1931-08-03

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a question respecting the privileges of this house. Standing order 2 reads as follows:
The time for the meeting of the house is at three o'clock in the afternoon of each sitting day ....
As hon. members know, and as you Mr. Speaker are aware, that rule cannot be changed except with the unanimous consent of the house and by resolution to that effect. No motion has been put to this house to alter that rule with regard to the sitting of the commons to-day, and I submit that in the absence of a formal resolution, duly passed and assented to, the whole proceedings of this House of Commons would be irregular. I should be very sorry to see this parliament break up with a violation of the rules of the house as its last act, particularly

where the effect might be to render irregular all the business done this morning, if not also possibly the business of prorogation itself.
Let me read what took place on Saturday evening last with respect to adjournment. Hansard, at page 4516, records the following:
Mr. Bennett: I move the adjournment of the house.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Will it be eleven
o'clock on Monday or three o'clock in the afternoon?
Mr. Bennett:	I was going to move that
the house stand adjourned until either eleven o'clock or three o'clock, as the right hon. gentleman thinks his friends desire. If they wish to talk from eleven o'clock to one o'clock, discussing the items, very well; if not, the house will meet at three o'clock. .
Mr. Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has shown his capacity to make decisions. He had better say which.
Mr. Bennett:	Eleven o'clock, so that hon.
members may have an opportunity to discuss the estimates on agriculture.
Mr. Speaker: This house stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
I think that record makes it very clear that no motion was put to suspend the rule of the house with regard to sitting at three o'clock, and that to that end the unanimous consent of the house was not so much as even asked, but that the Prime Minister himself declared that the house would sit at eleven o'clock. In view of that fact I am more than surprised that in the votes and proceedings of Saturday I should find the following record of the alleged proceedings of the house, at page 685:
On motion of Mr. Bennett, it was resolved,- That when the house adjourns this day it do stand adjourned until Monday next, at eleven o'clock a.m.
That is not a correct statement, Mr. Speaker, of what took place in this house. There was no motion made by the Prime Minister to suspend standing order 2, as the record of the house shows.
Mr. BENNETT:: These Journals are the
record of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the
Prime Minister now says the Journals of the house are the record, but unfortunately in this case, the Journals are not accurate. That is what I am taking exception to with regard to the privileges of this house, that someone, with no authority from this House of Commons, has included in the Journals a record of a motion which was never introduced in this house, never made and never

Business of the House
passed. In the name of the rights of the commons I demand that this part of the record, as it here appears, shall be effaced. If the Prime Minister desires to have the proceedings of parliament conducted in a regular way he should formally put to the house a motion asking that standing order No. 2 be suspended in order that the house be permitted to sit this morning. I shall do what I can to secure for such a motion unanimous consent. I submit that unless that motion is put and agreed to as regularizing proceedings, in order that to-day's proceedings may be regular it will be necessary to adjourn this house until three o'clock, which is the time fixed for the regular sitting. As Your Honour very well knows, notice has to be given of a motion of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a motion to
adj ourn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But notice has to be given of a motion to change the time of sitting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not when the hour is
fixed at adjournment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Notice has to be given to change any rule of the house; the Prime Minister knows that very well. He knows that the rules of the house required that before this house could sit on Saturday last a notice had to be made to suspend standing order No. 2 in order to give the house authority to sit. In the same way a motion must be made formally and passed by this house in order to give the house authority to sit in the morning today.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not raising this point to prolong the proceedings of this parliament further than may be necessary. I would go as far as to say that I would advise hon. members on this side of the house, if a motion is formally put to suspend standing order No. 2 and that the house sit at eleven o'clock this morning, to give their unanimous consent, but I am going to request as emphatically as I can that this alleged resolution, which appears in the votes and proceedings, which was never passed and which has no right to appear in the votes and proceedings of Saturday, August 1, be deleted, and that the records of this parliament be a faithful and true record of what transpires in this house. On Saturday last a measure was put through this House of Commons which removed the necessity of parliament meeting for a period of seven months. That is serious enough. So long as parliament continues to be sitting, if it
is at all possible so to do I propose to see as far as I can that the commons exercises its rights at least in regard to its own business and that a faithful and true record is given in the Journals of parliament with respect to what transpires.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister):	I cannot say that I am at all
surprised at the observations of the right hon. gentleman; they are wholly in keeping with what I would expect, but the record shows that the Journals correctly record what transpired. At page 4516, from which the right hon. gentleman read, it will be observed that I started to move the adjournment of the house when my right hon. friend asked, "Until when?" It was he who raised that very question, speaking for the opposition as I assumed, and no question came from any other quarter of the house. Thereupon I said I was going to move that the house stand adjourned until either eleven o'clock or three o'clock, whichever the right hon. gentleman and his friends might prefer, whereupon he said:
My right hon. friend has shown his capacity to make decisions. He had better say which.
I said eleven o'clock, therefore, and the motion was that when the house met on Monday it would meet at eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was no motion; my right hon. friend said-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is here; I moved the
adjournment of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is here, and what is
more the excitement of the right hon. gentleman is not in keeping with the calm repose that should mark an occasion of this character, the last day of the present session. The fact is that I did not conclude the motion to adjourn by fixing the hour at which we should meet this day; I asked my right hon. friend, as a matter of courtesy, to fix the hour having regard to the fact that his friends had said they had not been given an opportunity to discuss these items. When I extended that invitation my right hon. friend said, "No, do it yourself," whereupon I said eleven o'clock in order that there might be no question. The house thereupon accepted that motion unanimously.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The house did not accept it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was accepted unanimously, when I said I would suggest the hour
Business oj the House

of eleven o'clock. The Speaker, in the Journals, recorded the arrangement arrived at, the considered decision of the house given unanimously, to which no objection was taken. If it had been otherwise; if a single suggestion had been made that the proper time would have been three o'clock, we should not have met until that hour. I invited my right hon. friend to suggest the hour he preferred, but he declined that invitation and the Speaker recorded what took place, namely that this house agreed to adjourn until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.
There is only one man in this chamber who will see any doubt about that. That was the understanding arrived at; I, having moved the adjournment, was about to indicate the hour on Monday when my right hon. friend interrupted and asked whether it would be eleven o'clock or three o'clock. Could anything be more significant than that? What did the right hon. gentleman mean by asking in this house on Saturday night whether we would meet at eleven o'clock or three o'clock? Now he says it was neither. I met his views by saying I would make it whichever he chose, and when he told me to make my own decision I said eleven o'clock so that hon. members would have an opportunity to discuss these items. Whereupon, in pursuance of that consent, Mr. Speaker said, "This house stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.'' Could anything be more clear than that? If there was any objection or if the right hon. gentleman did not mean what he said he should have so stated then. If the right hon. gentleman desired to play fast and loose that was the time to do so, not now. If he desired to make a joke of the proceedings of this house that was the time to do so, not now. He asked, "When will you meet on Monday, at eleven o'clock or three o'clock?" He did not ask me what were my views; I was in the position, as leader of the house, of merely consulting the house as to what would meet its convenience. My right hon. friend himself said Monday; he himself said eleven o'clock; he himself said three o'clock, and all I did was to ask him what would best suit his convenience. Mr. Speaker recorded the decision arrived at and consented to by this house. The house has been opened in accordance with the common agreement arrived at and understood by everybody, except possibly in the subtleties of the right hon. gentleman's mind, and after having asked at what hour on Monday we would meet; after having left it to me; after I

said eleven o'clock, I cannot think that my right hon. friend should now come to this chamber seriously and so stultify himself as to suggest that we are not here at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
that in this matter, in order to make it clear I will have to ask Your Honour to advise the house whether you put any formal resolution that we should sit on Monday morning at eleven o'clock. You, sir, know the rules of this house as to the necessity of a formal motion being put, and I am prepared to abide by whatever you say as to what you did on Saturday evening. I do wish to make clear that my right hon. friend's own words, which he quoted a few moments ago, bear out the contention I have been making that no motion was put. He said:
I was going to move that the house stand adjourned until either eleven o'clock or three o'clock, as the right hon. gentleman thinks his friends desire.
The Prime Minister said, " I was going to move." He never did make that motion which to enable the house to sit at eleven would have had to include the suspension of standing order No. 2; he did not make any motion, which is made very clear by the record. My right hon. friend now says in reference to your action, Mr. Speaker, that you took the view that the house agreed to stand adjourned until Monday at eleven o'clock. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there were no words of yours which indicated that there was an agreement, and you never used the expression " agrees to stand adjourned." You simply put the motion for the adjournment of the house. The Prime Minister had said eleven o'clock, so that hon. members might have an opportunity to discuss the estimates on agriculture. We recall the nature of the proceedings on Saturday evening. The Prime Minister took the business of the house out of your hands, Mr. Speaker, and into his own; he simply stated that we should meet at eleven o'clock, and that was the end of it. No motion whatever was put. Now, I do not think it is very fitting on the part of my right hon. friend, when I draw attention to this matter in order to regularize the proceedings, to save him from his own impetuous and dictatorial acts, and point out emphatically to him and to the house that the whole proceedings of this House of Commons this morning might be violated by virtue of-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What a joke.


Mr MACKENZIE KING:: -the fact that no resolution was passed-I do not think he should take occasion to follow his usual course

Business oj the House
of delivering a lecture to anyone who ventures to make mention of any shortcomings on his part, especially where it is only to point out where, in the excitement of the moment, he omitted to have regard to one of the important rules of the house.


Mr. BOWMAN:: WThy did not the right
hon. gentleman question the proceedings on Saturday night?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the first
place, it was not my business so to do-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You agreed to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and in the
second place there was no opportunity so to do. Had there been a little time, had some consideration been shown and had we been allowed to discuss the matter, I certainly would have pointed out to my right hon. friend that a unanimous resolution of the house was necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So there was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend cannot deny that on several occasions during this session I have sent word to him, or crossed over to him myself and pointed out where something in the proceedings had been irregular, or threatened so to be, and that seme necessary step would have to be taken to regularize matters. I have done that because I realize from experience how difficult is the position of the Prime Minister, with the multitude of things to which he must give his attention. But there was no opportunity for anything like that on Saturday night. The conclusion of affairs took place in a few minutes, I should say seconds, and no one was afforded any opportunity to speak. The Prime Minister said, " It will be eleven o'clock," and that was all there was to it.
Mr. LaVERGNE: May I point out that there was a terrible noise while his honour was putting the motion. I remember speaking to my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. MoDade) at the time. As I say, there was considerable noise while His Honour was putting the motion and, absentminded, I was under the impression that I was still in the chair and so I called for order. I remember remarking to Mr. MoDade, "I am absentminded; I am under the impression that I am still in the chair and am calling for order". But I remember His Honour putting the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His Honour did not put any motion and I leave it to him to say whether or not he did. His Honour said:
This house stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.
That was what His Honour said. Why has Hansard no record of a motion to meet at eleven o'clock?


Mr. STEVENS:: It is on record.
Mr. LaVERGNE: The right hon. gentleman knows that Hansard is not a correct report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the hon. gentleman will see that it is a correct report. After the proceedings were over that night I said to my secretary, "I think it was an extraordinary thing that the Prime Minister did not put a formal motion to suspend standing order No. 2 with regard to the matter of meeting at eleven o'clock".


An hon. MEMBER:: There was such a motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made the motion and it was agreed to by consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want
to take up more time than is necessary, but my purpose is to regularize this morning's proceedings, and if hon. gentlemen wish to have this house continue in session this morning, notwithstanding the record of Hansard, which does not show any motion having been put to suspend standing order No. 2 and thereby run the risk of the fact of violation of the rules of the house and of a bad precedent being established for all time, well and good. But as leader of the opposition I am doing my part to maintain the rules of the house, and so to regularize matters as to enable the business to be proceeded with. Let me repeat, I am quite prepared-
Mr. LaVERGNE : May I say that my hon. friend from Northumberland also remembers the incident.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The record is there and speaks for itself. But may I say that if the necessary motion is formally put, to enable this house, by unanimous consent, to sit this morning, I will ask all hon. members on this side to support the motion. I do say, however, that the first duty of the House of Commons is to maintain its rules. Your Honour, as Speaker, is primarily responsible in that regard; and I leave it -to the word of Your Honour, as Speaker, whether any motion was put into your hands with respect to the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Put into his hands!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will not say put into his hands, then, but whether any motion was formally put.

Business oj the House


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is there on Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister says the motion was put. I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether he himself formally put the necessary motion that the house should meet at eleven o'clock by unanimous consent. If Mr. Speaker says he did put that motion I have nothing else to say.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I did not hear all that went on on Saturday night, but I understood that by consent we were to meet at eleven o'clock. But may I ask this question: If we have no right to be sitting this morning, is not the suggestion of the leader of the opposition also out of order?


An hon. MEMBER:: He is trying to make the proceedings in order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would not make it in order; that would be a joke.


Alfred Speakman: If we are not regularly in session this morning we can no more pass a resolution to the effect of the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition than we can proceed to anything else.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The leader of the opposition bases his whole argument on the assertion that no motion was made for adjournment. He also-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not for adjournment; I did not say anything of the kind. I said that no motion was made to obtain unanimous consent for the house to sit at eleven o'clock instead of at three o'clock-in other words, to suspend standing order 2 of this House of Commons. The motion that was needed was a motion to suspend order No. 2.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman rests his case on the fact that there is an absence of that motion. He also takes Hansard as the basis upon which he rests his contention. As a matter of fact, it is well known that the Journals of the house are the official records. But, taking Hansard, the record is so abundantly clear that the right hon. gentleman must see he has not a scintilla of evidence to support his position. At page 4516 of Hansard the incident is reported under the heading:
Adjournment-Business of the House
That is the usual heading under which the adjournment is reported.
Mr. Bennett: I move the adjournment of the house.

That motion was before the house. It is not a debatable motion, but from time immemorial it has always been permitted the leader of the opposition to query the leader of the house as to the business of the next sitting, and any little matter of that kind. Before the Speaker had an opportunity to put the motion in the usual and regular way the right hon. gentleman asked a question:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Will it be eleven o'clock on Monday or three o'clock in the afternoon?
That was speaking to the motion for adjournment. I remember very well sitting beside my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett); and when he said, "I move the adjournment of the house", his sentence was not complete at the time. But we will not raise that point. The record shows a period there; we will not discuss whether it should be a period or whether it should be a dash. Then the leader of the opposition asks, in a perfectly proper way:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Will it be eleven o'clock on Monday or three o'clock in the afternoon?
Mr. Bennett: I was going to move that the house stand adjourned until either eleven o'clock or three o'clock, as the right hon. gentleman thinks his friends desire. If they wish to talk from eleven o'clock to one o'clock, discussing the items, very well; if not, the house will meet at three o'clock.
That was giving an opportunity to the right hon. gentleman to indicate what his friends wished which is a common arrangement or practice followed in the house. The. right hon. gentleman replied:
Mr. Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has shown his capacity to make decisions. He had better say which.
The Prime. Minister then said.:
Mr. Bennett: Eleven o'clock, so that hon. members may have an opportunity to discuss the estimates on agriculture.
This is on the motion to adjourn the house 

a motion which was still undecided and still properly and officially before the house.; and no other business could intervene until that motion was disposed of. He spoke in the usual and regular fashion, and he is reported in Hansard as saying:
This house stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.
There was absolutely no objection; there was a general and complete understanding that we were to meet again at eleven o'clock on Monday to carry on the business of the house. A meticulous examination of the Journals, or of Hansard, which is the unofficial record of the house, will disclose no grounds to support the right hon. gentleman. When he invites the Speaker to say this or that on

Business of the House
his word of honour, I submit that Your Honour must be guided by what actually occurred and what is shown by the Journals of the house. The record is abundantly clear. I must say that I am amazed at the right hon. gentleman raising this point. What is to be gained by it? Nothing whatever. There is no doubt that all hon. members are anxious to conclude the business of the house and to get away. If there was any objection to be raised to meeting at eleven o'clock this morning, the time to have raised it was when the right hon. gentleman was courteously invited so to do. He did not do so; he left it to the Prime Minister to decide, and the Prime Minister named eleven o'clock. The motion to adjourn was before the house at the moment and there was nothing further which could have been done by the Prime Minister or by the Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I could make my purpose still more clear by referring to the procedure which was adopted when the house received permission to sit on Saturday morning. Hansard of Wednesday, July 29, 1931, at page 4273, under the heading "Business of the House" has the following to say:
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister): I cannot say what progress will be made with the business of the house, but I thought it desirable that we should provide for a sitting on Saturday morning next at eleven o'clock, as we may likely conclude business that day. With the consent of the house I shall move the motion, or I shall put it on the order for consideration to-morrow as the house may think desirable.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
What was said by the Prime Minister on Saturday night is to all intents and purposes in accordance with what up to this point he said on July 29. In other words, the Prime Minister expressed his intention of moving that we should sit on Saturday and when it became apparent that there would be no objection, then the Prime Minister made a formal motion as follows:
Mr. Bennett: I beg to move:
That on Saturday first August next, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning. That in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall also be an intermission from one to three o'clock, p.m., and that the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Friday.
That motion was formally adopted by this house by unanimous consent. That is what gave us permission to sit on Saturday morning, it should have included words suspending standing order No. 2; that is what regularizes all the proceedings of Saturday. A similar motion was not put on Saturday night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because no notice is required with respect to adjournment-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -nor the business of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A notice is required to suspend standing order 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No notice is required to fix the hour for sitting. Surely my right hon. friend must admit that he is estopped from repudiating what he agreed to the other night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The rule of the house is:
The time for the meeting of the house is at three o'clock in the afternoon of each sitting day.
That Standing order cannot be changed except by formal motion such as was put on Wednesday last with respect to the sitting on Saturday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The decision is the other way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apart from
there being no record of any motion in regard to the suspension of standing order No. 2, I can see no justification whatever for the votes and proceedings purporting to report a motion Which was never put to this house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the discussion has gone far enough. It is true that under standing order 2 the time for the meeting of the house is three o'clock in the afternoon, but if horn, members will refer to standing order 45 they will find the following:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper, but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of'the house.
No notice is required of a resolution with reference to the meeting or adjournment of ithe house. That would seem to settle that point in the controversy.
It was very clear to me on Saturday night that all parties present agreed that this house should meet again at eleven o'clock this morning. As is quoted in Hansard, a discussion on the point took place between the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the right hon., the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). The leader of the opposition leaves it to me to say whether or not I put the motion. My recollection is that I did put the motion. That is as far as I can go; if I was put on oath I would not
Questions

be prepared to swear that I did, and I was astonished to see that the motion was not reported in Hansard. After all, Hansard is not the official record and we must be guided by the votes and proceedings, which reports:
On motion of Mr. Bennett, it was resolved,- That when the house adjourns this day, it do stand adjourned until Monday next, at eleven o'clock, a.m.
I think the house is bound by that record, and I do not think the proceedings will be irregular if we proceed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If Your
Honour says that you put the necessary motion, I have nothing further to say.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As to whether or not a
motion should now be made is a matter entirely for the government, the Prime Minister and the house. I am in the hands of the house as to that.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk):

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Who asked for the appointment of Mr. Azarias Rivest, to replace Mr. Adolphe Grenier as postmaster of St. Emile, in the county of Montcalm ?	_
2.	Was Mr. Emile Provost appointed in his stead, and if so, why, and for what reason did Mr. Rivest not take charge of his office?
3.	Who asked for the cancellation of Mr. Azarias Rivest's appointment, were complaints made against him, and if so, by whom?


Mr. RHODES (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	Mr. C. E. Jeannotte of Mascouehe.
2.	Yes. Mr. C. E. Jeannotte had first recommended Mr. Provost but the department had raised certain objections. It was found later that the objections no longer existed and instructions issued in accordance with the original recommendation.
3.	Appointment cancelled in view of Mr. Provost's appointment. There were no corn-plants against Air. Rivest.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BOUCHARD:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams passing between the Western Clock Company Limited, of Peterborough, or any official of the company, and the Minister of Finance, and to any other member of the Dominion government, during the year 1931.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This motion not being
in proper order, it will be expunged.


GASPESIA RAILROAD
Mr. LARUE:: For a copy of the report of Mr. S. A. Desmeules, civil engineer, regarding the possibility of building a railroad in the inland part of Gaspesia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This motion asks for departmental communications, and the house has decided that such communications cannot be asked for by an hon. member. I stated the position of the government the other day, and as the hon. member is not in his place this motion might be dropped.
Motion dropped.


MEETING OF PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Air. Speaker,
will my right hon. friend consider favourably between now and the beginning of next year the calling of parliament early in the month of January instead of at a later time in the year. Of course, my right hon. friend has the decision in this matter but I believe he will be meeting the wishes of all hon. members of this house and will 'be doing what would be most in accord with the needs of the country if he would bring parliament together at the latest very early in the new year.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman had control of the calling of parliament for some nine or ten years, and from 1922 up to date parliament met as follows:
Alarch 8, 1922.
January 31, 1923.
February 28, 1924.
February 5, 1925.
January 7, 1926.
December 9, 1926.
January 20, 1928.
February 7, 1929.
February 20, 1930.
The right hon. gentleman is fully aware of the change of Governors General which took place and matters of that sort which caused a delay in the calling of parliament this year. The convenience of hon. members and the needs of public business will be considered when the house is called to transact business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first date -nthe only one in March-to which my right hon. friend has referred is the day on which parliament was called after a general election which was held in the month of December.

Minister of Labour
With the exception of that single date the house met frequently in January, and when in February, it was called at an early date. I am not referring to the late date at which parliament was called this year, but rather to what is desirable as regards the coming year. My right hon. friend even with the house meeting in January, will have five or six months without any session of parliament, and I again express the hope that he will find it possible to call parliament in the month of January, if indeed necessity does not compel him to call parliament sooner.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, as this will be the last
opportunity, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Mandon) if satisfactory arrangements have been made for the volume of wheat to make a test shipment from Churchill through the bay.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication from anyone wanting to make a shipment of wheat from Churchill except that to which I have referred, a telegram from the On-to-the-Bay Association which stated that they had control of 150,000 bushels of wheat, which would make about half a cargo. Speaking for the government, I may say that we are endeavouring and will continue to endeavour within the next two or three days-it must be done immediately-to arrange this matter. No help that I know of has been received from anyone in the western provinces, and it should be from that part of the country that the cargoes should come.


MINISTER OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, at
the outset of the session the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) indicated that the arrangement of having the Minister of Labour occupy a seat in the Senate was to be temporary and that his intention was to have the Minister of Labour occupy a seat in this House of Commons. May I ask my right hon. friend whether between now and next session he will endeavour so to readjust the portfolios or existing arrangements as to make possible the presence in this House of Com-22110-287
mons of whoever holds the portfolio of Minister of Labour. It must be wholly apparent that the most important question to-day in this country is the labour question, and it is of importance that hon. members of this house should have in this chamber the presence of whoever fills the office of Minister of Labour. Otherwise it will be quite impossible for us to discuss many all important matters or even to obtain information required with respect to labour matters in a manner most desirable in the public interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the onerous duties of the Minister of Labour have been discharged by the present incumbent of that office with such satisfaction to this country and such credit to himself and the government that at the moment I am not prepared to make any statement. It is desirable that this House of Commons should have control over many matters but during the time when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister the Secretary of State was in the Senate for a considerable number of years. During that same period the Minister of Justice in the person of Sir Oliver Mowat was in the Senate, if my memory serves me aright. It is desirable that the Senate should in some sense be made a body of considerable importance in view of existing circumstances and also in view of the Senate reform that has been proceeding in the last ten years. Under those circumstances, I can give no assurance when the government will take such action as may be thought desirable in the public interest.


MINISTER OF FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask another question in regard to a matter which affects the cabinet. May we assume from all that has been said that when parliament re-assembles the Prime Minister will have in his cabinet someone other than himself who will be performing the duties of Minister of Finance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is probable.


FREIGHT RATES ON COAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Has the Prime Minister anything further to report with regard to the amount of the subvention that will be paid for the removal of

League of Nations

coal from the Saskatchewan coal fields to Manitoba and Ontario? A few days ago he said that the question was under consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been, but in view of the pressure of work in the house the Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon) has not been able to arrive at any conclusion. He informed me, however, on Saturday, that the matter was still engaging his attention and he thought that some satisfactory arrangement could probably be reached.


INDIANS-INFANTILE PARALYSIS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior in regard to infantile paralysis that is prevalent amongst the Indians in the Moose Factory section. I understand an aeroplane was sent to that region with serum?


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) :: A quantity of serum has been sent by aeroplane into the district affected; I understand the disease is well under control.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last week 1
asked my right hon. friend if he could indicate to the house and to the country who would be the representatives of Canada at the meeting of the League of Nations this year. He said that he could not give the information last week but he would be able to do so this week. He said that a decision had been made with regard to one of the members, but he did not wish to announce any names until the representatives were all decided upon. Is he in a position now to indicate who will be the representatives of Canada at the league. With respect to the one representative with regard to whom the decision has been made is that himself or someone else?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot give my right hon. friend the information he desires, and I am certain he must know me well enough to appreciate the fact that under existing conditions nothing would induce me to leave this country to go to the League of Nations or any other body across the Atlantic ocean.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very glad to hear that.

AIR MAIL SERVICE On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):: Since the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) is not in his seat, could or would the Prime Minister inform the house and the country as to the approximate date when the government will be able to arrive at a decision in connection with air mail routes in the west?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Between now and August 15 there will be an immediate curtailment of air mail service in western Canada and in other parts of the country as well.


JASPER PARK-MOUNT ROBSON
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: May I ask the Minister of the Interior if any progress has been made with the government of British Columbia in the matter of including Mount Robson in the Jasper Park area? Has the matter been under consideration?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: An offer of Mount Robson has been made by the British Columbia government to the Dominion government. The matter is still under consideration.


DRAINAGE OF WATERHEN LAKE-TERMINAL OF HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee of supply (the message of His Excellency with estimates, supplementary, and further estimates, referred).
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to discuss one or two questions. It is somewhat late to bring them up, but it is never too late to mend. First I wish to refer to a reference made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) in his maiden speech in this house and to a reply which was given to a question of mine on May 13, 1931, with reference to a certain lake in the riding of the hon. minister called Waterhen lake. Before discussing that I wish to give notice to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) of a little matter that I propose to discuss with him. It is with respect to a statement he made regarding the Hudson Bay railway and the alleged approval of the Hon. George P. Graham of the port of Nelson. The minister will have time to look that up

Hudson Bay Railway Terminal
while I am discussing the other question. I refer him to pages 1879 and 1883 of Hansard of May 22 of this year.


Robert James Manion: I shall not have time to look it up because there is no staff on duty.


William Richard Motherwell: I am giving my
bon. friend more notice than he gave me, for I was absent the other day when he brought this matter up, the first day I have been absent this session.


Robert James Manion: Go ahead. I do not
think anybody pays any attention to the hon. gentleman anyway.


William Richard Motherwell: We will see
whether the minister pays any attention or not before I am through with him.
With respect to the Waterhen lake trouble, the Minister of Agriculture intimated in his speech that the former Minister of the Interior in the late government, the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and myself, were responsible for the drainage of this lake. I was in hopes that the minister would have felt some contrition of conscience, some repentance with respect to that monstrous statement of his and would correct it, but he has not done so. Now that we are on the last day of the session-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: On what is the hon. gentleman basing his remarks? There is no motion before the house at the present time.


William Richard Motherwell: Was there not a
motion to go into supply.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have not heard it
made.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought I saw
you, Mr. Speaker, rising to leave the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The clerk assistant
called the order and I thought the motion had been made. However, to remove any doubt, I now move, Mr. Speaker, that you do now leave the chair for the purpose of enabling the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.


William Richard Motherwell: Is this the correct time now for me to speak, Mr. Speaker?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is regarding the rules of the house. He was not so particular in connection with the recent suggestion of my right hon. leader.
The Minister of Agriculture in his speech in this house on May 7 spoke of all the weeds 22110-2874
around Regina, and blamed me for the weeds being there, although it is thirteen yeara since I ceased to be Minister of Agriculture in that province. Was I supposed to administer some sort of absent treatment to the weeds?
Mr. LaVERGNE :	I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is alluding to a past debate and discussing a question that has been discussed in the house this session.


William Richard Motherwell: My	hon. friend
should be satisfied with making interruptions when he is in the chair. I have the floor, and I am glad the deputy speaker is not in the chair.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No member has the
right to quote from the record of former debates of this session.


William Richard Motherwell: All	right, Mr. Speaker. I think I know it by heart anyway. The hon. Minister of Agriculture intimated distinctly on one or two occasions during that debate and at the conclusion of it- this is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that you have insisted upon that rule, but I am going to comply with it-that the former Minister of ithe Interior and myself were responsible for beginning the drainage of the Waterhen lake. I asked for a return with respect to the matter and under his own signature my hon. friend the minister intimated that the contract was let on October 20, 1920, fourteen months before either the former Minister of the Interior or myself came into this house. When the debate was on I drew attention to the fact that that drainage was started by the Conservatives. My hon. friend looked at his notes and said that it was done in 1921 and 1922. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were in power only for the three last days of December in 1921, and they would not be doing much drainage at that time of the year. The point I want to make is that the minister's statement was absolutely incorrect, as is proved by his own return, indicating that the contract was let on October 20, 1920. Anybody can figure out how many months there were between that date and the time we came into power. May I quote, at all, Mr. Speaker, from Hansard, with reference to the return brought down by the minister?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is against the rules to do so.


William Richard Motherwell: May I quote from an order in council passed a good While ago, confirming and authorizing this work?

Hudson Bay Railway Terminal


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here is a certified copy of a report of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on June 25, 1920. It is P.C. No. 1416, and reads:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated 31th June, 1920, from the Minister of the Interior, submitting that complete investigations were made during 1919, by the reclamation service, on behalf of the Dominion government, to ascertain the feasibility and desirability of reclaiming by drainage the land underlying and adjoining Waterhen lake and Waterhen marsh in township? 44 and 45, range 21, and townships 44, 45a and 45, range 22, west of _ the second meridian. The report of the investigation indicates that the project is economically feasible and in the public interest, and that 13,920 acres of land now practically worthless can be reclaimed at an estimated cost of $143,273.91, which will increase the value of the reclaimed land by about $312,220,000.
Further:
The sum of $150,000 was provided in the estimates for 1919-20-
That is two years and two months before the hon. member for West Edmonton and myself entered this house:
-to cover the cost of the work and a revote of a similar sum is included in the estimates for the current year.
So my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture is shown to be absolutely incorrect by the record. He must have known he was incorrect because he was quoting from data that he had before him. If he says that he did not know at the time that it was incorrect, why did he not admit that long ago, instead of waiting until this last day of the session and then imposing upon me the necessity of correcting his misstatement? The order in council continues:
All the requirements of the laws and regulations have been fulfilled and a drainage district has been organized by the government of the province of Saskatchewan designated as "drainage district No. 18."
In order to take in the territory to which my hon. friend alluded. The order in council is signed b}r Rodolphe Boudreau, clerk of the privy council, and at the bottom is this note:
Published in the Canada Gazette of 24th July, 1920, Vol. 54, No. 4, for the fourth consecutive week.
So my hon. friend was entirely incorrect in his statement. I have often wondered if he knew what he was saying on different occasions, and I find myself still wondering. He went on to say:
[Mr. Motherwell.1
But that is not all. His work was not yet completed. There was a patch in Saskatchewan that was still not weedy enough.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. What is the hon.
member reading from?


William Richard Motherwell: I am reading from
Hansard.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Of this session?


William Richard Motherwell: I forgot. We are
going to be very correct on the day of prorogation. I am sorry I am not allowed to read the minister's exact words, but I think I can summarize them. The Minister of Agriculture intimated that anyone could read the monument that had been left by the member for West Edmonton and myself on this Waterhen lake, and he described in a most spectacular way how the weeds had been distributed all over the Carrot river district. He said that he who runs may read the record of our alleged deeds as an epitaph on that monument. Now instead of introducing the names of my former colleague from Edmonton and myself, I am going to insert the names of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and Dr. Tolmie, because they were the two ministers in office in the government here at Ottawa at that time. So this graphic description by the minister supposed to apply to the minister from Edmonton and myself should, would, and did apply-if they applied to anybody-to the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and Hon. Doctor Tolmie. The whole thing was bunk. I do not think either of them deserve these strictures. They were responsible however although I do not think Doctor Tolmie had anything to do with it or that I can censure Mr. Meighen for it. The fact is however that one of these gentlemen was Minister of the Interior and brought down the recommendation to council; I have read a copy of the order in council. If the Minister of Agriculture has anything to say on behalf of himself I should be glad to give place to him, with the understanding that when he is through I shall have the floor. Just a minute-will that be the understanding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member wishes to give way so that any other hon. member may make a remark or ask a question he has the right to resume his speech.


William Richard Motherwell: We have to have our T's stroked and our I's dotted this morning for the Prime Minister.

Hudson Hay Railway Terminal


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks to which the hon. member refers, I was endeavouring to fix the responsibility for the weed menace in the Waterhen lake area. If the former Minister of Agriculture says he had no responsibility for that menace, I am willing to take his statement to that effect, if that is correct the only conclusion we can come to, is that his colleague, the former Minister of the Interior, knew him so well that he did not think it was worth while to ask his opinion concerning an agricultural project as great as that in the Waterhen lake area. There is no doubt in the mind of anybody who lives in that part of the country that the weed menace did develop during the administration of the previous government. That is what I have reference to.


William Richard Motherwell: That is just some more bunk and rubbish, and has nothing to do with it. What has that got to do with it? How could the minister think that the Minister of the Interior could have had anything to do with it? Who began it? It was begun in 1919.


Robert Weir: Who was responsible? I think we should compliment the former Minister of the Interior on-


William Richard Motherwell: I gave the minister a chance to explain himself and he has messed himself from top to bottom in trying to do so.
I now come to the Minister of Railways- and at this time I do not know whether or not I will be allowed to quote. Why do you, Mr. Speaker, on this particular date, put a crimp in one-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. CAHAN:: Order.


John Vallance: Quote the whole of Hansard; get an old Hansard.


William Richard Motherwell: Could I quote Hansard of past days?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of past years.


William Richard Motherwell: 
John Vallance: That is what he did it for.
Mr, MOTHERWELL: " Provided the difficulty referred to is overcome." What was the difficulty? It was recited by the Hon. Mr. Oliver when he intimated that Nelson was an impossible port because there were no banks for shelter, that there was nothing but mud flats, and that the harbour had to be dredged but would not stay dredged. There were sand bars on the outer part of the harbour and in spring great cordons of ice would form and prevent ingress to or egress from it. After the harbour was opened it could not be used because of ice piled up sometimes twenty-five feet high. These are the difficulties which surrounded the selection of Nelson. The Hon. Mr. Dunning also intimated his preference for Nelson, if these difficulties could be overcome; we were all in favour of it, because of the possibility of a shorter rail haul. Here the significant points are omitted. Why? I am not permitted to quote the hon. gentleman's remarks and I do not know whether he will be allowed to quote them. I am quite prepared to give my permission, if Mr. Speaker will do likewise. _ I would discriminate in favour of the Minister of Railways so that he may hunt around and find words to describe his remarkable conduct. Probably he could set up an alibi, and blame it on some official in the department, as his leader has done on more than one occasion. We would accept that; an alibi of any kind is better than straight guilt. Here are the

Hudson Bay Railway Terminal
words left out "Provided the difficulty referred to is overcome." Why were those words left out? Mr. Speaker, I shall again retire to my chair, as I retired formerly, so that I may hear what the Minister of Railways has to say. I hope he will do better than the Minister of Agriculture has done in his bogus alibi. It would seem that he has not much inclination to speak.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to waste much time of the house, nor do I intend to copy my hon. frend's example of wasting time. I cannot lay my hand on the incident at all. I had the whole matter looked up at the time, and gave the information in connection with it. As to being unfair to Mr. Graham, I can say only that he is a friend of mine and I would not have attempted to foe unfair to him. I had the evidence before me at the time, and I think it was quite conclusive that Mr. Graham was favourable to Nelson, just the same as others were.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course, we all were, provided Nelson could be made into a good harbour.


Robert James Manion: Well, what is the matter
then?


William Richard Motherwell: We were all in
favour of it-only, we were not in favour of it, because it was no good. I would be pleased to hand the minister a copy of Hansard, to which there could be no objection. Imagine anybody stopping at a comma only seven words away from a full stop. Did he go into a trance; he does not do that very often. My hon. friend has often stood up and invoked an infusion of red Canadian blood into hon. members on this side of the house. I believe he has it, just as we have, but it seems to me there was a yellow streak infused into the hon. member when he perpetrated such a dastardly garble of the record as he did on that occasion. He could not find it he says; he and his colleagues have not been able to find a lot of returns which were asked for, and many letters are coming down only at the last minute. Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned I am content to go into estimates.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as my name has figured rather prominently in the controversy respecting Waterhen lake I think I should clear myself of any responsibility alleged to lie at my door concerning the spread of noxious weeds. What the ex-Minister of Agriculture has said is true; we inherited this project. I may say

that throughout my whole administration of the Department of the Interior I set my face religiously against the drainage of any area and I do not think the statement can by made that any single area was drained while I was minister of that department. I took the stand that there was plenty of dry land in western Canada for settlement purposes, without any drainage whatever. Having inherited this project however something had to be done with it. Certainly there was no sow thistle in that lake when the water was taken off, and at the request of the municipalities on different occasions we spent money to meet the difficulties brought about by the sow thistle; I am speaking from memory.
I do think my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture went somewhat out of his way to be critical of the administration of that particular project. I know if it had not been for the appearance of things I would have restored the dam and flooded the lake again, but when you get one of those difficult propositions you just have to do the best you can. It is quite true, as my hon. friend has inferred, that until perhaps the last two years we were in power the Department of Agriculture was not consulted about the matter. The land was leased and I believe farmed in an improper manner as far as land of that character is concerned. Land is always sour when water leaves it and difficulties will arise unless you leave it in grass and cultivate it in that manner for a few years.
I just desired to make these remarks, although I am not particularly interested in what tlie Minister of Agriculture or anyone else has to say with regard to my administration; I am always ready to defend it when it comes under review. I just want to say that as far as Waterhen lake is concerned we used our best judgment in the matter, and it is wholly erroneous to say we were responsible for seeding that lake or that community with sow thistle. I visited that district on two or three occasions, and every time complaints were made by the weed inspector, mowers were put in and the weeds cut. I am bound to say that from my observation that was not done to the same extent on the surrounding land. H my hon. friend looks up the records of the department he will find that expenditures were made for this very purpose on at least three occasions.



SUPPLY-AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS

Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words with regard to the position in which agriculture finds itself to-

Agricultural Conditions
day. On Saturday evening some of us were accused of holding up the estimates because we wished to say a few words in connection with agriculture. I think to-day, of all the industries in Canada, agriculture finds itself in the most precarious situation. From one end of Canada to the other we find farmers in all branches of agriculture complaining and wondering what the end will be. I do not care what branch of farming activity they carry on, whether it be wheat or fruit or cattle or dairying; we find them all bitterly complaining that they are unable to make ends meet because prices to-day are only about fifty per cent of what they were a year ago. As I say, from one end Of Canada to the other we hear these mutterings, these groans and denunciations of present conditions. Farmers see nothing before them but darkness and blankness; there is not a rift in the clouds as far as agriculture is concerned, yet every man must know that if as a country we are ever to get out of this depression the first people, to feel the effects of better times must be the primary producers, the agriculturists.
During the last election, a little over a year ago, the unemployed were told they were going to have lots of work. There was to be work for all at good wages; no one was going to be hungry. There is no doubt also that the farmer was led to believe, either directly or indirectly, that he would be able to market anything he could produce, at a good price. He was going to get real money for his butter and eggs and wheat, and if there was one thing for which the Liberal government was condemned during the last election it was that Mr. Dunning did not step out and sell Canada's wheat at a good price. Why did he not sell it? That was the cry. What was he doing? We were told to wait until the Conservative government got into power, they would sell it. They are selling it, all right; they are giving it away now. That was the whole cry during the campaign, and say what you like now the farmer believed in his heart that when the Conservative government came into power he was going to get a better price for his product. You may side-step that all you like, but it is a fact. That is why so many farmers voted Conservative; they voted in favour of those promises. All I can say is that they are reaping their whirlwind now, and they regret their action most deeply.
Well, the election was held and we came to Ottawa for the session of the house. Hon. members from western Canada demanded from the government time after time what was their program in regard to agriculture.
All the press throughout Canada proclaimed the present minister the greatest Minister of Agriculture we ever had; they said he was a wonder man. We hoped he was; we really and sincerely hoped he was such a man, because we thought that if ever there was a time when agriculture needed a real minister this was the time. We wanted that to be so; do not make any mistake about that. As farmers we were all anxious to see the farmer get out of his present condition. Well, we came here and asked him for his policy. We continued to ask and finally, after a lot of bantering and talking, and after the session had been going on for two or three months, he made a speeeh in this house. At that time he was supposed to tell us what was his program, but he started in and took a long time to tell us he was a new man in politics and that he was the graduate of a university. I do not know what that had to do with it, but he took a long time to make those statements. Then he made nothing but a political speech, the most rabid political speech we have had in this house. The very first thing he did was to attack the former Minister of Agriculture and tell us he was the worst minister we ever had. Before he even had his own seat warm he was telling us that the last minister was the worst minister Canada ever had.


Robert Weir: What authority has the hon. gentleman for making such a statement?	.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am not allowed to look up Hansard; if I do so I will be called out of order, so I am just giving the impression we got.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Take back nothing.


Robert Weir: I will have to ask
the hon. gentleman to take it back.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am quite ready to
take back the words, but that was the impression left with us and with the country. The minister said, "Look; he left nothing outside Regina but a trail of weeds," but what do we find? The trail of weeds in Saskatchewan was left by the Union government, the Conservative government sitting in Ottawa at that time.


Robert Weir: I would like the
hon. gentleman to adhere to a certain degree of accuracy. I did not say anything of the kind, and I do not think the hon. gentleman can blame the Union government for spreading weeds around Regina.
Agricultural Conditions


Thomas F. Donnelly: Hon. members may
look up the record to see if the minister did not mention the trail of weeds around Regina, and I say that the trail of weeds in Saskatchewan was left there by the Conservative government in 1914.


An hon. MEMBER:: Prove it.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am going to do so. That trail of weeds is south of the main line; it is about one hundred and fifty miles long and two hundred or three hundred miles in width. In 1914 the Conservative government at Ottawa sent seed to that district; it was full of wild weeds and stinkweed which polluted the whole country, and no one is to blame but this government, who did it. They are the ones that spread the weeds. And what are they doing to-day? Let me ask the Minister of Agriculture that question. What are they doing to-day to see that no weeds shall be sent in?


Robert Weir: All seed is inspected.


Thomas F. Donnelly: This past winter, I know for a fact, they have brought in Canadian thistle and sow thistle, and this in a country which is supposed to be new. Then hon. gentlemen opposite accuse the former Minister of Agriculture of spreading weeds.
Next we hear the story of the drainage of Waterhen lake. I do not need to say more about that, because we heard what the former Minister of Agriculture had to say. He indicated his position in that regard. The Minister of Agriculture went on to tell us what a wonderful market he had obtained for our cattle in Europe. Why? Because the price of cattle in this country had been so reduced that England could afford to buy them. Hon. gentlemen were instrumental in having the price come down in this country. We had Mr. Brown before the committee, and he told us that in the years 1927, 192S and 1929 we could not ship our cattle to England because there was a better price in Canada than could be obtained over there, and that if we did Ship our cattle we should lose money. That is the whole explanation. The hon. gentleman says, "I got a place for you on the ships; I obtained satisfactory ocean rates, a cheap rate for your cattle. I was instrumental in doing that". Well, I looked up Hansard myself-


Robert Weir: Does the hon. gentleman say that I ever at any time took credit for obtaining a 115 rate.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Look up Hansard.


Robert Weir: I never said so.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am not allowed to quote from Hansard of this session, but apparently the hon. gentleman took credit for obtaining a good price. He says-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member has already heard me rule with reference to quoting from previous debates in the same session.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am not referring to a *previous debate.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I thought the hon. gentleman was referring to Hansard.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I was looking at Hansard to see what the date was which I have in mind. It was on March 27.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In order that there may be no misunderstanding I shall quote from Bourinot. After reciting various prohibitions, Bourinot goes on to say:
Neither can a member, in speaking, refer to anything said or done in a previous debate during the same session-a rule necessary to economize the time of the house, and a restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am not referring to any debate, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question on the orders of the day on March 27, 1931, when the minister made a reply. That is all. That was why I said to the Minister of Agriculture that I could not refer to any of the debates to see what he had said during this session, because it would be out of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The rule is intended to economize the time of the house.


Thomas F. Donnelly: The minister also referred to the feeding of cattle and said that he had performed experiments in connection with barley, chopped oats and one thing and another. Well, these experiments have been carried on for years and along the very same lines. The whole question of the marketing of farm produce was referred to the committee on agriculture who apparently were asked to evolve a policy. The minister had no policy of his own, but he wanted to shoulder on the committee on agriculture the responsibility of evolving one for him. I sat in that committee, and after our deliberations the only conclusion we arrived at was that the former Minister of Agriculture had been correct; his actions were justified. Indeed, he had done a whole lot that members of the committee knew nothing about, and our inquiry confirmed in every way the actions of the former minister. That committee brought in a report which has never been concurred in;

Agricultural Conditions
we have never asked for concurrence in the report. We brought it in and that was all. It was not important enough, it would seem, to be bothered with at all. When we went into that committee we found that the grading of cattle and beef, of butter and eggs, of fruit and vegetables, had been started by the former Minister -of Agriculture, and the committee recommended that this be continued. That is about all we arrived at.
We asked that not only the marketing of produce but production as well should be studied, inasmuch as production was of great importance in many parts of Canada. During the last five years the farmers of Canada would seem to have forgotten that we had a Minister of Agriculture in the last eight years or so, because the farmers prospered so under the Liberal government that they were not aware that a Minister of Agriculture was there. They forgot that their Minister of Agriculture had been doing things for them.
Let me briefly put before the house a few of the things which the former Minister of Agriculture did, because no doubt many hon. gentlemen are as ignorant as were the members of the committee of what the former minister did. In the committee on agriculture the other day the fact was brought out that the former minister passed regulations with regard to the grading of eggs, and a member got up and said he did not think that a man should be compelled to sell eggs according to grade, but should be allowed to sell as he wished to. It was brought out in the committee that the provinces that did not concur in that legislation did not have to sell eggs according to grade *within their own territory. One member got up and said that everyone in his constituency knew it, and another member of this house said he did not know anything at all about it. He said they were allowed to sell in the open market as they liked, either according to grade or not. I am willing to let that go; -but apparently he did not know what the situation was in his own province.
Under the former Minister of Agriculture excellent work was done in our experimental farms, and any money spent on these farms anywhere in Canada is warranted. In my judgment, no branch of the Department of Agriculture has done as much for the farmers of the country as the experimental farms have done. Take spring wheat in this country. In Canada we do not produce wheat as they do in the United States. We do not spend on our experimental farms one dollar for every ten dollars they spend there; yet, in spite of that fact, our farms have done well and every step in the progress they have made -has been of real benefit to the wheat
growers of Canada. Discovery of Garnet has made possible the growing of wheat in the Peace River district and in many parts of northern Saskatchewan. Seventy million dollars at least has been added in one year to the wealth of western Canada by the growing of Garnet wheat.
Then there is the matter of a rust-resisting wheat. The experimental farms which have investigated this matter have taken different views. Some have been attempting to find a cure for the disease by dusting the wheat with certain powders. Others contend that the cause should ibe removed, but the experimental farms in Canada have attempted to find a wheat which would be immune to this disease. They have succeeded and many parts of Manitoba which could not formerly grow wheat are now enabled to do so. By these two things alone the experimental farms have justified their existence; the discovery of Garnet and Reward wheats occurred under the regime of the former Minister of Agriculture.
What else do we find? I have summarized these matters, and I will refer briefly to them. The next is the fact that we have secured the participation of the provincial government of Ontario in financing the erection of a new live-stock building at the Royal Winter Fair. This government is to grant $35,000 per year for twenty years to assist what is probably the greatest winter fair on the North American continent.
The next accomplishment under the former Minister of Agriculture is the work performed in connection with bovine tuberculosis. Restricted areas have been created in -the attempt to prevent this disease spreading throughout the country. At the present time we find involved $1,400,000 in this and the related policies of graded herds and testings. I have referred already to -the fact that there has been instituted a system of grading butter, cheese, bacon, eggs, fruits and vegetables, all inaugurated by the former Minister of Agriculture.
The next thing was the creation of a system of inspection of fruits and vegetables at the different shipping points. Inspectors make sure that these products are properly graded and are in proper condition before being sent out. The next matter inaugurated by the former Minister of Agriculture is the system of pre-cooling or refrigerating of fruits and vegetables. There are all advanced steps which were taken by that hon. gentleman.
The next is -the establishment of a seed cleaning and storage elevator at Moose Jaw.
Agricultural Conditions

This is one of the things spoken of several times during the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. He said that probably too much money had been spent along this line. This seed cleaning plant is self supporting. There is no other system of inspection in any department which pays its own way, except that of wheat inspection. This government has taken out of the farmers something like $1,700,000 more than it needed and *there is in the public funds of this country that amount of money which rightly belongs to the wheat growers of western Canada.
Last year or in the previous year we said: You cannot raise cattle unless you have pure bred stock; you cannot grow good wheat or other grain unless you have pure seed. We said: We think some of this 81,700,000 that is lying in the national treasury and that belongs to the western farmers, should be taken out and given to them in order to establish a seed cleaning plant. We took some of that money; we did not as a matter of fact take much more than the interest on it, and we erected a seed cleaning plant at Moose Jaw. That plant is still in existence and it is a place where a man may go in order to get pure, clean seed. In this country at this time, the necessity for such a plant is greater than ever, because we want to know where we can get clean grass seed in order to have a rotation of crops which seems to be essential at present in western Canada. The plan outlined at that time was to erect another of those plants in Alberta and one in Manitoba. I do not think eastern interests or anybody else should have anything to say with regard to this. It is the wheat grower's money and he has a right to take it and use it as he chooses. As long as what has been done is satisfactory to the wheat growers of the west, outsiders in eastern Canada should not have anything to say about the matter. It is the wheat grower's money that has been taken from him in connection with the inspection and grading of his wheat.
Another thing that was done was to take the initial steps for holding a world seed fair at Regina this year. I believe such a fair will do much to enlighten the farmers in regard to growing proper seed.
Then in 1923 we had the prohibition of the importation of oleomargarine. This is something which our Conservative friends like to forget. During the session of that year there was quite a discussion in regard to the importation of oleomargarine. The former Minister of Agriculture fought strenuously for the prohibition of its importation. Many

of our Conservative friends supported its importation, but they like to forget all about that, and say they were in favour of prohibiting it. The record, however, shows otherwise. In 1917 some 14,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine were imported and I believe that if in 1930 it had been allowed to be brought in, something like 30,000,000 pounds would have been imported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman say that 30,000,000 pounds entered Canada in 1930?


Thomas F. Donnelly: No; I said that if the importation had not been prohibited, I believe 30,000,000 pounds would have been imported. I know the importations were stopped in 1923.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The extent of the hon. gentleman's imagination is amusing.


Thomas F. Donnelly: It would not take very much imagination to believe, when the price of butter was so high during the Liberal regime in 1929, that oleomargarine could readily have found a market in this country.
Mr. VALI/ANCE: It would not to-day.


Thomas F. Donnelly: No, because the price of butter is not very high now. It would be cheaper to buy butter. As I said in the house some time ago, it takes about two pounds of butter to buy a pound of axle grease. Some farmers are using their butter for axle grease.


Mr. SHAVER:: The hon. member has made thalt statement before about its taking two pounds of butter to buy a pound of axle grease. Where does that condition obtain?


Thomas F. Donnelly: In western Canada.


Frank Thomas Shaver: It does not obtain in this part of the country.


Thomas F. Donnelly: The price of butter is much lower in the west than in the east. The farmers can get only from ten to twelve cents a pound for it at the country stores, and they pay from twenty to twenty-five cents a pound for axle grease.


Mr. BOYES:: Why do they not take their
cream to the creameries?


Thomas F. Donnelly: In many sections of
the country hon. members must realize that farmers are from twenty-five to thirty miles from a railway, and it would hardly pay a farmer to haul his milk daily to the railway to ship to a creamery.

Agricultural Conditions


Frank Thomas Shaver: That explains the whole
situation.


Thomas F. Donnelly: That does not explain
why the price of dairy butter was twenty-five cents at the time of last election and it is only ten or twelve cents now, although my hon. friends opposite made the people believe that if the Conservative party came into power, they would be getting more for their product. That is the point of the whole argument. My hon. friends opposite made the people believe during the last election they would be getting real money for their butter; it would not be any small, miserable, twenty-five cents.


Frank Boyes: That is incorrect.


Thomas F. Donnelly: The last thing to
which I wish to refer is the fact that we arranged in cooperation with the different parts of the British Commonwealth for the establishment of an agricultural research bureau. These are some of the activities of the former Minister of Agriculture for the benefit of agriculture throughout Canada. All I want to say in conclusion is that when the estimates for agriculture are before the house, we hope the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) will be able to throw out a line for our farmers and to give them a ray of hope.
Mr. MclNTOSH:	Throw out a lifeline.


Thomas F. Donnelly: The farmers throughout the country are dreading the prospect of having to leave their farms and under present conditions it looks as though they would have to do so. There is nothing more essential to a country than a prosperous and contended peasantry:
But a bold peasantry, it's country's pride,
When once destroyed can never be supplied.
It looks to-day as though our farmers will have to leave the land. As a matter of fact, they are doing so, and if conditions as they are continue for very long, more and more of them will have to abandon their farms. We trust and hope the Minister of Agriculture, even at this late date in the session, will be able to give some comfort to those farmers who find themselves in this situation at this time.


John Vallance: I should like for a few minutes to draw the attention of the house to a condition which exists in western Canada and that is well known to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I am going to comment upon a
return for which the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) asked the other day. It will be remembered that in the last general election the big question in western Canada as far as agriculture was concerned, was markets. I want to quote two extracts from a speech made by the Prime Minister before I deal with this return. The Prime Minister, when addressing a meeting at Winnipeg a year ago last June, had this to say:
Recognizing that the marketing of our natural products is a foremost factor in our national welfare, I pledge our organization and machinery, in cooperation with private and financial agencies, to permanently establish effective organizations in the countries with which we trade. With these drastic adjustments and improvements to which you are entitled, and with the full employment of our great transportation system, you will have broader markets, and will have them for all time. You have known suffering and have been patient. Let us end it. Take heart.
There are many members who are behind the government to-day who will agree with me that it was the Statements made by the present Prime Minister while in Winnipeg that made the greatest contribution to their being members of the House of Commons at this time. Let me quote another statement which the Prime Minister made at the same meeting:
Listen you agriculturists from the west and all other parts of Canada. You have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? YTou say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for_ you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, 'hear!


John Vallance: I hope hon. members
will be able to say:	"Hear, hear!" when
they learn what has been the attitude of the government during this session of parliament with regard to those statements of the Prime Minister. Naturally, we expected that the government would bring down, shall I say some drastic measures or even some suggestions in the way of fulfilling these promises. I was rather amazed when the Prime Minister during this session stood in his place and referred the whole marketing problem to the committee on agriculture. At that time, as a member of that committee, I rose in my place in the house and objected to having the responsibility thrown on to that committee, a responsibility that he had assumed during the last general election.
I said in the beginning that the Prime Minister had some knowledge of the wheat situation. In the return to which I referred, there appears a letter written to the premier of
Agricultural Conditions

Saskatchewan by the present Prime Minister. This letter reveals to what extent my right hon. friend has knowledge of the situation. He writes:
My Dear Premier:
I return you herewith the papers you sent me the other day.
Your informant is in error. The officials were appointed under the War Measures Act-
I want the house to listen to this:
-to deal with Canadian wheat. They were known a? the board of grain supervision on the Canadian wheat board. The wheat board sold the Canadian crop of 1919 and after paying all expenses, they credited to the Finance department the sum of $428,781. After everything was wound up, the money sent to the western provinces was $560,000. There remains upwards of $100,000 which is in process of being made available for relief purposes in the west.
Now listen to this:
The letter indicates how easy it is to have erroneous impressions regarding public matters.
I just wish to prove to the Prime Minister bow erroneous his own statements are. I want to give the correct figures which I know will be substantiated even by his Minister of Agriculture. The old wheat board of 1919 had a surplus of some $732,000. Of that, $560,000 was paid to the farmers by the late lamented James Robb. In the final wind-up the grain supervisors turned over to the federal Department of Finance $428,000, making a total of $1,160,000, leaving still owing to the farmers of Canada the sum of $600,000. Therefore I think the Prime Minister had better revise his information and take it from the records within the department. In his letter he says:
The letter indicates how easy it is to have erroneous impressions regarding public matters.
I would suggest that even at this late date, while he is still having conferences with, shall I say, those who are interested in the marketing of Canada's wheat crop, he revise his figures and see whether the figures I give him are not correct, because it may have some bearing if he realizes that this country still ewes some $600,000 to the farmers. I do not wish to go into details; I merely wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to this fact.
I was one of those who, on Saturday night, objected to the estimates on agriculture going through as they were and being assisted through the house by the Prime Minister, As I pointed out then, some very important, supposedly new agricultural policies have been brought into effect by the present Minister of Agriculture, and it is only fair and just to the farmers throughout Canada that the government and the Minister of Agriculture in par-

ticular should have an opportunity to tell the house and the country just what those policies are and just what effect it is believed they will have on the deplorable conditions existing in agriculture at the present time.


Mr. LUCAS:: Why does not the hon. member give the minister a chance to discuss this question?


John Vallance: If the house had had its way on Saturday, you would have had no chance to hear him. I would say to the Prime Minister that if he had not been so impetuous on Saturday night, the house could have got through before twelve o'clock, and it was his own fault that it did not get through.


James Langstaff Bowman: You mean if the ex-Minister of Justice had not taken up so much time we would have got through.


John Vallance: I am not laying the
blame on anyone, except to say that if the Prime Minister had not been so impetuous and dictatorial we would have got through on Saturday night. It was his own attitude that brought those of us to our feet who rose on Saturday night.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: Please continue.


John Vallance: I think that any member from western Canada sitting behind the government ought to agree with the attitude that three or four of us on this side of the house took on Saturday. I am sure it will be appreciated by the farmers of western Canada. It is because of the promise hon. gentlemen opposite made to the farmers of western Canada that they are now sitting over there. Take the election in South Battleford, for instance. If you go into the records of that election you will find that there were two thousand farmers who left the Progressive or farmer candidate and voted Tory. Why? Because of the promises you gave.


Robert James Manion: Because they were tired of your conduct.


John Vallance: You can go through the record and you will find-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member will please address the chair.


John Vallance: I think I did address the chair, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Minister of Railways addressed a remark to me across the floor without even referring to you, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That does not put the hon. member in order.

Copyright Act


John Vallance: Then, why not call him to order, too? Because he happens to sit on the front benches opposite, with apologies to you, Mr. Speaker. In the South Battle-ford election I gained 380 votes, but the farmers of that constituency, because of the promises the government gave them, slipped two thousand votes to the Conservative candidate. I do not think I can add anything more. I think we were justified in the action we took on Saturday night.


Frank Boyes: I just wish to make a few remarks in reply to the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken. I have been more than amazed at the way in which these two hon. members in the past and to-day have gone into the records of their ridings and represented conditions in the west. I come from the province of Ontario, representing the riding of East Middlesex, and I am sure that I would not like to be one of those who would get up in this house and decay the province of Ontario as these two hon. gentlemen have been decrying the west. Further, it is a surprise to me that these two hon. members, who have been members of the former government for a number of years should make such extreme statements at the present time. Why did they not look after some of these things in years past when they had the opportunity? I do not wish to take up the time of the house. I will just say in conclusion that I believe this to be a fact, that these two hon. members did bold up the house on Saturday night. There is no doubt about that. On this side of the house the west is ably represented. We have the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr Bennett) who, as all hon. gentlemen know, is as well acquainted with western conditions as anybody in this house. We have also the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Does he not know conditions in the west as well as the two hon. members who have just spoken? I am convinced that he knows them much better, and he is giving us an administration which is very satisfactory .to us. In Ontario we are not questioning where ministers come from, but my hon. friends opposite, if the minister had come from Ontario, would have complained. We are making no complaints. We are convinced that the Minister of Agriculture will do fairly by this country, no matter where he comes from. I believe that the people of this country generally, as well as the people of the west, are more and more convinced as time goes on that this government is doing the right and proper thing and I believe that the two hon. gentlemen opposite, who have been holding up this house
as they have been doing for several days past, involving additional expense to the country, will have to account for it to their electors when the next election comes. I believe that they will be held to account, and that their electors will return supporters of the government now in power.



SUPPLY-COPYRIGHT ACT

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring up one matter. I am sorry the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) is not in his seat. I am not saying that in any unkindly spirit; he may be busily engaged otherwise. Perhaps after I have made my remarks, which will take only a few minutes, the Prime Minister may enlighten me and indicate what action will be .taken in respect to what I have to say.
I have here a return brought down by the Secretary of State just a few days ago. It is with reference to some eighteen questions that I asked about the Berne convention. I shall not deal with all the questions, though the replies to most of them are unsatisfactory, but only with this one. I asked the names of the various countries that now adhere to the Berne convention, and for this reason:	Under the amendment to the act
which was recently passed, article 1 says:
The countries to which the present convention applies are constituted into a union for the protection of the rights of authors over their literary and artistic works.
Throughout the convention the articles refer to the countries of the union, and I asked the Secretary of State whether the names of the said countries would appear in the preamble of the schedule, because otherwise the whole law means nothing. His answer was no, that the names of the adhering countries will not appear in the preamble, but that they may be obtained by asking the office of the International Union for the information. That is a sorry state of affairs. If anybody wants to know to what countries the present Canadian copyright law applies, so far as the Berne convention and the schedule to 'the act is concerned, there is no authoritative source to which one may go to find out what those countries are. The Secretary of State says that the information may be had by asking the office of ithe International Union for it. The Prime Minister will see at once the difficulty one is placed in when trying to interpret the law, which applies to so and so, when the adhering countries it does apply to are not mentioned in the act. I fully appreciate that the law was passed in Canada before the ratifications were
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

effected on July 1, in Rome, but I submit that there ought to be some way, either by proclamation in the Canada Gazette or otherwise, whereby one could ascertain authoritatively what these countries are without having to write to the International Union office at Berne for the information. There are other questions which have been answered in a most unsatisfactory and incomplete way. For the moment however I should be satisfied if some direction could be given as to where one oould secure the list so that it would be possible to give advice on the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member has asked a
question which, it seems to me, is not unreasonable. Canada has acceded to the Rome convention, and Canada had previously acceded to the Berne convention. I understand the hon. member's question is as to what countries have acceded to both. He has received fair information with respect to Rome, but he finds it difficult to obtain information concerning Berne. Is that correct7


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Information in connection with the countries now forming the union.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I believe there are
about forty countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to me that the suggestion is not unreasonable. I shall ask the under secretary to get into communication with the proper authority, and a notice can be inserted in the Gazette stating the facts.
While I am on my feet I may say to my hon. friend it has been decided that for the month of September the hours for the Civil Service shall not be different from what they have been under previous regulations. I promised my hon. friend I would give that information in regard to the civil servants.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am afraid I did not get the effect of the Prime Minister's words. Does he mean that the closing hours, the four o'clock hours, will extend into September?	a


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they will not.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall call items Nos. 193, 194 and 208.

Harbours and Rivers Nova Scotia
Advocate-wharf repairs, $4,300.
Annapolis Royal-wharf repairs and improvements-under construction, $5,000.
Arichat-extension to groyne, $1,200.
Arisaig-whaf repairs, $2,100.
Baddeck-wharf repairs, $3,000.
Bailey's Brook-repairs to piers, $4,000.
Barrington Passage-wharf, $9,000.
Bay St. Lawrence-breakwater extension and repairs, $4,200.
Belliveau's Cove-wharf repairs, $4,100.
Black Point-breakwater repairs, $4,200.
Broad Cove Marsh-breakwater-wharf extension-under contract, $5,900.
Brooklyn-breakwater extension-under contract, $50,000.
Cape St. Mary's-groyne-to complete-under construction, $1,600.
Cheverie-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Cow Bay Run-breakwater extension and repairs, $3,000.
Creignish-extension and repairs to pier, $3,000.
Digby-harbour improvements

under contract, $50,000.
Dingwall (Aspy Bay)-breakwater repairs, $14,000.
Eastern Passage-repairs to harbour works, $4,000.
East Jordan-wharf repairs, $1,500.
East Port Medway-wharf extension, $1,100.
East Sandy Cove - wharf improvements, $1,600.
Englishtown-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Feltzen South-breakwater repairs, $1,500.
Freeport-breakwater repairs, $11,500.
Friar's Head-harbour improvements, $2,400.
Goose Bay-wharf repairs, $3,000.
Grand Desert-harbour protection work, $3,600.
Grand Etang-repairs to piers, $6,200.
Granville Centre - wharf reconstruction, $3,000.
Gunning Cove-wharf repairs, $1,200.
Hantsport-wharf improvements and dredging-under construction, $10,000.
Hawbolt's Cove-reconstruction of harbour works, $4,000.
Herring Cove-breakwater repairs, $7,000.
Harbours and Rivers Generally-repairs and improvements, $110,000.
Inverness-repairs to harbour works-under construction, $8,000.
Joggins-repairs to breakwater wharf-under construction, $4,000.
Kelley's Cove-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Ketch Harbour

wharf extension, $1,200.
L'Ardoise Beach - breakwater extension, $2,400.
Little Anse-breakwater repairs-under contract, $12,600.
Little Brook-breakwater repairs, $10,000.
Little Caribou-dredging, $5,600.
Little Judique-extension and repairs to harbour works, $2,500.
Long Point Banks-wharf, $5,700.
Louisburg

wharf-under contract, $65,200.
Lower Sandy Point-breakwater repairs,

McKay's Point (Judique)-breakwater extension, $3,300.
Mabou Harbour-repairs to groynes, $1,500.
Malagash-wharf extension, $10,000.
Margaree Harbour-repairs to harbour works -under construction, $7,900.

Supply-Indian Affairs
Margaretville-breakwater repairs, $10,000.
Meteghan-breakwater repairs, $3,000.
Murphy's Pond - harbour improvements, $2,500.
Neill's Harbour-breakwater repairs, $3,800.
North East Point, Cape Sable Island-wharf, $19,000.
Northport-wharf-under construction, $2,500.
Parker's Cove-breakwater repairs, $2,000.
Parrsboro-improvements to Riverside pier,

Petit de Grat-wharf-under contract, $7,900.
Pictou-dredging

under contract, $10,000.
Pictou-repairs to railway-wharfs-under construction, $7,000.
Pictou Island-wharf extension, $5,000.
Pictou Landing-completion of breakwater

 under construction, $1,800.
Port George-breakwater repairs-under construction, $5,000.
Port Greville-wharf repairs, $2,200.
Port Lome-breakwater repairs, $9,500.
Port Williams-extension to vessel bed- under contract, $4,500.
Poulamon-wharf repairs and extension, $3,600.
Pugwash-repairs to departmental railway wharf-under construction, $6,000.
Ray's Creek-wharf reconstruction, $5,500.
Red Island-breakwater repairs, $6,000.
Sandford-breakwater repairs, $3,000.
Scott's Bay-repairs to harbour works, $1,500.
Sheet Harbour East-wharf repairs, $4,000.
Skinner's Cove-repairs to piers, $1,500.
Smiley's Point-breakwater repairs and shed,

South Cove-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Spencer's Island-wharf repairs, $1,800.
Swim's Point-wharf repairs, $3,000.
Sydney (Whitney Pier)-wharf repairs, $5,500.
Tangier-wharf repairs, $3,700.
The Ponds (Pleasant Bay)-harbour improvements-under construction, $12,000.
Tommy's Beach-hoisting engine and skidway, $2,000.
Toney River-repairs to piers, $2,000.
Trout Cove (Centreville)-repairs to breakwaters-under construction, $5,500.
Upper Prospect-breakwater repairs, $2,800.
Upper Woods Harbour - wharf repairs, $1,500.
Volger's Cove-wharf repairs, $1,200.
Wallace-wharf repairs, $3,500.
Watt's Settlement-wharf repairs, $1,800.
West Advocate-breakwater improvements,

West Arichat - breakwater repairs-under construction, $2,500.
West Head, Cape Sable Island-breakwater repairs, $3,000.
Windsor-wharf extension-under construction, $13,600.
Yarmouth Bar-breakwater repairs, $5,000. -Total, $698,500.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move,
seconded by Mr. Manion that the part of item No. 193 concerning Ray's Creek wharf reconstruction, $5,500 be changed to read:
Ray's Creek-wharf, $5,500.
We are leaving out the word "reconstruction," because we purpose to construct in a different location.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thomas F. Donnelly: Referring to item No.
117 I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what progress is being made with regard to cut worm. Crops in western Canada have suffered because of this pest.
Prince Edward Island
Belle River Harbour-Breakwater repairs $1,500.	'
China Point-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Cranberry-wharf repairs, $2,400.
Graham's Pond-breakwater repairs, $1,000.
Grand River (north)-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Harbours and Rivers Generally-repairs and improvements, $15,000.
Hickey's-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Lambert's (Montague)-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Miminigash Harbour-breakwater repairs- under construction, $1,000.
North Lake Harbour

breakwater repairs, $1,700.
Pownal-wharf repairs, $2,200.
Rustico Harbour-breakwater repairs, $2,700.
Sturgeon-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Summerside-wharf repairs-under contract,

Tignish Harbour-repairs to breakwater, $5,000.-Total, $50,500.


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot hear what is going on, and I should like to know what is before the house

there is too much noise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Public Works, item 194.


William Richard Motherwell: Is the Prime Minister in charge, as he was on Saturday night?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was trying courteously
to answer the hon. member's question.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think he
will be in charge of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, if I can hinder it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is
excited.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Manitoba, Saskatchewan. Alberta and Northwest Territories, $1,007,639.
John Vallance: What are we dealing
with?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Indian affairs.


John Vallance: Well, call out the items so they may be heard, because I should like to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). What is the policy of his department with regard to calling for tenders for supplies? Do they call for a list
Supply-Indian Affairs

to be given to the department so that the minister or the department may choose from that list those firms qualified to tender for supplies. I have in mind a firm in my constituency which has been sending supplies of flour to Indian reservations for a considerable number of years, not only during the regime of this government but during that of the last, and previously. Tendering for this year's supply of flour this particular firm was told they were not on the list handed to the department. I wish to learn from the minister if it is his policy or that of his department to get the names of individual firms who are to be allowed to tender on various commodities.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Mr. Chairman,
the supplies of flour for the Indian department are, I believe, purchased to a great extent from the manufacturers of that product.


John Vallance: I am referring to a
manufacturer, a miller.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The different firms manufacturing in western Canada are asked to quote on that particular commodity. I am not able to state at this time whether the firm he has in mind has been asked or not. I am prepared to accept, however, his statement that it has not been asked.


John Vallance: This particular firm had been delivering flour supplies for quite a number of years. They wrote to ascertain why they were not asked for tenders and were politely told that their name did not appear on the list of firms from which tenders were required. Is it the decision of the Department of Indian Affairs that purchases shall be confined to certain individuals? I have no objection if that is the policy; if so, however, I should like to know it. I wish to know if that is the policy of the minister and his department.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I do not think there has been any change of policy with respect to buying supplies. It may be that when firms are asked to quote all firms are not included. If however the name of this particular firm did not appear on the list, I suppose they were not asked to tender. I may say that on some occasions a firm which has not been asked to quote on certain orders has written asking to be allowed to quote., and permission has been granted.


John Vallance: I refer to the Bishop
Milling Company in my constituency, right in the midst of the Indian territory, who for many years have been supplying flour to the

Indian department. When they asked permission to quote on this occasion they were politely told their name did not appear on the list handed to the purchasing agent, and therefore they could not tender.
If that is the policy of the government, all right. I want to be in a position to tell those who come to me regarding purchases, or tendering on produce for the Department of Indian Affairs, that unless somebody other than myself vouches for them to the department they will have no consideration. I merely wish to make it quite clear, and have it understood whether or not my opponent, the Conservative candidate, will be extended that courtesy; I wish to know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask again if the rules of the house are to be observed. I understand the time of sitting is from eleven o'clock to one o'clock. According to the clock it is now some seven or eight minutes after one o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: I have not looked at the clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is your duty to do so.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I look at the clock now, and it is
one o'clock. My information, however, i3 that there is no rule which provides that this house must rise at one o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit it
has been the custom and practice in the past; I do not know where the chairman obtained his information, but certainly the house usually sits from eleven o'clock until one o'clock. However, if my hon. friend thinks he is going to further the progress of the business of the house by causing us to depart from our usual practices, by all means let him so proceed. I am doing what I can to get the house prorogued in accordance with the rules and practices of the House of Commons, and if the deputy speaker and others desired to combine to seek to prevent that they must blame themselves for whatever difficulties they may encounter in proceeding in that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no necessity for threats of this kind; do not threaten us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are no
threats.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us be better natured about it. I direct your attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that it is now one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Indian Affairs
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Robert James Manion: With the consent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief statement with reference to Fort Churchill which I think will be of interest not only to the people of western Canada but to the country generally. I was asked this morning, and I have been asked at various times by hon. members, about the possibility of getting out a shipment or shipments of grain from Churchill this autumn. The government, through myself and my officers, has been working continuously in an endeavour to get grain shipments through Churchill. We have had the matter under consideration with Mr. John I. McFarland and various organizations, private and public, but we had not succeeded in obtaining any promise of a shipment of any kind except 150,000 bushels with the On-to-the-Bay Association had arranged through Mr. McFarland. This morning, learning that Mr. McFarland was in the city, and before I was asked anything about the matter here, I tried to get in touch with him, and I succeeded at noon in having an interview with him. My chief, the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), Mr. McFarland and myself discussed the matter, with a view to having Mr. McFarland cooperate with the government to have Fort Churchill tested. He has consented to cooperate with us in an endeavour to get out two cargoes through Churchill this fall.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Carloads?


Robert James Manion: Two cargoes. I do not know the number of bushels, but Mr. McFarland feels that two cargoes are as much as he can reasonably assure us of. Under the circumstances we are hoping to have these two cargoes go from the port of Churchill some time after September 15. If someone else comes forward with a third cargo almost immediately-because the boats will have to be arranged for

we could probably handle a third cargo. As I stated previously, apart from what we have accomplished through the kind offices and cooperation of Mr. McFarland, we have not succeeded in getting anyone to ship wheat that way. In view of this arrangement, however, we hope to be able to ship the two cargoes out this fall as a test.


The CHAIRMAN:: There is nothing before the committee. The next item is:
Indian Affairs - Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $1,007,639.


Robert McKenzie: I wish to
ask the minister a question with regard to 22110-288
the lake resort at North Carlyle. I understand that there was a movement on foot to cancel the lease held by the town of Carlyle of a portion of the Indian reserve near the lake. The reserve is in the Moose mountains. I wonder what progress has been made with regard to the cancellation, or whether the matter stands.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I believe that some years ago a lease was granted to the town of Carlyle 'by the Indian department, giving rights in connection with a summer resort near there. The term of the lease was I believe for a period of ninety-nine years at $400 per year. The matter is now in the hands of the Department of Justice and will go before the court.


Robert McKenzie: I want to
present the point of view of the town of Carlyle in regard to this matter. It is true, as the minister says, that there was a lease in 1907 or 1908 or thereabouts made between the town of Carlyle and the Indian department, in connection with a portion of that reserve. The significant point is that for about twenty years the Indians were apparently satisfied with that lease. It is true that the lease was for ninety-nine years, the amount being $400. Someone who pretended to have considerable interest in the Indians persuaded them that they were not getting enough for the lease of that land. At the time the land was leased it was just a rocky lake front and, in that condition, no one would think of paying $400 a year for a lease of that property. However, it went on from 1900 until about two years ago. I wish to read a letter which I have received from the mayor of the town of Carlyle, to show their position in the matter. Up to this time I had not heard of any dissatisfaction among the Indians, but the question was raised about two years ago when the town of Carlyle wanted to rent an additional piece of land for a golf course. The town of Carlyle has spent a considerable amount of money establishing their summer resort, which is second to none in Saskatchewan. This letter, addressed to myself, reads:
Re town of Carlyle and Carlyle lake resort lease.
You will remember that about two years ago the town of Carlyle wrote you requesting that you intercede with the Indian department on our behalf in an endeavour to have them lease the town an additional piece of land to be used as a golf course.
At that time we offered the Indians $400 per year rental, although the estimated rental on this land was approximately $50, with the idea of clearing up any dissatisfaction there might be concerning the old lease.



Supply-Indian Affairs
These negotiations were unsuccessful, and the Indian department have now instituted proceedings in the exchequer court of Canada asking for cancellation of this lease.
Previous to the issue of this writ, the Indian commissioner at Regina wrote me, stating that the Indians were dissatisfied with the present lease, and that he thought a representative from his department and the town of Carlyle should meet and discuss the situation with a view to settling the differences. I replied immediately to the effect that the town of Carlyle would be very pleased to meet himself or his representative and he then wrote stating that he would arrange a meeting.
After the writ was issued the matter was fully discussed by the council, and they were of the opinion that a town such as ours should not be expected to carry on an expensive lawsuit with the government. Consequently the town solicitor and myself interviewed the department's solicitor, and he agreed to write to his clients explaining that _ the town was quite willing to enter into negotiations with the department, and the action still stands in that position, with the exception that they have asked us to file our defense, and this_ means that we are already becoming involved in legal expenses that the town cannot afford.
I would again impress upon the minister and the committee the fact that for approximately twenty years the Indians were to all intents and purposes satisfied with the lease. But someone, who apparently had a great interest in the Indians, persuaded them that they were not getting sufficient money. The town of Carlyle has spent a considerable sum developing that summer resort and it is very unfair to put them to a great deal of expense at this time in connection with that lease.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was waiting to see whether the minister would reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie), but if he is not going to do so I have something to say in connection with what we weTe discussing before recess. I understand that the situation in connection with the flour mills of the Battlefords, in respect to the needs in a flour way of the Indians in the northwestern part of Saskatchewan, is this. If you are on the patronage list for the riding, if the milling organization is on the constituency patronage list, it can compete for this business and tender. If it is not on the patronage list for either riding, it cannot do so. Is that the position? I should like the minister to say.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is not correct.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If that is not the position, will the minister define exactly the situation in both ridings. There is a mill in each riding and certainly each mill ought to have an opportunity to tender on departmental business. As I understood the state-

ment of the minister before recess, it was that the mill in Battleford was not allowed to tender. It was not on the list, and that list must be the patronage list. What kind of business is that for a department to carry on?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just what was going on
in the last ten years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If the Prime Minister makes that statement will he bring forward a specific example to prove it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Calgary.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Name the man and the organization.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hundreds of them.


John Vallance: I may tell the Prime Minister that that statement is hardly true, because in the Battlefords-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is not true.


John Vallance: -the Bishop Milling Company was supplying a portion of the flour prior to the coming into office of the previous government. They did not tender during the life of the last government and they were not asked this year to tender. They inquired as to why they had not been asked to tender and they were politely told, maybe properly so, that their name had not been handed to the purchasing agent so that he could ask for tenders.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The hon. member for
North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) asked if only certain people in these ridings were allowed to tender, and I answered, no. We are asking for quotations from the different flour mills throughout Canada. The mills in Winnipeg, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon or wherever they may be situated are asked to tender. As to whether or not there are patronage lists, the hon. member seems to have quite a knowledge in that regard.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We are seeing it every day.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There is a list of names
in the department from which they were asked to request tenders. It may be called a patronage list or whatever hon. members want to call it.


John Vallance: Let us call it that, because that is what it is.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I will take the hon. member's word for it, because he seems to know.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No hon. member knows better than the minister.

Supply-Indian Affairs


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I do not think there has been any change of practice.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand that this
mill in North Battteford is not on the patronage list; is that correct?
Mr, MURPHY:	I do not know whether
it is or is not a patronage list; I know there is a list.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The departmental list.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am not sure whether or not the name of that firm is on this list.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is the North Battleford Milling Company on the patronage list, and if not, why not?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has
answered the last question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In view of the minister's statement that he does not know whether or not these mills are on the patronage list, I am sure that the electors of the two Battle-fords will wonder at his knowledge of and familiarity with the affairs of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General, $286,500.
Charles A. Stewart: The Prime Minister seems to know something about patronage lists. I spent the last year or two trying to find out whether or not such a thing was in existence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member did
not know there was one in existence?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not rise to speak about patronage lists, but rather to draw the attention of the government and the minister to the large reduction which has been made in the votes for Indians. I notice that the supplementary estimates contain an additional $200,000 for the relief of destitute indians. This will cut down the reduction considerably-


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It is for destitute indians and hospitalization.


Charles A. Stewart: -but even with that additional amount there is still a cut of $300,000.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It is more than that.


Charles A. Stewart: I was speaking in round figures. I do not take exception to the decrease in the vote for education, as I understand that one can cut down on the construction of buildings and the like without creating a serious hardship, but before the year is out this drastic cut will prove to
be a serious matter to the Indians. During my time in the department I found that the requirements of the Indians were growing at a considerable rate and for purposes which it did not seem humanely possible to refuse.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I know something of the conditions of the Indians throughout northern Ontario, and unless a very definite step is taken in the near future to provide a means of livelihood for them a serious condition will develop. The Indians have virtually been deprived of the means of maintaining themselves by trapping and hunting, because these privileges have been taken away from them by the white trapper. I would urge that the government in cooperation with the provincial authorities try to evolve a scheme under which fur-bearing animals will be conserved for the Indians. I am speaking only of that part of the country of which I have some knowledge, but I believe the same condition applies right across Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: That is correct.


George Brecken Nicholson: The situation in northern Ontario is such that if something is not done very quickly the Indians will have to be taken care of en bloc. The misery among these people has reached a state of almost complete desperation, and I am confident that before the year is out very substantial additions will have to be made to what is now being provided to take care of these destitute Indians. The natural reflex from the unemployment situation has affected them to some degree, but the main cause of distress is the fact that their hunting grounds are being destroyed by the white trappers. Their rights should be recognized, and they should be allowed their hunting grounds in at least the unorganized parts of the north country.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Last year there was spent for Indians the sum of $5,956,855, in addition to the supplies which they were able to obtain from their own reserves. In western Canada very fertile land has been set aside for the Indians and they carry on farming operations on their reserves. In British Columbia they carry on farming in addition to their fisheries, but in northern Ontario and Quebec the Indians are not so well provided for. Their reserves are not agricultural lands, and they are unable to raise many of the commodities they themselves require. The hon. member for East Algoma has brought up a point which is more provincial than otherwise in character. I am informed that the Ontario government have appointed a com-
Supply-Indian Affairs

mission to inquire into that very matter in order to see that the hunting rights may be reserved in those very areas for the Indians. The Indian department is taking steps so that its representatives may be able to appear before that commission and present the case of the Indians. The former Superintendent General of Indian Affairs has stated that the expenditure has been growing, and that is true. We have been building residential schools throughout Canada so that these people may become educated, and as the schools increase in number of course both capital expenditure and cost of maintenance will increase. That is being looked after.
The main reduction this year is in capital expenditure; that is, we are not undertaking this year to build new schools or to construct new roads in these reserves. But it will be observed that the sum of $200,000 has been inserted in the supplementary estimates to provide for hospitalization and against destitution that may occur amongst our Indian wards. This was necessary because the condition which now prevails could not have been anticipated when the main estimates were brought down. We had hoped, as every Canadian had, that conditions would become better, but under conditions that now prevail, when it is difficult for white people to secure work, it is more difficult for Indians to do so, and in addition to that the Indians' former hunting rights have been curtailed by reason of the hunting by the whites. But we have taken the necessary steps to provide for these people.


Thomas F. Donnelly: What is the Indian
population by provinces?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The total Indian population is in round figures about 108,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Men, women and children.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: By provinces it is as follows:
Nova Scotia	 1,827
New Brunswick	 1,606
Prince Edward	Island	 315
Ontario	 27,420
Quebec	 12,885
British Columbia	25,107
Manitoba	 12,263
Saskatchewan	 10,784
Alberta	 10,311
Northwest Territories	 4,150


Thomas F. Donnelly: Is the Indian population increasing or decreasing?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It, is about stationary.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not in any spirit of criticism but rather to be help-
ful that I wish to offer a few remarks with respect to the question raised by the hon. member for East Algoma. For some years we tried to make arrangements with the provincial governments for the purpose of having set apart in Ontario or Quebec or the older provinces, hunting areas from which the white trapper would be excluded, that is, areas in addition to the reserves that are set aside for the Indians. Naturally the provinces did not view this matter at the start with a great deal of favour, but after considerable discussion about the matter on different occasions with various ministers, I found a disposition on the part of the provinces-and I am passing this on to the minister now-to consider with some favour a proposition of that kind. What the minister says is probably true. The plains Indians with a tendency towards farming have a much better chance of securing a livelihood than those in the wooded areas, who have to obtain their living by hunting. If an arrangement could be made with the provinces whereby the Indians might have the exclusive privilege of hunting in certain areas, this would be of immense benefit to the Indians and helpful to the exchequer of the federal government. I mention this now merely in order that the minister may be able to say with full assurance that he has the complete support of those who were in office before him in endeavouring to secure this privilege for our Indians, because unless something of this kind is done, the plight of the Indians who gain their subsistence by hunting will be serious. Year by year it has been growing gradually worse, and the fact that the price of fur has increased in value has only added to the difficulty. This situation is not confined to any one province; it is general throughout Canada.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Several weeks ago I brought to the attention of the minister the complaints of the Indians on the Pasqua reserve with regard to the granting of a lease to the Antapa Club. I should like to ask the [DOT]minister if it is possible in some way that the wishes of the Indians may be met in this case.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I understand at the present time there are no complaints before the department, although in former times protests were received in regard to the matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I took some time
to bring to the attention of the minister and the house the protests which the Indians had definitely made to me with regard _ to the lease. Those protests were very active and recent; they came to me only a few weeks

Supply-A gricul ture
ago. The minister can hardly take the view there is no protest or no trouble at the present time.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In view of what the hon. member has stated, I can only say that the matter will be investigated by the department in order to correct the injustice, if any, that has been done.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister, in his
statement to the committee, said that the department had not any intention of building or rebuilding any residential Indian schools in western Canada this year. What is his policy in connection with some of the schools which have been burned? Is action on them to be postponed for years?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I do not know whether or not the hon. member has any particular case in mind. I made the statement that the department were not making any capital expenditure this year not only in western Canada but in the country generally.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There is an Indian school at Beauval in the northwestern part of North Battleford. Will the. minister take any action on it?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I understand the school at Beauval has been partly rebuilt. My general statement holds good, that we are making no capital expenditure this year on buildings throughout Canada, or on the construction of roads.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: So the policy with regard to a new school there will be determined in the future; am I to understand that?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: We are not rebuilding
there at the present time any new school, although as I said before, I think the school has been partly rebuilt or some buildings have been erected there to give temporary accommodation to the pupils.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-entomology, $35,000.
William Richard Motherwell: Are all the agriculture items up to this one passed, Mr. Chairman? If so, there must have been a lot passed since the live stock item on Saturday night.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The items must have
been smuggled through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a question of order,
Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has suggested that the estimates have been smuggled through. He must withdraw that statement.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That was just an emphatic word which I thought would be properly interpreted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No estimates have been
marked as carried which have not been considered by the committee and passed. There is no question about that at all.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: When the hon. member for Melville got up on Saturday night, some estimates had been passed and the committee allowed the hon. gentleman to discuss certain items on another item.


William Richard Motherwell: A lot of these agriculture items were never mentioned on Saturday at all. My intention is to act as nice as pie this afternoon so that we may prorogue by five o'clock. I am saying that on behalf of myself because some members seem to think that I was holding things up. What other items will the chairman permit us to discuss live stock on? My understanding was that these items had not passed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I will permit anything
if the committee consents. I have the estimates before me, and I call the number of the votes; that is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the agriculture items that are standing, some six in number, I believe-


William Richard Motherwell: When did the other four get through?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: On Saturday night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend may discuss anything from the genesis of agriculture down to the exodus of this house this afternoon.


William Richard Motherwell: On any item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I trust that in the
meantime a revelation will come to him as to what is involved.


William Richard Motherwell: Revelations have
come to me, and I hope they will come to my right bon. friend. If we are going to discuss the agriculture estimates, the first thing I would request is that the Minister of Agriculture take charge of these estimates as soon as possible.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right. He will.


William Richard Motherwell: I knew my right
hon. friend would act nice when I acted nice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear; it works both ways.


William Richard Motherwell: If the Minister of
Agriculture would get a little nearer, I would
Supply-Agriculture

be able to hear him better. We are going to have a real family reunion before we leave. May I quote from yesterday's Hansard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I make clear to my hon. friend that a citation from Hansard is always permissible except it be with respect to matters on which the house has arrived at a decision, or observations made during a debate on an amendment to the address or on going into supply, which must not again be referred to, for the reason that if you did the discussion would be interminable. The hon. gentleman certainly has a right to refer to what was said on Saturday because we are still sitting in committee of supply with respect to the very items he mentions.


William Richard Motherwell: All I was complaining of this morning was that that was the first time in my life that I spoke on the Speaker rising to leave the chair for the house to go into commitee of supply. It was the first time that I had heard that rule invoked this session, and it was against myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: New experiences are
always interesting.


William Richard Motherwell: Jn reply to the
Prime Minister on Saturday night, well after eleven o'clock, I stated that while we had discussed one agriculture item a long while, on four different days, it was because the minister refused or at all events did not bring down the information sought. The Minister of Agriculture replied, "That is not a correct statement." "According to Hansard the information was asked for on May 28, and was produced on May 29." This does not really amount to a very great deal except that if I let it go unchallenged I am afraid that the Minister of Agriculture will develop a penchant for saying what is not correct himself. We have had two or three manifestations of that already, especially in connection with Waterhen lake, and I do not want that habit to become chronic in him. On the 26th of May I endeavoured to get the record of the production of milk for the past ten years. I had a reason for that. There had been such a hullabaloo all through the last election about Australian butter and what not, that I wanted to show that the proper measure for estimating the condition of the dairy industry in any country was the production of milk, no matter what it goes into, no matter if it goes into a dozen different dairy commodities. I quoted figures of the production of milk from 1922 to 1929, showing an increase from ten billion pounds in 1922 to fourteen billion pounds in

1929, or an increase of from 40 to 45 per cent. That is a good increase. The whole Tory raft over there went up in the air and looked like going up the flue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the raft went up in
the air it would be difficult to go up the flue.


William Richard Motherwell: They soon caught on to what I was aiming at and started to block the giving of the information. I think they were more to blame than the minister. 1 had asked for the information on the 26th, and then on the 27th, which was a Wednesday, the hon. member for Labelle gave an excellent speech on the Russian situation which occupied the time of the house to almost six o'clock.


Robert Weir: Will the hon. member give the page of Hansard where he first asked for that information?


William Richard Motherwell: The estimates were taken up on the 26th of May. My hon. friend has the same Hansard as I have, but I will give the page for his convenience. It is page 2159, of May 26. I gave the information myself because the minister was looking rather helpless. I had asked him for the information, and he indicated by his appearance that he had not got it and I gave it to him, and immediately the hubbub started to show that my figures were wrong, and things went on for the next two or three days in that way. Then on the 28th of May the hon. member for Provencher brought down some figures that were practically all right, and there was some firing at those. It was not until the 29th of May, at page 2139 of Hansard, that the matter was finally disposed of. The minister brought down figures, but I defy anybody to find any meaning in them. They were brought down, I will not say intentionally but probably unwittingly, in such a way that they were not arranged in consecutive order, and I for one could not understand them. Then he gave some further figures which he said were mine; he would not take responsibility, however, but said they were mine. I accepted his statement, but found that the return was not official. Towards the end of the discussion the Minister of Agriculture said he had not wittingly withheld any information. Here is my reply to that:
When the committee resumed at eight o'clock we were in hopes that we should be able to get this vote through, and possibly the next one.
Hon. members on this side of the house will recall that.
But the minister has made a statement this evening which makes it impossible for the item

Supply-Agriculture
to go through. He has said that he did not wittingly withhold any information from the committee. The whole difficulty existed in the different parties securing their figures from different sources.
That is, from the statistics branch and the dairy branch. To all intents and purposes they were both the same; the statistics from the dairy branch were based on those from the bureau of statistics, and the figures are so arranged that they do not conflict.
Well, for four days we have been endeavouring to get certain information, and the ^hon. gentleman is not conscious of having wittingly withheld it. Has he been in a trance all these four days, that he did not know what we wanted?
Either he was in a trance, or all the rest of us were. I intimated in one place that I had asked four times for the information, and that I would ask for it four times four, until I got it. The discussion ended some time after the information was brought down in that somewhat upside down fashion. He did bring it down eventually.
Then, just last week we dealt with the agricultural estimates, and particularly with dairying. After we had disposed of the national dairy council I looked up the information concerning dairying, cold storage fruit branch and seed, feed and fertilizer branch, and dehydrating. Those four votes went through so rapidly that one of them is not recorded in Hansard at all, namely the seed, feed and fertilizer item. Then on Saturday a number of supplementary estimates went through, of which one or two were important. I did not rise from my chair, and all the civil government items went through without comment. I do not know what would have been passed, and certainly we would not be here to-day if some of us had not objected mildly. If it were so important to prorogue-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not.


Mr MOTHERWELL:: My right hon.
friend was quite ready for prorogation at any rate, at the indecent hour of midnight. You would think we were a lot of criminals wanting to run away from the scene of our operation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad we are in agreement; we are getting along famously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Splendidly.


William Richard Motherwell: I would say to the minister that it was on the evening of the fourth day after the matter was brought up that we received the information, and we did not get it properly even at that time.


Robert Weir: In the first place, I have some information which although not of a controversial nature may be of some interest to the house in view of what was said on Saturday night concerning the rushing through of estimates. On May 26 I presented to the committee vote No. 107, asking for a certain amount of money for dairying. The vote asked was for exactly the same amount as had been asked a year ago when the present opposition were in power. The work was carried on by exactly the same staff, and practically the same work was to be provided for by the vote as had been provided in the previous year.
Mr. MOTHERW'ELL: Is the minister referring to the year before?


John Vallance: Yes.


Robert Weir: The number of
pages devoted to the discussion of this year's vote was a little better than one hundred. Last year the total agricultural estimates were contained in only six pages of Hansard. I give those figures merely by way of information. When the ex-Minister of Agriculture got to his feet to-day he stated that he had asked for information on the four days the dairying item was undeT discussion. He made certain references regarding my veracity. During this session however I have hesitated very much, having a due appreciation of my hon. friend's age-


William Richard Motherwell: That does not need to cut any ice; I am far younger than you think I am.


Robert Weir: That particular vote was discussed for four days and-


William Richard Motherwell: I know that.


Robert Weir: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Page 2159.


Robert Weir: That item was not discussed on page 2139 at all.


William Richard Motherwell: Probably my
speech is getting impaired also, but-


Robert Weir: The first record I
can find in Hansard of the hon. gentleman asking a question is on May 28, and I brought the information down on the following day. I think this is a matter too small to be of importance. When the hon. member spoke, without any provocation whatever, but through the natural working of his mind, he said that Doctor Archibald had been
Supply-Agriculture

offered by the Russian government much more than he was being paid here, but that he had refused to go. I am informed by Doctor Archibald that he never received any offer from the Russian government. He made many statements like that, and that is why I said that I did not believe the hon. member was making misrepresentations, and that I was making full allowance, in all sincerity for his illness, his age and his-


William Richard Motherwell: You can cut that out, or you will get more than you are bargaining for and we won't prorogue at all tonight. Those are downright stupid statements. Having regard to the hon. member's inherent stupidity in-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr STEVENS:: Oh, put a little grace into it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is talking about
stupidity; let him prove it.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would ask the hon. member to refrain from those expressions.


Mr MOTHERWELL:: To read from page 2159 of Hansard:
He may use it to produce any commodity he wishes-
Speaking about what could be done with milk.
-or any form which he can derive the greatest amount of money. I wonder if the minister had the data concerning the number of pounds of milk produced. If he has not, I may tell him that I have the figures before me.
That is to be found at page 2159 of Hansard.


Robert Weir: No question is
asked there.


William Richard Motherwell: Let us see what
the committee understood. At page 2160 I find the following:
Mr. McIntosh:	Let us have the correct
figures.
Mr. McIntosh made that statement when hon. members had jumped on my figures like a meat axe, trying to make out that they were wrong. Mr. McIntosh said, "Let us have the correct figures." Then Mr. Casgrain, about a couple of inches further on in Hansard said:
We ought to have a statement from the minister so that we may find out whether the figures placed on record by the hon. member from Melville are correct.
Now, isn't that asking for something? Was not the minister asked at that page by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay 
and by the hon. member for North Battleford to put the correct figures on Hansard if my figures were not correct? That was the whole issue for the two days, and now he is trying to get out of it. Is not what I read on that page of Hansard?


Robert Weir: What my hon.
friend read about his own statement does not contain a question.


William Richard Motherwell: But did not the
others ask the question? The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay said:
We ought to have a statement from the minister so that we may find out whether the figures placed on record by the hon. member for Melville are correct.
That is on the next page, and now the minister is trying to squirm out of it. Is that statement on that page, or is it not? I think the hon. gentleman was in a trance all the way through, so we will let it go at that.


John Vallance: I was rather surprised
to hear the Minister of Agriculture state that on a previous occasion the opposition took up one hundred pages of Hansard in connection with his estimates. He must expect that.


Robert Weir: Did I say the opposition took up one hundred pages of Hansard?


John Vallance: The minister said the
house took up one hundred pages of Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The opposition took up
most of it.


John Vallance: You can talk when I
get through. It is obvious why that was done. As I pointed out in the very beginning, the minister announced so many different policies that what we wanted to know, and what wo want to know now, is what is his policy. The reason I rose on Saturday night was because I was interested in live stock and I wanted to know his policy in that regard. I have in my hand a pamphlet having to do with the bull-loaning policy, and 1 should like the minister to tell us just what that policy is. On the bottom of the pamphlet is printed " By the direction of Hon. Robert Weir," not the late minister but the present Minister of Agriculture. I think it is only fair to the minister that he should have a chance to tell us just how he arrived at that new policy, and all about it. Another item was passed having to do with assistance to fairs and exhibitions, including the royal agricultural winter fair. Most of us are interested in fairs, and I think the minister should have the opportunity of telling us just what is his policy with regard

Supply-Agriculture
to fairs. I say this in the kindliest way possible; I should like to get those statements on Hansard so that those who read it may know what is to be done. I should like the press to-night, if they so desire, to be able to state that the Minister of Agriculture has laid down his policy regarding agricultural fairs, whatever it may be. I think it is only fair to the government and to the Minister of Agriculture, so 1 hope before the house does prorogue he will give us a short statement with regard to his live stock policy, his bull-loaning policy and the policy of assistance to fairs.


Mr. GOBEIL:: Mr. Chairman-


John Vallance: I think now is the time for the minister to make that statement, if he has one.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for Compton has the floor.


John Vallance: I have asked for a statement, in the most kindly way. If hon. members opposite want me to be otherwise I can accommodate them.


Samuel Gobeil: As some latitude has been given the hon. member for Melville to discuss items already passed I wish to take the opportunity to make a few remarks in connection with item 115.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: With the unanimous
consent of the committee.


Samuel Gobeil: I did not like to say anything when the item was passed Saturday evening because we were expecting to prorogue, but after the fine exhibition given by hon. gentlemen opposite Saturday evening and this morning I think I might very well take up a few minutes without being accused of delaying the house. First I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for having adjourned the house Saturday night.


John Vallance: Stay with the estimates.


Samuel Gobeil: I will come to them, but this is the reason I am speaking. After what was said this morning I feel that my remark the other night to an hon. member on this side of the house was justified, when I said that hon. gentlemen opposite were seeking to go back to their constituencies and tell their people that this government had overlooked the interests of the farmers of this country.


John Vallance: I rise to a point of
order. What we did was to prevent the government from doing that very thing.


Samuel Gobeil: Everyone in this house and everyone in Ottawa expected the house to prorogue Saturday evening. Knowing that,
hon. gentlemen opposite took up the time of the house until eleven o'clock with trifles. Even the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth, who ordinarily has a sense of proportion, took up half an hour talking about the dismissal of all political partisan.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Gobeil: Then at eleven o'clock hon. gentlemen opposite thought this government were so anxious to prorogue that they would force through the estimates, so my hon. friends would be able to go home and tell their people that this government were not interested in agriculture.


Mr. PERRAS:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I understand that item 115 was carried Saturday evening, so why debate it again?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is quite right; the point of order is well taken and this discussion is out of order. It is going on by the unanimous consent of the committee, but it is strictly out of order.


Samuel Gobeil: Now I want to come to item 115, and to refer the committee to some criticism which was directed to it on a previous occasion, and even this morning to some extent. On May 18 of this year the hon. member for St, Johns-fberville, in criticizing the government for not raising the indemnity on slaughtered cattle, said that in his constituency cattle had been slaughtered in the months of April, May, June and July.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Samuel Gobeil: I am in order; this comes under the item I am discussing.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The item before the committee is 117, but the hon. member for Melville was given leave, by unanimous consent, to discuss item 115.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What does item 117
cover?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville told the government that they had not done their duty; he said that the indemnity for slaughtered cattle should be increased. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville also criticized the government for not having increased it. He said that if the Liberal government had been returned to power in July last the Quebec government would not have had to offer an indemnity for slaughtered cattle. The hon. member for
Supply-Agriculture

Russell went further; he said that the law should be made retroactive. I mention these hon. gentlemen because it is obvious that every one of them criticized the late government. When the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville, in May of this year, said that cattle had been slaughtered in his own county and that the farmers had not received a just compensation, there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone that the hon. gentleman was criticizing the late administration and the former Minister of Agriculture. And when the hon. member for Russell says that the law should be retroactive, what is he aiming at? The hon. member for Russell was on this side of the house, a member of this house, when the animals in his county were slaughtered. But he never rose in his place to defend the farmers. Why? Because his party was then in power. Now, however, when the Conservatives are in power, he wants to have the law made retroactive so as to remedy the wrongs done by the government which he supported.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch has told us a few of the good things which the former Minister of Agriculture did. Well, let me tell some of the things that he did do. When the hon. member for Melville took the portfolio of Minister of Agriculture what was the law in regard to compensation for cattle slaughtered? The maximum indemnity in 1921 was $250 for pure-bred cattle and $80 for grade cattle. Was the hon. gentleman satisfied with that? No.


William Richard Motherwell: I was here in 1922.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. gentleman thought the farmers were getting too much and when he got into power he reduced the maximum compensation paid to $200 for pure bred and $60 for grade cattle. That was something. He liked the farmers so well that he did not think that was good enough; so in 1923, the following year, he had to do something more for them. He reduced still further the compensation which they were being paid; he fixed it at $150 for pure bred and $60 for grade cattle. That was something else he did for the farmers. He met with a good deal of criticism, and I myself heard a lot of it. Two or three years later he had a generous impulse. The number of pure bred cattle provided for, under the accredited herd system was ten, and in order to meet the criticism of the people he reduced the number to five. That was in 1925. However, he did not leave it at that figure very long, for in 1928 he again restored the number to ten. But he made his regulations somewhat more

rigid than before. He decided that even if a man had ten head of pure bred cattle he should not be allowed to come under the accredited 'herd system unless that number represented one-third of his herd. Moreover, the cattle had to be at least six months old, and the bull at the head of the herd twelve months. He made the regulations more severe. That was how much he loved the farmers. But the hon. gentleman decided that he had to do something more. Until that time the compensation had 'been paid for every head of cattle slaughtered; but the hon. member for Melville considered this a little too generous and so he sent out a circular letter in which he said that thereafter there would be no compensation for steers. So that all farmers raising steers found themselves excluded from the accredited herd system; if they did come under it they ran the risk of having their cattle slaughtered without compensation.
Now I have given these figures to show the unfairness of the criticism that has been made against this government. When the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville and the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville criticized this government in connection with this item, were they not criticizing the leader of the opposition? During the nine years the right hon. gentleman was in power his government kept reducing the compensation and making the regulations gradually more rigid, so that fewer farmers could take advantage of the system. Is it fair, therefore, for them to accuse this government of delays and of not doing its duty? Is it fair for them to suggest that if the Liberal party had remained in power at Ottawa Premier Taschereau would not have had to pass a law for the compensation of the farmers of Quebec?
Speaking of the generosity of hon. gentlemen opposite, in 1929 the legislative assembly of Quebec passed a resolution authorizing the government of that province to communicate with. the federal government with a view to fixing a more reasonable compensation for farmers whose cattle were slaughtered under the act. Now the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville comes before this house and accuses this government of failure to do its duty, saying that if the Liberal party had remained in power Mr. Taschereau would not have had to do what he did. Well, for three years Mr. Taschereau did practically nothing, though his friends were in power at Ottawa. But when the Conservatives are in power at Ottawa and he faces the electors of Quebec then he passes a little law offering some compensation to the farmers. I quite understand that hon. members are anxious to have this and

Supply-A griculture
other items carried, but I could not let it pass without commenting upon the remarks of the hon. member for Melville.
I am asking the Minister of Agriculture to be more generous with the farmers of Canada than was the hon. member for Melville. I am asking that more compensation be paid to the breeders of steers. I am interested in this matter because of the total steers exported from the province of Quebec, the county of Compton exported over one-third.


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. gentleman does not know anything about this act his criticism would be quite reasonable, but it seems to be based upon an entire lack of information of the cattle compensation business. I could not catch all that the hon. member said, but I heard enough to understand that he thought the compensation should not have been reduced. The prices for cattle during wartime were away up and the break did not occur until 1920. Late in
1921	we came into- office, and the session of
1922	offered the first opportunity of doing anything in this regard. The cattle then were hardly worth drawing to the market in Winnipeg, and surely the hon. member must agree that there should be some relation between compensation and the value of the animal.


Samuel Gobeil: Are the prices of cattle
higher this year than they were last year?


William Richard Motherwell: I think the prices
for good stuff might be a little higher, but I do not think that would be the case as far as dairy cattle are concerned, because in that case the prices of the commodities produced are now at a low level. There must be a fluctuation in the compensation to compare with the fluctuation in the value of the animals. We could not change it every day or every year; my recollection is that it has not been changed since the time I mentioned, but surely my hon. friend is not suggesting that the same compensation should be paid now as during wartime.
In order to give the owners of small herds an opportunity to participate, in accredited herds they were reduced from ten to five animals. I might say that the officials of the department agreed to that reduction only under protest. They told me how it would work out, and they were correct. Abuses crept in and it was found necessary to put the figure back to ten.
I might mention to my hon. friend that there is no other country in the world which pays as high compensation for T.B. slaughtered animals as does Canada.


Mr. IRVINE:: I understand the committee is dealing with item No. 117, covering the administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act. The grave misgivings I have with respect to myself, and my concern for the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) leads me to ask whether or not any portion of this vote will be expended in this chamber.


John Vallance: Some of it should be
expended on the electorate.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, I will make
a short reply to the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). I think the hon. member will agree that one of the soundest principles of basic agriculture is that we should have as far as possible the best blood in our herds so that the largest return can be received for the feed given and the labour expended. The farmers in the outlying districts found it very expensive to locate animals which would have a tendency to improve their herds. I think I am safe in saying that on an average it would cost them as much in expenses as it would to pay for the animal itself. It was only sound economics to use the people's money to place into the hands of these farmers sires of the best possible type at the lowest possible cost. Our bull policy has been that where a group of farmers got together and requested a sire, we would undertake to supply the kind requested. Perhaps due to the depressed condition in the wheat market, farmers are turning more than ever before to the raising of live stock. The result has been that we have not been able to fill all the applications received. We have placed over 765, but that is only about 60 per cent of the applications received. Practically my only instructions to the department have been that the animals sent out must be well above the average in standing. If this is not done the results aimed at by this policy will not be achieved. I think hon. members of the committee will agree with the stipulation which has been made that the farmers in the outlying districts must be given preference in this regard.
Another policy inaugurated was the brood sow policy. As I said before, because of the low price of grain many farmers were turning to the raising of live stock. Where the production of bacon was being considered it was thought that it behooved this government to make it as easy as possible for the farmer to get the best type of brood sow. Our policy has been to keep back from the stockyards the sows of a selected bacon type and to supply these to the farmer for breeding purposes without any expense. The farmer was asked to pay only half the freight, and
Supply-A griculture

in order to make it still easier, in fact almost to force him to make use of this policy, certain of the provincial governments cooperated with this government and agreed to pay the other half of the freight as well as certain incidental expenses.
A further policy in connection with live stock is this: it was felt that due to the low price of wheat and the scarcity of money, especially in the west, farmers would get rid of everything they had in the shape of live stock that would bring in any money. It was also felt by people in the east there would be a tendency in the west on the part of those who were better fixed financially, to buy live stock in the east and ship it to the west. That has been done in the past and has been done very much to the cost of the western farmers. For example, we have in eastern Canada, in Ontario in particular, one disease amongst cattle that I believe, and I know many of the stockmen believe, is more of a damage and loss to the live stock of Ontario than even tuberculosis. I refer to abortion. Yet we know, according to the law at the present time in the provinces-and the Dominion has done nothing so far to counteract that-any animal that may be given the blood test for abortion and reacts, does not have to be stamped, marked or slaughtered. Therefore, with all the due respect for the people of the east, if they were shipping stock to the western people for breeding purposes, they might have a tendency to ship animals that had reacted, and this would have the effect of spreading the disease throughout the west where at the present time it is not very prevalent.
In the first place, to make it easier for the farmers in the west who wish to get breeding females, we made them this offer, that we would pay the freight to bring stock from the western stockyards to a farmer's own farm, provided that the animals came up to the standard set by the men in the stockyards or by the people appointed to make the test. Then we had inquiries in the west as to whether we would not set up breeding centres there. We felt that if we set up public breeding centres as suggested, there would be a great deal of loss in connection with them; that it would be difficult to get men to manage them in the why that we would like, and along with experienced stockmen I felt that the best way to set up breeding centres would be by men who had made a success of farming, but who on account of the price of feed in the west, had been out of live stock, who, however, were well fixed financially and wished to undertake it again. Our idea was that if

we made it easier for them to get stock of high quality, they would form breeding centres from which their neighbours could secure stock. I felt that if in four years ten such breeding centres were established, this would be worth the effort we put into the matter, because in the old country even now, after all they have done in breeding and all the achievements they have made, there are only a few outstanding breeders. I was complimented on this policy in particular at the very beginning of the session by one of the Saskatchewan members, the leader of the opposition, who did me the honour of mentioning this policy, namely, of moving animals from one part of the country to another at the country's expense. I think hon. members will agree with me it was natural that this policy should appeal to him as no one has a better appreciation or understanding of the policy of moving from one part of Canada to another than has the right hon. gentleman.
In connection with fairs, many of us who have exhibited in both the west and the east have had this feeling with regard to grants to fairs in the past-I know this is a problem that has worried the Department of Agriculture for years: that much of the money that was paid as grants to fairs did not achieve the purpose it was supposed to achieve, that is, in creating in the community in which the fair was held an interest amongst the farmers themselves. For instance, there is one fair in western Canada where thousands of dollars have been paid each year. Yet that money was taken by people who were more or less professional showmen and there is practically no evidence within one hundred miles of that particular centre of any definite improvement in live stock due to the money that was paid out for agricultural purposes. For that reason we started this year as an experiment by selecting at one place in each province a fair in the nature of what we were pleased to call a regional fair, where by giving prizes we endeavoured to create a healthy competition amongst the farmers in the community. The grant is $1,000, the first prize being $400 to be given to the community that wins the most points at the exhibition. The next prize was $300; the next $200, and the next, $100. We already have returns from some of these, and 1 am glad to see that the result is much beyond anything that we expected as regards getting the farmers themselves interested in this work.
Another work that we are undertaking throughout Canada and that has been given more or less attention in the past-and an item that slipped through in a hurry the other

Supply-A griculture
night and that many of us perhaps overlooked, was in connection with it-is in reference to pasture, forage crops, etc. Even in British Columbia, which we think of as having almost unlimited pasture, the carrying power of the ranges has decreased to one-fourth, and in many places, more than that. In some sections it will take four acres now to carry as many head of cattle as one acre would have done some years ago. This year, in cooperation with the British Columbia government, we have sent two men through the range lands in that province to make a special study of grass conditions, and the report they have made has been anything but satisfactory in regard to the rangemans economic condition. The bunch grass on which they have relied so much for their pasture cattle is practically disappearing. In eastern Canada, in the old native pastures, I believe it takes about four to six acres now to carry as many head of cattle as one. acre carried a number of years ago. Speaking of the cost of production, we all admit that the cheapest feed for the production of milk is pasture and we believe that any reasonable expense we may make towards the improving of pasturage conditions will be more than warranted. One of the serious problems in the prairie provinces at the present time is that of pasture and forage crops to prevent drifting. This year the drifting has been so great that those of us who believed shelter belts and so on were the solution for it are now undecided on that point. In fact, this year it was proven that they would not prevent drifting. The western farmers, due to the price of wheat and other grains during the past few years has not been attempting to keep a great deal of live stock, even in districts where they might do so, or to pay attention to forage crops. The farmer in the west has been paying attention particularly to the raising of wheat-and I say this without criticizing them, because they turned their attention to that method of farming which they believed would give them the greatest crop-but the result has been, by taking all the fibre and strength out of the land, to create as nearly as possible the ideal condition of the desert. One thing we must concentrate on in the west, therefore, is to get the best authorities we can to work on the question of pasturage. When I came here first, I had in mind to carry on this work the official who had held the position of agrostologist. The man who had been in charge left in 1929 to go to Winnipeg, and the position had not been filled. We believed the matter was of such importance to the farmers that we could not afford to take any but
the very best man we could get. There was no doubt that the best man was Professor Kirk, of the university of Saskatchewan, at Saskatoon. He is one of the three best men in that work on the American continent, and I think he is easily recognized as the best man in the Dominion of Canada. But I was up against this difficulty. Professor Kirk is a personal friend of mine- probably all the professors at the university of Saskatchewan are friends of mine; I knew how invaluable he was to the university, and I did not want to bring in his name until I was sure that the professors and the university staff felt that he was needed more for the whole Dominion than he was needed at the university. They agreed, and Professor Kirk was very anxious to come because of the greater opportunity of the work here. Therefore, in order to pay him anything like he was worth, it was necessary to put through that estimate on Saturday night, by which he is given S5,000, which is more than men are receiving who are occupying similar positions in the experimental farms branch. He is getting more than that at the university of Saskatchewan at the present time, but he was willing to come here, even at a lower salary than he is now receiving, for the good that he could do. It is only fair that I should say that the men in the experimental farms department who are the heads of branches were so anxious to get Professor Kirk here that they had no objection to his receiving more salary than they are receiving. The director of the experimental farms gets only $5,000 a year, together with a house. They were particularly anxious to have Professor Kirk, and I am sure that everyone will realize, especially with conditions as they are in the west and every where, that no wiser step could have been taken than to get a man of the type of Professor Kirk, who is himself a true scientist and will be a worthy co-worker with the men we have in the various branches of the experimental farms.


John Vallance: I wish to thank the minister for acceding to my request. I will reserve any comment or criticism I may have of the policy as outlined by the minister because I realize that the house wishes to prorogue, and as well it will give me a little more time. But when the house next meets I hope to be able to offer some suggestions regarding the minister's policy.


Robert McKenzie: The hon.
member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) has had something to say with regard to the health of animals branch. I was prepared to have something to say on that, but I shall be very brief. I would like an explanation from the minister of the reduction of $300,000 in this
Supply-Agriculture

item this year. To the people of the west this is the most important item in the agricultural estimates, especially when we consider that there is approximately S800,000,000 invested in live stock throughout the Dominion, and approximately $136,000,000 in the province of Saskatchewan from which I come. There has been an impression amongst the farmers throughout the west that the present Minister of Agriculture is not very much in love with the establishment of T.B. free areas.


Robert Weir: What is your authority for that?


Robert McKenzie: I say the statement has been made that the minister is not very sympathetic towards that movement. I hope that it is not true.


Robert Weir: Who made the
statement?


Robert McKenzie: There is no need to say. The statement has been made.


Robert Weir: We have put more pressure on that work since we started than ever was put on before.


Robert McKenzie: The. hon.
member for Compton this afternoon gave us to understand that the ex-Minister of Agriculture had not done all he might have done in connection with the establishment of T.B. free areas and the matter of compensation. I have very decided views in the matter of compensation, but I shall not deal with that now. I do not like to see any reduction made in the vote for the health of animals branch. Let me quote from the report of the veterinary director general, of the health of animals branch. At page 5 he says:
I am glad to be in a position to report that there were no extensive outbreaks of contagious disease throughout the Dominion during this fiscal year.
We have statements such as that from year to year from the Department of Agriculture and the health of animals branch, and we are in that fortunate position because, we have been spending a substantial amount every year to prevent these contagious diseases spreading. For that reason I do not like to see the vote cut down. Suppose, we had an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which we have never had in this country because of the activities of the officials of the health of animals branch. There would not only be the loss of the animal, but the loss of our market because of the embargo that would be put on by other countries against our cattle. In the same bulletin from which I quoted mention is made of a disease called

dourine, which was prevalent in Canada at one time, and I note that nearly $49,000 was expended in compensation for that disease. Within the last nine or ten years there has not been a case of it in Canada. This is largely due to the fact that we have been spending substantial sums on the health of animals branch, and I would like an explanation from the minister as to why a reduction is being made in the vote this year. There are a great many other things I should like to say in connection with this vote, but I shall defer my remarks to a later time.


Robert Weir: In answer to the question raised by my hon. friend it is only fair to myself to ask that the hon. gentleman before he repeats rumours that he may have heard in the country, which I would think no person should pay any attention to, should at least take steps to see if there is any truth in them.


Robert McKenzie: I mentioned the rumour to give the minister an opportunity of looking into it.


Robert Weir: I think we are on pretty safe ground in that matter. We have put orders in council through for a lot more restricted areas in the same length of time than was done by the previous government. The reason the vote appears cut is this: The officials of the health of animals branch feel that before we undertake the establishment of any more new areas we should clean up the second tests, instead of leaving things at loose ends. The idea is to keep clean the areas that we have established, rather than to undertake new work which is impossible, according to my officials, with the staff that we have at the present time. Therefore our work this year is to complete the tests, which the experts tell me is the right thing to do, and I may say that their opinion is confirmed because in many places where we made the second test the losses have been as high as 28 and 29 out of 32. So it is advisable not to continue as we have in the past without checking up as we go along and making a complete job of it. We feel that we are on the right track. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would tell me w'ho starts any false rumours regarding myself.


Robert McKenzie: It is quite satisfactory to me that the minister has denied the rumour. I quite appreciate that the department may find it difficult to obtain a sufficient number of men to carry on the work as they would like to do it.
There is one other matter I would like to mention, and it is one in respect to which I

Supply-Agriculture
have criticized the previous government. I believe -that in connection with the establishment of T.B. free areas there is some sort of regulation whereby it is coupled with the establishment of pure bred sire areas. I understand that in some cases, perhaps not in every case, the two interlock.


Robert Weir: The pure bred sire area is a provincial policy.


Robert McKenzie: Then I
shall say no more about it.


William Richard Motherwell: I want to run over very hurriedly the minister's policy. The question of good blood is an old, old question. If my hon. friend will look up the story of father Jacob in the book of Genesis, he will see how he put it over his father-in-law in cattle breeding. He knew more about animal genetics 4,000 years ago than most of us here to-day, including the minister. Then, we come to the sow policy. Well, the Liberal government had a sow policy which was introduced in the year 1924.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
will agree that I did not talk about that until I had to.


William Richard Motherwell: I wish to congratulate my hon. friend upon his publicity bureau. Nobody had a suspicion that there was a sow policy before my hon. friend took office.
Then we come to fairs, and I need only say that the previous government was doing the same work in that connection. At the Saskatoon fair there were calf clubs with one thousand calves feeding, as part of the work, among farmers' sons in the vicinity.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: There
were not a thousand calves fed at the Saskatoon fair.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend would listen, he would realize I was saying something complimentary. There were one thousand calves fed by boys under the auspices of the Saskatoon fair.


Frank Roland MacMillan: They did not feed a thousand calves. I happened to be head of the organization that had that matter in hand, and I know what I am talking about.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, they did. One would think my hon. friend were as deaf as I am. They did feed a thousand calves; that was part of their voluntary work among the farmers' sons.
Then, there is only one way to deal with pasture in the west. The previous government established some experiments in connection with pastures on the prairie at Many-berries, Alberta; surely the minister knows that. There is no use in his talking about pastures as something new, because that is a lot of nonsense. He did not introduce that policy, but his predecessors did six or seven years ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: No, it is not carried.
I want to set the minister right before it is carried. For two or three weeks we heard nothing but "sheltered belts" as a means of preventing soil drifting, and my hon. friend entered into an arrangement with a provincial government to carry them into effect. I am not going to say anything about them, but the winds and drifting soil will cut down those proposed sheltered belts as quickly as he can grow them if growing caragana seed or seedlings.
I wish to congratulate the minister upon having secured the services of Professor Kirk since Mr. Angus McKay passed away about a month ago. Professor Kirk is now considered the best authority in Canada on forage crops and how to seed them down. Seeding down, after all, is the only proper policy to stop the drifting soil. To restore the prairie to its original soddy condition seeding down alone is the only policy that will succeed four years out of five. Unless the minister adopts this policy two or three of us have recommended for the last twenty-five years he might as well throw his seed in the ocean, because it will be of no use. Good work has been done at the Swift Current and Indian Head farms to demonstrate that. It has already been demonstrated at Swift Current that they cannot seed down old weedy land with a crop; that has been demonstrated, and with Professor Kirk's assistance some further progress will doubtless be made along that line.
I wonder why the minister voted down a proposal which was made in the agriculture committee a few days ago looking towards the dissemination of these views. For the information of hon. members I shall read the proposal:
Your committee is further of the opinion that, having regard to the most serious and emergent conditions in the prairie west, referred to so fittingly and effectively in the House of Commons on July 1st by the premier, the Right Honourable R. B. Bennett, as a national calamity. Supplementary measures should be instituted- forthwith, looking toward the prevention and non-recurrence of such calamities, so far as it is humanly possible to provide against, on the principle that prevention is better than cure.
Supply-Agriculture

With this desired end in view, your committee strongly recommends the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into:
(a)	The causes of and remedy for soil drifting. especially on the open prairie;
(b)	Precautions to take in seeding down to grass or clover, or the planting of trees and hedges, as possible remedial measures;
(c)	Any other matter pertaining to or allied with the livestock and livestock products industry in any part of Canada.
There was a proposal to recommend the appointment of a royal commission to look into the matters contained in this recommendation. In committee my hon. friend and his associates voted down this recommendation proposed by Mr. Totzke and said that the departmental officials would take the matter up and make a similar inquiry. I would tell the minister that the Department of Agriculture officials, while quite capable to do so, have their hands full with their regular work. There is no money, either, set aside to pay for an additional inquiry from the experimental farm vote, and the proper course to take I think was to follow the recommendations contained in the document I have read. But no, the committee did not want to have it that way, and the majority voted down these recommendations.


Robert Weir: There was no vote taken.


William Richard Motherwell: And my hon.
friend with a majority was at the back of the the opposition to it. What did he do with this report? He has not had the courage to ask for concurrence in the house because he knew he was wrong; that is the reason. We are going home with both agriculture reports in the air and dead on the roost because my hon. friend did not submit them for adoption.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, did I use another unparliamentary remark?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, I was just calling the members to order.


William Richard Motherwell: I beg your pardon; for once at least my hon. friend in the chair is innocent.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, it is not the first
time. My hon. friend does not understand me.


William Richard Motherwell: So much for the
minister's new policies. I have referred to them because probably unwittingly he has been deceiving the entire electorate with regard to what he is doing. He is merely carry-f on old policies, and I may tell him if he
'Mr. Motherwell.]
continues to do so he will not do badly. But to tell the people that they are new policies is absolute non sense and downright hypocrisy on his part.
Let me tell the committee what the minister was going to do about chickens. Every cockerel and every little hen was to be rounded up and be depolarized. My hon. friend has been using the word so glibly that he can say it much more quickly than I can. There were to be depolarization stations here, there, all over. It would seem as if this is the first time in Canada depolarization has been advocated. I say to him that during the war, in the year 1916, this poultry disease became prevalent among chickens in the maritime provinces. I hope the maritime representatives will not take objection to my statements. The disease became very prevalent-
I hope it does not spread to the human family, and expert work was undertaken at once to eradicate it; blood tests were taken and as a result nearly all experimental farms across Canada have had this disease called Pollorum (white scours) eliminated. Ask the chickens whether this is a new policy; they have been suffering from it for a long time, and they can tell a different story.
What is the use of that kind of nonsense? The minister will not get anywhere with that. This depolarization business has been in existence during the regime of at least four former ministers-the Hon. Martin Burrell who inauguarfed it, the Hon. Mr. Crerar, the Hon. Doctor Tolmie, myself and my hon. friend. I hope he will not lay claim to doing something wonderful which has been in course of correction for fifteen years, because if he does he will just do himself injury and no one any
g'0(Ki-	...	,
The story goes that when the Minister of
Agriculture attended the North Atlantic shipping conference on cattle he came back or met their representatives in Montreal with a reduction in ocean freight rates from S20 to $15 per head. It went all over Canada like a prairie fire; he was extolled everywhere, as he should have been if it were true. But here is a return brought down indicating that there have been no changes in ocean rates since 1927, when they were reduced by the North Atlantic conference, for what reason I do not know. I think it was due partly to the fact that the number of cattle shipped overseas was beginning to fall off, and the rate was lowered in order to encourage the continued shipment of cattle. Even his own staff thought he had secured a reduction; I called up and they told me the rates were reduced. Then I asked the hon. gentleman himself through a return, and he reported

Supply-A gricidture
back that there had been no change. The rate was $15 a head in 1927, and it is the same to-day. If the hon. gentleman wants me to read the return I will do so, but I think it is not necessary. The hon. member for Marquette is not here. He is a great friend of live stock; he is a good old missionary in that respect, and he extolled the minister in this regard. He said, "Why, before the minister has been in power three months he has gone to the shipping conference in Montreal and come back with a reduction in ocean rates to $15." Why did not the minister correct those misstatements and not get his friends in wrong? Why did not his friends correct those statements and not get the minister in wrong. Do they think we do not know these things? Do they think we are not going to pull them up on these unwarranted claims. If they were even within a hundred miles of being true I would not say a word, but they are a thousand miles from the truth.
After everything being depolarized in a correct way I have just one more matter to which I should like to refer the minister to in regard to live stock. It is this: The minister is a member of the cooperative live stock pool, and my information is that a beef producers' association has grown up in the west at Calgary. Will the minister state whether the new beef producers' association is getting an organization grant now, as well as the live stock pool?


Robert Weir: They have received no grant as yet.


William Richard Motherwell: But my hon. friend has encouraged them to organize with the idea of getting a grant and is paying for their secretary's salary. Has he done that? The minister nods. Let me implore him not to create in the live stock industry the same confusion and rivalry which existed in Saskatchewan in connection with the marketing of wheat, when we had the pool, the old Saskatchewan cooperative elevators and the United Grain Growers all competing for the same wheat and the same markets. This was fatal to the cooperative organizations in the Canadian wheat world; it was most damaging to their solidarity and to their future and was one of the causes of the present marketing condition there. Now my hon. friend admits that he is setting up a second cooperative live stock association in the west, and there can be only one result. Mr. Arkell is business manager of one organization and Mr. Jack Byers is manager or secretary of the other. Both these gentlemen are very good friends of mine, and I would regret very much if the
minister should encourage, by grants or otherwise, two live stock organizations who would compete for the same ocean space-which has been very scarce recently-and the same cattle. This will result in a very serious condition unless it is possible to merge or reorganize these two organizations.
I wonder what is the purpose of the minister in encouraging the formation of the second organization. He must be doing it without knowledge of what his action will bring about, because it will create I fear such conflict that we will have nothing but a continuous struggle. It will be bad for both organizations. I cannot understand the minister; I wish to goodness he might give me some explanation which would make me think better of him and that he would not encourage competition and strife with this splendid organization, the live stock pooh which it was my privilege to assist by a grant for three or four years. My hon. friend is a member of that cooperative live stock association and he should not do anything to hurt it, but he has encouraged the formation of this other organization which will, as already intimated, compete for the same live stock and the same ocean space. I wish he would make some explanation to relieve my anxiety about this looming difficulty and possible friction ahead.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall I report the resolutions?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do I understand that items 113 and 114 are carried?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: They were carried
Saturday night.


Robert McKenzie: Could we not have some explanation from the minister with regard to item 114, which is an entirely
new item?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am in the hands of the committee.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understood the Prime Minister to say that any debate at all could take place under the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only on those which were standing.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That was not made very clear by the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If we are to prorogue today I do not think we can permit this further debate; otherwise we will have to adjourn until to-morrow. I only make that statement in frankness and fairness.



Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King


Robert McKenzie: I was here Saturday night and I did not hear the item
called.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It passed the committee.


Robert Weir: This item was included in the old item and we thought it would be better to separate it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: How much was the old grant?


Robert Weir: I could not say offhand.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MACKENZIE KING

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before we proceed further, Mr. Speaker, there is a matter of personal privilege to which I wish to speak.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would my right hon.
friend rather speak now or at a later stage?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would
rather take up the matter now, because this is the first opportunity I have had with the Speaker in the chair, and I feel that the matter is important. I have in my hand a copy of the Toronto Mail and Empire of Saturday, August 1, which carries the following headline across the front page:
Bennett Says King Told Senator Haydon: "Get The Money."
A little further down the page there is a subheading, "Go and gat money", under which appears the following:
Thrusting an accusing, quivering forefinger directly at Mr. King, Mr. Bennett declared in searing phrases that the former premier had said to his friend, Senator Haydon. "Go and get money"-and that Senator Haydon had promptly gone and got it from Beauharnois. . . .
The moment I saw this paper, Mr. Speaker, I read through the speech made by the Prime Minister of which the article purports to be a reproduction and from which it is to be assumed the headings have been drawn. May I say that I could see nothing in the speech made by the Prime Minister, from beginning to close, nor have I seen or heard in any speech made by the right hon. gentleman at any time in this house any statement which justifies the heading appearing there or the statement I have read. The Prime Minister is in this House of Commons in front of me at the moment, and I should like him to say whether he ever made any such statement. I know very well that my right hon. friend

will not say he made a statement of the kind; I am perfectly sure he would be the last person to do so. For any paper to print such a heading or to make such a statement as one purporting to reproduce what was said in any debate which occurred in this House of Commons is to render itself open to an action for criminal libel.
Now I want to say that my right hon. friend, to use his own words on Friday last, did resort to the "cunning device, to insinuate hypothetical conditions and draw hypothetical conclusions, and then afford an opportunity for his political friends to go out into the country and quote them as indicating the true position."


Richard Bedford Bennett: This cannot be a question of privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So long as he held to insinuations and to innuendos I remained silent knowing that the records of this parliament would speak for themselves. Had there been a direct statement of the character here ascribed to the Prime Minister I most certainly would immediately have taken exception to it. I am making this statement at.the moment, Mr. Speaker, first of all by way of protest and correction, and in the second place in order to say again emphatically that at no time since I have been leader of a political party have I given directions to anyone with respect to campaign funds. I am further making this statement from my place in parliament for the reason that it may become necessary for me, if this kind of thing is repeated by any individual or any newspaper in this country, to consider having regard to the source whether I shall not immediately institute an aotion for criminal libel. I do not wish the party who repeats an allegation of the kind to be able in mitigation or in self-defence to plead that, when I had opportunity in the House of Commons, I had not taken advantage of it first to correct What was false, and next to state to the house what was true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following message.
Ottawa, August 3, 1931.
,J?S
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Lyman P. Duff, acting as the deputy of the governor general, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Monday, August 3, at 5 p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
PRIVILEGE-MR. LaVERGNE
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montma-gny): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I have observed that after hon. gentlemen have spoken in the house they are entitled to correct their speeches as reported in Hansard. I am getting up in years, but I can remember that in the old days if an hon. member wished to correct Hansard he had to rise in the house on a question of privilege. I have read recently some speeches reported in Hansard, to the delivery of which I listened carefully, and which were entirely different as reported. I would suggest that the first edition of Hansard, at any rate, should not be open to correction on the part of members without at least having the corrections brought before the house. Certainly speeches have been made in this house during this session, which I have read in Hansard, and the reports have not accorded with the original. I think the old practice was much better. When we wanted to correct Hansard we had to rise to a question of privilege.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman
should state some specific instance instead of making a general charge against Hansard.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I was referring to hon. members personally and not to Hansard.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from committee of supply-
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the year ending March 31,	1932, the sum of
$181,101,991.28 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 145-, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1932.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, and reported.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the bill be read the third time. In doing so, may I avail myself of this opportunity to thank the right hon. gentleman opposite for having made it possible to close before six o'clock.


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

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Prorogation
[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting The Montreal and Atlantic Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
An Act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
An Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
An Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (Priority of Claims).
An Act to amend the Judges Act.
An Act to amend the Act incorporating the Board of Management of the Canadian District of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio and other States, and to change its name to the "Board of Management of the Canadian District of the American Lutheran Church''.
An Act respecting The Railway Employees Casualty Insurance Company.
An Act respecting The Canadian Woodmen of the World.
An Act for the relief of Florence Marshall.
An Act for the relief of Gordon Aaron.
An Act for the relief of Rita Margaret Mary Longmore.
An Act for the relief of Carl Vohwinkel.
An Act for the relief of Ruth Rosenberg.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Freedman Guttman.
An Act for the relief of Barbara Wallace Barlow.
An Act for the relief of Ray Finkelstein.
An Act for the relief of Mary Ann Ventura.
An Act for the relief of Beatrice Marie Dumaresq.
An Act for the relief of William Henry Rees.
An Act for the relief of Emily Hughes Mac-culloch.
An Act to amend the Government Annuities Act.
An Act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the Public Service.
An Act respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river between the Island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre, in the province of Quebec.
An Act to provide for a loan to The New Westminster Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to provide for a further loan to the Halifax Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
An Act to amend The Alberta Natural Resources Act.
An Act to amend The Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act.
An Act respecting Dominion Agricultural Credit Company, Limited.
An Act to amend the Trust Companies Act.
An Act to amend the Post Office Act.
An Act to amend the Interpretation Act.
An Act to amend the Companies Act.
An Act to amend the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.
An Act respecting the establishment of the Royal Canadian Mint.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act to amend the Naturalization Act.
An Act respecting the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Emma E. Tait.
An Act to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Board.

An Act respecting The Wapiti Insurance Company.
An Act for the relief of Robert Ruff Martin.
An Act for the relief of Norah Kathleen Nevins Scott.
An Act for the relief of Albert Thompson Johnston.
An Act for the relief of Isabel Catherine Rohrer White.
Ah Act for the relief of Lily Adide Caswell Dyson.
An Act for the relief of Thora Mary Balfry Walker.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Kathleen Younger Cooper.
An Act for the relief of Frank Godsoe Wilson.
An Act respecting the St. Lawrence River Bridge Company.
An Act respecting the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea signed in London on the thirty-first day of May, 1929, and the International Convention respecting Load Lines signed in London on the fifth day of July, 1930.
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
An Act to amend the Root Vegetables Act.
An Act to amend the Pension Act.
An Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between Canada and Australia.
An Act for the relief of Rebecca Jacobs Wiseblatt.
An Act for the relief of Ada Jane Wood-hams Bush.
An Act for the relief of Marie Rose Agnes Belanger Gauron.
An Act for the relief of Minnie Fagan Rabinovitch.
An Act for the relief of Annie Bick Barder.
An Act for the relief of Pearl Whelan.
An Act for the relief of Bruce Raymond Diamond.
An Act to remove the necessity of the re-eleotion of Members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office.
An Act for the Promotion of Vocational Education in Canada.
An Act tO amend The Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Adt respecting the Canadian National Railways arid to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931.
Ah Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of securities to be issued under the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1931.
An Act to provide for a further loan to the Three Rivers Harbour Commissioners.
Ah Act to amend The North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act, IS 13.
An Act respecting Wheat.
An Act to provide for a further loan to the Saint John flarbour Commissioners.
An Act to amend the Dairy Industry Act (Increase of penalties).
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
An Act to provide for a further loan to the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners.

Governor General's Speech
An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
An Act to confer certain powers upon the Governor in Council in respect to unemployment and farm relief, and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada.
An Act respecting the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited.
An Act to declare certain works of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, to be for the general advantage of Canada.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1932.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name the Deputy of Hie Excellency the Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the (Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service. r In the name of the Commons I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1932.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the deiputy of His Excellency the Governor General, did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to close the second session of the seventeenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
I desire to thank you for the diligence and efficiency with which you have discharged your duties during the present session of Parliament.
The development of Canadian industry and agriculture has been further promoted through the measures you have enacted.
A Tariff Board has been created, one of the functions of which will be to aid in the stabilization of tirade and the establishment of an equitable relationship between the costs of production and consumption.
The changes provided for in the system of government amounting will, it is believed, make for greater simplicity and more effective control over the finances of the country.
The measures granting assistance to the wheat producer, and for the distribution of coal will do much to assist those industries.
Among other important measures enacted were Bills respecting: Copyright; Canadian National Railway Company; Pensions; Soldiers Settlement; Consolidated Revenue and Audit; Vocational Education; The Royal Canadian Mint; Old Age Pensions.
Approval has been given the proposed measure of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to be known as the Statute of Westminster, and His Majesty The King has been humbly petitioned to cause it to be laid before that Parliament. Prior to such approval being given, delegates of my Government and of all the Provinces of Canada at the invitation of my Prime Minister, met at Ottawa and approved for insertion in the proposed measure a clause defining the rights of the Dominion and Provinces in respect to its provisions.
The commercial agreement negotiated with the Commonwealth of Australia and ratified by Parliament will, I confidently believe, be of advantage to both our countries. This agreement manifests the desire of my government to enter into similar trade agreements with other parts of the Empire.
The Imperial Economic Conference, adjourned last November to reassemble at Ottawa during the latter part of the current year, has been postponed because of circumstances which prevented the representation at the conference of all the dominions of the Empire. It is confidently believed that when this conference reassembles, an Empire trade agreement of advantage to all its parts may be consummated.
The Conversion Loan of 1931, through which there was reinvested in securities of the Dominion of Canada a sum of approximately six hundred and forty million dollars, affords striking proof of the confidence of the general public in the financial strength of the country.
As a result of the Parliamentary inquiry into the operations of the Beauharnois Power Corporations, measures have been enacted to secure the public interest against harmful exploitation of our natural resources and to safeguard the rights of bona fide investors.
Since you entered upon the duties of the session, the world-wide depression in economic conditions has grown more acute, and the consequent state of unemployment and distress in many parts of the country has been intensified through the partial failure of the wheat crop of western Canada. To augment existing relief measures, the Governor-in-Council has been empowered to take the necessary action to provide the maximum of employment and to aid, by such means as may be deemed expedient, the recovery from the adverse conditions arising primarily from the crop failure.
The great powers of Europe and America, following the generous and constructive action of the President of the United States of America, which Canada whole-heartedly endorses, are unitedly striving for the re-establishment of better world conditions. Towards this purpose we may now effectively contribute, by steadfastly bending ourselves to the task of freeing Canada from the consequences of this universal state of economic depression and of the particular misfortune which has befallen the West; so that this country may be ready to take its place in the forefront of the world's recovery.
Governor General's Speech
[Stage Direction]
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.
Honourable Members of the Senate: Members of the House of Commons:
I join with you in sympathy for those upon whom the present conditions bear most heavily. As our burden is less than that of other countries, so have we. as a Nation, the greater duty to aid the unfortunate among our citizens. I
commend your zeal for the common good. It is the crowning proof of the unassailable unity of the Canadian people. These troubled times will pass, for adversity is powerless against the will of Canada to regain the happiness and prosperity which are its birthright. May Divine Providence bless and guide you in all your labours.
This concluded the second session of the seventeenth parliament.