividends that were being paid over a long period of years was fifteen per cent. I am totally unable to understand how my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) can make the statement that the dividends are sometimes at the rate of one per cent and two per cent. I am sure he is under a misapprehension or is putting the committee under a misapprehension in regard to the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter McGibbon: A number of us are
getting tired of being lectured by hon. members on every subject, particularly by my hon. friend from Macleod.
Subamendment (Mr. Cahan) agreed to.
Amendment as amended agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Election of first board of directors.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 4 as amended here
was suggested by Mr. Finlayson of the department. According to the original bill passed before confederation the directors of the company must be subjects of Her Majesty. Under the general act applying to
Sun Lije Assurance Company

all other companies incorporated since 1910 the majority must be subjects of Her Majesty. Mr. Finlayson admitted to me last night that in drafting this section he made an error. He has not changed the purport of the original act. It should read:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 0 of the said act of incorporation the board of-directors of the company may be composed, to the extent of one-third, of persons who are not subjects of Her Majesty.
Every other insurance company incorporated or licensed to do business since 1910 must have a majority of British subjects. This company having been incorporated away back in the sixties contains a section which provides that all must be British subjects. In view of the large amount of business done in the United States, the company desire to be able to appoint one or two American directors to safeguard the interests of the policyholders. Therefore I move in amendment, in order to correct that error-and I think this will be agreed to by everyone:
That all the words after the word "company" be struck out and that there be inserted in lieu thereof the words "may be composed, to the extent of one-third, of persons who are not subjects of His Majesty".


Mr. ROBB:: Before the amendment
carries, would my hon. friends who are promoting the bill consent to this amendment which has been given me by the Superintendent of Insurance? I thought it was agreed upon with the promoters of the bill.
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 9 of the said act of incorporation at least two-thirds of the members of the board of directors of the company shall at all times be persons resident in Canada and subjects of His Majesty, and the remaining members of the board may be qualified as to residence and nationality in such manner as the by-laws of the company may prescribe.
'Mr. CAHAN:	I am perfectly willing to
take either one. It is exactly the same thing.


John Frederick Johnston: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend may move it. Amendment agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Shall the preamble
carry?


James Alexander Robb: I understand one section was
passed as printed. I want to suggest to my hon. friend promoting the bill to make the section read as follows:
After the close of the calendar year in which this act shall come into force the proportion of  *
the profits of the participating business accruing to shareholders shall be reduced to not exceeding four per cent.
At the end of "five years thereafter," I want to put in the words " not exceeding three and a half per cent," and following the words " a further period of five years," the words "not exceeding three per cent-."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am quite willing to carry
out the view of the Minister of Finance, but I think the words " not exceeding " are not the correct words. I should suggest we might word it' this way in the fourth line:
The profits of the non-participating business accruing to the shareholders shall not exceed four per cent.
That makes it clearer and more definite. Strike out the words " be reduced " and add after the words " the profits of the participating 'business accruing to the shareholders" the words "shall not exceed four per cent."


James Alexander Robb: All right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And at the end of five years thereafter strike out " to " and put in "shall not exceed three and a half per cent," and "at the end of a further period of five years" strike out the word " to " and put in " shall not exceed three per cent." I think it is better to make it declaratory than imperative.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the desire of the committee that clause 1 be reconsidered?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Frederick Johnston: Then the amendments as stated by the sponsor of the bill will be as follows:	In the sixteenth line substituting
"not exceeding" for "be reduced to"; in the seventeenth line substituting "shall not exceed" for "to"; in the eighteenth line substituting "shall not exceed" for "to".


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be
read a third time?


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, there have been many important amendments proposed to this bill, so important that we would like to have a look at them in the printed form. Therefore I suggest that the third reading stand till the next sitting of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the House.

John E. Russell Company



JOHN E. HUSSELL COMPANY, LIMITED, PATENT

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 117, respecting a patent owned by the John E. Russell Company Limited.-Mr. Chevrier- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Term of duration extended.
James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) is not in his seat. I should like the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) to look at the amendments.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, when this
bill was before the special committee it was fully discussed. The committee ruled that the principle of extending a patent was vicious, and should not be entertained unless the promoters put before the committee the condition of things which would justify the members adopting a very exceptional view. After the discussion had taken place the committee decided to pass the bill. I do not wish to enter into the details of the discussion but the committee felt that the promoters had made out their case. The amendment passed by the committee has for its object the protection of any vested interests that may have been acquired as against the patent, and they are thoroughly protected.


Mr. GLEN:: I was rather struck by the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the sponsor of this bill was the member for Ottawa, who was also sponsor of the bill for the Georgian bay canal. This probably accounts for the bill being remitted to the private bills committee without discussion in order that there might be an ascertainment of the facts before any vote was taken upon it. This you will remember, Sir, was the attitude which a good many hon. members took in this House, that on the second reading of a bill it should go before the private bills committee for the facts to be investigated. In the committee the facts were ascertained and an amendment was moved that the bill should not be reported. The reasons for that amendment I will deal with shortly. I have no intention of talking out this bill because I think it can be defeated on its merits, and I hope the day will never come when I shall have to take my place here to talk out any bill if it cannot be justified , on its merits.
The purpose of this bill is t'he renewal of a patent granted to a citizen of the United States. He sold his rights to the company who are now applying for an extension of the term. The only reason given to the committee for the passing of this bill was that
during the four years of the war the company did not make sufficient profits to meet the expenditure incurred in connection with the patent. In the committee I asked the solicitor for the bill if any royalties had been paid. He answered: Yes, royalties had been paid to the inventor. I asked where the royalties came from, and he said they were paid out of dividends. Now, the only reason given by the solicitor for the renewal of the patent was that the company wished to recoup themselves for a certain sum of money they had put into the patent; but it was shown before the committee that the company had made profits during these years when the solicitor claimed no profits were made. Out of these profits, as I have said, the royalties were paid to the inventor.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: The company
had to pay the royalties whether they made ' a profit or not.


James Allison Glen: Just a minute. Only to-day we had another patent bill before the private bills committee and it was thrown out, but that is likely to be only one of a succession of such bills because of the fact that we have already this session passed a bill for the renewal of a patent. In the bill to which I have referred renewal was asked for, although the patent would not expire for at least eight years. The promoters of that bill were asking for it on the very same grounds as the promoters of this bill, that they had received no profits during the war years and wanted to be recouped for that period.
In the private bills committee I put this question to the officer of the patent office: What is the intention of the legislation which grants a patent to an inventor? He replied: A patent is granted in order that the inventor may recoup himself, or at all events gain the profits that his invention would give him in the open market, and only to this extent should an inventor be protected. Now, in this bill it is not the inventor who is asking for a renewal of the patent but the company which purchased it. That is, it is not the inventor who is to be protected, but the company, and they are asking this parliament to grant them an extension of eight years. That. I submit, is a principle which this parliament cannot stand for. If the inventor by his genius brings out something worth while, then in all countries his right to the profits from it for a certain period is recognized. In the old country that period I believe is sixteen years, and eighteen years in the United States. It was stated in the private bills committee that on no occasion within
John E. Russell Company

memory had a patent been renewed after its expiry. If we grant this renewal to-night we are doing so in spite of the admission that was made in the private bills committee-and I am stating what is the absolute fact-that there was nothing to justify it except the loss that might have accrued to the company during the four years of the war by reason of the fact that this material was not extensively used. Let me observe here, as I said before the committee, that during that four years there was as much building of roads and as much use of concrete pipes in the west as at any time since confederation, so that if the company lost its opportunity for securing a market the fault was theirs and nobody else's. Apart altogether from that consideration, we are giving to this company the right to charge against all the municipalities of the country the increased profits which they might derive front the exercise of the privilege. Hon. gentlemen who were in the House not long ago will remember that application was made for a renewal of a patent on radio appurtenances and that application was killed on the floor of the House for the reason that it would mean a substantial loss to the citizens of Canada. It is apparent to-day that this refusal was warranted, for the price of the article in question at the present time is half what it was then. This is due to the fact that there was open competition and other companies were allowed to come in and sell to the consumers at a much lower figure. The consumers must be looked to. They are the people who will pay for the granting of this privilege and I do not think that this House can take upon itself the renewal of the license after a period of eighteen years. Surely in all conscience eighteen years is a long enough term during which any man should be allowed to exercise a privilege against all competitors. I submit that this bill should not pass and parliament should to-night register its recognition of the principle that when a patent expires, unless in the most extreme case, it should not be renewed.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I simply wish to support what the hon. member (Mr. Glen) has said. An application for a renewal of patent-, which was thrown out, was before the private bills committee to-day and the basis of the plea was that we had granted such an extension a few weeks ago in the case of this Bill No. 117 regarding the John Russell Company.


David Spence: This is not the first application for a renewal of a patent which the private bills committee has recommended to the House. A week ago a bill

came before parliament for the renewal of the application of a Frenchman named Frigon, who asked for an extension of a patent he brought from Switzerland. He had had bad luck, had met with an accident that laid him up for two years with both legs broken, and had suffered the loss of considerable money. The private bills committee in that case saw fit- to grant the extension, and I was one of those who supported the committee. I am glad to see the chairman of the private bills committee here to-night. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) made some reference to the fact- that the member fathering this bill had also introduced the Georgian bay bill. That is a matter of coincidence. This bill went through the House last year after thorough discussion from every angle. It got its third reading here, went to the Senate, was passed there, and only failed to obtain the royal assent. Naturally in the circumstance the John E. Russell Company went on developing their business on the strength of the expectation that the patent would be renewed. The application came before the private bills committee again this year, was fully discussed in the forenoon and deferred to the afternoon, and after very careful consideration hon. gentlemen to my left agreed to an amendment to the bill. There was proposed a sa/ving clause which, I presume, is not in print at present. The bill was adopted by twenty-seven to five, a substantial majority in the committee. Surely if there is any use of a private bills committee, who give the fullest consideration to matters of this kind, their recommendations should be given every consideration. I trust that hon. members will favourably consider the bill, especially seeing that these people have put a large amount of money into the business.


Mr. WARD:: If we defeat this bill tonight will it hinder in any respect whatever the John E. Russell Company from going ahead with their business?


David Spence: No, but it will prevent them from earning the money which the patent has cost them. The company have spent $150,000 on patterns and forms and so far they have not realized half that investment. The hon. member for Marquette said that there had been a great- development in< Manitoba during the war, necessitating the use of the material covered by the patent. Let me assure the committee that there was no such development in Ontario, particularly around Toronto, because there was no work in connection with the construction of roads.

John E. Russell Company
The amendment moved in t'he committee was agreed to by my hon. friends to the left, and why they are opposed to it to-night I do not understand. That amendment reads:
If any person since the fifth day of August, 1926, commenced to construct, manufacture, use or sell in Canada the inventions covered by the said letters patent, such firm may continue to construct, manufacture, use or sell such inventions in as full and ample a manner as if this act had not been passed.
I hope hon. members will agree to the extension of the patent. The company has not made one-quarter of the money it has spent, for the reason that there was no development during the war. Particularly was this inactivity evident in the city of Toronto and in that part of the country where the Russell people [DOT]do most of their business. Were it not for that fact I would not urge the extension of the patent, but I do trust that the committee, after the careful consideration which the private bills committee gave to the matter, will pass the bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: I desire to
register my protest against the passing of this bill. The patent has already run its full eighteen years, and the company asks the renewal of it for one purpose only, and that is to continue to exploit the common consumer of Canada.


David Spence: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has no right to make that statement. '


Edward Joseph Garland: That is only another form of special privilege and it does no credit to anyone who advocates it. It is another, way of soaking the unfortunate consumer. It is in the same category as the application which was made some years ago for the renewal of a patent on radio valves. That application was opposed by hon. members in this group and the wisdom of the House in voting it down was justified: the result has been a reduction in the price of these valves from $9 to $3. That has meant a saving of millions of dollars to the people of the north American continent. This very patent was also granted in the United States. There it has expired and it has not been renewed. That should be borne in mind.


David Spence: That is because the gentleman who owned it died.


Edward Joseph Garland: That has
nothing to do with it. The patent ran its course and its renewal was refused; it does not matter what the reasons were.


David Spence: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: We are being asked to renew a patent in favour not of the man who invented the article but of a private company whose object is to soak the people. I am absolutely opposed to anything of the kind. In Great Britain the term of patents is about fourteen years and in the United States about seventeen years. In Canada it is eighteen years-longer than anywhere else. Surely eighteen years is a long enough period in which the owner of a patent, or any private company controlling it, should be allowed to exploit the public.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: As soon as the noise has subsided I might suggest to the hon. gentleman that he is quite right when he says that when an attempt was made to secure full information with respect to the condition of this company, that is, with respect to its profits, its books and accounts and so on, that information was not forthcoming. There was some general statement made which in my opinion was not satisfactory, and until the company produce more adequate proof that they deserve some consideration I fail to see why this parliament should be asked to continue a principle as vicious as that proposed in this bill. After all, our primary duty is not to represent private interests but to represent the interests of the great consuming public. If this bill is permitted to pass we may anticipate a flood of similar bills coming up for consideration, and if we once create a precedent we will have great difficulty in justifying any objection to bills of this character which may subsequently come before us. Picture it for yourself; use your own imagination and consider what is liable to happ'en if we create a precedent now for renewing these wretched patent bills after almost illimitable periods have elapsed, bills which deliberately steal from the pockets of the people that which the people can ill afford to pay.


David Spence: The John E.
Russell Company are well respected and well known, and are not asking for anything unreasonable.


James Alexander Robb: I am not questioning the
respectability or the financial standing of the John E. Russell Company; I did not attend the meeting of the private bills committee, so I am not very well posted as to the nature of the patent. But if, as I infer, this is a patent which will enable this company to collect royalties from all the municipalities making cement pipes, I agree with the ob-

John E. Russell Company

servations made by the hon. member for Bow River. It may be that the fact that the bill passed the House last year and did not receive royal assent places those of us who were in the House last year under some obligation, but certainly not to grant this extension for eight years, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that he cut down that period considerably.


Mr. KAISER:: It was cut down to eight
years last year. When this came before the committee last session and the committee went into it, they unanimously agreed that it was right to grant an extension of time, but the time requested was twelve or fourteen years. The company reduced that to eight years. This company has invested already some $150,000 on account of this patent, and because of the attitude of the House last year they have invested still more money, and they simply ask the House to complete what was done last year. The evidence convinces me that it is a fair proposition, and I think parliament should grant the extension.


James Alexander Robb: All over this country there
are small industries making sewer pipes and pipes for road drainage for the local communities. It seems to me that it is very unreasonable to put this company in a position to collect royalties from these other small companies.


David Spence: I do not think
there is any intention on the part of the John E. Russell Company to collect royalties. However, if the Minister of Finance wishes that two years be taken off the term, and the House is satisfied, we will do so..


James Alexander Robb: I would like to suggest that
you move an amendment which will safeguard the municipalities.


David Spence: So far as we
know there are no firms making these pipes; it is an invention whereby two pipes are cemented together; it is a wonderful thing, and these people have a right to some consideration.


James Alexander Robb: Cut it down by six years.


James Allison Glen: When the hon. member states that no one else has any interest in this business, he is stating what is not according to the evidence given before the private bills committee. A representative of the Dominion Sewer Pipe Company appeared before that committee and stated that they were about to manufacture these concrete pipes, that they had already purchased a site for which they had paid $15,COO in cash, on which

they were to manufacture concrete pipes. When my friend says there was no opposition to it, he is also wrong; opposition was expressed right in the committee.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: This year, but not last year.


James Allison Glen: The length of time is not the question at all; the question is whether this House shall decide upon a principle of renewing patents which have expired for a good many years, and whether this House is prepared to sanction that as a rule by which to be guided in the future.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member for
Marquette has stated what I was about to say. It is a fact that last year this bill passed through the committee without opposition but this year encountered strong opposition, and that fact alone is sufficient to warrant us in departing from the position taken a year ago.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not happen to be
on the private bills committee, and of this House there are perhaps 215 members who were not present at that meeting and who are not aware of all the circumstances connected with this patent. That is so in the case of ah private bills, and one who is not on the committee must trust to the findings of the committee in these matters. We did not hear the evidence but we have the report, in which we are informed that this committee, while it unanimously passed this bill last year, passed it on this occasion by a vote of 27 in favour with 5 against. The only safe course for those who were not present at the meeting and who did not hear the discussion, I think, is to follow the report of the committee under these circumstances. That is a rule which has been laid down for many years in this House and it is a rule which I propose to follow tonight.


James Allison Glen: Would the leader of the opposition consider this position, that the statements which have been made in opposition to the bill have not been denied and cannot be denied by any hon. member of this House? If these statements are correct, surely it is for the House to decide and not for the committee, as to whether we shall establish such a principle?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have been very much interested in the discussion and the arguments put forward by some hon. members to my right in giving their reasons why this bill should go through. One argument is that it went through the committee last year. I would like to remind hon. members that the

Sun Life Assurance Company
Georgian bay canal bill went through this House thirteen times, and those who opposed it most- strenuously this year were the hon. members to my right. I think they were right in so doing. Another argument advanced is that the bill we are now considering went through the committee this year with a vote of 27 to 5, so we are told. I want to tell the committee that there was no vote counited at all, and as one of the minority I know that more than five voted against it.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills having expired, I now resume the chair.


James Alexander Robb: If we might have the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, there are some bills which have been held up, and the government offer no objection to continuing for at least another hour. I think we were committed to that by some hon. gentlemen opposite, but we are entirely in the hands of the House since it must be by unanimous consent.


George Gibson Coote: May I ask a question on
that point? Will the Minister of Finance give us any assurance as to when the House will rise to-night if we permit this suggestion? Last night we sat until half past two, after a late session the ni^ht before-


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is making a mistake; it is not a question of consent but a matter to be agreed upon among the members of the House in order to expedite business. We do not want to rush anything.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no motion before the House.


James Alexander Robb: I did not make any motion. I said that the government offered no objection to continuing another half hour or hour in committee on private bills if the House was unanimous in regard to the matter.


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand that it is the judgment of the House that it should resolve itself into committee of the whole on private bills for another half hour? By unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.



SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Before Your Honour leaves the chair I wish to make a motion which appears to be in order. I beg to move:
That it is urgent that Bill No. 107, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (as amended), be now read a third time, because private bills will not be placed on the
32649-149i	[DOT]
order paper until Tuesday the 19th instant for consideration by the House, under rule 25 and resolutions passed by the House.


Georges Parent: That has been decided already.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My motion is in order under rule 40 which provides that a motion may be made without notice in respect to a private bill, and under rule 52 which provides:
Every bill shall receive three several readings on different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.
It is well within the knowledge of the House that we are approaching prorogation and this is the opportunity which I take. I think I am in order in making the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is in order according to rules 40 and 52. According to rule 40, the two days' notice shall not apply to private bills, and rule 52 states:
Every bill shall receive three several readings on different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, is it not necessary that a motion of this nature should be rather in the form of a notice of motion.


Hewitt Bostock: That is not necessary under rule 40.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does it not then require unanimous consent?


Hewitt Bostock: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The question I
should like to ask is: What constitutes an extraordinary occasion? There must surely be some sort of definition of an extraordinary occasion. If it means simply when a bill is of interest to me or to my group, then we know where we stand, but I cannot see just where the extraordinary occasion comes in. We have had bill after bill in this House that have been standing for weeks. Surely the promoters of any of those bills might have claimed that they were interested in getting them through. I would like to have your ruling as to what constitutes an extraordinary occasion.


James Alexander Robb: May I submit to the House
and particularly to the hon. member who is promoting the bill, that I am satisfied that his measure was hurried along to-night because some hon. gentlemen had other bills which they desired to promote? I have just said on behalf of the government that we

John E. Bussell Company
offer no objection to the House remaining in committee for another half hour or an hour. It seems to me that my hon. friend, in view of the statement made by the leader of the Progressive party a few moments ago that he desired some delay, is not expediting his measure by pressing this motion at this time. I recommend that he withdraw his motion until at least we have disposed of the sheet of private bills.


Lucien Cannon: If we follow the rules of the House private bills can come before us only on Friday, so that all private bills which we are considering to-night, unless they receive third reading to-day, will not be proceeded with any further.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why not? "Mr. CANNON:	Supposing prorogation
-should take place in the meantime?


Edward Joseph Garland: Who is in such a hurry for prorogation?


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is jumping at conclusions. I am explaining the situation.


Edward Joseph Garland: We can
pass them on Friday evening.


Lucien Cannon: I wish simply to point
out to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that he is in exactly the same position as promoters of all the othei private bills, and therefore he need not move this motion at all. If for some reason or another there is some urgency in having more than one reading, I think the House will agree that all bills, including his, will be treated in the same way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand that
the hon. gentleman persists in moving this motion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not want to take precedence or stand in the way of any other hon. member. It is usual in the House, when bills have passed committee, for them to be read a third time, and this motion is in order.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is in order.
It is not debatable under rule 17-A because it is not on the order paper. It is in order under rule 52, and if the hon. gentleman persists in moving this motion I will put the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.
Motion negatived.


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand there is an understanding that the House will now consider other private bills for half an hour?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Am I in order in asking for a recorded vote?


Hewitt Bostock: Nobody rose when I asked for the yeas and nays.


Robert Gardiner: I desire to ask a question on this bill which has now been read a third time.


Hewitt Bostock: It has not been read a
third time.


Robert Gardiner: I understand that the
motion to read it a third time was defeated.


Hewitt Bostock: No. The motion was that the bill be read a third time now on account of an extraordinary and urgent situation. But the House said that there was no extraordinary or urgent situation, and therefore the bill which was standing for third reading remained where it was. As the House is in a good humour I take it that the House will sit in committee for half an hour to consider the other private bills.



THE JOHN E. RUSSELL COMPANY, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 117, respecting a patent owned by the John E. Russell Company, Limited-Mr. Chevrier -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On clause 1-Term of duration extended.
David Spence: I was just
speaking to the Finance minister, and he agreed that he would not oppose an extension of five years, so I move, Mr. Chairman, that the word "eight" in line 17 of the bill be struck out and the word "five" be substituted therefor.
Amendment agreed to: Yeas, 75; Nays, 44.


Henry Elvins Spencer: At nine o'clock, Mr. Chairman, when I was speaking on this bill, I was about to point out that the company had had this patent for eighteen years before it ran out. This company is trying to get this bill through at the present time by claiming that they have a right to the renewal of this patent because of the war years. Now the war lasted only four years, and I would like to know what this company was doing in the other fourteen years. Another argument put up in favour of this bill is that this company suffered certain losses during the war,

The Free Methodist Church
or did not make as much profit because of the war as they wanted to, and now they want to recoup themselves. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what would happen if all the men and all the companies and all the firms who lost money during the war, and hundreds of thousands did, looked to this parliament to recoup them.
Another reason why I am opposing this bill is because the solicitor who supported it admitted before the special committee that the only reason they wanted this extension was because they wanted a good talking point for sales. When that is the only reason they give for wanting this renewal, I think it is about time the bill was turned down.


Mr. RENNIE:: I would ask who these
men were who lost money during the war.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to: Yeas, 64; Nays, 34.


Mr. NEILL:: I rise to a point of order.
Does an amendment to a private bill not require notice? No notice was given.


Hugh Guthrie: It is too late to take the objection now.


John Frederick Johnston: The point is well taken, but the amendment was proposed and accepted by the committee. The objection is too late.
Bill reported.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read a third time?


James Allison Glen: Next sitting of the House.
Motion stands.



THE FREE METHODIST CHURCH IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 177, to incorporate the Free Methodist Church in Canada-Mr. Carmichael-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Lucien Cannon: Before this bill is proceeded with, a point of order was raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, which point of order was well taken. An amendment to a private bill cannot be moved in committee unless notice thereof has been given.


Mr. STEVENS:: Except by consent.


Lucien Cannon: Except by consent. This bill may not be considered as contentious if an amendment is made to it, and I understand that the hon. member in whose name the bill appears is willing to move an amendment.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I was on my feet to make an explanation when the Solicitor General commenced to speak. This is the general act of incorporation for a church body. There is nothing unusual about the bill. It has been considered in the private bills committee and has been safeguarded by such clauses as the committee thought necessary. Some objections were raised to the part of schedule A of the bill which set forth the articles of religion of the body. In the committee no amendment was made to that part of schedule A, but I am since authorized by the solicitors who were promoting the bill to make an amendment striking out completely the articles of religion from the bill and substituting a short clause in lieu thereof, directing the attention of the body to their book of discipline. When we proceed with the bill I will move these two amendments, and I trust we will have the unanimous consent of the House to these amendments; otherwise we might as well not deal with the bill at all.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Objects.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Before accepting section 2 I desire to move an amendment, because the wording of this section was arranged in such a way to suit schedule A as passed in the committee. My amendment purports to strike out the first part of that clause, so as, to bring it in line with the subsequent amendment which I will propose to the schedule.


John Frederick Johnston: I must ask the hon. member what he means by striking out all of subsection 1 of section 2?


Archibald M. Carmichael: The section says:
The religious belief and creed of the said church is that set forth in articles I to 23 inclusive in schedule A.
We propose to strike out all articles in schedule A, and it is necessary to strike out section 1.


Georges Parent: I may say that this bill was thoroughly discussed in the private bills committee, and the representations made by the hon. member who has just spoken were acceptable to the members present when the matter was discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 3 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
2362	COMMONS
North American Relations Foundation
On section 19-Provisions effective as far as parliament has jurisdiction.
John Frederick Johnston: This is a new section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule A-Articles of religion.
Archibald M. Carmichael: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move:
That schedule A be amended by striking out all of pages 6, 7, 8 and 9, and page io to the end of line seven, and substituting the following therefor:
Schedule A Articles of Religion
The articles of religion of the Free Methodist Church in Canada shall be those contained in the doctrines and discipline of the Free Methodist Church, edition of 1923, division 1, from page 11 to page 18.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be
read the third time?


Mr. LADNER:: Next sitting of the House.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I would like to
point out, Mr. Speaker, that Bill No. 177 as amended is not a contentious bill. The amendments were put in with the unanimous consent of the committee so as to remove the contention. I have tried heretofore to have this bill taken care of in this chamber so it could go on to the upper chamber and be disposed of before prorogation. I fail to see the point in asking that the third reading of this bill be held over until the next sitting of the House. I believe that only one hon. member has objected, and I would move that the bill be now given its third reading so that it may be disposed of at this session.


Hewitt Bostock: I am in the hands of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to take the third reading of this bill now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand that there is unanimous consent?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
LA CONGREGATION DE SAINT-DOMINIQtTE DU TIERS-ORDRE ENSEIGNANT
The House in committee on Bill No. 116, to incorporate La Congregation de Saint,-Dominique du Tiers-Ordre enseignant.-Mr. Raymond-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
(Mr. Parent.]
On section 11-Assent of council.
John Frederick Johnston: Clause 11 is amended
as follows:
In respect to all real property which by reason of its situation or otherwise is subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada a license in mortmain shall not be necessary for the exercise of the powers granted by this act; but otherwise the exercise of the said powers shall, in any province of Canada, be subject to the laws of such province as to the acquisition and holding of lands by religious corporations in so far as such laws apply to the corporation or to the houses of the institute.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 154, to incorporate North America Relations Foundation-Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
John Frederick Johnston: Section 1 has been
amended by adding the following names:
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Osgoode Hall, Toronto, Ontario, McKinnon building, Toronto, McMaster University, Toronto-*


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Chairman, before
this clause is carried I would ask the hon. member who has charge of the bill kindly to explain it, as many of us have not had an opportunity to read it. The bill is rather lengthy.


Mr. JACOBS:: As you will notice, Mr. Chairman, the bill is for the purpose of promoting friendly relations between Canada and t'he United States. That is a pretty big order. The promoters are some of the principal people in Canada and the United States. I may say that Professor Farrand of Cornell University, Mr. Justice Riddell and Professor G. M. Wrong and other gentlemen interested are at the head of the movement. The bill was thoroughly discussed in t'he private bills committee and met with no opposition whatever. I think it should go through as a matter of course.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the bill met with
almost unanimous approval on the part of t'he committee. Its object is most worthy and there is no reason for opposing it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Red River Driving Club
On section 4-Objects.
John Frederick Johnston: Section 4 has been
amended by striking out paragraph (d) and designating paragraph (e) as paragraph (d). The latter paragraph has been amended by adding after the word " of " in the second line t'he following:
-the United States of America and Canada, and the British commonwealth of nations generally-


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 5 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20.-When to come into force.
John Frederick Johnston: This is a new section
and reads:
This act shall come into force on the day of its sanction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 237, to incorporate the Red River Driving Club- Mr. Beaulbien-Mr. Johnston 'in the chair.
Mr. HOWDEN:: I wish to oppose the
further progress of this bill. The object is to incorporate a racing club in the city of St. Boniface, and as I come from that city I am interested in the proposal. I was not in the House when the bill was referred to the private bills committee or I would have opposed that motion. In the province of Manitoba we have six racing clubs to-day, there being three race tracks in greater Winnipeg. Provincial legislation provides for a week's racing in each of the spring and fall meets, and as a matter of fact it is impossible for three or four of the six clubs in Manitoba to stage any events at all. The men behind this bill are seeking to circumvent the laws of the province of Manitoba and to carry on racing there and in other provinces west in spite of provincial legislation. The purpose of the bill is not to provide racing in the true sense of the word; it is not to encourage the (purely sporting spirit. The purpose is to enable the incorporators to use the pari-mutuel machines in order to transfer sums of money from the pockets of citizens to their own. If the parimutuel privilege were removed from the bill this measure would fail flat. The business interests of Winnipeg, the citizens themselves, and the legislature of the province of Manitoba are all opposed to it. I have received from the Attorney General of Manitoba the following telegram:
Have wired Premier King as follows: "Today's newspapers item states Red River Driving Club, Bill No. 237, reported from private bills committee of House of Commons. The government of Manitoba submits that already there are sufficient tracks in Manitoba to accommodate the public requirement for horse racing. The holding of numerous race meets in Manitoba became a serious evil and the Manitoba legislature after careful consideration enacted the Horse Racing Regulation Act in 1926. Any increase in present number of associations which have power to hold race meets makes the situation more difficult to handle. Government of Manitoba therefore submits that your parliament should not pass this bill. Am confident Manitoba legislature would not pass similar bill." Would appreciate your opposition to this bill.
There are also telegrams from the board of trade and other prominent corporations in the city oif Winnipeg opposing this bill. There is ample provision for racing in Manitoba at the present time. We have four weeks of racing every summer as well as race meets on the ice two days in every week of winter. It is becoming a serious problem for the local legislature to deal with and I wish to protest against the progress of the bill. If in order, I beg to move that Bill No. 237, to incorporate the Red River Driving Club, shall not now be proceeded with but that it be referred back to the special committee on miscellaneous private bills for reconsideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This legislation is wholly provincial in character and in the ordinary course of events it should not be before this House at all'. The Solicitor General might advise us whether or not, in his opinion, it should be considered by this parliament. Its objects are purely provincial, it incorporates a body which will function withini the province, and it does not touch any other province. The bill should be considered by the legislature and not by this parliament.


Georges Parent: It was represented to the
private bills committee that the corporation intended doing business in other provinces and that brought it within the federal scope.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No,


John Power Howden: I want to correct my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett). The object of the bill is to enable the corporation to circumvent provincial laws.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I understood, and for that reason I consider it altogether bad.


Lucien Cannon: As the hon. member for
West Calgary has pointed out, these bills are generally submitted1 to (the provincial legislatures. I do not think that this parliament
The Sealright Company

since confederation has been called upon to pass any such legislation. In order to give a tint of federation jurisdiction to the bill it is provided that the new company shall have the right to operate in more than one province, but I do not think that the bill should be adopted by the Dominion parliament. If the promoters wish to operate in Manitoba or in any other province they should apply to the provincial authorities. This point was brought out before the committee and it was doubted very much there whether, in the first place, this parliament had jurisdiction and, secondly, if it had, whether the1 bill should pass. I agree with the hon. member for West Calgary that it would be much better, legally speaking, to leave such legislation to the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The usual practice has
been to deal with such measures under the Companies Act.


Lucien Cannon: We have never passed a
bill like this.


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment is not in order at this stage.
It reads:
That Bill No. 237, to incorporate the Red River Driving Club, do not now receive its third reading but that it be referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills for reconsideration.
It is not up for third reading at the moment and I think such a motion should be made when the Speaker is in the chair.


Lucien Cannon: I would move that the
committee proceed to the next order.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion is in order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 261, respecting a certain amendment of R. T. Vanderbilt Company-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa) -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I would like to ask what
hon. member is looking after this bill.


Hugh Guthrie: It is a Senate bill.


George Gibson Coote: We have not this bill, and
I think we should not proceed until we at least have the bill or some explanation from the sponsor.


Lucien Cannon: We might suspend consideration of this bill for the moment.


John Frederick Johnston: Stands.



THE SEALRIGHT COMPANY INCORPORATED

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 253, respecting certain patents owned by the Seal-right Company Incorporated-Mr. Young (Toronto)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for application to revive patents.
Robert Gardiner: Will the hon. member
who is sponsoring this bill give some explanation?


Edward James Young: If any explanation is desired, this bill deals with patents in connection with sanitary containers for milk and such products. There is a minor discrepancy in the Patent Act.


William John Ward: Let us have something to base our judgment upon. Not a member in this corner of the House knows what is taking place.


Edward James Young: I am sorry that I am unable to speak any louder. There is a minor conflict with a previous patent, as I remember the situation, that previous patent being one which is really non-existent, that is, it has not been exercised. The patent itself is for containers for milk and such products. That is the best explanation which I can give to the House at the present time without going into voluminous details which I do not think the importance of the matter justifies.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for the third reading of Bill No. 107, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Cahan.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Next sitting of the House.
Motion stands.



THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY OF MANITOBA

Mr. THORSON:: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, the same privilege with regard to Bill No. 144, respecting the Midland Railway Company of Manitoba, as has been accorded with regard to Bill No. 177?


Hewitt Bostock: I am in the judgment of the House.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will Bill No. 107 have the same consideration?

Great Lakes Power Company


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Thorson moves that
Bill No. 144, respecting the Midland Railway Company of Manitoba, be now read a third
time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

Mr. ODETTE:: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 175
is not a contentious bill. There was no objection raised to it in committee, and the Superintendent of Insurance has reported favourably upon it. I therefore move the third reading of the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I object.


Hewitt Bostock: I would refer the hon.
gentleman to Rule 56 which says:
When a bill is reported' without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is amended.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not amended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is marked on the order paper as amended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 255, respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited. -Mr. Denis (Joliette).
Hewitt Bostock: I find that the hour for private bills has now elapsed.
Motion stands.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 144, respecting The Midland Railway Company of Manitoba.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 175, to incorporate The Independent Order "Fior d'ltalia.-Mr. Odette.
Bill No. 214, to incorporate Guardian Trust Company, and recommending that the title be changed to "An Act to incorporate Guardian Trust Corporation of Montreal."-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 238, respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 254, respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Bradette.
Bill No. 261, respecting a certain patent of R. T. Vanderbilt Company.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Charles William John Walker.-Mr. Ross (Kingston)1 Bill No. 274, for the relief of John Stewart Walker.-Mr. Lennox.
Rill No. 275, for the relief of Percy Ashley Davis.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Edward Henry Ball-Mr. Ilsley.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Mary Saran-chuk.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Hoffman.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Frederick Wilson McLean.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 306, respecting The Sterling Trusts Corporation.-Mr. Rutherford.
Hewitt Bostock: With reference to the
divorce bills, is it the pleasure of the House that Bills Nos. 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278 and 279 be now read the third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, bills read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Experimental farms. $1,600,000.
John Millar: When the House rose at six o'clock I was about to make some remarks on this item. I hold in my hand a memorandum prepared by t'he superintendent of the experimental farm showing the nature of the work being done there. I will read the first item and I ask permission to place the complete memorandum on Hansard.
The memorandum is as follows: Experimental Farm, Indian Head Projects being conducted
Horses-
1.	Breeding and improvement of Clydesdale horses.
2.	Feeding potassium iodide for the control of navel ill.
3.	Cost of raising two-year-olds, yearlings and
foals.	.
4.	Comparison-stable vs. shed for idle work horses.
5.	Cost of maintaining idle work horses during winter.
6.	Cost of maintaining horses on light work during winter.
7.	Cost of maintaining brood mares.
Supply-Agriculture

Cattle-Shorthorns-
1.	Breeding shorthorns.
2.	Cost of raising calves, yearlings and two-year-olds.
3.	Feeding potassium iodide for prevention of goitre.
Cattle-Ayrshires-
1.	Breeding Ayrshire cattle.
2.	Cost of raising Ayrshire calves.
3.	Cost of milk production.
4.	Record of performance work.
5.	Feeding potassium iodide for prevention of goitre.
Sheep-
1.	Breeding Shropshire sheep.
2.	Cost of maintaining breeding ewes.
3.	Cost of maintaining breeding rams.
4.	Distribution of rams for flock improvement.
5.	Economy of early vs. late lambs.
6.	Cost of rearing market lambs.
Swine-
1.	Breeding bacon type Yorkshires.
2.	Comparison of hog pastures.
3.	Breeding for spring and fall litters.
4.	Comparison of coarse grains for finishing hogs.
5.	Comparison of shelters for fall litters.
6.	Feeding potassium iodide for prevention of hairlessness.
Field Husbandry
Rotations-
1.	"C"-Three-year rotation (summerfallow, wheat, wheat).
2.	"J"-Six-year rotation (corn, wheat, hay, hay, wheat, oats).
3.	"P"-Eight-year rotation (corn, barley, hay, hay, hay, hay and break, wheat, oats).
4.	"R"-Nine-year rotation (summerfallow, wheat, oats, hay, hay, hay, corn, wheat, oats).
Cultural Experiments-
1.	Summerfallow treatment.
2.	Summerfallow substitutes.
3.	Stubble treatment.
4.	Breaking sod from cultivated grasses and clovers.
5.	Place in rotation to seed fall rye.
6.	Dates of seeding sunflowers.
7.	Dates of seeding fall rye.
8.	Rates of seeding grasses and clovers.
9.	Methods of seeding grass and clover mixtures.
10.	Cultivation and intertillage of sunflowers. Manure and Commercial Fertilizer Experiments-
1.	Manure for wheat.
Cereal
Tests of Varieties or Strains-[DOT]
1.	Common spring wheat.
2.	Durum wheats.
3.	Winter wheats.
4.	Oats.
5.	Barley.
6.	Field peas.
7.	Field beans.
8.	Flax. -
9.	Winter rye.
Isolation of Superior Strains by Seleclion-
1.	Spring wheat.
2.	Durum wheats.
3.	Winter wheats.
4.	Oats.
5.	Barley.
fi. Field peas.

Miscellaneous-*
1.	Production of registered grain.
2.	Tests of farmers' seed grain.
3.	Tests of flax and wheat in combination for grain.
4.	Bi-stimulation of seed wheat.
5.	Spring wheat-production of superior varieties from erosse.
Cooperative Work-
1.	Seed treatment for control of wheat bunt in cooperation with division of botany.
2.	Effect of soil on quality in common spring wheat in cooperation with the University of Saskatchewan Department of Chemistry.
Forage Crops
Alfalfa-
1.	Variety tests for hardiness, yield and suitability.
2.	Breeding improved strains.
3.	Rates of seeding for hay production.
4.	Seeding with vs. without a nurse crop.
5.	Depth of seeding.
Annual Hay Crops-
1.	Dates of seeding oats for hay.
2. Tests of yield and suitability of grain varieties.
3.	Tests of yield and suitability of legume varieties.
4. Tests of yield and suitability of other
grasses.
5.	Cutting oats at different stages for hay.
Other Hay Crops

1.	Brome grass-rates of seeding for hay production.
2.	Hay and pasture mixtures using alfalfa as a base.
3.	Hay and pasture mixtures using sweet clover as a base.
4.	Grasses and clovers alone and in combination.
5.	Miscellaneous grasses.
6.	Red clover-variety tests for yield and general suitability.
7.	Sweet clover variety tests.
8.	Sweet clover-methods of seeding for hay production.
9.	Sweet clover

rates of seeding for hay production.
10.	Western rye grass-Variety tests for yield and purity.
11.	Western rye grass-rates of seeding for hay production.
Hoed Crops-
1 Carrots-variety tests for yield and purity.
2.	Indian corn-variety tests for ensilage purposes.
3.	Indian corn-variety tests for production of grain.
4.	Mangels-variety tests for yield and purity.
5.	Sugar beets-variety tests for yield and purity.
6.	Sunflowers-variety tests for yield and purity.
7. Swedes-variety tests for yield and purity.
Cooperative Work-
1.	Tests of methods for inoculating alfalfa and sweet clover in cooperation with the Department of Soils, University of Saskatchewan.
Horticulture
Vegetables-
1.	Variety tests of thirty-two kinds of vegetables.

Supply-Agriculture
Horticulture-Concluded
2.	Planting distances for peas and beans.
3.	Dates of planting for beets, carrots, parsnips, potatoes.
4.	Methods of blanching celery.
5.	Methods of pruning tomatoes.
6.	Selection of early maturing strains of corn, egg plant, tomatoes, onions.
Small Fruits-
1.	Variety tests of red, white and black currants, gooseberries, strawberries and raspberries.
Tree Fruits-
1.	Testing the suitability of hardy standard and cross-bred apple varieties for prairie conditions.
2.	Selection of suitable seedlings of standard
varieties of apples.	_
3.	Testing hardy plum and hybrid plum varieties.
4.	Propagation of and selection from seedlings of the best native plum varieties.
Flowers-	_	_
1.	Variety tests and propagation of perennials.
2.	Variety test and seed production of annuals.
3.	Cultural methods for bulbs (tulips) out of doors.
Suggested Experiments to be Conducted by the
Horticultural Department, Experimental Farm, Indian Head
Vegetables-
1.	Tomato-attempt to hasten maturity by cultural and fertilizer treatments.
2.	Head lettuce-to determine the best date to sow, best fertilizer to use and most suitable cultural methods for the production of head lettuce.
3.	Onions-control of onion maggot (various treatments).
4.	Celery-date of planting for best yields.
5.	Asparagus-seed vs. portions of old crowns for early production of shoots.
Small Fruits

1. Handling of currant cuttings whereby the largest proportion will strike roots.
Tree Fruits-
1.	Control of plum pocket and aphis.
2.	Pruning and manuring hardy standard apple varieties with a view to overcoming winter injury and hastening time of coming into bearing.
Poultry-
1.	Pedigree breeding for egg production.
2.	Best hatching date for egg production.
3.	Egg laying contest (registration).
4.	Feeding for fertility, hatchability and viability with supplementary feeds.
5.	Breeding for standard type and egg production.
6.	Improved quality of poultry in district.
Suggested Project to be Conducted by the
Poultry Department, Experimental Farm, Indian Head
1. Breeding for fertility, hatchability and viability-hens vs. pullets.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Before the item carries I should like to make a statement with regard to the experimental farm in Ottawa. I have spent considerable time at the experimental farm since coming here, and I have
found that there is not nearly enough land there to carry on the work of the farm properly. I think that in this House we are not voting nearly enough money for agriculture. Agriculture is responsible for the employment of over 'half the people of Canada, feeds all of them, and we vote only $6,000,000 for it in our estimates. At the experimental farm in Ottawa we are using for field crops only about 120 acres all told. That is not nearly enough to do the work that should be done by the experimenters there. For instance, the animal husbandry department has only 23 acres, and they have over 200 head of cattle for dairy purposes, 100 head of beef cattle, over 150 head of swine and a great many sheep to look after. Practically every department at the experimental farm is over-crowded, and proper work cannot be done. The work at the experimental farm has been responsible for enriching the Dominion of Canada by hundreds of millions of dollars in the last few years, because they have been able to find new kinds of grain, new kinds of fruit and by breeding and selection to improve all kinds of farm animals. The House should seriously consider, at least another year, the buying of more land adjacent to the farm at Ottawa. I think that members of parliament, the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister should know that adjacent to the experimental farm at Indian Head, Saskatchewan, a man named William Patterson has lived for a great many years on a beautiful section of land. He has good buildings, good stock and machinery. Mr. Patterson has turned over to the Dominion government that entire piece of land, with all equipment, at a rental of $1,000 a year, and is providing that upon his death it shall revert to the government, free, for experimental purposes. He has seen the work that has been carried on at the experimental farm and has been so strongly impressed by it that, as I say, he is leaving his entire fortune in the shape of a section of land in Saskatchewan, worth at least $100 per acre, to the government. I think the government and the House of Commons should in some way recognize the gift of Mr. Patterson of Indian Head.
I would like, as the hon, member for Qu'Appelle has done, to place upon Hansard a report giving the exact use of all the land at the experimental farm in Ottawa to show how crowded they are for experimental work there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to object, but I notice a growing habit of placing things on Hansard without members knowing what
23G8
Supply-Agriculture

they are. If this is an official report prepared by the department, containing official information, I see no objection, but it is decidedly bad practice to get the habit of placing things on Hansard of which the House has no knowledge.


John Gordon Ross: This is a typewritten report of information I gathered at the experimental farm in regard .to the number of acres used for each class of work. Am I to be allowed to put it on Hansard?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Power):: I think
the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is well taken. There has been a growing practice of placing on Hansard long citations which really should not 'be incorporated in the debates, and unless this is an official document I am afraid the hon. member will have to refrain from placing it on Hansard.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: What is the reason for the increase of $160,000 in this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: Our vote last year proved too small owing partly to the fact that it started too small and also to the inclement weather which made our field and harvest operations more expensive. At least $60,000 of this increase is already spent. The preceding government started nine new experimental farms; its predecessor started eight, but we take the ground that before we are justified in establishing any more of these farms we should properly equip the 22 farms we already have. I think that policy is supported 'by the country generally. As the work of these farms has increased so their acreage has been added to with the exception of the Lethbridge farm, which I think the hon. member for that district has in mind in wondering what I am doing with all this money. For a number of years we have intended to extend the Lethbridge farm by 100 acres in order to carry out experiments in irrigation. There are 100 acres of land adjoining, but the owner is holding it at $175 an acre, which I consider too high for prairie land, although a pipe line crosses it and the water privileges add considerably to the value. It is quite possible that we will have to take proceedings in the Exchequer court. That is the principal reason for the delay in acquiring the land. There is another expenditure we should like to make. Tobacco growing has become so profitable, due t'o the acceptability of our crop in the British market, that we have felt warranted in encouraging its growth in Quebec, in western Ontario and in the Okanagan valley. In Montcalm-L'As-somption there is a small tobacco farm and 
we have been negotiating for a parcel of land to extend the farm, but there too the price is, I think, rather high. Of course, when the government wants a piece of land it does not get' less in value in the opinion of the owner. Probably in this case also we shall have to go to the Exchequer court.
Now as to the central experimental farm. Forty years ago it consisted of 460 acres, but in the intervening years a little piece has been taken off for this and for that, until the farm land proper now consists of only three fields of forty acres each. The result is that our farming operations are not sufficient to carry the large head of stock there, most of which have to be kept in the stables all summer. I should like some additional land for this farm. We will never get it cheaper than it can be had to-day, and unless we get it soon we will not be able to get it at all. As a show proposition the farm is top-heavy, but it is very much Sbelow what it should be in regard to farm operations. We are putting up hay twelve miles away on the rifle ranges at a cost delivered at the farm of six dollars a ton-an absurdly high figure, and a practice which we could not commend to the farmers at large.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I agree, Mr. Chairman, that the experimental farm should be extended by at least two or three hundred acres, which can be procured perhaps to better advantage now than at any other time. In regard to the increase of $160,000, is any of it to be given to improving the wages of the employees at the experimental farm in order to remove the present anomalous condition prevailing there? For instance, in a workshop at the farm you have carpenters working for the Public Works department at 56 cents an hour for a nine-hour day, while perhaps by their side you have carpenters of the same department doing the same work at 75 cents an hour for an eight-hour day. You can never have a contented service when the workmen are paid at different rates. Either one set of men are being paid too much or the other set are being paid too little. One carpenter will leave an hour ahead of another, and while he draws seventy-five cents an hour, his fellow workman, although he puts in an extra hour, is paid only fifty-six cents. More than that, the man receiving seventy-five cents an hour gets two weeks' holidays as compared with the statutory holidays which the other enjoys. That is something that should be looked into. Men working in other branches of the service, and who are not putting in so strenuous a time

Supply-Agriculture
as the employees of the experimental farm, have had their salaries increased from time to time, but the men on the experimental farm are ill paid in comparison. I consider they are entitled to equal treatment with the others. I would support the minister in any effort he might make to have the farm area increased. Now is the time to do this. The district is growing in the western section and it will not be long before the government will be unable to procure any land at all.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: The minister is thoroughly well aware that the people of Lethbridge are anxious to have the experimental farm there extended. During the last two or three years he has been importuned by the superintendent of the farm, Mr. Fairfield, as well as by the Lethbridge Board of Trade and other persons in official capacity in the constituency to increase the area of the farm. 1 do not believe that the minister fully appreciates the great value of that farm and the necessity that exists for experimentation on a larger scale, than is possible at the present time. There are in the neighbourhood of 250,000 acres of land under irrigation, served to a greater or less extent by the farm. A number of irrigation districts have been formed in that vicinity in the last few years. The farmers who have created these districts have hypothecated their lands to the extent of $30, $40 and $50 an acre to obtain the necessary water to redeem the land and render it a dependable source of income. If therefore, there is an experimental farm in this country whose activities should be extended to meet the exigencies of the situation it is that Lethbridge farm. The minister seems to object on the ground that the price of the additional land is too high. As I recollect, the first price asked was $200 an acre. A desirable tract of land of 100 acres lies right across the road from the farm. The superintendent of the farm would like to annex it and it is the most convenient piece of land that could be secured anywhere adjacent to the farm itself. It is under irrigation. The land is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway and has been used for the purpose of raising hay to supply their own needs in that district. It is one of the most valuable tracts of land in that vicinity and the company is not asking so high a price as is demanded for lands not equally well located and not so well adapted for the purpose. The minister said there had been a reduction of $25 an acre due to the intercession of the superintendent of the Lethbridge experimental farm. I understand that the price has been reduced now to $150 an acre, which is moderate indeed. I hope the minister will
take the matter into consideration and endeavour to obtain the additional land for the purposes of the farm. The farm at Lethbridge has a dual purpose to serve and its problems are more difficult than those in connection with any other farm in the Dominion. This is explained by the fact that the district is semi-arid and provision must be made for experimentation both in the dry farming and irrigation processes. The additional land is absolutely necessary for experimentation especially in connection with the raising of forage crops. It is wanted particularly to aid the farmers in the irrigated districts in the production of these crops. It is also necessary to instruct them in the economical and efficient use of water. In connection with the development of the dairy industry it is of vital importance. I cannot urge the need of this land too strongly. I do not feel like letting the item go through until the minister promises to buy that land. Two or three years ago there was an item in the estimates of $20,000 for its purchase, but the land was not secured. The price was then $200 an acre, whereas to-day it can be obtained at $150, a lower price than is asked for other land in the neighbourhood suitable for the purpose. I hope the minister will make the purchase.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend say it can be got for $150 an acre?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Yes. I have a letter here from Mr. Mackay the manager of one of the banks of Lethbridge, and president of the Lethbridge Board of Trade, in which he intimates that the land is now obtainable at that price.


William Richard Motherwell: It was the intention of my officials to have another interview with the Canadian Pacific Railway authorities who own the land. The officials were under the impression that the price was still $175.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Perhaps I had better read Mr. Mackay's letter:
Dear Mr. Jelliff,
As you may have heard, a short time ago the board of trade here took up with the government the matter of purchasing from the Canadian Pacific Railway an additional hundred acres of irrigated land for the use of the Dominion experimental farm. It appears that this land was originally offered by the C. P. R. for $200, an acre and that on two occasions thereafter this figure was reduced by $25, so that the price now stands at $150 per acre but the Dominion government evidently feel that this price is still too high. The land in question adjoins the gaol farm and is directly across the road from the experimental farm buildings.
Supply-Agriculture

It is part of what is known as the C.P.R. hay farm and is generally considered to be the choicest piece of irrigated land in the district.
I had an opportunity of talking with Mr. S. J. Porter of the C. P. R. Natural Resources Department at Calgary a few days ago. Mr. Porter was formerly in charge of the Natural Resources Department in Lethbridge and is familiar with the foregoing details mentioned in this letter. I endeavored to have him recommend to the company that the price of this land be reduced to $125 an acre but Mr. Porter stated that he could not make such a recommendation as he was firmly of the opinion that the land was worth more than $150 an acre, that the C. P. R. could undoubtedly dispose of it at a figure close to $200 an acre and from the tenor of the conversation I judged that they had not been active in their endeavors to sell it in view of their knowledge of the government's desire to acquire it.
Mr. Buchanan has, I understand, had this matter up with the minister and I would appreciate it greatly if you would interview him on our behalf.
The farm as it stands is not sufficiently large to carry on feed lot experiments which Mr. Fairfield would like to commence this year. With the increase in irrigation in this district it is hoped that there will be a steady growth in the feeding of cattle, sheep and hogs and it is particularly with regard to this class of agricultural work that the additional acreage is required.
With kindest regards, I am.
Yours sincerely,
E. E. Mackay,
President.
I trust that the minister will find it possible to buy this land.


John Evans: I see that there is an increase of $638,000 in agricultural estimates. I wonder whether that increase is warranted at this time. While the minister's explanation appears reasonable it is given altogether from the departmental standpoint. I think it is time somebody undertook to speak from the point of view of the actual farmer himself. I would like to know if agriculture was ever in a worse condition than it is at present, even though we are increasing the experimental work year by year. Not only do we have to go to other countries to find settlers to take up our vacant lands in the west, but farms are lying idle even in the eastern provinces. With all the expense of this experimental work, agriculture does not seem to be in the prosperous state we think it should be. There are vacant farms here in Ontario close to the cities; in fact I do not know but what we could have had a Duncan report on almost any corner or county in Ontario. I am sorry to see that the department this year is cutting down on the distribution of thoroughbred animals. The real work of the farm does not seem to prosper, but the overhead with regard to experimental work increases from year to year. This is not as it 
should be, but somehow the actual farmer is not receiving the benefit of these expenditures. I am not sure but what the minister has made his explanation entirely from a departmental point of view.


Mr. BARBER:: I would like to ask the
minister if there is anything provided in this vote for the experimental farm at Agassiz. That farm is very badly in need of improvements; it is a very important farm and has established many records both in stock and poultry. On my last visit there it was sadly in need of money; the buildings are old and in need of repairs, and I would like to know if anything is included in this item for that purpose.


William Richard Motherwell: Not in this vote, but in the public works vote there is an item for new buildings and repairs. There is a small amount for repairs and something like $6,000 for a horticultural building and a cottage.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I would like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff). I believe if we are going to spend money in extending experimental farms or if we are going to buy more land for experimental purposes it should be done at Lethbridge, which is in a very arid region. The farmers of that district are not used to farming under such conditions, and I think here in Ontario there is no need of extending the amount of land we now hold, since we have a large experimental farm at Ottawa and another at Guelph. I think we should spend the money where it would be of the greatest use to the producer. I think the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) told the truth when he said that sometimes the people who are producing in Canada feel that they reap very little benefit from the money spent under the vote we are now discussing. By giving way to the request of the hon. member for Lethbridge I believe the producers in the province of Alberta would be very well served, and as one hon. member for Ontario I would like to urge upon the government that they spend any additional money on new land where it is most needed, which I feel to be in Lethbridge rather than in Ottawa.


William Richard Motherwell: The leaven is already working in the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the Lethbridge farm. If that farm can be secured for $150 an acre we will buy it, although it has to go before the Treasury Board, of course.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: And we will give the minister our entire support.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. BRADY:: Before this item passes I
would like to draw the attention of the minister to the great importance and the great need of continuing to add to the experimental farms of Canada. I think the minister has said that the increase in these farms has practically ceased since 1920, and the time has now come for the Department of Agriculture to consider the advisability of establishing another experimental farm in northern British Columbia. As the minister well knows, in northern British Columbia we have a great new country which claims the right of consideration. The 'experimental farms S^t Agassiz and Summerland are serving parts of British Columbia which are absolutely different in climate and in other conditions from other parts of British Columbia. The minister knows that the area to which I refer has become very prominent lately because of the fact that at the Chicago exhibition the first prize for timothy seed for the whole of the North American continent was won by a farmer of that district; furthermore, at the Victoria agricultural show in 1926 this district took most of the prizes for root crops. If the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) had had the opportunity now in the power of the present minister, I know that an experimental farm in northern British Columbia would be a reality to-day; although I am not an expert on experimental farms I do know what the farmers of northern British Columbia need, and I know what experimental farms have done already in developing agriculture, live stock and poultry to that high state of perfection which has made Canada prominent in the eyes of the world. I would like the genial Minister of Agriculture to turn his eyes towards northern British Columbia which one day will take its place in wealth and in its contributions to Canada alongside of the more established parts of this country-I mean Ontario and Quebec. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture will not forget this district, even though the session is now almost at an end.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would like to take just
a moment to endorse the demand for more acreage in connection with the central experimental farm at Ottawa. It is impossible to carry on with such a restricted area to the very best advantage. I also want to endorse what the last speaker said with regard to that great inland empire of northern British Columbia. That country has a rich soil and a sufficient rain fall, and is particularly wdl suited to mixed farming of all kinds, and in that northern section there is not an experimental farm for a distance of some two
hundred miles. This would be a tremendous help to the farmers of that section, particularly those newly settling there, and I would like to give this request my strong endorsation. The minister or the deputy will remember that along in 1920 or 1921 we had this area looked over by some of the experts of the department, and they decided on that occasion that that section should have an experimental farm if it was to progress in the manner which was to be desired.


Eccles James Gott: Has the government purchased or is it purchasing land in the city of Oshawa or in that vicinity for the purpose of establishing an experimental farm?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What research work is being carried on at the central farm in conjunction with the research council?


William Richard Motherwell: We are carrying on experimental work at Winnipeg in connection with rust investigation, particularly with respect to the discovery of some variety of grain that will be immune from the ravages of rust. We are also conducting research work in the laboratory in Hull in connection with the Health of Animals branch.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that along the line of the treatment or prevention of diseases?


William Richard Motherwell: Tuberculosis in
cattle and, in fact, in all domestic animals and the prevention of it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that all the research work that is being done?


William Richard Motherwell: I have a list of the work that is being conducted at the new laboratory in Hull. The following tubercular problems have been undertaken and research work with regard to them is in progress. We have not yet moved into the new building and at present we have facilities only to the extent of a room about 10 by 12, the drawing room of a private citizen there, in which the research worker himself is living.
Tuberculosis research has been in progress for many years in the laboratories of the Health of Animals branch at Ottawa, Hull and Lethbridge.
This work has been given more particular attention at the research station at Hull and will be carried on more extensively as soon as better facilities are available upon the completion of the new building now under construction at that station.

Supply-Agriculture
The following tuberculosis problems have been undertaken and research work with regard to them is in progress:-
1.	Vaccination with a view to immunizing healthy cattle against infection.
2.	The relations of the human and avian types of tubercle bacilli to tuberculin reaction in cattle.
3.	The possibility of the interchangeability of infection among man, swine, poultry and cattle.
4.	The comparative study of human, bovine and avian types of tubercle bacilli, and of the infection and lesions produced in different species of animals.
5.	The nature and significance of the so-called "skin tuberculosis of cattle".
6.	The standardization of tuberculin is maintained and efforts are being made to isolate the active principle by absorption and careful chemical separation, so that the different fractions may be studied. If the active principle is isolated some of the known defects of tuberculin might be eliminated.
7.	Complement-fixation and serological tests as compared with, and as an auxiliary to the tuberculin test for diagnostic purposes.
8.	The study of immunological reactions, tuberculosis antigens and anti-substances; resistance to re-infection; production of antituberculosis and immune serums.
We have stables there and ail sorts of rabbits, guinea pigs and such animals as are associated with-work of that kind. When we have our new laboratory finished and equipped in August, we hope, we shall have one of the best laboratories on the continent.


Arthur Edward Ross: What difference is there in the work being done at the experimental farm at Kapuskasing and that done at the provincial farm at Monteith? I wondered if there was an overlapping of work or two distinct branches.


William Richard Motherwell: The Monteith farm is a residential school with a farm attached, something like the one at Kemptville. In Alberta there are similar farms. Very little experimental work is being done. The work is largely scholastic in conjunction with some practical work.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is any of this vote for
the extension of the experimental farm system in the Peace river country?


William Richard Motherwell: As my hon. friend knows we have not a full-fledged farm there.
It is a substation.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it the intention to
extend it?
	.
'Mr. MOTHERWELL:	No, but we intend
to put in three demonstration plots if we can secure suitable men for the work, one at Me-Lennan junction, one at Waterhole close to my hon. friend's home, and one at Spirit River. Those places are widely separated.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is the land purchased
for them?


William Richard Motherwell: No, just rented
from the owner, 40 acres for each plot.


William Russell Fansher: While most of the members seemed to be in favour of acquiring additional land for experimental farms, I do not think there is a proper balance between the money expended in connection with experimental farms and the experiments conducted on those farms and the money expended in order to get across to the farmers the facts that are discovered. This vote indicates that we are going to acquire more land and to do further experimentation, but to my mind it will be largely used in supplying bulletins which will be sent out to the farmers and in a large measure the real discoveries that are made at these farms and stations are not of as practical benefit as they ought to be to the actual dirt farmers. The greater proportion of the money should be devoted to the marketing end of this business. Any big business, no matter whether it is agricultural or otherwise pays a good deal of attention to the marketing of its product. Any manufacturing establishment devotes considerable attention to the marketing of its product. We have paid too much attention to the productive end of agriculture, to producing greater yields and better varieties, which is all very well, but we have fallen down on the marketing end of the proposition. Any increases that should be made in connection with the Department of Agriculture for the next few years should be along the line of the marketing of farm products, and there should be established in connection with the department a branch which would have this for its study. I am convinced that a great deal of the useful work that is done by experimental stations is not fully understood by farmers and that something should be done to bring the work more closely under their observation and attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of Animals, administration of the Animals Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Foods Act, and necessary buildings, $2,155,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain
the increase of 8250,000?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: As the House
knows, we have been doing very active work in connection with what we call restricted areas where we test all the cattle in, a given area, choosing as far as possible an area with natural boundaries so as to avoid the danger of reinfecting as much as possible. I think I have recited the areas before, but since the last time we were discussing them, we have established a small area in New Brunswick ten or twelve miles out of Fredericton, on an upland piece of ground which is largely isolated, and where we have 2,640 head of cattle of high quality. Out of that number, we discovered only twenty reactors on the first test. That area which we have established in New Brunswick will, I think, be the means of developing the idea throughout the entire province. There are, of course, many advantages in having animals free from this disease. Not only is their product free, but the animals themselves when free from this disease are much easier to sell, because cattle that have passed this test are always in greater demand.
We have also on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario agreed to start the first area in this province in Prince Edward county, in what is practically an island there is a canal that practically makes an island of .that area. We always try to select sites of this nature, in conjunction with the provincial authorities, where we will have a natural boundary so as to avoid the danger of reinfecting other cattle. That is why we chose Prince Edward Island two years ago, because it was entirely surrounded by water, and that is why we have chosen Prince Edward county in Ontario, which is practically an island. We propose to establish an area there in the course of a month or two, possibly before the cattle are on grass.


William Thomas Lucas: How many restricted areas
are there?


William Richard Motherwell: When this area in
Ontario is established, there will be restricted areas in all the provinces except Alberta and Nova Scotia.


William Thomas Lucas: Is this the main policy the
government is carrying on in regard to stamping out tuberculosis?


William Richard Motherwell: No, we are carrying
on the accredited herd system as well.


William Thomas Lucas: But is this the favourite
policy of the government?


William Richard Motherwell: I would not say
it was the favourite policy. One policy reaches one class of people, that is the breeders of pure-breds and I might say that some people take the view that the accredited herd system is not so valuable because they say when you pick out a herd here and another one there, you leave all the intervening herds capable of reinfecting the cattle. They take the ground that whether the cattle are pure-breds or grades, the better way is to start an area and clean it all up. But I think it is a good policy as it stands. Both policies have their advantages, and we are trying to call attention to both. There are 2,710 accredited herds throughout Canada, and in course of being accredited 2,433 herds, making a total of 6,143. We are not extending, however what we call the municipal order in cities. We find we are not getting much satisfaction out of that because of the very common practice in herds contiguous to the cities of pasturing the cattle in common pastures and that means that we have to keep on retesting the cattle, which means a big bill of expense.


William Thomas Lucas: Does the minister think that once he has the country covered, we shall be able to stand this burden in connection with the matter of compensation? I placed, some questions on the order paper some time ago as to the number of cattle slaughtered in connection with bovine tuberculosis and the amount of compensation paid, and since 1915 I find that over 73,000 cattle have been slaughtered, and $4,190,000 has been paid in compensation. '
There is a very large body of opinion growing throughout the country that the policy which the government is carrying on is not the best policy for the elimination of bovine tuberculosis. I do not want in any way to deprecate the work that has been carried on by the department. I think they have been doing the best they can under the policies they have adopted, but I would just like to ask the minister if he thinks that the department is doing everything possible to develop new methods such as the production of immunizing vaccines. I might say we have four policies that are being followed by the government: the supervised herd policy, adopted in 1905; the municipal testing policy, adopted in 1914; the accredited herd policy, adopted in 1919, and the restricted area policy, adopted in 1923, showing that as time went on the government have been receiving new ideas and evolving new policies in dealing with this question. The point I want to make is this:

Supply-Agriculture

I think there are other systems to which the department might give attention, and which would be superior to the policies they are carrying on at the present time. I find, for instance, that the Alberta government has been carrying on a great deal of experimental work in connection with the vaccine developed by Calmette, and this work has been further carried on under the Alberta Tuberculosis Research Association. I should like to quote from the report of that committee of last year:
Since March, 1925, the tuberculosis research committee of the province of Alberta has been conducting experiments (assisted by a grant from the National Research Council) with Calmette's B.C.G. vaccine-live attenuated tubercle bacilli-with the object of ascertaining its value as a preventive of tuberculosis in bovines. While the results of these experiments have been encouraging the evidence is not, as yet, sufficient to form a basis for final conclusions, although it may be said that the vaccine does not appear to be harmful to the animals vaccinated, and the resistance of vaccinated animals seems to be appreciably increased. Further, experiments are in progress and it is hoped before the year is out definite conclusions ' may be reached. It is recognized that this procedure is a considerable advance over methods which have been advocated and experimented upon up to the present time. The work of the Alberta committee on this vaccine is, as far as is known, the most extensive in Canada.
I might say also that both in Great Britain and the United States they are recognizing that a vaccine can be developed that will play a very important part in this work. I quote from an article on the prevention of tuberculosis in cattle by Nathan Raw, C.M.G., M.D, M.P., a member of the British House of Commons.
It is estimated that a million dairy cows in Great Britain are at present affected with tuberculosis, of which about five per cent are affected in the udder, rendering these cows extremely dangerous to the public health.
If all these cattle were destroyed to-morrow, and full compensation given to the owners, it would not solve the problem, as another generation of calves is coming on, many of them already infected, either by living in contact with their mothers, or infected in the early weeks or months of life by drinking the milk of a tuberculous cow.
The only solution to the problem is prevention of infection.
Then we have a memorandum from Doctor W. C. White, of Washington. I am not going to weary the committee by reading all of this long letter, but they are proceeding very much on the same principle as we are in Canada, that is slaughter and -compensation. He says:

In cattle I believe the process will be by vaccination and by pasteurization of food products and not by the fearfully wasteful method of condemnation and destruction of the present time.
I ask the minister just what work they are doing across the river at Hull, in regard to this research investigation, and what success they are having. Is he doing any practical work with animals or just laboratory work?


William Richard Motherwell: I have already
given, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kingston, a list of the research work, or nearly the whole of the research work. We have two stables over in Hull pretty well filled with live animals, calves, grown cows and guinea pigs, and so on. I think it would be worth my hon. friend's while to go over there and see it, because it is very interesting. When we get through the seven restricted areas with three of them with less than one per cent of reactors in the first test we are persuaded it is not so expensive a method as it would be in the old country and is in the United States. In the case of Prince Edward Island, Last Mountain in Saskatchewan and the small area in New Brunswick, the reactors on first test all came below one per cent. The time to get the disease is when it is in the early stages. If my hon. friend has any better method we should like to know it. We hope to develop a vaccine in the new laboratory that will act as a preventive, so doing away with the necessity for adopting the slaughter cure. I believe in time we will be able t'o get good results, but this Calmette vaccine has not as yet attained that end. No veterinarian will advocate that as a cure. The best they will do is to say that it may benefit for a year or two, but that is not' satisfactory. The research workers are coming nearer the solution all the time. In the meantime we are making use of the best methods that are at our disposal to cope with this matter.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I would like to draw the
attention of the minister to the fact that in my constituency we are concerned with t'he important high class breeding animals, although we are not a dairying country. Our breeders complain that the embargo placed on the importation of breeding cattle from Scotland and England is too rigid. That' embargo was put in force owing to the fact that in England a few years ago there was an outbreak of the foot and mouth disease. In England they isolated the sections in which the disease existed. Last month this restriction was lifted, because in England and in Scotland

Supply-Agriculture
they considered that there was no danger of the spread of the disease over there. Our people think that the time has come when the department should ease up and permit our breeders t'o import high-class stock from the sections of the old country from which it would be perfectly safe to bring them. I point out this peculiar situation. I am told by the department here that' unless six months have elapsed after an outbreak from any cause in the old country they will not permit high-class cattle to be brought from England to Canada. Why should we be so rigid when the United States only insist upon sixty days? I will read a short paragraph from a letter which I received from the chief of the Bureau of Agriculture in Washington. It says:
It is a rule of this department not to permit the importation of domestic live stock from any country where the foot and mouth disease exists until sixty days have elapsed after an outbreak.
What we cannot understand is this:	If the
United States permit the importation of these animals sixty days after an outbreak, why do we in Canada insist upon a period of six months? I think the government should act in conformity with other countries and not be too rigid in this matter in which many of our breeders are concerned.


Mr. HOWARD:: I cannot allow this
opportunity to pass, even though it is late, without making a few remarks to the minister.
I am heartily in accord with this restricted area development throughout Canada, and it is especially important to the section I am interested in, because already the department has an area reaching between the American boundary and the St. Lawrence river as far as the Richelieu river, which is now a practically clean area. I am glad to see this increased estimate of $250,000 this year, and I hope the money will be used to continue that restricted area, and if not to restrict it, throughout the entire province make it so as to cover the special section around Sherbrooke, Shefford, Stanstead, Richmond and Wolfe, Arthabaska, and so forth. The reason that this area should have preference over other areas is that of all the cream exported from Canada to the United States, eighty-five per cent comes from that section of the country. There are more accredited herds in that district than in any other district throughout Canada, and if there is one section more than any other where the restricted area should be continued and pushed ahead, it should be this section. In this district there are 90,000 head of cattle. If you deduct from
that 90,000 the accredited herds, about 20,000, it leaves about 70,000 animals which have not been tested. Under that test only about ten per cent will go down, which means about 7,000 animals. The government would be called upon to pay $35 apiece or an expenditure of approximately $250,000 to make this section absolutely clean. By making this a restricted area you would enable the farmers to ship their cream into the highest market at all' times even if that market was the United States. We have throughout this section of Quebec the provincial agronomists, a selected capable group of men who are dealing with the farmers in that section, and are giving a course of instruction second to none in the world. These men are willing to co-operate with the federal department and to get a petition signed requesting the government to complete this within the next two years at the outside. I sincerely hope the $250,000 increase is for this purpose.


William Richard Motherwell: Part of this vote
will go to extend the Chateauguay-Hunting-don restricted area to the Richelieu river, which will make it contiguous to the other counties referred to by the member for Sherbrooke. Then the next step will be in the direction indicated. Replying to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser), I am afraid we will still have to be open to the charge of being too severe in our restrictions against the admission of cattle from any country where foot and mouth disease is prevalent in that country. We would much prefer to err on being too strict in this respect rather than too lenient. Besides within the past week we have had reported a fresh outbreak from England.


Harry James Barber: Mr. Chairman, I think
the Fraser valley is about completed as a restricted area. I take exception to the criticism of the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) in regard to the amount of compensation paid. It may seem large in the aggregate, but if he had lost his entire herd and received $30 compensation per head, and afterwards had to replace his stock at $125 to $150 a head, I do not think he would object to the amount of compensation paid. I heartily support this vote.


William Thomas Lucas: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) misses my point entirely. I was not criticizing the amount of money paid in compensation. I was trying to get a better system. If we can do so I think it is the duty of this House and the country to try to evolve such a system. I agree that this is one of the most important subjects we have
Supply-Agriculture

to deal with in the country, because I know there is a very large body of opinion that believes the present system is not doing sufficiently good work for the money it costs. I think if this $250,000 were turned over to the National Research Council they might in a very short time formulate a system that would give much better results. The minister stated that the immunizing agent is effective for eighteen months. This being so, would it not be better to use the vaccine every eighteen months rather than slaughter the cattle?


William Earl Rowe: Some time ago I asked the
minister for information regarding compensation paid to one Andrew Oberle of Walker-ton, Ontario, for the Slaughter of swine. I received the papers only to-day, and as they comprise a bundle of 182 pages it has been almost impossible for me to peruse them closely. I notice, however, that the deputy minister on December 3, 1925, wrote to Oberle saying that he and the minister both felt that the department was under no obligation whatever except for the price of sixteen hogs which had been killed by mistake by the inspector, and therefore if he did not accept a cheque for $240 the account would be closed. On the following day a cheque for this amount was sent to Oberle. But I find that on February 24 of this year an order in council was passed to compensate him to the extent of $1,910. Under whose recommendation was this order in council passed?


William Richard Motherwell: The responsibility
for paying that was placed upon me by the House. It appeared in the estimates just the same as a number of small payments appear this year in the main estimates and in the supplementaries. These items cannot be paid under the law because the animals sometimes die on the way to be slaughtered. We changed our decision after reviewing the case. As the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., knows, there are mild types of hog cholera which one man will diagnose as such, while another will be of opinion that it is not hog cholera. This case became more complicated by the local authorities calling in veterinarians, and Dr. McGillivray of Guelph College diagnosed the trouble as cholera. But our men did not so diagnose it. When veterinarians differ our policy is to give the man who suffers the loss the benefit of the doubt.


William Earl Rowe: I do not think the minister
has made the case clear in view of much of the evidence that I find in this file. It seems rather strange that Oberle lost so many hogs. He is an experienced hog dealer and feeder, and prior to any inspector from the depart-

ment visiting his farm he had lost one hundred hogs that had not been reported to the department at- all. That, I understand, was berore May 1 last year. There is no doubt that he had been turning over a large number of hogs because on June 12 an inspector found 260 hogs on his farm. On June 25 the department received a telegram asking that an inspector be sent to the farm and that he, Oberle, had only 20 hogs left out of 300. On June 29 we find an inspector arrived and found 283. Mr. Nichols, the inspector, slaughtered a couple of hogs and later another hog to ascertain the trouble, and he was absolutely convinced there was no evidence of hog cholera, after sending the carcasses to headquarters for examination. The inspector visited the farm on July 19 and found only 16 hogs there. Oberle had lost 47 hogs in one interval and 49 in the other. Oberle was doing an extensive business and none of the hogs were kept on the farm very long. The inspector's report shows that Oberle purchased from fourteen different farmers, and the investigation demonstrated that none of those farmers' hogs were infected. During all this time Oberle was allowed to ship hogs, and he sold 182 and another shipment of 142 to the packing houses in Toronto. No quarantine was imposed on his farm. Everyone who understands anything about such a fatal disease as hog cholera will realize that if these hogs were not in quarantine some other farmers in the district would have had their animals infected. But we find that Mr. Oberle continued to conduct his business. The veterinary director general in his report stated that had Mr. Oberle followed the advice of Mr. Nichols he would have.lost scarcely any hogs. The fault was due to improper feeding; he was giving the hogs tankage, slaughterhouse offal and buttermilk which was altogether unfit for them. It is rather strange that the district inspector, Mr. Watson the chief pathologist, Doctor Hilton, the veterinary director general and others, being of the opinion that there was absolutely no sign of cholera, the department should have undergone such a change of heart as to pay $1,910 instead of $240 which they had agreed upon long before. The minister says that there were evidences of hog cholera, but according to his letter he forwarded the cheque of $250 as payment in full for the sixteen hogs that were killed in error. He admits that there was no cholera, because, if there was, why should he pay $250 "in full"? Under the Animals Contagious Diseases Act, wherever cholera is evident only two-thirds of the value of the animals slaughtered is paid, whereas in

Supply-Agriculture
this case the full value is given. It will readily be admitted that $15.60 on an average for 115 hogs is a good price for such animals as these. The department paid not only for sixteen hogs which admittedly should not have been killed, hogs that had no cholera, but there were ninety-six more that died and were paid for. I remember the Minister of Agriculture making the unconsciously humorous statement last year that these hogs had "all died on the road to death". Well, it seems they were a long time on the road to death, because they were dying all the way from June 12 to September 1. The minister declared that the reason the department paid for these hogs was that they had died before they could be slaughtered. If they died before they could be slaughtered it is evident that the department paid for hogs which the inspectors never saw. These hogs went to the dealer who was turning over hundreds of animals per month. Sometimes he would handle as many as 400. The act provides that no owner shall be reimbursed unless the hogs are slaughtered by order of one of the inspectors, but here we find ninety-six hogs being paid for in full although the inspector had never seen them. The inspector had only the word of the dealer that the hogs had died before they reached his place.
I cannot understand how the minister can claim that the hogs were suffering from cholera, because he knows that no such report was made by the inspector. The chief inspector of Ontario, the veterinary director general, and the pathologist took five of these hogs from Walkerton and examined them at headquarters and their report was that the hogs were not in good condition. They were not thrifty, there being evidence of undernourishment. They inoculated one hog with the blood of another to see whether cholera was present and they failed to infect any of these five animals. One of them died from pneumonia, and it was only after the other four had been inoculated with cholera germs that they succumbed. It was no wonder therefore that Mr. Watson reported no signs of hog cholera in these animals. They even brought three new experimental hogs and injected into them the blood from the hogs taken from Walkerton, and they failed to infect any of these three with cholera. Nevertheless, in face of all these experiments which could not reveal one trace of cholera, we find the department paying not only for the sixteen animals slaughtered by mistake, but for ninety-five others which the inspector never saw.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, there was one.


Peter McGibbon: The minister owes the committee an explanation.


William Richard Motherwell: I have given one.
My hon. friend seems to think there is something strange about the matter.


Peter McGibbon: There is something
strange.


William Richard Motherwell: There is nothing strange about two diagnoses about the same trouble. Someone has to decide and we made the best decision we could. We had the agricultural college of the Ontario government on the side of one of our veterinarians, while there were two other veterinarians on the other side, and we arrived at the soundest decision possible in the light of all the circumstances. Where there is any doubt in a matter of this kind the preference is always given to the man whose property is at stake. My hon. friend has played baseball and he knows that in a doubtful decision the base runner gets the preference. I do not see anything strange about it.


William Earl Rowe: I appreciate the minister's explanation: and I think his reference to baseball is rather appropriate. In this instance Mr. Oberle was playing shortstop, because so far as I can see he has got favours which nobody else has enjoyed. While there was a difference of opinion I do not think that the payment for all these hogs can be justified. I would not criticize the minister for paying for the sixteen hogs slaughtered by mistake. It was purely a mistake, as the minister admits. The deputy minister acknowledges that too, as do the chief pathologist and the veterinary director general. No one would be so critical as to find very much fault over a mistake. At the same time it is difficult to understand why the department should pay for ninety-five hogs which there is not the slightest evidence to show had been inspected. We have not the slightest trace of any evidence that the inspector had looked at one of them. The minister will not deny that forty-seven of them died between June 12 and June 29, not one of them having been seen by the inspector; and between June 29 and July 14, when Inspector Tennant visited the farm, forty-nine more had died. Besides these there were three which Inspector Nichols killed and sixteen Inspector Tennant had slaughtered by mistake, making 115 in all. I contend that only 19 of these 115 hogs could properly have been paid for under the Contagious Diseases Act. The minister has not explained it at all, because I have not noticed in the 182 pages of evidence any mention that the inspector saw
2378	COMMONS
Supply

Agriculture
one of the 96 hogs. He said that Mr. Oberle told him they had died in the interval, and all this correspondence was carried on by the hon. member for South Bruce and some members of the provincial legislature, on behalf of their friend Mr. Oberle. I feel that so far as these 96 hogs were concerned1, the department have deviated considerably from the limitations of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not want to let my hon. friend go into his back townships and talk that kind of nonsense; that is what he is playing the game for.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


William Richard Motherwell: Just sit down for a moment.


William Earl Rowe: I was not prompted by any such motive as that of going int6 my back townships and talking nonsense. Therefore I claim that the Minister of Agriculture has no right to impute motive.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member has no right to say that it is strange, or that I was playing favourites.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member rose to a point of order.


William Richard Motherwell: I don't know Mr. Oberle from Adam.


John Frederick Johnston: I heard the point of order, and I do not think thefe is any point of order at all.


Peter McGibbon: Then give your decision, and do not sit there like a dummy.


William Richard Motherwell: I never saw Mr. Oberle and if the hon. member will consult the gentleman sitting in front of him the hon. member for Victoria he will learn that this is not the only case in which there has been a difference of opinion in regard to diagnosis. Mr. George Alderson of Ingersoll, in South Oxford, had his case brought to my attention by a prominent Conservative who is not sitting in this House now. Lest the same fault befall my hon. friend, he might better leave well enough alone.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What was the final diagnosis in this case? I have been listening but I did not hear that.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. McGillivray
of the Guelph Agricultural College insisted to the last that it was cholera. One of our men also insisted that it was cholera, while

two of them said it was not. I had to give a decision as between them, and I decided in favour of the man who lost the hogs, and would do so again.
Mr: McGIBBON:	Will the Minister of
Agriculture say that there was a diagnosis made of all those hogs which were paid for?


William Richard Motherwell: The animals died, and that was sufficient. Some of them had cholera, and the presumption was that the others which died had the same trouble.


Peter McGibbon: It was merely presumptive evidence, with no proof at all?


William Earl Rowe: I did not intend to hold up this estimate for so long, Mr. Chairman, but in view of the explanation made by the minister the committee might be interested in hearing a letter written from the Veterinary Director General to the deputy minister, under date of May 27, 1926, which is as follows:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 21st, instant, enclosing copy of a claim made by Mr. Andrew Oberle regarding compensation for fatalities among his hogs.
In reply to your request in this connection I desire to first point out that Mr. Oberle shows in his statement of claim approximately one hundred more fatalities than those reported by our officers, and which I outlined in my letter to you of April 30, last.
Special measures were taken .in this case in an endeavour to demonstrate the existence of hog cholera infection, with negative results. The premises were not maintained under quarantine and still the disease did not spread through the district. I am consequently not in a position to change my opinion, which has been expressed on more than one occasion.
The act which I am administering makes no provision for paying compensation for animals dying from diseases which it purports to control.
The sole object of the act is to control diseases which are a menace to our live stock, and provision is only made for paying compensation for animals ordered slaughtered by our officers for the protection of other live stock owners. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Mr. Oberle will be receiving fair treatment in the circumstances if he is paid the full value of the sixteen hogs slaughtered by Inspector Tennant and for the three slaughtered for post mortem purposes by Inspector Nicholls. This would involve a payment of $270.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salary and expenses of Agricultural Produce Marketing Agent in Great Britain, $15,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: I notice an increase of
85,000. What is the reason for that?


William Richard Motherwell: He is doing more
advertising, and I think he has a secretary now. His advertising is carried on not only

Supply-Agriculture
237S
in the newspapers but my hon. friend may have noticed a despatch appearing in the press recently which stated that Mr. Wilson gave an all-Canadian dinner of all-Canadian products in the Hotel Cecil in London, to which he invited a large number of the trade to sample Canadian products fresh from Canada. This was a very good means of advertisement.
Mr. TC'LMIE:	Is this increase of $5,000
accounted for by expense or by an increase in salary?


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Wilson's salary has not been increased, with the exception of the statutory increase.


Mr. STIRLING:: Will the minister see to
it that Canada is represented on the Fruit Advisory Board by a fruit man? He will probably realize that Australia and Tasmania have three representatives on that board, all fruit men; New Zealand has a fruit man, South Africa has a fruit man, Great Britain has two fruit men while Canada, so far as I am aware, is represented by Mr. Wilson, who whatever his great knowledge of cheese may be is not a fruit man.


William Richard Motherwell: When we get a
sufficient vote we will consider that matter;
I think we should remember just now that we have to creep before we walk.


Grote Stirling: I would like to remind
the minister that we have an excellent fruit man in London now. Would it not be possible for Mr. Wilson to delegate to that gentleman his place on the Fruit Advisory Board?


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend
refer to Mr. Forsythe Smith?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I will think that
over. I think he is in consultation with Mr. Wilson.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fruit, including grant of $8,000 to the Canadian Horticultural Council, $230,000.
George Gibson Coote: Is the Canadian Horticultural Council that is mentioned as being the recipient of a grant of $8,000, the body that has appealed to the tariff board for an increase in the duty on fruits and vegetables?


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is.


George Gibson Coote: Is it the pdlicy of this Liberal government to finance bodies in Canada which are appealing for more protection? We should have some explanation.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think we
could make one of the conditions of the grant that they must not appear before the tariff board.


George Gibson Coote: Is this to assist them in appearing before the tariff board?


William Richard Motherwell: No, it is to assist
them in carrying on their work. They have established in Canada a registration bureau for new plants and flowers. For instance, I might mention the Macintosh apple. They register them just the way one would an animal. They are doing excellent work in that direction. The increase in the general vote is due to the shipping point inspection which costs $5 a car and which carries itself. This extra money will go back into the coffers of the Minister of Finance.
Item "agreed to.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, et cetera, $325,000.


George Gibson Coote: What is the explanation of
the increase?.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: I would like to ask the minister a question with regard to the inspection of seed potatoes and potatoes of grade A. We find that when a farmer is selling a carload of certified seed potatoes and he gets an inspector to give him a certificate covering the grade of those potatoes, he does not pay anything; the service is free. But if the same farmer or his neighbour is selling a carload of grade A potatoes and he wants a certificate covering the grade of those, he has to pay $5 a ear for the inspection certificate. It seems hardly fair that the man who is getting the higher price for the certified seed potatoes should go scotJfree, white the man who is selling grade A stock and getting the lower price has to pay a fee for the inspection certificate. I would like to suggest that both farmers should be put on the same basis in this respect. Has the minister ever considered this matter?


William Richard Motherwell: We want to encourage the production of certified seed! because it is a very valuable commodity. It is one of the chief sources of revenue from not only Prince Edward Island but the maritimes generally. If you are going to sell potatoes abroad in Virginia or elsewhere as certified seed potatoes, you must have them inspected and the government's certificate for them. That is obligatory and no fee is charged. The other is a purely commercial transaction. The potatoes are not. what we call certified seed; they are table stock. The owners of this
Supply-Agriculture

stock want to sell their goods abroad, and the only way in which they can sell them to the best advantage is by having somebody examine them, see that they are of uniform variety1- usually white is in the best demand-and that they have the government's certificate behind them. Those people are ready and offer to pay $5 a car for that service. The certificate is worth many times $5 to them for putting their goods on the market. We had requests from so many places in the maritimes for inspectors that we were not able to pick up enough men there for the work. This inspection is optional.
Mr. MA'CDONAjLD (Kings): First of all I do not consider the explanation at all logical, and further I should like to criticize very strongly the action of the department in that regard. In the first days of December last in Prince Edward Island every inspector with the exception of one to the east of Charlottetown went out of service and any dealer who had an order for a carload of potatoes loaded east of Charlottetown had to get an inspector from Charlottetown. The result was that orders had to be turned down because inspectors could not be secured. The trouble was not the matter of the $5 inspection fee, although I maintain there should not be such a discrimination between the growers. This is the situation. A farmer goes to work and grows, say a ten acre field of seed potatoes under inspection from certified seed, and he intends to sell them as certified seed. If he succeeds in passing all the inspection and his stock is all right, he gets the inspection certificate when he loads the stock on to the car, and his bags are tagged. This service costs him nothing. But supposing his stock fails to pass inspection, he will probably get 25 cents a bushel less for the stock and then he has to pay $5 for having it inspected. That is not fair.
Then there is the other feature. In December, January and' February last, inspection could not be secured at all with the result that farmers or dealers wanting to sell carloads of table stock had to refuse orders which demanded inspection. With the situation as it is in Kings county, Prince Edward Island, where there is one train a day, how is one inspector from the centre of the province in Charlottetown going to serve the whole of the eastern part of that province. The situation is absolutely absurd. It puts out of business the people who want to sell potatoes under inspection. If they have orders for any grade of potatoes, they can not secure the inspection and consequently they have to turn down the orders. This is an important matter
[Mr. Motherwell.)
in Prince Edward Island and I would certainly very strongly urge the minister to give it his serious consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: I am very glad
there has been such a land office demand for these inspectors that we have not been able to supply my hon. friend with them in sufficient numbers. If we are going to put them in there with the speed with which he would like to have them, he must expect to pay something for their service because we do not pick them up for nothing. This is a purely commercial service which we are glad to see that he appreciates. During the rush we had twelve inspectors at work. I am informed by the deputy and by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair) that during the winter there were always at least four inspectors on the island. They may not have all been in Charlottetown but they were doing work somewhere in Prince Edward Island. The only way to equalize the matter is to charge my hon. friend's customers for the service in connection with the certified seed potatoes and that will put both on a parity. We cannot afford to give the other service for nothing. If my hon. friend insists on equality of treatment^ then we shall have to charge for the certified seed inspection also, a thing which we do not intend to do.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I do not understand the minister and I cannot see how any other hon. member can understand him. I am not objecting to have the certified seed inspection free.


William Richard Motherwell: But the hon. member is pleading for equality of treatment.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The man
who is receiving the lower price for his product should not be charged an inspection fee when the man who receives the higher price is not so charged. The minister says there were four inspectors on the island last year. I do not know how it is with my hon. friend from Queens county, but certainly conditions -there are much better, because he has inspectors at Charlottetown and Summerside in his vicinity, but I say that the situation is absolutely impossible in Kings county under an inspection service where there is only one inspector in the city of Charlottetown who has to cover the whole of Kings county and the whole eastern half of Queens county. It is absolute!}' impossible, for it takes that one man two days to inspect two cars of potatoes. The situation is absurd, and the
APiRIL 12, 1927
Supply-Agriculture
result is that there is a great deal of trouble and difficulty, and consequent loss to the farmers.
I would suggest to the minister that an equality ought to be maintained between the growers of different classes of potatoes. There is no reason in the world why the man who is growing a high grade or a low grade potato should get his inspection free, while another grower raising another grade has to pay $5 for his inspection certificate. It is not fair, and that is the reason I object to it.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am a little
interested in this service to which my hon. friend from Kings refers. So far as the service which was given last year for the inspection of table stock is concerned, it was fairly satisfactory. At one period of the season when the large shipments were taking place before navigation closed, there were twelve inspectors at the service of the shippers in Prince Edward Island. When the middle of December came, eight of these inspectors were let out, but they were still always available for service from day to day if required, and were used by the day at times when they were required during the balance of the season. The inspectors were chosen from each of three counties, at least two from each county, which would make six, and the others were chosen from where they could best be secured for the purpose.
In regard to the cost of the inspection I may say that I and my colleague from Queens were waited on by shippers in Prince Edward Island in the early part of October, and were asked to try to provide this service. The shippers of potatoes particularly were desirous of having this service, and they themselves offered to pay a reasonable fee. The fee charged previous to that time was $5 a car when the certificate was given by the inspector. Before last year we were only in a position to inspect a few care. Some were inspected before they went aboard the ferry, but during the last season most of the inspection was done where the care were loaded, which was a more satisfactory inspection.
I think it would be a mistake to urge the minister to make a charge for the inspection of seed stock or for certifying seed potatoes. When you inspect potatoes for certification, you must inspect the growing crop twice during the season; you must also inspect the tuber after it is put in the pile, after the pile sweats, as it is termed, and later you must inspect the potatoes when they are in the bags ready for shipment before the tag is put on them. So it involves a series of inspections, and it is proving worth while
not only to our people in the east but to Canada as a whole, because we have a growing industry in the producing of certified seed which is shipped to the United States, and which helps in a large measure to make favourable to Canada the balance of trade between Canada and the United States. It is a business to which I feel the Department of Agriculture should give every attention, and I do ask the minister not to think of making a charge at this time for the inspection of certified seed, because that is a growing industry and one that will mean a great deal to the maritime provinces and the eastern part of the province of Quebec, which is really the territory in Canada that will in the future supply seed potatoes for the southern growers.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I do not
understand the logic of the hon. member for Queens any better than I understand the logic of the minister. First of all, he has stated that several inspections are required for seed potatoes; at least two or three in the field in the growing season, then an inspection in bulk after harvesting, and a further inspection on being loaded on the cars. For all that service the seed potato grower pays absolutely nothing, and I agree with that; that is right.
I am not asking that a charge should be made for that. But the fellow alongside of him who is growing table stock costs the department nothing up to the point when he wants his car inspected, and yet he has to pay a $5 fee if he has only one inspection.
There is another matter. The hon. member for Queens is not correct in stating that inspectors were available last fall. They were not. On the first of December every inspector in Kings county was taken off, as well as in eastern Queens, and not a single inspector was available after that date. At that time of the year we are shipping very heavily, especially during the first half of December, more particularly in the eastern part of the province, and it was a serious hardship for these inspectors to be all taken off last fall. I know the hon. member for Queens is stating what he thinks is right, but his statement is not correct, for I myself tried on several occasions to get the men who had been inspectors up to December 1 to inspect cars of potatoes,, and they said, "No, we are off duty, we are not allowed to do it. The only man you can secure is in Charlottetown," and that is all there was. I am not joking about this matter. It is a very important matter, and I want to impress this strongly upon the minister. First there is the cost. I believe that the potato grower who is selling table stock
Supply-Agriculture

should be placed on a level with t'he man who is growing seed stock, and neither of them should have to pay a fee for their inspection. Secondly, the inspection should be reasonably available during the whole shipping season instead of being cut off on the first of December when the shipping season is not half over.


John Ewen Sinclair: I must correct my hon. friend because we have had the inspectors during the whole season, and they are on yet.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Just the one in Charlottetown.


John Ewen Sinclair: During the
whole season when shippers required inspection they had to apply to the head office in Charlottetown, which controlled the whole inspection service. At some times you might get inspectors out on the road to do the work, but the organization required that you had to apply to the head office in Charlottetown from where the inspectors were controlled.
I want to say another word to Show just what it has meant to shippers in Prince Edward Island during the last year to have this inspection of our commercial stock. During this season, with the official certificate of grade attached to the shipping bill for our commercial potatoes, Prince Edward Island potatoes have commanded a premium in the Canadian markets of from ten to fifteen cents per ninety-pound bag as compared with potatoes grown in any other part of Canada, as you will find by referring to the market reports for November, December, January, February and March. My hon. friend who has spoken to-night is the first shipper I have heard complain about the inspection fee being charged for the certificate.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I do not think my hon. friend knows what he is talking about. The inspection act has been in force in regard to potatoes going to Montreal and other markets for years. I want to tell my hon. friend one thing that he does not know, or he would not have made the remarks he did, and that is that there is not one car in t'en inspected. They have the "Canada" A tag on them and they must be that grade, but the inspection does not give them that grade.


John Ewen Sinclair: They do not
have the inspector's tag.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: They did
not need if.


John Ewen Sinclair: When they do
not have the inspector's certificate they do not pay for it.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: My hon. friend spoke about inspection giving an added value of ten or fifteen cents a bag for potatoes.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a voluntary
service, and you do not' need to accept it.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The price is paid on the quality and not on the inspection certificate. Nine out of ten cars are never inspected, and they sell on the Toronto and Montreal markets just the same, if they have a grade A fag attached. The name of the shipper on the tags is of a great deal more value than the certificate of the Department of Agriculture.


Charles A. Stewart: Who puts
it' on?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The shipper.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not worth
anything.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: It is worth
everything. It is the whole thing. If a car is ordered with the requirement of an inspection certificate, an inspector is employed and examines perhaps ten bags out of five hundred in a car. Very often those ten bags are at' the door of the car, and he does not know any more than the Minister of Agriculture what is in the car, so that he would have a very poor idea of it. The member for Queens thinks it is the inspection certificate that gets the price.


John Ewen Sinclair: No. The certificate is the guarantee that the shipment is up to the grade stated.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: You are not getting a higher price on account of the inspection certificate, but on account of the quality of the potatoes. There are cases where inspection is required. There were many cases last fall, and in December and January, where inspection was required but could not be obtained because there is no inspection service given to the people.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For experiments in dehydration of fruit and vegetables, $10,000.
Harry James Barber: Where are these experiments carried on?


William Richard Motherwell: We have been
conducting experiments in small places, one here in Ottawa, one at Grimsby, one in the

Supply-Mines
Okanagan, at Penticton, We have got stations in various places. The dehydration committee recommended that we should use part of the plant at' Grimsby for the establishment of a real commercial plant there. The equipment at Grimsby is worth about $10,000. If we add this $10,000 to it, we will be able to start a real commercial plant large enough to operate under commercial conditions. We do that because we find that where commercial plants start of their own accord with limited capital they are apt to meet with some difficulty, the result being that they cannot operate cheaply. Burlington I think is the place we have in mind. My deputy tells me that the dehydration committee is at Burlington to-night, endeavouring to organize a unit there for the purpose of establishing commercial dehydrating plants such as I have described.


Harry James Barber: Is it carried on with small
fruits, or just apples?


William Richard Motherwell: No, all fruits.


Harry James Barber: Is it possible to get information in regard to these experiments?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we shall be
glad to supply my hon. friend with all available information.
Grant to the executive committee of the World's Poultry Congress to meet expenses in connection with the World's Poultry Congress, 1927-additional amount required, $50,000.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the total amount for this conference?


William Richard Motherwell: About $115,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Geological Survey-*
For explorations, surveys and investigations, wages of explorers,
topographers and others	
For publications of English and French editions of reports, maps,
illustrations, etc	
For maintenance of offices, and Museum, instruments, chemicals, books of reference, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies	
For museum equipment	
For purchase of specimens
Mr. FRASER:: What is the reason for
the decrease in this vote?


Charles A. Stewart: We have practically the same number of parties in the field, but they do not require as much for maintenance this year.
Mr. TOiLMIE:	As this is the last item,
I wanted to get a little information with regard to the dumping duty on eggs. I understand that with the dumping clause in operation on purchases made at certain seasons of the year there is no guarantee that it may be applied later on in the season, and there is great risk in having all this money in Canadian eggs. There is a very strong probability of the investors holding back in the event of there being plenty of cheap eggs in the United States which may come in and compete with Canadian eggs on the market here. I was going to ask if the minister has given consideration to the question whether it would not be better to have a fixed tariS higher than three cents, so as to give these dealers some assurance and stabilize the market.


William Richard Motherwell: I will give the
matter serious consideration, but a lot of my friends on this side of the House do not like the idea of a higher duty or a dumping clause, so we will defer the consideration of that question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Anderson Fraser: How many parties have
you in British Columbia?


Charles A. Stewart: Nine; the
same as last year.


John Anderson Fraser: What part of the province did they cover last year?


Charles A. Stewart: Southwest
Yukon; Skeena river, Portland canal, Clearwater lake-


John Anderson Fraser: I would direct the attention of the minister to the country around the Clearwater. It is pretty much in the same range as the main Cariboo gold fields, that is, south of east of the main range. In a small area of the Cariboo country you have a geological survey, but there is that large area between those two points to which attention should be given. It is all in the same mineralized zone, and the survey should be extended from the Clearwater lake through to the Cariboo country and on as far north as Fort George. When the minister is arranging his further survey I should like him to take in to consideration the advisability of
Supply-Mines

continuing it to the northwest until he reaches pretty nearly the Fort George country. It is all in the same zone and requires the same careful study and inspection. I think the result will justify any money expended there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines - salaries, $571,085 - contingencies, $6,700.
Mr. QUINN:: While we may be in a hurry to get through these estimates, Mr. Chairman, I think it is of importance that we should know what we are discussing. Where is this item to be found?


John Frederick Johnston: At page nine, and the details at page 91.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Imperial Institute, $12,849.
Edward Joseph Garland: Will the minister explain what the institute does?


Charles A. Stewart: 
Edward Joseph Garland: What is the institute for and what benefit does Canada get from it?


Charles A. Stewart: It is a central bureau for the advertising of the mineral resources of Great Britain and the overseas dominions. It is maintained in London.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it a sort of museum?


Charles A. Stewart: There are displayed all the minerals of the country so that visitors to the institute may see exactly what each dominion possesses.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other words, it costs $12,400 to satisfy the curiosity of some individual who may be interested?


Charles A. Stewart: It is well worth the money from the advertising standpoint alone.


James Charles Brady: Are the provinces represented individually or is Canada treated as a unit?


Charles A. Stewart: The Dominion is treated as a unit.


John Anderson Fraser: Is the exhibit supplemented with literature?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines Branch-to provide for operation of peat bog at Alfred, Ontario (revote $45,000).
To provide for a trial shipment of Alberta domestic coal to be made by rail and lake under the supervision of the Dominion Fuel Board in order to ascertain the possiblities of moving Alberta coal in large volume with modern loading and unloading facilities, provided one-third of the total cost Of the movement is borne by other governmental, municipal or private organizations, $80,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: In what respect is the Mines branch of the federal department different in its functions from similar departments in the provinces? Is there any overlapping? Take for instance the peat bog at Alfred. Why should that not come under the provincial department?


Charles A. Stewart: 
Hugh Guthrie: How much has been spent on the peat bog at Alfred to date?


Charles A. Stewart: About $300,-
000.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not want to
knock anything but I think it was well demonstrated to the committee investigating the matter that for two or three reasons this woi-k would not be worth carrying on. The minister is now going into the coke business and that should relieve the fuel situation. The committee thought that the results would not justify further work in this direction.


Charles A. Stewart: It has been demonstrated that peat can be manufactured at $3.50' a ton on board the car, and delivered within reasonable distances at $5 a ton. This makes it an economical fuel compared to coal. Anthracite costs from $16 to $17 a ton while the lower grades are about $12. Peat is not an all-winter fuel but in the fall and spring it is quite serviceable. Inasmuch as there are large deposits of peat throughout Ontario it was thought well to complete the experiment. There is a private company which intends manufacturing peat at Ste. Hyacinthe, Quebec. They have written asking for information. I must conclude therefore that peat fuel will be a rather important factor in the future for use in grates and for fall and spring, when there is not too high a head of steam required in the furnace for domestic use.


Mr. PETTIT:: Has the minister considered developing a large peat bed in the county of Welland where there are several thousand acres available? A number of years ago a company did a certain amount of work there but nothing seems to have come of it. It would be advisable for the minister to look into the matter to see whether that bed could not be utilized.


Charles A. Stewart: Examinations have been made by the officers of the department, as well as by the department of the Ontario government, into a number of peat beds lying within a reasonable distance of Toronto. I do not know anything about the one at Welland, but at Holland landing a complete examination has been made. They
are all serviceable, but we are trying to demonstrate that we can manufacture peat and sell it successfully in a way which will meet with the approval of the consumers.


John Anderson Fraser: Did I understand the minister to say that the federal government administered the minerals in the railway belt of British Columbia?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton). Not now. If I said 'that I made a mistake. I am simply dealing with the geological work of our branch as carried on in British Columbia.


John Anderson Fraser: The provincial government
administers all the metals?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
like to ask the minister if this work is carried on now on a commercial scale by the government?


Charles A. Stewart: It will be this year.


Edward Joseph Garland: It has not been heretofore?


Charles A. Stewart: It has been in the experimental stage.


Edward Joseph Garland: In view of that fact would the minister give the committee figures to show the cost of production of one ton of peat?


Charles A. Stewart: I just gave that figure; $3.50 per ton f.o.b.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
what it actually costs to produce it?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, delivered on the car.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it proposed to sell the peat at cost or to reimburse the treasury by charging a reasonable margin to make up for the enormous sum invested?


Charles A. Stewart: We intend to sell it on a commercial basis in order to demonstrate what can be done. That is, we will manufacture and sell the peat at a price which will make it reasonably profitable.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it the policy of the government to turn over this almost completed plant to private interests, or does the government propose to carry on the work itself?


Charles A. Stewart: Once having demonstrated the feasibility of this undertaking, we do not intend to continue it as a government institution.
Supply-Mines


Edward Joseph Garland: What
private concern will take it over, and at what cost?


Charles A. Stewart: They will
have to reimburse the government for all the outlay.


Edward Joseph Garland: For the
$365,000?


Charles A. Stewart: No, that
was experimental work, but any investment made now by the government will be returned.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do I understand that it is proposed to turn over the existing plant without cost?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I have not made it clear. The plant is privately owned; we have leased it on a rental basis * for experimental purposes for one year from the company, who have not been able to carry on. The plant will go back to the company with the definite understanding that they repay us for any outlay we have made for which we have not been able to reimburse ourselves by the sale of the peat.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the present
capacity of the plant?


Charles A. Stewart: That is
very difficult to say, because a great deal depends upon the weather. If it is damp and rainy the drying process does not take place so rapidly.


Hugh Guthrie: Assuming the weather to be suitable, what is the estimated production of the plant?


Charles A. Stewart: We estimate that we could manufacture about 20,000 tons.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister tell us in a few words what process was found to be
the best?


Charles A. Stewart: The air drying process is the one we have adopted. It simply involves taking the peat out, putting it through a macerator -and working it up into a fine substance, then spreading it out on the ground to dry.


Peter McGibbon: That could only be done during a few months of the year?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, just
during the summer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I saw the agreement under which this lease was executed, and at that time I declined to carry it out. I was of the opinion that the proposal was not in the pub-

lie interest, since it necessitated spending a large sum of money for the lease of a property at a rental which I thought was exorbitant, without the assurance that the result would be of use to the country. Whatever may be said about it, in the short period I was acting minister I declined to execute the agreement. But I suppose it has been signed?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I confess that I shared my hon. friend's doubts at the inception of this scheme, but after two years' experience I am still of the opinion that it is well worth while to test this experiment on a commercial basis. I am bound to say that I think it can be done, and that a fuel can be manufactured which will be quite valuable.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does the minister think this vote will be sufficient to complete the experiment?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we think so.


George Gibson Coote: Have they ever made any
peat there which bums successfully?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: The work that is to be done this year, as I understand it, is to carry on the producing and marketing of the peat?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is a second part of this vote which was not called, amounting to $15,000.


John Frederick Johnston: The total amount was called.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: The second item was not mentioned. It provides $15,000 for the trial shipment of Alberta domestic coal by rail and lake.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will recall that a special committee of this House recommended that a trial shipment of this coal should be brought into Ontario by lake and rail from Alberta. I thought it well to make provision for carrying out the finding of the committee provided, as my hon. friend will note, that both governments will join in that project. It is not my intention that we should spend all the money necessary for that shipment unless the governments of Alberta and Ontario are prepared to join with us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told that the coal is so friable that if it is dumped down a chute into a steel vessel it would be nothing but

Supply^Mines
dust in the hold I hope the minister will satisfy himself on that point before he spends any money. I have satisfied myself that the effect of dropping the coal into a steel ship would be to convert it into dust.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is probably correct, I suspect that is what would happen, without having expert advice about it. Inasmuch as this committee deliberated for some time, however, and brought in this recommendation, I felt it my duty to at least carry out my share of the program. I am also informed that Mr. Ellis, though I did not get this direct from 'him, has expressed the view that this was not a feasible proposition. If that is found to be so. I can assure my hon. friends that the money will not be spent.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has any attempt been *nade by the minister to get in touch with either of the governments with a view to carrying out this trial?


Charles A. Stewart: I have taken the matter up through some of the officers of my department, with Mr. Ellis.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do the
officials of the Department of Mines think there is any possibility of getting a similar gr;rnt from either of the provinces for this trial?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not a question of a grant, but a question of the provinces agreeing to cooperate in the movement as a test. If, as I am informed, Mr. Ellis, who advises the Ontario government, is opposed to a trial shipment of this character, as well as the operators in Alberta, of course nothing will be done. If on the other hand they should agree to a trial I shall have the necessary funds to enter into a three-cornered agreement with them.


Edward Joseph Garland: To what
amount?


Charles A. Stewart: Simply to
the amount required to cover any loss which may accrue.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the estimate for that amount $15,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. We
cannot estimate what the loss will be.


Edward Joseph Garland: It might
be more than that.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
say. A good deal will depend upon the cargo that is brought.


Edward Joseph Garland: I agree
almost with the statement of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). I do not know whether any more mad proposal was ever brought before this House than was brought forward last year by one of the front benchers on the Conservative side that the coal should be shipped lake and rail. No one knows better than those of us who live in Alberta that while our coal is of a domestic quality fully equal to any other used in this country, it will not stand harsh handling. One or two handlings are the most that it will stand without serious deterioration. I submit therefore that this vote is practically worthless and I venture to predict that not one dollar of it will ever be used. I venture to assert further that not a single operator in Alberta would prejudice the possible market for his coal by consenting to have it moved by lake and rail. Our operators know too well the danger of putting this coal down chutes into the hold of a vessel, hauling it out again with great clamshells and dropping it on the dock. The coal will not stand that treatment, but it will stand reasonable handling in box cars all rail. This morning we had a brief discussion in regard to the coal miners in Alberta. If the minister had the interest of the miners at heart-and I really think he has, but possibly officials of his department are leading him off into little highways and byways on other questions instead of letting him go ahead in the direction in which I feel sure he wants to go-he would have devoted this $15,000 to assisting the movement by rail until the Board of Railway Commissioners had reported on the cost rate. In that way the minister would have done infinitely more good to Alberta in the marketing of our coal than he will do by this vote in connection with the lake and rai. shipment of it.


Ms. MALCOLM:: The hon. member is
assuming that Alberta coal is going to disintegrate in going over a tipple and in being taken out of a boat. A big portion of Ontario can be served from Georgian bay and lake Huron ports. I do not think the hon. gentleman knows, nor do I think anybody knows, to what extent Alberta coal will deteriorate under lake handling. For my part I think it is a very small contribution to the experiment to send a trial shipment, putting the shipment of coal by rail over the tipple at Duluth, and I do not think it will jeopardize the marketing of the coal. If the experiment should prove successful, a large
Supply-Mines

portion of Ontario can be served from Georgian bay and lake Huron ports with that coal. Personally I would like to see the experiment tried.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no
intention of blocking this item; I am simply pointing out to the committee the uselessness of it. In reply to the Minister of Trade and Commerce I may say that we know just about how much handling our domestic coa'l will stand, and we know that with the present machinery for loading and unloading boats where a box car is raised high above the level and the whole carload is dumped at once down a chute into the hold some thirty or forty feet below, considerable disintegration occurs. When the boat arrives at the unloading dock the coal is taken out of the hold by driving clam shells into it, lifting it up, swinging it around and dropping it loose on the dock. The Minister of the Interior can inform the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the disintegration which would probably take place would render at least 50 to 60 per cent of that coal nothing but slack. It might be possible to get a single shipment for trial purposes if the source of the coal were kept secret, but there is not in Alberta an operator who would consent to allow his name to be attached to a shipment of coal that was to be used for this experiment.


John Gordon Ross: I think the hon. member for Bow River is speaking of only one district in Alberta.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am speaking of all'l the domestic coal fields in the province:	The Saunders creek field, the Drumheller field, the Edmonton field, and the Lethbridge field1.


John Gordon Ross: From what little experience I have had with coal in western Canada I have found that coal from the Lethbridge area will stand much more handling than coal from the Drumheller area. It might be possible to ship coal from Lethbridge by lake and rail and that it would stand up.


Charles A. Stewart: The committee of which the hon. member was a member brought in this report.


Edward Joseph Garland: Against my vote and wishes.


Charles A. Stewart: I can not
help that. That report was concurred in by this House, and if reports are to be of any use committees should be careful about agreeing to them.
[Mr Malcolm.]


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
blaming the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles A. Stewart: It has been argued that we do not require subventions to bring our coal here, and that if a reasonable rate had been fixed, the coal could be moved. I agree with that most heartily. That explains why in our. estimates there is no amount for a subvention to bring Alberta coal east, because we think a rate can be fixed that wiK bring it here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Compassionate allowance to Mrs. Nancy Waugh, $3,000.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: What is the explanation of this?	[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: There was
in the department an ethnologist who disappeared at Montreal. We have not heard of him for three years and during that time we have been giving this compassionate allowance to his wife who, may I say, is a dteserving woman. We have no knowledge of the death of the man who lias simply disappeared. The last heard of him was that he was going to Caughnawaga Indian reserve, and from that time on no report has been had of him. We are asking for this amount for t'he support of his wife.


Georges Parent: This department seems"to
be unlucky. A short time ago we voted the sum of $1,000 for a man who met with an accident and now we find another sum of $3,000 for a compassionate allowance to a wife whose husband has disappeared. If every department were following the same procedure, we would find in the estimates any number of items of this character. We ought to consider such votes very carefully.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am in
compb ' e accord with appropriations of this nature. Compassionate allowance votes are infinitely to be preferred to votes for war memorials or celebrations of a bombastic nature.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Penitentiaries-Kingston, $441,472.-
Felix Patrick Quinn: I see there an increase of
$8,000 in this item. Is that on account of prohibition or government control?


Lucien Cannon: There is an increase of $7,000 in salaries and retiring allowances, and $1,000 additional for extra equipment required, the increase being due largely to a 50 per cent increase in the prison population.

Supply-Justice


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Has the Department of Justice done anything towards carrying out the resolution which the House passed last year to provide that prisoners should be given a sufficient amount of productive work to do to help towards keeping their dependents.


Lucien Cannon: When my hon. friend moved her resolution in the House last year, the hon. Minister of Justice stated he would endeavour to carry it out to the best of his ability. I understand he has taken steps in that direction, but unfortunately, as my hon. friend will understand, I am not in a position to give her any details. I have been called upon to present these estimates to the House, but I am not as fully conversant with them as the Minister of Justice would be. I am quite sure, however, from the knowledge I have acquired in the department that the Minister of Justice has done his best to improve the situation in the direction the hon. member outlined last year.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I believe that the act as it stands is drawn up on the old idea of vengeance by the state, and in view of that fact I think that the wardens and other officials of the penitentiary are doing most excellent work. Certainly in the penitentiary I visited I was very much impressed with their efficiency. I think the wardens, the matrons, the guards, and the officials in charge of the prisoners are doing everything they can to change-shall I say distort?-the meaning of the act and to reform rather than to revenge, using punishment only in so far as it will help in reformation. I do think that the act should be revised to express the new spirit that is to be found to some extent in the penitentiaries. In the report which the superintendent of penitentiaries makes every year, he asks for certain things. He has made certain recommendations over and over again, and I hope that the Department of Justice will endeavour to carry them out. Brigadier-General Hughes is most interested in this subject. He devotes his whole time and energy and all his reading and thought to it. He has made certain specific recommendations for many years past, but they have not been carried out. I cannot see the force of having a man who is to advise the government if the government does not take his advice. These recommendations which he has made over and over again are very important. There are some seven or eight of them. One is that prisoners be given a sufficient amount of work to do, and get paid for work well done. He also asks that the officials in the penitentiaries, the guards 32649-151
and all who take charge of the prisoners, shall have training before they go there, and another one which I forget at the moment; but I would refer the minister who is putting these estimates through to the report of the superintendent of penitentiaries, and most respectfully suggest to him and the government that they should carry out the recommendations made yearly by Brigadier-General Hughes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Expenses of litigated matters-Department of Justice, $38,000.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is this for?


Lucien Cannon: This is for the litigated
matters. There is a decrease of $50,000 in the vote this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was larger last year
on account of the Labrador boundary dispute.


Lucien Cannon: Yes, that accounted for
last year's vote being much higher.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To complete the revision of the Dominion statutes; payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $20,000.
Hugh Guthrie: When will these statutes be completed?


Lucien Cannon: The commission was to complete its work by the 1st of January last. In the fall when I was Acting Minister of Justice I had a conference with the commissioners and they pointed out that in view of the fact that practically no legislation was passed last year, if the revision were completed by the end of this year we would be in the rather abnormal position of having a revision which would be minus very important legislation, and they suggested that they should be continued in office, in order to be in a position to include in the revision legislation which would be passed this session.


Peter McGibbon: Why not go on forever?


Lucien Cannon: Allow me to finish. Take, for instance, the amendments brought in by last year's budget or this year's budget, the Pension Act, and all these important pieces of legislation: I do not think it would be fair to the commission to ask them to terminate their work without including the measures we pass this session. The hon. member for West Calgary and the leader of the opposition will admit that it is in the public interest, and

Supply-Justice

also in the interests of the bar, that we should include in our revisions the legislation of this year, and I have the assurance from the commissioners that they will be able to complete their work in a very short time. I asked them if it would be possible to finish by July 1, and they told me they would endeavour to do so, I can assure the House that their work will be finished within a very short time.


Hugh Guthrie: There are two things I have despaired of, one is the revision of the [DOT] Dominion statutes and the other is a solution of the question as regards Alberta coal. The Dominion statutes were last revised in 1906. I remember that in 1921 a very able lawyer offered to do the whole job in one year for $10,000. The offer was accepted, but subsequently it was set aside by another government. This commission has been working ever since. They are paid an annual salary.


Mr. HANSON:: What is the cost?


Lucien Cannon: I do not know the total cost, up to the present time.


Peter McGibbon: What has been the total cost up to date?


Lucien Cannon: 


Jean-François Pouliot: Who is the president of the revising board?


Lucien Cannon: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick,
former Chief Justice of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Justice-salaries-to provide for the appointment of Antonio Berthiaume as clerk, grade 4, in the minister's office, $1,500.
To provide for the salary of a stenographer, grade 2, $1,020.	_
To provide for promotion of a clerk, grade 2 to clerk, grade 3, $120.
To raise the salary of one senior advisory counsel, $4,620 to $5,000, $380.
Felix Patrick Quinn: Can the Acting Minister of Justice justify the additional appointments to the staff?


Lucien Cannon: The staff of the Justice department is a very small one. It is the only department which is really under-manned.


Felix Patrick Quinn: They are all over-manned.
. Mr. KENNEDY: Why is it necessary to have increased salaries for stenographers and clerks? Why do they not come under the Civil Service Commission?


Lucien Cannon: They do. The stenographer in this item belongs to the Penitentiaries branch and after two years' temporary service was made permanent last year, the salary

having been included in the general items of promotion from classification. Owing to the delay in passing the supplementaries for 192627 the salary was omitted when the main estimates for 1927-28 were considered. All these classifications and increases are statutory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide increase of $3,000 per annum for Hon. Lucien Cannon, payable to him from the consolidated revenue fund, for the period during which he occupies the position of Solicitor General, the acceptance of such salary not to vacate his seat in parliament, $3,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Explain.


Lucien Cannon: I am not going to deal
with that item. Someone else will attend to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Solicitor General
will not misunderstand me when I say that it should be a matter of policy, so far as the government is concerned, that both law officers of the crown should not come from a civil law province. There should be one from a common law province and one from a civil law province. I have always felt that. In the previous adminstration with which I was connected1 it was not so, but that made it no better. As far as the item is concerned, if the Solicitor General of this country is charged with the same duties as the Solicitor General in England with respect to litigation,-and I believe that is the intention here-the compensation at present paid to him is wholly inadequate and he should be put on a higher basis. In England the Solicitor General undertakes a great deal of the civil litigation, and sometimes undertakes criminal prosecutions, but only in very important cares. In addition to his salary he is paid for the work he undertakes by the solicitor of the treasury endorsing on his brief a fee exactly the same as would be paid to other lawyers who might be called in. The idea of increasing the salary to $10,000 if the work is done is not at all paying the Solicitor General more than he should receive. As long as he undertakes this work I think he should be paid this salary. However, as I said, I think one of the law officers should come from a common law province and one from a civil law province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supreme Court of Canada-To provide for portraits of chief justices, $1,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What is this for?

Supply-Justice


Lucien Cannon: The custom in all our law courts is to have a picture of former justices and chief justices. In our Supreme court we have portraits of former chief justices, and this item is to provide for the portraits which we have not yet obtained. If my hon. friend will visit the Supreme court of Canada he will come to the conclusion that that building should be considerably improved. I think this very small item of $1,000 should be voted without any hesitation. The Supreme court is not what it should be.


Peter McGibbon: The court or the building?


Lucien Cannon: The building. I have no
criticism of the court, but I think it ought to be better lodged.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How many dozen do you get for this thousand dollars?


Lucien Cannon: It depends on the artist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think there are portraits of the last two chief justices, Chief Justice Taschereau and Chief Justice Davies. There are portraits of Chief Justice Richards, Chief Justice Strong and Chief Justice Ritchie.


Lucien Cannon: I think the intention is to complete the series.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Would not photographs be cheaper and twice as good?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries-Kingston-to provide pension at the rate of $600 per annum to Mrs. Violet
L.	Jenkin, widow of late penitentiary guard,
M.	E. Jenkin, from September 1, 1926 to March 31, 1927, $350.
Arthur Edward Ross: On what basis is this pension granted?


Lucien Cannon: On the basis of $50 a month up to March 31 of the present year. Then she will be drawing a pension as provided for in the main estimates.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is this pension on the basis of the mother's allowance in certain provinces?


Lucien Cannon: The 'basis is the precedent established in the department, that is, it is the amount that would be granted if there had been an award by the compensation board.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the pension is not sufficient. A widow with five children cannot possibly carry on on such a pension. The man was killed while on duty, and I 32649-1511
think the department should increase the amount. Under the mother's allowance legislation a widow with three children gets $54 a month.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the rate of assessment under the Pension Act she would get a great deal more.


Lucien Cannon: But that act does not cover these cases. I appreciate what my hon. friend says, and I will take the matter up with the officials. If there is any possibility of increasing the pension I am sure the department will do something further.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How long has this scale been in effect? I am informed it was established fifty years ago and has never been varied since.


Lucien Cannon: The first payments in cases of this kind were made in 1913, and the same basis has prevailed ever since.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the value of the dollar has gone down in the meantime.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is another man in Kingston now, a complete invalid, who is receiving $25 or $26 a month. Whether he was injured while on duty through his own fault or not, it looks to me a pretty small piece of business. The guards are dealing with the most dangerous type of criminals, and one can appreciate the hazardous character of their duties by visiting the machine shop. This widow's husband was a bright young guard, and the minister must be aware that $600 a year is not sufficient to maintain her and her five children. The department ought to realize that the rate is too antiquated to meet present day conditions.


William Irvine: I believe it would meet the general approval of the committee if some arrangement could be made to increase this and similar votes. If this woman had been the widow of a judge I have no doubt she would be getting a much larger pension. A penitentiary guard has a much more dangerous job than a judge, and I think this amount should be increased.


Lucien Cannon: The widows of judges do not get pensions.


William Irvine: They do not need any.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is not by statute.


Lucien Cannon: The law governs us in fixing the amount, but the money has to be voted by parliament.
Supply-Justice


George Gibson Coote: On what basis do we grant these pensisns? When the Department of Mines estimates were up we granted some lady, supposed to be a widow, S3,000.


Lucien Cannon: I understand from my colleague of the Interior that the item my hon. friend is referring to is a lump sum. This is a pension at the rate of $50 a month.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Chairman, is it not time that the government followed the example of the railways in providing for the dependents of officials killed while on duty? I cannot move an amendment to increase this vote, but surely the government will recognize that the stand I am taking is right.


Lucien Cannon: I understand these cases are dealt with directly by the department, but the amounts paid are the same as would be paid by the compensation board.


Arthur Edward Ross: If this widow could come under the Mother's Allowance Act of Ontario she would get more than the department is paying her. I think you should put the pension on the same basis as under that act.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that that is the basis.


Charles A. Stewart: The duty of the government in considering oases of this kind is to treat them on a parity with the provisions of the compensation board of the particular province concerned. In the event jf accident or death the widow receives the pension she would have got had her husband been employed in similar service in the province. It is eminently fair.


Arthur Edward Ross: I take it that I have the promise of the Solicitor General to go into the whole matter?


Lucien Cannon: I surely will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay amounts awarded to the United States government by the Pecuniary Claims Convention in the following cases:
The "Tattler" claim, $630.
The "G-erring Jr." claim, $9,000.
Lucien Cannon: The Pecuniary Claims
Convention having concluded its labours, it is necessary for the various countries to arrange for the payment of awards made by the tribunal. The schedule considered by the tribunal comprises forty-one claims by the United States aggregating $5,515,958.29, and fifty-nine claims by the British government, including the claims of Canada and Newfoundland aggregating $5,717,138.75. Of these
fMr. Cannon.]
various claims thirty^two were awarded the United rStates totalling $81,113.06, and nineteen to the British government totalling $239,506.20. The United States government has appropriated funds to meet its indebtedness while the British and Newfoundland governments have undertaken to make similar provision. It is now the duty of Canada to take steps to pay the awards included in the above-mentioned cases. As the United States were awarded $81,000 and the British government, including Canada and Newfoundland, $239,000, it will be seen that we have made a fairly good bargain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Litigated matters-To authorize payment of a special fee to C. P. Plaxton, K.C. for services in connection with the Labrador-Newfoundland case, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $2,500.
Felix Patrick Quinn: What is this $2,500 for?


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Plaxton, of the Justice department, was entrusted with the preparation of the Labrador case and he did a good deal of extra work, having devoted his time to the task for several years. This amount is supplementary to his salary to compensate him for that extra work.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It is apart from his salary?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Does he refund anything to the department for any time which he takes off?


Lucien Cannon: I do not think he has lost any time.


Felix Patrick Quinn: If he takes a vacation does he refund anything?


Mr.   GANNON@: I want to assure my hon. friend that the Labrador case is an important one and Mr. Plaxton has done very good work.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I do not wish to minimize the work of gentlemen of the legal profession but I must observe that their fees are becoming enormous. When we recall some of the events of the past twelve months I think it will be admitted that the legal profession is running crazy.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the government?


Felix Patrick Quinn: The government too. We are paying too much in fees and it is time w#

Supply-Justice
called a halt. Why should we pay a gratuity like this to a man who is in receipt of a permanent salary from the Department of Justice?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about Rowell?


Felix Patrick Quinn: I have Rowell in mind.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: What is the full
amount paid counsel in the Labrador case and what was the full amount paid the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty?


Lucien Cannon: I am not in a position to state the exact amount that will be paid counsel in this case. As to the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, the amount he received, as fixed in 1921, was $10,000. That covered work done during a period of five years and is certainly not exorbitant.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It may be carried, but I protest.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Pay of force (including salaries of two constables, Ellesmere island district, at $2.25 per diem, to insure department against loss through death), $1,065,653.75.
Maintenance (including billeting, travelling expenses, forage, fuel and light, clothing, repairs and renewals, horses ammunition, stationery, etc., medical, hospital, etc., transportation and freight, buildings, repairs, contingencies and criminal investigations, and establishment of new detachments and renewals, $1,112,345.09.
To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received whilst in the performance of duty, $8,500.
To assist in enforcement of federal statutes (expenditure chargeable to this vote shall be in connection with such federal police duties as may be defined by the governor in council upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice, $75,000.
To provide for special services in connection with the enforcement of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, $25,000.
Robert Gardiner: What is the reason
for the increase?


Lucien Cannon: Forty-three new men
have been engaged in the northern sections of Canada.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What part" of the northern section, west or east?


Lucien Cannon: Some of them will be employed in Baffin island-and others in Hudson bay and on the Mackenzie river, in the northernmost sections of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are any of the police to
be used in the Peace river district for the protection of ballot boxes?


Lucien Cannon: I hope so. We shall have a few years to prepare for that emergency.


John Gordon Ross: Has anything
been done to reinstate those police who were removed a few days prior to the last election? In Saskatchewan, I believe, two or three officers of the mounted police were removed, one from Prince Rupert and another from the Yukon territory, because they were Liberals. The idea was that they should not be able to use their influence nor to vote. At the same t'ime I believe one man was appointed aide de camp to the lieutenant governor in Regina, and that man is the president of the Conservative organization of that city.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear the
observations made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, who knows so much about everything, because what he has said indicates that these men should be very thankful they were not dismissed from the service. He says they were prevented from using their influence, being Liberals; apparently they desired to take part in the elections and1 that would1 have brought about their dismissal, in accordance with the observations made last night by the Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot). As it is they should be thankful they were moved and not removed entirely from the public service for using their influence on behalf of the Liberal party in the election. The truth is that the gentlemen were moved on the strength of reports made by the superintendent, who sits on the floor of this House at the moment. With my own eyes I saw the report, which was received some months previously, and which suggested1 that they should be removed not because of their political faith but in the interests of the force. That report is a matter of record in the Department of Justice and can easily be brought down to substantiate my statement; it was on the strength of that report that these men were removed.
If the hon. gentleman desires to investigate the movement of men at the public expense from Toronto to Regina, on vouchers which can now be found in the department, in order that they might vote at Regina in the election of 1925, he would not have a great deal of difficulty in so doing. I would like to inform him that in that case the vouchers under which they were removed disclosed the fact that they were sent to Regina to vote at the public expense. These vouchers were subsequently altered, because
Supply-Justice

that was thought to be even too raw to go through the department files. That is the position if the hon. gentleman desires to know it.


Lucien Cannon: I will state in reply that
I will make inquiries into the facts brought to my attention to-night, and the House may rest assured that the efficiency of the service will not suffer by any action which may be taken.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the statement is true, would it not require some further evidence that this was done to prevent them from using their influence?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I would ask the Solicitor General if he would ask the commissioner of police as to the advisability of providing police posts in the different parts of Canada with automobiles. I have a case in mind in my own riding; it is a place called Emerson, where two mounted policemen are stationed. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister because it was directed to me by the citizens of the district. These men do a lot of work for the revenue department, going around hunting up private stills and so forth, and I think their work would be much more efficient if they were provided with a small automobile in order to carry out their operations.


Lucien Cannon: Automobiles will be supplied1 gradually as the needs arise.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are any of the mounted
police now being used' in the suppression Of smuggling, and if so, where? While I am on my feet I would like to call the attention Of the Solicitor General to the necessity of sending a force in the coming spring, if the preventive service is not manned by that time, into the county of Kent, New Brunswick, where smuggling in alcoholic liquors is rampant.


Lucien Cannon: A certain number of officers of the force were put under the Customs department last summer, and are still with that department but in a decreasing number. My hon. friend will recall that a considerable sum was voted last night for the organization of the preventive service, and we hope that the Customs department will take hold of the entire preventive service in order that the mounted police will be freer to perform the duties allotted to this force, and those duties only.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would ask the Solicitor General if the government is considering adjourning very soon; it is now two o'clock.


Lucien Cannon: I may say to my hon.
friend that a very good way to expedite adjournment would be to help me through my estimates.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not know about that. Some of us have been around the building since nine o'clock this morning and we are tired.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I just wanted to reiterate the position I have taken in recent years; it seems to me that there is unnecessary duplication as between the federal authorities and the provinces. I am not sure why it is necessary for us to have so many of the federal police stationed within the organized territories. I noticed a year or so ago a speech by Mr. Brownlee, the premier of Alberta, in which he protested against the mounted police in that district. I would ask why the Dominion government, in the face of a protest of that kind, still persist in maintaining the mounted police in the organized provinces.


Lucien Cannon: The question of how the administration of justice and the police work in the provinces should be handled is now under study. I have had occasion to discuss the matter with the provincial authorities, and I can assure my hon. friend that we will try to devise the best possible methods as between the federal and provincial authorities, in order that both may remain within the scope of their jurisdiction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the Solicitor General recognize the fact that there has been a great deal of duplication?


Lucien Cannon: There has been.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-families of members of the force who lost their lives while on duty-*
Mrs Mary Emma Bossange. .	..	$457	50Mrs. Margaret Johnson Brooke.	823	55Mrs. Margaret Cox	
501	75Mrs. Elizabeth Fitzgerald.. ..	525 00Mrs. Mabel Forbes	
411	75Mrs. Myrtle L. Richards	
756	00Mrs. Amy Lillian Searle	
408	09Mrs. Elizabeth Willmett	
54	90
Felix Patrick Quinn: Would the minister explain why the item in connection with Mrs. Elizabeth Fitzgerald has been reduced by $43.75?


Lucien Cannon: One of her children became of age so that the pension is granted to the widow and to the children under a certain age.

Supply-Justice


Arthur Edward Ross: Why the decrease?


Lucien Cannon: Because the children have become older.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To assist in the suppression of the white slave traffic, $2,500.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What can be done with $2,500?


Lucien Cannon: This is to cover expenses incurred in occasional cases where the mounted police have to deal with white slavery. The amount is not very large because this is only in exceptional cases. The cases are usually dealt with by the police authorities in the different cities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much was spent last year?


Lucien Cannon: A few hundred' dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-to provide for an annual pension from April 1, 1926, based on a widow's pension, under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police statutes, to Mrs. Letitia Kennedy, widow of the late Inspector G. W. Kennedy, deceased July 14, 1922. prior to the enactment of chapter 66, 1924, $423.50.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this item and the following one for a pension to Mrs. Caroline Elizabeth Mcll'lree, I am in great difficulty. The effect of these items is to give the widows a privileged position on the assumption that had their husbands lived to a certain date, they would have received a larger pension. I recently had occasion to bring to the attention of the department the fact that men who took their superannuation allowances in the force while the bonus was being paid which was subsequently made a part of their salary, received a much smaller pension than they would have received had they waited a few months longer and received the benefit of the increased salary. These pensions are based on the assumption that the increased salary had been paid. This widow is being paid on the basis of the 1924 pension and this is making it retroactive, while men who remained in the force, who took their pension and who are still living, have been refused the benefits of the amending legislation that a short time after increased the salaries of their successors by making the cost of living bonus a part of the salary.


Lucien Cannon: I am informed that this is to meet the inconvenience suffered by this lady owing to the fact that by a technicality she did not have a pension at the time of-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The change in the legislation.


Lucien Cannon: Yes. But the point made by my hon. friend is that we are increasing the pension so as to make it as high as it would have been if her husband had lived longer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: That is not the case. It is to recoup her for what money she did not receive through some technicality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this a permanent addition to her pension?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have just voted one pension to this lady and we are now voting another.


Lucien Cannon: No, that is to cover the 1927 pension.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But this is an additional pension. She will be receiving two pensions.


Lucien Cannon: I am sure that if she is
getting two pensions, somebody will soon find it out and it will be reduced to one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister look
at the next item and see what it says:
To provide for an increase, from May 18, 1925, in the annual pension of $962.50 granted under section 51, chapter 91, revised statutes of 1906-as amended-to Mrs. Caroline Elizabeth Mclllree, widow of the late ex-Assistant Commissioner J. II. Mclllree, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who died on May 17, 1925, said pension to be increased to $1,303.75 per annum, the amount to which she would have been entitled had she been eligible therefor under the increase in police pensions granted by chapter 24, 15-16 George V, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
That is exactly as I put the matter to my hon. friend. I recently had occasion to take up with the department the case of a superintendent who retired just before this amendment was put through and who is now receiving the smaller pension that this widow was receiving, and who, had he received the benefits she is receiving, would have got a few hundred dollars more of a pension. As he served his full period he receives a total pension which is equivalent to seven-tenths of hii salary. If he had waited until the statute referred to was enacted ; he would! have received that increase. He did not receive it, and now we are'giving it to the widow although we declined it to the living man.
Supply-Justice


Lucien Cannon: These items are t'o meet
changes introduced in 1924, but not to cover the bonus to which my hon. friend is alluding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the increased salary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-maintenance including $100 to reimburse ex-eonstable E. H. Woolams, loss of personal effects in the Northwest Territories and revote of $76,197.25 for special northern services in the western Arctic subdistrict, $76,297.25.
Jean-Joseph Denis: A few years ago
quite a number of members on this side of the House raised their voices against the large amounts being spent in this country on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I recall plainly that Sir Lomer Gouin, then Minister of Justice, decreased the estimates for the mounted police. We have just passed one vote providing for an increase of $237,000, which in my estimation is a very large vote. Of course, I appreciate that it is difficult for a private member to understand whether or not some of these estimates are justified, but as we have already voted one large increase I think we should have some explanation of this item.


Lucien Cannon: The increase is easily
understood. The work of the force has been extended, and therefore the personnel has been increased. As to whether the force should be increased or not, that is a matter of policy which might be discussed, but with the increase in the duties of the force this extra amount is required.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Is this $76,000 to provide for an increase in the force?


Lucien Cannon: There is no increase in
the force this year. This is a revote.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If there has been no increase in the force why should we vote $237,000 more than last year?


Lucien Cannon: As I stated before in
answer to one of my hon. friends, we are establishing new (stations in the northern section of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public archives, $90,000.
Robert Gardiner: We have just passed
one item for public archives. Why are there two different items?


Mr. RINFRET:: This is a cumulative
amount covering branches of the Archives department throughout the Dominion, in Montreal and the maritime provinces, also

branches of the Archives department in London and Paris. The rest of the amount is required to make purchases of manuscripts, pictures and historical documents which we keep in the Archives building at Ottawa.


Jean-Joseph Denis: What is the salary now paid to the Dominion Archivist?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: $8,000.


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is all he
receives?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: As archivist.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses in connection with the Early French Colonial Historical Exhibition in Paris, $2,500.
Arthur Edward Ross: What is this vote
for?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is a revote for an
exhibition that is to take place in Paris next year of early French colonial establishments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved the third reading of Bill No. 234, to amend the Pension Act.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend
from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has just left the chamber. He is very much interested in this bill, and has an important amendment to move to it. This is no time of the night to bring on a question of this kind, and I submit that the government should not press this motion, but that we should adjourn.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I do not wish
to press the measure, but it is important that it should pass so that it may go to the Senate. It is an important piece of legislation. It was understood that it would be given third reading to-night, but if the hon. leader of the opposition desires to have it stand over until to-morrow, we should take it up first thing in the morning.


Hugh Guthrie: I would like it the very
first thing to-morrow if it can be done.
Motion stands.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) the House adjourned at 2.30 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, April 13, 1927