1931-05-12

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Stinson.


Mr. L. G. BELL (St. Antoine) moved:: That the petition of Marie Rose Agnes Belanger Gauron, alias Caron, of Montreal, Quebec, praying for a bill of divorce from Delphis Gauron, alias Caron, which was presented to the house on the 11th instant, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders, for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


Mr. RINFRET:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if this is not a new procedure? It is the first time that I have seen it initiated in this house.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The petition was late in being presented, and we are now

Royal Grain Commission
simply asking for leave of the house so that the select standing committee on standing orders may consider the matter.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I understand that the clerk of petitions reported that the application could not be received, and it is now proposed to refer the petition to the select standing committee on standing orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn)) I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In the Regina Daily Star of Friday, May 8, appears a despatch signed by Thomas H. Blacklock, a portion of which I will read to the house:
Mr. Weir is of nervous temperament and his friends were anxious over his first effort to address parliament. For weeks he had been subjected to sniping and the most cowardly attacks from such members as Donnelly of Willow Bunch, Vallance of North Battleford, and Young of Weyburn, culminating in an offensive attack by Hon. W. R. Motherwell.
Whether the hon. minister is right or wrong in assuming that all shafts fired from this side of the house are aimed at him personally, this fact is true, that during the debate-
Pierre Édouard Blondin: What is the question of privilege?


Mr. YOUNG:: I am stating the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is this: Mr. Black-lock in this despatch states that I made a cowardly attack on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). I say that during the debate in question I took no part whatever in the discussion. I will go further and say that in all the utterances that I have made to this house since the hon. minister has been a member of it I have never once, either directly or indirectly, made any reference to the Minister of Agriculture.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I should like to inquire of the Acting Minister of National Revenue when I may expect to be brought down the return to an order of the house which was passed almost a month ago with reference to orders in council passed by that department.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: On Tuesday last, when the hon. gentleman mentioned it, I inquired of the officers of the department, and they said that the file was extensive but that they were
making progress as rapidly as possible in transcribing the documents for presentation to the house. I will make further inquiries before to-morrow.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I inquire from the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) when the special committee on the Copyright Act is likely to be convened?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend will find that a notice has already been given that the committee will meet on Friday at 10 o'clock.



SECOND NARROWS-RIPPLE ROCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vanoouver-Burrard):: Before the orders of the day are called I would ask the Minister of Marine if he is in a position to tell the house when the Cote report dealing with the Second Narrows at Burrard Inlet will be tabled?


Hon. A. DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: We have decided to have the report printed, both in connection with the Second Narrows question and the Ripple rock question. It will take a few days before the printing is completed but upon completion it will be tabled.



ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On -the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battleford):: I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his seat, but I hope some other hon. member of the government will draw his attention to the inquiry I am about to -make. On May 5, last Tuesday, I directed a question to the Prime Minister asking when we -might expect the report of the Stamp commission, The Prime Minister then promised that lit would be presented probably within ten days, and he intimated that before the expiration of that time 'he would make a statement to the house. Seven days have elapsed and, in common with many of the farmers in the country, I would like to know when the Prime Minister is going to make the statement.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I will see that the attention of the Prime Minister is called to the hon. member's question.

South America-Sir George Perley



PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I would ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MaoLaren) if at this session he proposes to bring down legislation amending the Pension Act or the War Veterans' Allowances Act?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I am not in a position to make a statement on that point to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Murray MacLaren: I cannot make a statement to-day.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the minister make a statement in the near future?



STATEMENT OP SIR GEORGE PERLEY CONCERNING VISIT TO SOUTH AMERICA

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Minister without Portfolio) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
He said: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I think this would be a suitable time for me to say a few words about the cruise to South America in which I took part. In the first place I should like to explain how this cruise originated. A good many months ago the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which we all know is a strong organization in this country and which has sponsored missions to other parts of the world on behalf of Canadian business, decided that it would be advisable to arrange a mission to various countries in South America, stopping at the West Indies en route. In this enterprise the Canadian Manufacturers' Association co-operated and eventually, through an arrangement with the Canadian National'Steamship Company, it was decided to use the steamship Prince Robert for the purpose of the cruise. This steamship is one of the new boats of the Canadian National Steamship Company; it was built for service on the Pacific coast, and although not large was very suitable for the purpose. It turned out to be an excellent sea boat with good accommodation.
As arrangements for this mission proceeded it became evident that a great many representative Canadians were going to take part. After giving consideration to the request of those who were organizing the mission, the government decided to send one of its number with the mission to South America for the purpose of giving it a somewhat more official backing. Naturally our colleague the Minis-

ter of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) would have been the proper person to go on the cruise, but he was unable to do so. May I express at this time the pleasure of hon. members on this side of the house, and I am sure those oh the other side, that our friend who is one of the veteran members of the house has made such a complete recovery and is again with us. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not able to go at the time of the cruise it fell to my lot to take his place as best I could, and therefore it was my pleasure and duty on this mission to represent the Canadian government. At the same time the mission was in no sense of an official or governmental character. However, I did what I could to assist in achieving the object of the mission and to bring its purposes before all the countries we visited.
The original object of the mission was one of trade and good will. Some people have characterized it as a cruise of merchant adventurers to the southern seas. We went with the hope of increasing business with these various countries, but the sailing of the ship was arranged so that the delegation would be at Buenos Aires at the time of the opening of the British Empire exhibition by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The abject of our trip was to strengthen our friendly relations with the peoples of the various countries we visited and to endeavour to increase our business and trade with them. As I understood it my duty was to assist in every possible way to bring about that objective. When I made official visits to the President of Cuba, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil I took some of the members of the mission with me and explained the object of our cruise; at the same time strongly urging on those presidents and other officials that they should organize return visits to this country in order that their business men might come to Canada and by meeting with us afford us the opportunity of returning the courtesies which were extended to our representatives. I also took the opportunity on behalf of the government and the people of Canada to extend to each of the presidents personally, as well as to the peoples of the countries they represented, our most friendly greetings. I am happy to say that we received a warm welcome everywhere and our greetings were reciprocated heartily by the president of the republic in which we happened to be.
May I say in passing that press men and photographers were very much in evidence in the South American countries. I have had many years experience in London, and hon. members know how many pictures are taken by photographers. I think I am safe in say-

South America-Sir George Perley
ing, however, that there were more photographs taken per day in our South American trip than I had experienced before.
Charles Gavan Power: Undoubtedly that was due
to the good looks of the delegation.


George Halsey Perley: Certainly. I
appreciate the remarks of the hon. gentleman, but I regard the interest of the press men and photographers as an evidence of confidence in and friendly feeling towards Canadians as a whole. We received an enthusiastic reception wherever we went. I cannot speak too highly of the welcome we received, and when they come here-we asked our South American friends to return our visit-I am sure we shall remember how well we were treated in their country and give them a warm welcome in return.
We stopped for a day at Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay. Several of the officials of the government and the city came on board to welcome us, and they had on the wharf a very fine band, which as we disembarked played O Canada and the Maple Leaf. That afternoon the President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs received the whole party and shook hands with each one. They extended moat friendly greetings to the people of Canada. Unfortunately we were able to stay in Montevideo for only a few hours, our ship being late in reaching there on account of a severe storm. Montevideo is a delightful city, beautifully situated and well-kept, and we were very sorry not to be able to stay longer.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, our visit was so timed that we reached Buenos Aires on the day before the opening of the British Empire exhibition. We remained there for ten days -our longest stay anywhere during our trip. There again we were welcomed in most friendly manner, and a great many people were on the wharf to greet us. The city has a very good municipal band, and the mayor of the city

the intendente as they call him -who was very kind to us in many ways, sent the band to the wharf and we listened to the strains of The Maple Leaf and God Save The King.


Mr. POULIOT:: That is very good, but
what about new trade relations?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Wait a minute.


George Halsey Perley: I am coming to
that if the hon. gentleman will allow me. It may be of interest to the house to know that we were met by one of the ministers of the Argentine cabinet, by a representative of the mayor, and also by Sir Herbert Gibson,
the president of the British Empire exhibition. Next day, Saturday the 14th of March, the exhibition was opened. Everything was admirably arranged, the weather was favourable, and the surroundings were all that could be desired. I may add that the band of the Cameron Highlanders, which had been specially sent out from England, gave us some bagpipe selections at the opening ceremony. The president, Sir Herbert Gibson, made a [DOT]few happy introductory remarks, and then His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who spoke in both English and Spanish, declared the exhibition open. His Royal Highness always speaks well, but my feeling was that he excelled himself on that occasion. He was followed by the President of Argentina, a soldier, General Uriburu. I understand that these addresses were broadcast more widely than had ever been attempted before, and I hope many members heard them here in Ottawa.
I may add that after the formal opening of the exhibition I had the honour of escorting the two princes and the president through the Canadian buildings, and I am sure the house will be glad to . learn that the building and the exhibits were in every way a credit to the Dominion. For this .very satisfactory condition of affairs our exhibition commissioner, Mr. Turcotte, is to be highly commended. It was my observation that the fact of Canada taking part in a British Empire exhibition in a foreign country was a concrete example of inter-imperial co-operation, and although the Canadian building was praised by everyone, I feel that our exhibit produced a much greater impression as part of a British Empire exhibition than if Canada had been there alone. The princes and the president went through our building and expressed themselves as very much pleased with the exhibit. In this way the Prince of Wales again showed that he was representing not only Great Britain but [DOT] every part of the empire. A sergeant and three Royal Canadian Mounted Policemen were sent down to Buenos Aires to look after our building, and they created a very favourable impression. On the opening day when the princes and the president came through they were on duty and tactfully and courteously controlled the crowds that always besiege the Prince of Wales wherever he goes.
Perhaps this may be no news to hon. members, but it is worth while mentioning that by arrangements made through the telephone companies I was able to hold a conversation with the Prime Minister twice during our stay in Buenos Aires, and our thanks are due to those companies for the excellent and sat-

South America-Sir George Perley
isfactory arrangement they made. On the day of our departure I also had a talk with the Canadian High Commissioner in London and I could understand him very well indeed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my impressions of Argentina and its people are very happy indeed. It is a fine country, the climate is delightful, and Buenos Aires, or B.A. as they call it down there, is a well-built, well-kept city, twice as large as Montreal-something that I never realized before I went there- and the people are very friendly and desirous of increasing their trade relations with us in every way possible. The Canadian mission received a hearty welcome from everyone, from the president down. The Argentine chamber of commerce made arrangements for us to see all the interesting places in the city and surrounding country, including one of their estancias, or very large ranches, which are typical of the country. Just to show that His Royal Highness was looking after Canadians as he looked after other Britishers, one morning the Prince of Wales received all the male members of our mission at the residence of the ambassador and shook hands with them and said a few words.
As I said before, I have suggested many times that this visit should be returned as soon as possible, and among other messages, I had a telegram asking me to invite delegates and visitors to attend the world's grain exhibition and conference at Regina in July, 1932. This I did, in speaking one evening at a dinner, and I am glad to have received today a circular from the world's grain exhibition at Regina saying that an official mission has been appointed by the government of Argentina to represent that country at that exhibition. I consider this very welcome news, and the fact that these people are coming from so far away certainly adds to the importance of our exhibition.
So that you may have some idea of the feeling of the people of Argentina towards Canada, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce on the day we left Buenos Aires. I gave a luncheon that day to all the men of our mission and to prominent residents of Buenos Aires. They favoured me with about two hundred guests, including three members of the Argentine government, the British ambassador and the president of the British Empire exhibition. I proposed the toast to our guests on that occasion, which was seconded by my friend Colonel Woods of Calgary, and after the British ambassador said a few words in reply, the Argentine Minister of Agriculture and Commerce spoke in Spanish. He was good enough

to send me a translated copy of his address, of which I should like to read a portion:
There are events of which actors are seldom fit to appreciate the importance of and consequences; but on this occasion the visit of the Canadian mission is of such importance that it is not possible to hide the consequences involved.
Our countries, being placed opposite one another on the American continent, reaching both the inhabited zones nearing the extreme poles, it seems as if the long distance separating them would be a great hindrance to their comprehension, but the mission presided over by such an eminent personality as our host and the qualified character of our visitors, is the most striking evidence of our resemblance in many moral and material respects which closely bind us in mutual links.
The race so vigorously arisen in Canada, having the fundamental pith of the French pioneers, followed by the magnificent effort of the Britons, who further enhance the progressive striving, convey to us grace, merriment, intelligence and truthfulness, in such a manner that we heartily seek to call you our great friends the Canadians.
Then we left Buenos Aires, and on our way back we stopped at Rio de Janeiro. Ever since I was a boy I have heard about the beauty of the city and harbour of Rio, but I must say the reality surpassed all my expectations. The city is built on the sides of hills and in the valleys between; there is a wonderful land-locked bay twenty-five miles or more in length, which can very well claim to be one of the most beautiful harbours in the world. There we received another warm welcome. The Brazilian government were gracious enough to send a representative from the foreign office to the ship, and they made my wife and myself and Right Hon. Chief Justice Anglin and Mrs. Anglin the guests of the nation on that occasion. I never had a more friendly reception than I received when we called on the Foreign Secretary. The government, together with the Rio de Janeiro chamber of commerce gave us a luncheon, at which the Minister of Commerce and Labour occupied the chair. He proposed our health in English, and in order to show the feeling in Brazil with regard to Canada I am going to take the liberty of reading a portion of his speech on that occasion:
Members of the Canadian mission, your visit is particularly agreeable to us. We know that alongside of outstanding figures in politics, there are with us at this moment the most representative persons in Canadian finance, commerce and industry. We feel certain that Brazil cannot but gain by being known, if only by means of such a rapid visit, by a group of such distinguished men, men of intelligence and action.
If it be true that the international politics of our days more and more tend to economic factors, and become increasingly subordinate to

South America-Sir George Perley
determinations in inter-commerce, it should be beyond doubt that infinite are the possibilities open for attachments between Canada and Brazil, geographically, two of the largest expressions of the New World, of completely diverse climate and production, and whose interests do not collide, but which really complement one another in all phases of world competition.
Commercial relations between Canada and Brazil are only in their beginning, the result so far only of private initiative. We can be, and w'e already are being, an excellent market for the placing of various manufactured products of your country. You have, besides this, wheat to bring to Brazil. In exchange we are in a position to furnish you with many products and raw materials essential to your economy. More than half the coffee which you consume is not yet supplied by Brazil. We have here, right now, a magnificent field for reciprocal benefits, capable of increasing the volume of our tra*le. Canadian rubber products already enjoy an excellent position in Brazilian markets. The facility which you could offer for the importation of our "Caoutchouc" appears of intuitive convenience and large are your possibilities to supply the consuming markets of Brazil with Canadian manufactured products.
The day before we left Rio de Janeiro we were all invited to pay the president a visit at his summer home at Petropolis, which is about forty-five miles from Rio and 2,500 feet above sea level. There the president and his wife received all the members of our mission and sent most friendly greetings to the government and the people of Canada.
On	the way	down we made	a visit atTrinidad, and on the way back we stopped at Bermuda. They, like ourselves, form part of the British Empire, and needless to say they	received	us with open arms.	I wassorry	that we	were unable to	visit	otherBritish islands, but I may say that the sentiment in Trinidad and Bermuda is strongly favourable to Canada. They appreciate the fine service given them by the Canadian National steamships and the advantages which have	accrued	to them through	the	trade
agreement entered into a few years ago. While I was there I was told that the West Indies and Bermuda were thinking of sending a trade commissioner to Canada to represent those islands. It seems to me this would be a very wise thing, and I hope it will be done in the near future.
In regard to the business ipart of this mission, as I said before, this was under the auspices of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, of which Colonel J. H. Woods, of Calgary, is president, and of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the president of which is Mr. Elmer Davis. They had a very efficient secretary in the person of Mr. Wendell Clarke. Wherever we stopped the representatives of the chambers of commerce, of the merchants
and of the boards of trade came on board to welcome our mission, and in nearly every instance escorted the mission to a meeting specially convened for the purpose.
On the way south the mission held a meeting at which committees were appointed to make reports on various aspects of trade and business relations as they presented themselves on the trip. They gave a great deal of consideration to this matter, and on the way back, at a special meeting, they put in their reports, which were then referred to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The reports have been sent out in printed form, along with an excellent condensed report signed by these two presidents, Colonel Woods and Mr. Davis.
I am not in any way responsible for these reports, and they are in no sense official. At the same time, however, they have been considered and approved by these two strong organizations, and they contain a good deal of useful information and many wise suggestions. I believe that members of the 'house have all received copies of the report made by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce with respect to the mission. I shall read a part of the general report, and if any hon. members are not in possession of copies I shall be glad to lay two or three of them on the table, so that they may study their contents. I quote the following:
The delegation is convinced that both from the point of view of good will and practical business the mission, which it is believed is the most important one of its kind ever leaving the Dominion, has been a very outstanding success. The people of Cuba, Uruguay, of the Argentine, of Brazil, of Trinidad and Bermuda, gave ample evidence of their desire and even eagerness to increase their commercial relations with the Dominion of Canada. This desire was particularly manifest in the Argentine and was prompted, not only by the visit of the mission itself, but also by the very excellent exhibits of the products of the Dominion, displayed in the Canadian pavilion at the British Empire trade fair at Buenos Aires.
The delegation was impressed with the very great hospitality and kindness of the peoples of the countries visited. The members of the party met the nationals in the different countries, for the most part as strangers, and said au revoir as friends. From presidents, ministers of state, governors, mayors, presidents of chambers of commerce and the business community generally, the mission received the most cordial of receptions and was welcomed in a fashion which left no doubt as to tbe depth and extent of the kindness and friendliness offered the Canadians.
The delegation are of the opinion that out of the total import trade of Latin America, amounting to about two and a half billion dollars a year, Canada's contribution of thirty-

South America-Sir George Perley
nine million dollars can be substantially increased and that out of the three billion dollars which are exported from Latin America, Canada's purchases of some twenty-nine million can be profitably expanded.
The mission are further of the opinion that in the developing of Canada's trade with Latin America, emphasis should be laid, not only on our exports thereto, but also on our purchases therefrom. Even though some of the products of the Argentine, for instance, are in competition with those of Canada, much could be done to improve our present commercial situation with these countries by deflecting some.of the trade direct to Canada on Canadian steamship lines, which now passes through American ports.
The mission have noted with gratification that already some fifteen definite agencies or representations have been established as a result of its visit.
The delegation cannot speak too highly of the splendid work which is being done for Canada by the Canadian banks established in the various countries to which the mission went. These great banking institutions of Canada are proving themselves veritable spearheads for Canadian commerce.
The delegation would also recognize the contribution which the trade commissioner service is making to the promotion of Canadian export trade.
The delegation are of the opinion that a knowledge of Spanish in particular should be more widely acquired by young men in our universities and export companies, and would therefore urge upon the educational authorities of the Dominion the desirability of emphasizing this study in their curricula. Just as Canadians prefer to do business in English, so the Argentines prefer to conduct correspondence and interviews in Spanish, and the Brazilians in Portuguese.
' The desirability of Canadian producers combining and standardizing for export was clear to the mission, when such exporters, as individual companies, are not themselves in a position to establish on a satisfactory basis a strong selling and advertising organization in the Latin American countries.
The mission have noted with considerable interest that the British West Indies and Bermuda are giving immediate attention to the appointment of a trade commissioner to Canada, whose appointment is being hastened by the visit of the mission itself.
The mission was interested in noting that the government of the Argentine has approved in principle the plan to build during the next three years nine hundred grain elevators at six hundred points, the program to involve an expenditure of some twenty million dollars during the next three years, and that Canadian contractors are making a bid for this business.
The agricultural committee of the mission see many advantages to be gained by an exchange of breeding stock and cattle judges between the Argentine and Canada, and recommend that steps be taken immediately to bring about this desired objective. The agricultural committee further point out the demand in the Argentine for the better quality silver fox fur pelts of Canada; the opening for Canadian live poultry in the Argentine and Brazil; and the market in Trinidad for bee supplies from Canada. It may be noted that Trinidad pro-
[Sir George PerleyJ
poses to exhibit its agricultural products at the Canadian National exhibition this year.
The foregoing, as I have said, is from the report of the mission. Now, I think I am safe in saying that we accomplished the object of our mission. We established friendly relations and got into personal touch not only with prominent people in these South American countries, but with the governments themselves.
We all realize how helpful it is to know people personally, and how much easier it is then to do business with them. It is true we found them all prepared to welcome the mission most heartily, as evidently they had already formed a good opinion of Canada. However, our trip enabled the mission and its members to get into personal conta*t with the officials and business men of the countries we visited, and I feel strongly that our manufacturers and merchants should be able to increase their business in South America by taking prompt advantage of the impression that has been created there by the mission.
Several of the members obtained orders and made contacts in the Various places visited, and this should certainly be followed up not only by them but also by other business firms in Canada. We must always bear in mind, however-I cannot emphasize this too strongly-that there is keen competition for the South American market, and to obtain the best results the principals should go down there rather than send representatives. They should go themselves for the purpose of meeting these people personally, and I am sure that business would be much more likely to result from that course.
Our trade commissioners w'ill be found helpful in every way, and it is a fact that the Canadian banks and insurance and light companies have. by their business capacity and fair dealing created an atmosphere favourable to all Canadians. We had on this trip 150 Canadians. All on board were Canadians with the exception of our friend Mr. Pratt, who is president of the Newfoundland board of trade. We were happy to have him with us, and vee got along as though we were all from the same country. This led me to hope that some day or other the desirable result might be brought about, of Newfoundland and Canada becoming one, as it seems to me they really ought to be.
These Canadians on board were a very representative lot: they were of both French and English extraction and they created a good impression wherever they went. We travelled for six or seven weeks on this ship and we got along very well together, and I believe the whole party came back to Halifax

South America-Mr. Mackenzie King
feeling that they had had a most interesting and useful trip. May I here express most grateful thanks to Colonel Woods, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Robb, the vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, and all the other members of the mission for their unfailing kindness and courtesy throughout the entire trip to Lady Perley and myself.
I was particularly impressed with three things during this mission. In the first place,
I cannot speak strongly enough of the wonderful welcome received everywhere. The people of South America are very friendly to Canada and desire closer relations with us, and when they make a return visit, which I hope will be very soon, we must and will give them a very hearty welcome. Then it was brought home to me quite forcibly, that the British Empire should keep together as a commercial entity as well as from sentiment, and there is no doubt that the favourable impression created in the Argentine was increased by the fact that Canada was there at this exhibition alongside the mother country. Everyone felt that our building and exhibit was a marked success, but I do not think it would have been as successful if it had not been part of the British Empire exhibition. I was impressed also with the fact that we Canadians can do almost anything when we work well together. On this voyage we had representatives from all parts of this country, every race and every political party was represented, but no question of party affiliation or birth or creed was ever discussed. We pulled together and we accomplished what we went for and I believe we created a most satisfactory and favourable impression in South America.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the remarks of the right hon. minister (Sir George Perley) call for any acknowledgment from this side of the house, but inasmuch as he has given such an interesting account of the mission on which he was the representative of the government, I may be permitted to say a word.
As the minister has mentioned, the trip to South America and the West Indies was in the nature of an unofficial mission. It was not a government mission. As, however, the government considered desirable the appointment of a representative thereon, it is fitting that this House of Commons should have from him some account of the journey, and its significant events and results. It is proper also that fitting acknowledgment should be made of the many courtesies extended to the mission by the different countries visited, and all hon. members will appreciate the
words by which the right hon. minister has expressed on behalf of Canada his appreciation of the courtesies extended to those who accompanied him on this trip.
While we are dealing in pleasantries, may I say that this is the first opportunity I have had since my hon. friend returned, to extend to him from this side of the house congratulations upon his having been made an imperial privy councillor in recognition of his many years of public service to Canada and service to other parts of the British Empire as well. He is one of the oldest and most respected members of this house, and we on this side join very heartily with his friends opposite in congratulating him upon this high recognition of long and useful public service. We trust he may be spared many years to continue to enjoy that distinguished honour.
In listening to my right hon. friend, I was hoping that during the course of his remarks, he would indicate to us whether or not he had been able, as the representative of the government, to indicate to the various countries visited wherein the policies of the government of which he is a member might serve to encourage or facilitate trade between those countries and Canada, but I did not hear any reference to the trade policies of hon. gentlemen opposite. He did refer to the address by which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales opened the British Empire Exhibition at Buenos Aires, and his mention of that speech with my recollection of it, caused me to send for a paper which contained the cabled account. I think I might read to my right hon. friend a paragraph from that address. It is contained in a Canadian Press despatch dated Buenos Aires, March 14, which appears in the papers of March 16, and reads as follows:
"Failure to recognize trade as interchange; obstacles placed in the way of reciprocal trade, are perhaps the main causes of the world's present troubles," declared His Royal Highness the Prince of AYales in his speech formally inaugurating the great British Empire trade exhibition here to-day.
That in a word was the burden of the thought contained in the very excellent address made by His Royal Highness in opening the exhibition. As I remember the address, it expressed from beginning to close a desire on the part of His Royal Highness that all nations should create an atmosphere of good will which would foster the interchange of goods between each other, and that the more there was in the way of interchange of commodities between nations the more quickly would the world's great problems of unemployment and the like be relieved. His Royal Highness went on to say that the atmosphere
1498	COMMONS
South America-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
of good will which brought about an interchange of commodities, and which my right hon. friend has recognized as being so important, was best created by removing many of the obstacles to trade. The most significant and important of all such obstacles to trade are tariff barriers.
My right hon. friend represents an administration with a trade policy so-called "Canada First," by which is meant that nothing is to be admitted into this country from another country which can be manufactured or produced in Canada, if a tariff barrier can be placed sufficiently high to keep it out. If that is to remain the policy of the present administration, it might as well save its money when it comes to sending missions abroad, because a policy of that kind is diametrically opposed to that saner policy which the right hon. gentleman has alluded to so approvingly as having been enunciated by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I commend to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the reading of the opening address of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at the British Empire Exhibition, and the application, as between the different nations with whom he hopes this country may do business in the future, of the policy therein laid down.


Mr. MANION:: Is that why Great Britain is so prosperous just now?


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I at least can speak for myself in congratulating the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Perley) on the excellent description he has given of the very pleasant social time the mission had in South America. He seems to have, remembered every band which greeted them on every wharf, and even the tunes played. It would be unfair on my part to criticize the mission because it did not offer to this country any hope of the development of trade relations outside of the fact that more friendly social relations have been established. However, I did notice in one of the documents from w'hich the right hon. gentleman has quoted, that there was a proposal made to improve the trade between the Argentine and this country by the shipment of more manufactured goods to the Argentine while we were to take in return therefor-what would you imagine? Beef, hides, and casings, for the making, I presume, of sausages. That is the sort of thing that was suggested should be done in this publication from which the right hon. gentleman quoted. H I remember the last election correctly, and the campaign speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, they contended that we were importing far too 
much of these commodities now, and that we should cut down our importations. If the net result of a mission of this kind is to be that we are still further to increase our importations of animal products, importations which were protested against by the present administration during the last election, then I fall to see the value in the mission. However, I take it that this mission will have better effects than that.
In regard to the address just delivered to the house by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), may I submit that, while his remarks were very pertinent, they might more properly have come from this corner than from himself. May I suggest that if it be so desirable to improve trade relations on a basis of reciprocal trade agreements, then it is too bad that greater steps in that direction were not taken during the last nine years. I am sure that my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition must have known that he was always certain of the support of this corner of the house in any effort that he ever made or might have made to improve trade relations with other countries.


Edward James Young: What about butter?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, as regards butter, too, and anything else you like. I am afraid that my hon. friend will find that before this house gets through the butter will have turned a little rancid.
I do not think there is in this house a more courteous or more kindly man than the right hon. gentleman who has just delivered this travelogue to us (Sir George Perley). He is one of the pleasantest personalities in the house, and the house may well accept from him his representations in regard to the friendly relations that exist; but let us hope that he has come back imbued with the spirit of the words just quoted by the leader of the opposition, the words that came from the mouth of the Prince of Wales at the opening of that exhibition, and that the efforts of his administration, modified by his now maturer advice, will be in the direction of the abolition of trade barriers rather than in that of their continuation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Tummon in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The Copper Bounties Act, 1923, administration of, $1,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What is
the reason for the increase of 8500 in this item?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This item of $1,000 is to
pay the salaries and expenses of two inspectors. Usually, in both cases, it is an official of the customs or excise branch. Their salaries and expenses amount to three or four hundred dollars each to make an inspection of the two plants which are producing the copper upon which the bounty is paid under the Copper Bounties Act of 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Hemp Bounties Act, 1923, administration of, $500.
Mr. VENIOT:: What is the explanation of this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The same explanation
virtually as I gave with regard to the previous item.


Mr. COOTE:: Are there any bounties being paid under this act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only a comparatively
small amount. The amount paid in 1930 was $3,483.


George Gibson Coote: Where is this hemp grown?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A certain amount in
Manitoba and some in Ontario.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has the minister given
any consideration to giving a bounty on wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will take that into
our consideration.


Peter John Veniot: What is the quantity of
hemp raised in Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not that information here. It is raised in scattered and comparatively small quantities. The idea of the bounty under this act was to encourage its production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
An act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal, administration of, $1,000.
Charles A. Stewart: What is the explanation of this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is to pay the salary
of a supervisor of payments in connection with the administration of this act.


Peter John Veniot: Is that the act of 1930?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the total amount paid out under the act in the attempt to equalize the competition?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The total amount paid
out in 1930-31 was S135,209.


Charles Gavan Power: How was that amount distributed by provinces?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It went to one province,
Nova Scotia, and to one company.


Mr. NEILL:: Upon what basis were the
payments made?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Charles Gavan Power: When did this act come
into force?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot say just when
it came into force, but it was assented to on May 30, 1930.


Peter John Veniot: The intention of this act
was to place the Nova Scotia steel works on a parity with the steel works in upper Canada, which use bituminous coal imported from the United States, upon which they got a drawback. During the election I understand that the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, brought this matter up at a meeting at Sydney, and if he did not give a direct promise, at least he left the impression that something further would be done to assist the miners in the Nova Scotia coal industry. Perhaps it might not be amiss to ask whether or not it is the intention of the government to go further in assisting the coal industry in the province of Nova Scotia?


Henry Herbert Stevens: At the moment I cannot give my hon. friend a direct answer. When the budget is brought down certain matters will be disclosed which will coyer the policy of the government with regard to the coal mining industry. At this time it would not be proper for me even to intimate the nature of -that policy.


Peter John Veniot: I can readily understand
the position taken by the minister. I know that perhaps it is not the duty of the minister to give a definite answer but it is rather unfair that vce should be asked to deal with this item at the present time and to pass it without knowing something more about it. May I suggest that the item should be allowed to stand until such time as we learn the policy of the government concerning the coal industry of Nova Scotia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no objection to
that. It is a very small item but there is no objection if the hon. member wishes it to stand.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Peter John Veniot: It is not the smallness of
the item which attracts my attention. There is a greater principle at stake than the mere voting of a salary, and I would suggest that the matter stand for the present.
Item stands.
British and foreign news service, $32,000.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunfoury):: To whom is this sum paid, and does the. government think it will receive value for the expenditure?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The item is paid and has been paid for a great many years to Reuters. I think Reuters' service is recognized by all as a very excellent international news service. There is a definite arrangement in connection with this service which I shall read if it is the desire of the committee:
The contractors agree to transmit from Canada by cable for distribution in the United Kingdom an average of 10,000 words monthly; and in addition to maintain its present cable service; to furnish the service of mail news calculated to maintain interest in Canada and Canadian activities, such news to be distributed by mail in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South America, West Indies and India. For the purpose of carrying out these services the company will maintain in Canada a special representative who will devote his whole time to the preparation and editing of special articles, interviews, etc.
This is a useful and valuable service to Canada. I presume there might be some criticism as to whether or not the amount is too large or too small. Generally speaking however it is considered that the service has been good. The list of trade and financial publications in Great Britain regularly receiving Reuters special trade items from Canada comprises nearly two sheets of foolscap containing about 75 names of publications in Great Britain alone. The extent of these publications would give an idea of the service in Great Britain, in addition to the services rendered in other countries. I have carefully investigated the matter, and my judgment is that the service is worth while and that Canada receives value for the services rendered by Reuters under the present item.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is Reuters a Canadian
company, and if not is there not a Canadian company which could render the same service ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: With some hesitancy I
would answer that I doubt whether there is a Canadian company equipped like Reuters to handle a similar service. The point is not that Canadians are not able to perform the task, but that the service of this great

news corporation has grown for many years. It is world wide in character, and it would take a Canadian company a great many years to build a reputation equal to that enjoyed by Reuter. Therefore I would say that at the moment under these circumstances there is no Canadian concern which could give the service rendered by Reuters.


Mr. EULER:: How many agencies have
they in Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend
will know from his experience that the method followed is this: Reuters maintain a head office in Ottawa, and have news agents or sources of news in every city throughout the country. I suppose they have agents in all centres of consequence so far as population or activity is concerned.


William Daum Euler: I am quite sure that the
service is maintained only in the larger cities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They have what I presume they call correspondents. For instance, newspaper men working in our cities on the staffs of the larger dailies or weekly papers, and the men in some smaller communities would receive a small fee for news supplied, according to the size and importance of the district represented. It is my understanding that they would receive a fee for acting as :orrespondents in the Reuters service.


William Daum Euler: Have they any relation
whatever with the Canadian Press service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot answer that, in
so far as their personal corporate relation with the Canadian Press is concerned.


William Daum Euler: I refer to business relations?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand the relations between the two services are most cordial.


Peter John Veniot: There is cooperation and
cordial relationship.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Is the whole amount paid to the same company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Does the government exercise supervision over the character of the matter sent out by Reuters? I do not refer to censorship. I remember attacking this item when the late Mr. Robb was Minister of Finance. When the item was attacked he moved to strike out the vote, but by some means or other, at a later stage in the session he moved to reinsert it, and accordingly the vote was reinserted. The ground I took at that time was that Reuters were sending out propaganda. I would like to know if this government


Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Daum Euler: They will send out different propaganda now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to know if the government exercises any supervision over the matter sent out by Reuters?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can assure my hon. friend that whatever might have happened in the past, no such propaganda would be sent out now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We believe that the service is a good one. I might explain to my hon. friend that during the regime of the late Mr. Robb the item was reinstated because there was a contract with the company. For technical reasons reinstatement was made. While the government does not pretend to edit the despatches, yet through the officials of the department we keep in touch with the matter sent out, and there is a sort of general oversight. The work has been carried on to the satisfaction of the department. The service is much wider than that provided by this vote. The vote represents merely a subsidy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it done under contract?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have before me a statement- showing the work done by this organization from the years 1923 to 1931. This statement shows the number of items sent out which have been clipped from the press by our own service and despatched to the different departments affected. I will read only the totals so as to give an idea of the service rendered: In the years 1923 and 1924 there were, in round figures, 4,000; in the next year there were 12,000; in the next year 9,300; the next year, 14,000; in the next year, 13,500; in the next year, 10,000. In the two following years there were 10,000, and in the following year, 9,500. These figures show roughly the services rendered. Some despatches were short some were long, according to the importance of the items.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are
the terms of the contract with Reuters, and over what period does it extend?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have here a synopsis of the contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I just
want to know the facts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The service rendered runs about 200,000 words during the year.


William Daum Euler: Under the contract, Reuters
specially bind themselves as to the measure of the services to be given?
*42110-96


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, the contract calls for
10,000	words of cable news monthly, but the actual service much exceeds that limit.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Is that news service
confined to the countries of the British Empire?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The contract specifies the British Empire, but the news frequently goes to other countries.


William Daum Euler: Must the news be of a
character to promote business, or does it cover whatever happens in this country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All of the news is calculated to benefit inter-empire relations in the way of trade.


William Daum Euler: Some is of very doubtful
value in that connection.


Charles Gavan Power: Did the service include a
synopsis of the Prime Minister's speeches during the last election?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I do not think they were sent.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: A few years ago there
was another news service included in this vote, and it had been carried on for fifteen years to my own personal knowledge, but a couple of years ago, owing to attacks made on it in this house, it was abandoned. I think it is pretty near time to abandon this one also.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make a motion.


James Dew Chaplin: You people on the other side have supported this vote for so long that you have got tied up to the situation and consequently you are sitting tight. I have taken the same stand before on this item; I believe that it should be abandoned, and I am not afraid to say so now. I am not going to move any motion; it is up to you people opposite, if you want a motion, to move one. I am not afraid to attack the item, because I think it should be abandoned just for the same reason that the Associated Press service was abandoned. I do not believe that it is good business to continue this vote. If it is a matter of news, I think the people who want the news should pay for it and not the country.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I take issue with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Chaplin). I think this is a very valuable service. If he would pay a little closer attention to the news that is sent from Canada throughout the empire, I am inclined to think he would consider the money was well spent. When the attack was



Supply-Trade and Commerce
made on the vote before Mr. Robb offered to withdraw it, but when we made investigations we found that we would suffer very considerably in trade and otherwise if the news service was abandoned. So far as I am concerned I am prepared to support the vote.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: The question I was about to ask has been largely answered, but I would suggest that the minister, being comparatively new to his office, might look very carefully into the character of the news supplied, and ascertain that the news thus subsidized-because it is subsidized-gives an absolutely impartial and accurate view of the country as a whole, and does not reflect the departmental or governmental view of things as they would wish them to be. This is rather an important matter, but in view of the assurance of the minister that the only control the government exercises is to see that unbiased news is furnished, I have no objection to the vote; but I do have very strong objection to any form of subsidized news service which may convey a picture not of conditions and opportunities actually existing, but so coloured as to give any impression which the government may wish created in the minds of those who read such news. As a matter of fact we have received too much news that gave an absolutely inaccurate picture of actual conditions and opportunities in Canada for intending immigrants. I hope that the supervision exercised by the minister will be such that the news service furnished under this vote will give an accurate picture of Canadian conditions and events.


Mr. MARCIL:: It is all very well to have governmental control, but I think there should be some way by which the house could be informed of the character and the nature of the news sent out; for instance, a statement might very well be laid on the table of the house; then members would be in a better position to grasp what is being done.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When my hon. friend rose I was about to suggest that we would lay on the table half a ton, if you like, of these clippings covering a certain period, and members could themselves look over them. May I add this-and it is prompted by the remark of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman)-that while we were in London at the Imperial conference last autumn I had an opportunity every day of seeing the items of news supplied by Reuters. These news items were supplied officially to the trade commissioner's office in London day by day; they were not specially designed for us. I found them exceedingly valuable and useful 
in giving me a picture of Canadian trade conditions. I am not speaking now of social news or anything of that character whatever. The news items had to do purely with financial and trade affairs, and they gave me as fine a picture of the Canadian situation as I ever have received at any time from any source. I would hesitate to agree that this service has not been well-handled. The official in charge at Ottawa, Mr. Grange, is a press correspondent of very wide knowledge and experience, with whom most of the members of the house are acquainted, and we are satisfied that the work has been properly carried out. May I also add that the department has the opportunity of examining these items, and throughout the years I question if there are any to which any serious exception could be taken.


Peter John Veniot: When does the contract end?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The contract with Reuters is dated June 28, 1923. It was authorized by order in council of July 27, 1923, P.C. 1391. The service was for three years, terminating July 31, 1926. The contract was extended twice, the first time by order in council of July 28, 1926, P.C., 1181, and later by order in council of October, 1926, P.C. 1583. The latter extension was from October, 1926, to the end of the fiscal year. Then a new contract was entered into in 1927 for a three year period, and another contract has been entered into for a three year period from April, 1930, so it runs until April, 1933.


Peter John Veniot: In view of that statement,
while perhaps the discussion is all right to show some disapproval of the continuation of the contract, if we are to operate under the principle of the infallible justice of the crown laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister, how can we possibly cut down this amount?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We cannot do it; hon. members opposite have tied us up for three years more.


Peter John Veniot: No, I think the hon. member is wrong. What was the date of the last renewal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: April, 1930.


Peter John Veniot: Then the government of
that day must have thought it was proper. They must have looked into the matter carefully, and I do not think the hon. member for York-Sunbury would want the present government to repudiate a contract made under the old government, no matter how extreme he may be in his political views. I

Supply-Trade and Commerce
am sure he is fair enough to admit that the contract having been assented to for three years more, the Minister of Trade and Commerce must have looked into the matter, and he has stated to this committee that he thinks it is a right and proper contract and that the service is good. I do not think it is possible to reduce the amount, although I should like to move that-the amount be cut to $1 in order to give the hon. member for Lincoln a chance to vote against his own party and show his independence.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. gentleman is
very keen to have somebody else make a motion. Now he proposes to make a motion in order to give me a chance to vote. Let me tell him that this contract was made in April, 1930, while this house was in session. Why did not the then government give us a chance to speak about it in the house, without passing an order in council?


Mr. DONNELLY:: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the contract was not renewed in July, 1926?


James Dew Chaplin: The contract was read just now by the minister; it was renewed in April, 1930.


James J. Donnelly: But I understood there was a contract renewed in July, 1926.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was extended for two months in July, 1926.


James J. Donnelly: Who was the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not.


James J. Donnelly: I should like an answer, please; who was the Minister of Trade and Commerce then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Trade and Commerce was the hon. member for Lincoln, I think, and I want to say that he was undoubtedly a very efficient minister. The contract was extended at that time for two months.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to ask, since the hon. member for Lincoln and I have crossed swords on this matter, why at that time he did not condemn it and why he renewed it by order in council. Why did he not give us an opportunity to fight it, since we were then in apposition? It is all very well for the hon. member for Lincoln now to say that we should have brought the matter up in the house, but he did not give us an opportunity to say anything about it. I can hardly find an expression to describe the attitude of the hon. gentleman at that time.
Here he comes in and condemns the former government for having renewed the contract under order in council, when the first contract was made by his party years before. When the shadow government came in and he was the shadow Minister of Trade and Commerce, by order in council he renewed the contract. To-day he gets up and opposes the very work which he initiated or renewed at that time, and he is trying to throw the burden over on to us. This contract was initiated by the Conservative government.


Olof Hanson: The hon. gentleman is not quite right. This contract was never initiated by a Conservative government; it was initiated by the present right hon. leader of the opposition in 1923. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that there is quite a difference between renewing a contract for two months, a contract which had been in existence previously, and renewing it for a longer period when the house is in session. The hon. member for Lincoln, in the middle of an election, renewed an existing contract for a short time, to show that the matter was under consideration. He did take it under consideration. The Liberal government renewed this contract for three years at a time when this house was in session, and parliament was never consulted for a moment about it. That is the difference between the two positions.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, there is
one thing sure; if in 1926, as has been stated, I renewed the contract, I did it for two months and the reason was plain enough. I was then just as much opposed to it as I am to-day, and I would not extend the contract beyond the possible life of the government. Had I been back in that office later on, the contract never would have been continued. I did the proper thing; I only made the extension for two months instead of for three years, as the late minister did.


William Daum Euler: There is not very much use in debating the question now if the contract has no clause providing for cancellation. I should like to ask the minister if there is any provision for cancellation. Before he answers that, I should like to say that I have very grave doubts as to the efficacy of the work which is done by Reuters. I question very much whether we get $32,000 worth of work out of the service. I may say to my hon. friend the minister that my experience of the value of the service rendered does not quite coincide with his idea. I had the opportunity of being in London not quite two years ago, and I also had rendered to me the type-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
written service from Reuters' agency. It seemed to me a very meagre service indeed. It had some news, but none of very great importance, and while I say this with some hesitation, it seemed to me that very often the news was old and of no very great use to anyone. If the contract could be cancelled and anyone would make the motion, I would support it. In fact I would not hesitate very long to make the motion myself. I would move that it be cancelled, or the amount reduced to SI. I do not see much value an it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not the contract
here, but the memorandum I have before me indicates that it is a three-year contract, whether or not it has the usual provision for cancellation I am not able to say definitely.


James J. Donnelly: I should like to find
out from the Minister of Trade and Commerce when, after July 28, 1926, the contract was renewed again, and what minister renewed it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I ga-ve these renewals a
few moments ago. The renewal from July, 1926, was for two months. Then there was an order in council passed on October 12, 1926, extending the contract from October 1,
1926,	to the end of the fiscal year. Then a new contract was entered into on April 1,
1927,	for three years, and a third contract was entered into on April 1, 1930.


Sir EUGENE FLSET:: I should like to
ask the minister if he knows whether the exMinister of Customs actually did. protest against the renewal of the contract then.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Is Reuters' service distributed freely on the other side, or is that included in the general service which they distribute, provided one subscribes to it? The newspapers that have the right to the service in Canada have to pay quite an amount for it. It would seem that the agency is in the happy position of being paid to distribute news from this country, and is also paid abroad by those who receive the news- that is, if it is paid abroad. Is the service distributed gratuitously abroad?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Speaking from knowledge of the way in which these matters are handled generally, I should say that those who receive the service subscribe. This is in the nature of a subsidizing of that service, in addition to whatever fees they may secure from their subscribers overseas.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That means, then, that we are paying Reuters to distribute abroad news 'for which the people in other countries are
'
willing to pay anyway. It either means that, or it means that Reuters add to their service something which is not of much use, and for the distribution of which we have to pay them as a sort of advertisement. I do not think, myself, that the arrangement is a very happy one. I am not concerned as to whether my good friend or someone else is responsible. We should never get anywhere if we stopped always to ascertain responsibility in the past. I am interested in the item before us to-day. From what has been urged on both sides of the house I am inclined to support any motion with reference to the matter. I will not offer a motion myself, but if one were submitted I would vote for it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the item is condemned it ought to be examined carefully. I may say candidly that I have given it considerable thought and have examined the material, though perhaps not as completely as one would wish; the time has not permitted that. However, I have looked into it to the point of satisfying myself that the service is a good one, and there is no doubt that Reuters w'ould not furnish the cable service to the extent they do were it not for this subsidy. It is a difference perhaps between a letter service and a cable service, and before taking steps to cancel it I think we ought to be very sure of the grounds upon which we do so. We ought to make sure that we are not doing Canada a disservice- that is, to the trade news of the Dominion, because that is the character of news which the service renders, as a perusal of the journals affected clearly demonstrates.


James Dew Chaplin: As a matter of trade news, I do not consider it worth a copper. I am perfectly willing to examine the case upon its merits. Let the minister lay on the table of the house a report of the services given. He says he has clippings. Let us examine the matter on that basis and then judge for ourselves. I have done this already and I know what it is; and, as I said before, I do not think it is worth a plugged nickel.


Mr. JACOBS:: The point that concerns
me at the moment in the discussion of this item is the responsibility, moral or otherwise, of this government with respect to the contract which has been alluded to here. After all, this government has been in power only eight or nine months, and if it gets abroad that they are beginning to repudiate their liabilities so early in their history, and if that is circulated by the Reuter agency, it may not do us much good. For that reason, if only to maintain the credit of the govern-

Supply-Canada Grain Act
ment I think we ought to allow the item to pass this time. I have a great deal of respect for the opinion of my hon. friend from Lincoln; as a rule he knows what he is talking about when it comes to trade matters. He was in the department, it appears, before the present minister, and when he speaks in the assertive way in which he does this afternoon I am sure he is aware of something which perhaps the house ought not diplomatically to know. I am against the principle-I do not know what my views were when my party was in power-of paying newspapers to circulate news. It at once becomes tainted when the public gets to know about it, and, to use the expressive words of my hon. friend from Lincoln, it is not worth a brass farthing or a plugged farthing-


An hon. MEMBER:: A plugged nickel.


Samuel William Jacobs: Plugged nickel, was it? We have in the city of Ottawa representatives of great news-gathering agencies on the other side. We have a reipresentaive from the London Times, a representative from the Manchester Guardian, and representatives from other newspapers overseas. Are we paying those agencies anything for publishing the news they send abroad? I know they are being maintained here as well as or perhaps better than Reuters' representative. Surely if we can pay one agency we should pay the others. Any news published on the other side from the representative of the Manchester Guardian, of the London Times, of the Morning Post, or of any of those newspapers will have as wide a circulation as that disseminated by Reuters agency, and it is free from the suspicion that it is paid for. I am against the .prinicple of paying some people to do work for us while others are doing the same thing for nothing. Either all or none ought to be paid. I trust, therefore, that when the contract expires-and, I was going to remark, when the Minister of Trade and Com-erce now in office has to deal with the matter again, which God forbid-the fact will be taken into consideration that there was determined opposition in the house, not only from the hon. gentleman's predecessor but from others on this side, to the extending of the contract for any further term. After all, $32,000 a year is a tidy sum of money; we do not easily pick it up these days. If we want to borrow money just now we have to pay 5 per cent for it. Surely this is a case where we can take, so to speak,, a newspaper holiday and discontinue this item until better
times come. When the time is opportune we can consider it. In the meantime, however, I am not in favour of cancelling the contract, because we have a moral responsibility in the matter; though on principle I am against it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators, administration of, $2,681,000.
Mr. BROWN:: Does the minister anticipate any amendments to the grain act this session?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I think not. There
was a very complete revision of the act recently, and what we might call the new act has been in operation only since the close of the last crop year. It is therefore impossible as yet to determine whether the new provisions are going to work successfully or otherwise.


John Livingstone Brown: There have been no reports in regard to the operation of the new act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. There cannot very
well be any satisfactory reports until the end of the present crop year, which will be July 31.


Mr. LUCAS:: Have there been any complaints with regard to the operation of the revised act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Vallance: I notice a reduction in the item of $203,048. As I remember the revision to the grain aot made during the last session of parliament, it seems to me that the operation of the new act should cost more if that supervision were given which those who sat in that agriculture committee expected would be given under the new act. How does the minister expect to make a saving of $203,000?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All the provisions of the
new act are being administered satisfactorily and successfully. My hon. friend will recall that the crop preceding the last one was an exceedingly heavy one, and much of the expense of this particular branch is made up in the handling of the quantum of grain passing through the various inspection centres. This year, and we expect next year, these services will not be as heavy- During this past winter instead of disposing of the services of a large number of temporary help, we spread out the work on a part time basis and have had a larger number of men working on part time than otherwise would have been the case on full time. The ex-
Supply-Canada Grain Act

penses will be less because of these factors and also the pressure being brought to bear upon the grain commission to keep its expenditures down in these times as low as is reasonably possible consistent with proper administration.


John Vallance: Is the administration of the grain act entirely taken care of by the payments made by the producers for the services rendered; is it self-supporting?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The administration of this particular branch of the public service has in the past shown a surplus, but there was a slight deficit last year and we expect another small deficit this coming year, due to the falling off in the quantity of grain handled. The revenues are derived from a per bushel charge for the handling of grain, therefore when the quantity of grain falls the revenues fall. In 1930-31 the receipts from grain inspections were in round figures $1,165,000 and the expenditures were $2,021,000, a deficit of $855,000. In the management, operation and maintenance of elevators the revenue was, in round figures, $713,000, the expenditures $394,000, leaving a surplus of $318,000. For the year 1930-31 there was a net deficit of $568,000. For the years 1928-29, 1927-28 and
1926-27 there were surpluses.


Mr. TOTZKE:: How large was that surplus?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The figures for the five
years are as follows:
192(1-27	 $400,080 89*
1927-	28	
569,130	09*1928-	29	
684,227	71*1929-	30	
224,020	36f1930-	31	
568,348	47f
* Surplus. f Deficit.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Would the five-year
period balance up?


Henry Herbert Stevens: - There would be a surplus.


Albert Frederick Totzke: What becomes of that
surplus?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It goes into the consolidated fund.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Is any allowance made for rentals of buildings?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The figures I have given are purely operating, but the expenditures include rentals where rentals are paid.


James J. Donnelly: Has there been a surplus or deficit during the past years in the administration of the grain act?
fMr. Stevens.]


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have just given the
figures for the past five years.


James J. Donnelly: I mean since the act
was first passed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend
permit that question to rest a moment and I will endeavour to get that information.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Does not the minister think this to be an opportune time to give the committee some information with regard to the negotiations being carried on with China for the sale of wheat? We 'have read in the public press of the great prospects of selling Canadian wheat in China, and if I remember correctly I think the minister has made one or two statements himself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would hesitate to discuss publicly all that has been done because after all any efforts made by the officers of -the department under the instructions of the government are necessarily more or less confidential. I have not the figures with me as to the trade with China in connection with wheat, but I will give them from memory. During the past crop year and up to the .present China has imported about 650,000 tons of wheat. Of this amount Canada supplied about 184,000 tons, Australia about 400,000 tons, the remainder being supplied from t'he United States and other sources. One of the reasons why Australia has been able to cut into this market so heavily this year is because of the discount in the Australian exchange.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think that is a subject for -congratulation on the part of Australia or a-pplause upon our part; I think it is a most unfortunate condition from which we hope, and have confidence, that Australia will be able to extricate herself within a reasonable time. This exchange discount allows Australia to place her grain in the Chinese market at a -much lower price.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
rather an advantage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not to us.


Edward Joseph Garland: To Australia.


James Dew Chaplin: Not to anyone who has any money.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member from Bow River (Mr. Garland) states that that is an advantage to Australia, but I fear I must take issue with h-i-m in tha-t because I believe Australia would rather have her exchange on a norma-l basis.

Supply-Canada Gram Act


George Gibson Coote: How about the Australian
farmer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not even the farmer.


John Livingstone Brown: Are we not wandering away from the subject under discussion, the administration of the grain act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am answering a query
which perhaps is not out of order. Another factor that enters into the grain trade with China is the nature of the wheat itself. In the first place, under the existing conditions in China as to purchasing power, China can buy wheat abroad only when it is at a very low price, and it is the low world price of wheat to-day that is resulting in the comparatively large import of wheat to that country this year. Moreover, in the class of foodstuffs produced from wheat in China, soft wheat enters more largely than hard wheat, and there is therefore a certain attraction for Australian soft wheat. That is another factor that enters into the question, although if we can sell our wheat at a low enough figure China will buy. There is, however, some hope-and this is the point I wish to make- of improvement in this trade. The hope rests in some indications of an improved economic condition in China. There is in northern China to-day a more stable economic and governmental condition than there is in some other sections of that country, and that field is offering perhaps some attractions and some hope.
The consumption in China is very large. I think there has been some misapprehension of the capacity of China to absorb wheat and wheat flour. Some have argued that you could never get muoh wheat or wheat flour into China because they are a rice-consuming people; but the fact is that given normal economic conditions, and getting away from this very unusually low price of silver, rice is ordinarily at a higher price than wheat. Another point is this, that China itself produces upwards of 600,000.000 bushels of wheat a year, and is I believe likely to produce more as the great areas in northern China, in Manchuria, become more settled-that is in the way of order and governmental control. This is being brought about at a very rapid pace. But the likelihood of an increased production of wheat in China does not mean that China will produce all the foodstuffs she requires. My conviction is that there is a growing market in China, in northern China particularly, for products from this country, including wheat. I would not like to say that in the immediate future there is a prospect
of our marketing large quantities. Indeed, some very good authorities differ entirely from my view, and contend that the export of wheat from Canada to China will never amount to very much. I personally do not believe that. But the situation is so disturbed, not only from a political standpoint, but the economic disturbance has been such in China, and indeed, in the orient generally, that the doing of business has been very difficult. I may say that we are making, and have made, and I intend to continue to make, every possible effort to enlarge our business with China in wheat and wheat flour.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to follow this discussion a little further with regard to finding a market for Canadian wheat in China. I understand that the Hon. Mr. Marler was sent to China to investigate the marketing of our wheat in that country. Is that correct?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would prefer that the mission of Mr. Marler be discussed when the Prime Minister's estimates for External Affairs are up. I can say this, I think, that Mr. Marler did visit China, and saw the government at Nanking, and discussed with them the question of trade, including the marketing of wheat.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am willing to take the ministers explanation in regard to that, and shall not press my question. The minister himself said something a moment ago about a probable market in China for Canadian wheat, and it therefore appears to me that the mission of Mr. Marler to China might properly come under this item. However, I am not going to press that. I have a very clear recollection of reading a speech made by the Prime Minister before a vast audience in the city of Regina-his speech was broadcast all over the Dominion-in which he stated that the Hon. Mr. Marler had left for China and expected to receive a large order from that country for Canadian wheat. Subsequent to that, the Minister of Trade and Commerce came out with a statement to the press that he himself thought there was a great opportunity of marketing Canadian wheat in China, but that we would first of all have to establish a credit for China, because they did not have any money, and therefore we would virtually have to lend them money with which to buy our wheat. I should like to ask the minister how far he has pursued that policy with regard to China, first as to finding the money for a credit for China with which to buy our wheat, and then as to sending our Canadian wheat over there.
Supply-Canada Grain Act


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Tummon):: I
would ask hoix. members to confine themselves to the item under consideration?


Jean-François Pouliot: Why don't we exchange their tea for our wheat?


James J. Donnelly: When we amended the grain act a year or two ago we were told that when mixing was done away with it would be necessary to hire at least five hundred, and possibly one thousand, supervisors for special bins, and that this supervision would cost from $600,000 to $1,000,000. Does the minister know whether these supervisors have been appointed, how many of them there are, and what it has cost to supervise this special binning? I see a reduction in this item, and I wonder how that could possibly be if it was going to cost so much more for this supervision that they said the country would not be able to afford it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure that my hon. friend will not think I am facetious when I ask him whom he means when he says "they" said so and so. I am sure that I never made any such statement.


James J. Donnelly: It was the grain trade, giving evidence before the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Might I suggest to my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen who are interested, and very properly interested, in the grain act and its administration, that it is hardly profitable for us here to go back to the evidence taken by the committee and ask now for an explanation with regard to what somebody may have said. I must say frankly that such was never my opinion, and I have been fairly familiar with this subject for many years. I believe that there were certain additional officials appointed to administer the grain act as amended, and there was a certain reorganization of the board, but on a comparatively small scale, I think, so far as numbers are concerned. There were certain additional officials, and I have no doubt if this year we had had a very large crop and a large quantity to handle we would have had to have a much larger vote and larger staff. However the new work was absorbed by the surplus temporary staff carried over from the previous year. My deputy has handed me a statement of the estimated additional cost in connection with the sampling of all cars at unloading points, and the preservation of samples for thirty days, and so on. This statement gives the number of elevators and probably I should read the substance of it. There were public elevators at Fort William, Van-
couver, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton. Eleveh additional samplers were required at a monthly additional cost of $1,287. There were 33 semi-public elevators with 59 additional samplers, at an additional monthly cost of $6,669. There were 34 private elevators with 23 additional samplers at an additional monthly cost of $2,691. There were 11 mill elevators at no additional cost. That was a weighing point only and there was no inspection. There were private elevators at three other points not enumerated above, where there were five elevators with two additional samplers at an additional cost of $234, or a total additional cost caused by these changes in inspection of $10,881 per month.


James J. Donnelly: I do not see what the samplers have to do with it at all. I do not see any change in the grain act to provide for more samplers. We were told that we would have to have more men to supervise, and I remember our chief grain inspector, Mr. Fraser, stating that at least five hundred men would be needed at a cost of $1,200 to 81,500 each per year. In the committee at that time we all thought there would be a cost ranging between $600,000 and $1,000,000 for these supervisors, or policemen, to see that the provisions of the grain act were carried out. The sampler has to go to the cars and take samples, and I do not see why we should have more samplers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is overlooking the samplers of grain going out of Fort William and other ports.


James J. Donnelly: That is the same.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


James J. Donnelly: We always had samplers before, and I do not see why there should be more now than there were then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is additional service called for under the new act.


John Vallance: I think the minister
will agree that the new service which was most necessary in the administration of the grain act was the supervision of those grades of grain which under the new act were not allowed to be mixed. As was stated by the member for Willow Bunch the chief grain inspector pointed out we had to take the first six straight grades, which we did not do. We took only the first three grades including No. 1 hard. What we are exercised about is that this year the minister is asking for a vote in which there is a decrease of about $203,000, and those of us who were respons-

Supply-Canada Grain Act
ible for the consolidation and revision of the act are rather suspicious that we will not have the supervision we desire. We do not see how additional service can be given with a vote reduced by about a quarter of a million dollars after being told in the committee that it was going to cost a tremendous amount of money. That was one of the arguments used against denying to the trade the privilege of mixing wheat.
While the minister is considering that question I have another question I would like to put to him. I do not know that there will be any more opportune time than the present to discuss the matter I have in mind. At the beginning of this session of parliament I asked for the production of certain papers, correspondence and so on. I have talked to the minister about the matter and I think we should clean it up and learn once and for all whether or not the suspicion of some farmers in western Canada is well founded. I am referring to the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Sir George Foster, when that hon. gentleman held the portfolio now held by the minister and formerly held by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), and one by the name of Whiteside. I know there are hon. members on the government side also who have been in touch with Mr. Whiteside. He resides in a place called Birsay, in the province of Saskatchewan. He is an active chap, and operates in the interest of the grain producers of western Canada. It is his opinion that there is a surplus of money lying in the public treasury of Canada to the extent of several millions of dollars which was created because of the fact that the 1917 and 1918 crops were sold by the then government. In the correspondence which came down I found one letter was missing. I referred the matter to the minister, wrote him about it, and I am sorry to say I have not had a reply from him. Probably he has not had time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was laid on the table.


John Vallance: Was it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I called my hon. friend's attention to the fact when the information was laid on the table.


John Vallance: I believe the crux of the matter is in that letter of April 27, 1920. It is a letter sent by Sir George Foster to Mr. Whiteside in which certain statements are made. Now that I am informed the letter is tabled may I ask the minister to allow this item to stand until eight o'clock so that I may have an opportunity to go into the correspondence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Leaving out the letter from the original file was entirely an oversight.


Mr VALLANCE:: I realize that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had nothing to do with the matter at all; it was prepared by the detpartment. When my hon. friend drew attention to the fact that the letter was missing [ asked the department to make further search. It must foe remembered that these letters passed about twelve or fourteen years ago. I may say that I glanced through the letter from Sir George Foster and thought it was a very excellent one. I am delighted to be in a position to hand it to my hon. friend because I think it gives a very satisfactory explanation of the whole business.


John Vallance: In view of the .minister's statement I would ask that the item stand until eight o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not object to that, but there are other hon. members who have other points to bring before the committee, and we might listen to them. I assure my hon. friend, however, that I will not ask for the approval of the item until foe is fully satisfied.


Jean-François Pouliot: As it is about five o'clock it would seem to be a most appropriate time to speak about tea. As the minister knows at the present time there is a famine in China. Those people need wheat, and they have no money to buy it. Would it foe possible to find means of exchanging the wheat of Canada for the tea of China? I make the suggestion most seriously, and if something could be done in that respect help might be given to the Canadian wheat growers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am happy to assure
my hon. friend that the department will be pleased indeed to facilitate the exchange of wheat for tea or any other articles that we can possibly take. Our trade commissioner in northern China has been bending his effort? to that result as far as he has been able to do so. It is easy to say, "Let us take a certain amount of tea and give a certain amount of our wheat in return," but it is rather more difficult to work out a method by which this can be done. All I can say is not only in regard to wheat, but in regard to every other product that Canada can take and China can supply-and there are many others-we are endeavouring to bring about an exchange.
Supply-Canada Grain Act


Edward Joseph Garland: I take it
the minister has not in mind the setting up of a government agency for importation and distribution?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then I do not know that anything more is being done now than has been done by trade agencies in the past by way of barter or exchange of goods between this country and others. In short I do not think there is any barter possible until the government itself undertakes to handle the commodity to be exchanged.


William Ernest Tummon: May I remind hon. members that these questions should more properly come under the next item, No. 364.


Charles A. Stewart: Is there
provision for payment of interest on capital cost of the government elevators?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No there is an operating
surplus only.


George Gibson Coote: I think the hon. member
for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) asked the minister whether there had been any increase in the number of inspectors in the elevators since the new provisions of the grain act with regard to prohibition of mixing of top grades was put into force. Has the minister that, information?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought I answered
that.


James J. Donnelly: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I can satisfy the
two hon. gentlemen on that. I am not sure that we have the officers who are now operating under the new act and their duties segregated from the general operations. It must be borne in mind that when the act was revised last session certain duties that were performed under the old act would be carried into the new, and naturally part of those duties would be discharged by the same officers. I question if we have under our band any information that would segregate qne from the other; I do not think it would be possible.


George Gibson Coote: May I make the point a
little clearer? The chief inspector and the inspector at Fort William were both very positive that if these new features were put into the act we would need an increased number of inspectors in the terminal elevators to act in the nature of policemen-I think that was the term they used. We are unable to

understand how the grain commissioners can carry out the new act without the appointment of such men. If they can do it, of course we shall be very glad to know, but we should like to be assured that the act is being enforced and the proper, inspection carried out in the terminals.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Ramsay, the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, tells me that as administrators they find the new act quite satisfactory. In other words they have no trouble in administering the new act.


An hon. MEMBER:: With the same number of men?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There again I have to remind the committee that the number of employees must vary with the quantity of wheat that is handled, and there is spch a huge difference between last year, for instance, and the year before in the amount of grain handled that quite a fewer number of employees were required. I may say that if we had been harsh we could have cut down the number of employees still further, but I took the ground during the past winter that we would not be too severe in that regard, and we adopted the principle which I mentioned a moment ago, that of carrying these employees along and working them, say, a week, and then laying them off a week-I think in some cases the interval was three days off and three days on-in order to spread the work available over a larger number of employees. So our records will show a larger number of men engaged than were actually required for the work had they been working full time. Now, to me that creates a very great difficulty in segregating the exact number of additional men required by the new act.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say to the minister that there must be some mistake in the information he has given the committee. I cannot conceive why there would be any necessity for additional samplers. The act calls for additional inspectors. The volume of grain was not so large, therefore you would not require additional samplers, but the act did provide for a considerable increase in the number of inspectors to take precautions against mixing of grain. That is what we are exercised about.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the statement by the chief inspector, Mr. Fraser,-I have it here,- he says there were some improvements in the

Supply-Canada Grain Act
method and some expansion in the number of	samples taken.	Here	is	his statement.
The first part is headed:
Additional Equipment Required Fort William-
Alterations in the additional office space to be assumed by the board, estimated..? 750
50.000	sample tins	9,00010.000	sample bags	
600
300 canvas mail bags and
padlocks	1,000
Dockage testers,	scales	and
sieves	 530
Shelving and table in sample
room	2,000

Vancouver-
8.000	sample tins	1,500
80 canvas mail bags and padlocks	 270
1.000	sample bags	 60

  1,830

Then he gives a statement of additional monthly expenditures as follows-these I have already given, I may say, in a slightly different form:
Fort William-
Samplers wages	$6,786
Draying	 300
Rent-additional storage. . .	310

Vancouver-
Samplers wages	1,287
Draying	 110

	1,397
Prince Rupert-
Samplers wages	  117
Calgary-
Samplers wages	 819
Draying	 50

	869
Edmonton-
Samplers wages	 351
Draying	 25

	376


James J. Donnelly: These are additional?
Then the chief inspector adds this note:
But as the work at all points is intermittent, reductions in staffs will be made at all points in the off seasons. I am therefore of the opinion that the services of these additional samplers will be required for from seven to eight months each year, making the annual additional cost for wages $78,000 to $89,000, with draying and rent, $10,740 for the twelve months, or a sum total of $88,000 to $99,000.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: The minister points out that there will be an increase in the number of samplers. I cannot see the reason for that, because I understand automatic samplers have been installed, which should do away with a lot of those men.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is quite
right, but they are not installed yet; they are being installed.


John Vallance: The minister pointed
out that the grain act always has been able to carry itself, that is, over a period of five or ten years. Having that in mind, and because of the amendments which were brought in last year and which now are contained in the consolidated grain act, it seems to me we should be not reducing the vote but increasing it, because we must supervise these grades of grain that are not allowed to.be mixed. If we do not do so I am afraid we will find ourselves back where we started.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: The explanation for which the hon. member for South Battleford is looking is contained in the act itself, it seems to me. I have not the act before me, but my understanding is that teeth have been placed in the Grain Act with regard to the very point my hon. friend has in mind, namely, the confiscation of the overages as between certain grades. I think that very largely does away with the necessity for what we have called policemen, and perhaps the minister has that in mind.-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.
Saskatoon-
Samplers wages	 351
Moose J aw-
Samplers wages	 234
Winnipeg-
Samplers wages	 702
Draying	 100

 802
Medicine Hat-
Samplers wrages	 234
Keewatin-
Samplers wages	 117
Iienora

Samplers wages	 117

Estimated additional yearly expenditure, 12 months at $12,010 per month, $144,120.


John Vallance: I still maintain that the grading must be supervised. There is nothing easier than to take a carload of No. 3 wheat and put it into No. 1, if you like, and then take out some No. 1 and mix it with those grades which are still allowed to be mixed under the act. You still have to supervise those top four grades, including No. 1 hard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I understand it the
new act overcomes the very difficulty which has been raised by the last two speakers. The practice which has grown up in past years of surreptitiously introducing a lower grade into a higher grade and turning out an average higher grade has been pretty well taken care of and it is believed it will be taken care of
Supply-Canada Grain Act

in the new act. The chairman advises me that the new act is working satisfactorily and achieving the objects which were set forth. I submit to my hon. friends that it is impossible for us to give data until the end of the present crop year, when the grain board will make its report. We are now in the middle of, or two-thirds of the way through the crop year, and until we get the report of the grain commission I cannot present any data to the house, because as yet it is not compiled. However, I have here a general statement by the chairman which I might read, since it might give some light on the subject. It does not and cannot present facts, figures and data to prove the success of the present act, but it might convey to my hon. friends the assurance which they very properly. seek. This letter was written by Mr. Ramsay, chief commissioner of the Board of Grain Commissioners, under date of November 27 last, and is addressed to the deputy minister. It is headed:
Re: Reorganization of Grain Inspection Methods
The letter goes on to say:
Referring to the work undertaken by the board looking towards the safeguarding of the producers' interests in the inspection and grading of grain and the changes in the handling and transportation methods, it has become necessary to adjust the methods employed in the inspection department to meet this condition.	'
The chief difficulty found by the new board is in the sampling of grain for inspection purposes. Up to the present this has been done by means of a probe sample taken at inspection. The development of railway transportation. however, i.e., the use of large cars and the heavier weight carried in those cars and the fact that those ears are loaded so fully that as a result it is impossible for a sampler to carry on bis work, requires forty per cent of the shipments now arriving at inspection points to be sampled at unload at the terminal.
There has also always been in the mind of the producer a rather grave suspicion of the manner in which the work of sampling of cars was carried out at the inspection point, and also the definite' proof that the probe sample does not determine the proper dockage in the car sampled in a great many cases in view of the varying nature of this dockage. Also it is possible for a dishonest shipper to so load his ear by what is known as "plugging" as to in some cases evade a proper determination of the contents of that car.
To overcome these and other difficulties the system of sampling at unload by automatic samplers has been devised. A machine has been approved which carries on this work mechanically with niathematical precision and which leaves the operation of the system practically free from human fault, and as a result above suspicion. This matter was very fully discussed with the Hou. James Malcolm, former Minister of Trade and Commerce, also with the Department of Trade and Commerce officials.
fMr. Stevens.]
and with the agricultural committee of the House of Commons. It has also been accepted by the producer at large as being a great protection to his interests. It is acceptable to terminal elevators and improves their position in so far as it is possible for them to have the correct dockage placed on each car with exactitude and relieves them in certain crop years without finding themselves with a shortage in grain and an overage in dockage, or vice versa.
The board therefore has completed plans and recommends to the minister that the system be adopted officially. However, to install it it is necessary that certain expenditures be approved. I enclose herewith the chief inspector's estimate in which he states that adding it to the present methods would involve an expenditure of from eighty-eight to ninety-nine thousand dollars per annum, mostly for wages. I may say it is the board's opinion that this is a very generous estimate of the cost and in compiling our estimates for submission to the minister this year the adjustment has been incorporated in those estimates without making any appreciable difference in the total amount asked for for the administration of the service as a whole. As a matter of fact it is the board's opinion that a very small additional expenditure for wages will be incurred in view of the fact that it will provide work for seasonable men who otherwise would be laid off for the balance of the crop year.	.
We require therefore and would ask that we be authorized to make an expenditure not exceeding $13,880 for additional office space and equipment at Fort William. $1,830 for additional equipment at Vancouver, and that authority be granted for such adjustments in our staffs at these points as may be necessary to bring the system into operation.
The board is of th" oninion that the installation of the system will do away with ninety per cent of the friction which has been a growing quantity for many years between the western producer and the inspection department, and wall re-act very favourably on the prestige between the service and the public with whom it deals.
The cost of providing machinery for sampling as under section 131 of the act has to he borne by the terminal elevators and apart from any opposition from them in regard to its installation. T may say that they are now all eauipped with the necessary machinery and welcome the innovation.
You will notice that this letter covers the items I read a moment ago concerning the additional staff required to take care of this particular service. I should also like the committee to note that the cost of the installation of the sampling machinery is 'borne by the elevators. With regard to the request for authority, we authorized the board to proceed with the installation of this system.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Has the board reported any tendency to revert to mixing particularly with respect to tough or damp or dried wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Vallance: I hasten to assure the
minister that it is not from any want of con-

Supply-Canada Grain Act
fidence in the present grain commission that we have been prompted to raise this discussion this afternoon, because we have every confidence in them. We are afraid, however, that they might be handicapped by a lack of sufficient staff properly to provide for the taking in and putting out of the wheat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to make this
abundantly clear: there is not the slightest disposition on the part of the government to place any handicaps on the Board of Grain Commissioners. I assure the committee I shall give the board loyal support in the administration of their difficult task, and the hon. member may rest assured that there will be nothing in the nature of any handicap.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask the minister, after the reading of that last report from Mr. Ramsay, the chairman of the board, whether he has had actual conferences with the head of the board with regard to the administration of the act. What I mean is this. The act has been revised; that statement of fact has been made this afternoon. We have an item, short by about a fifth of a million, for the administration of the act during the coming year, and although we have the utmost confidence in the chairman and members of the board in regard to the work of the board, the thought has just occurred to me that by getting closer and closer to the chairman, and, with him, going into all matters pertaining to his administration, perhaps the minister could come to a conclusion as to whether the act will, under a large or a small crop, be as efficiently administered as it should be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad my hon. friend has asked the question. I have had several brief conferences with the board. I met them in Winnipeg on two occasions and I have met members of the board here, and, as the hon. member knows, Dr. MacGibbon, one of the members, was overseas with us as expert adviser on grain matters. He was with me for two and a half months. I think, therefore, I am in a position to speak very definitely, and I would say this. The chairman and his board are quite confident that the act as amended can be administered satisfactorily. I must make this reservation, however, that neither they nor anyone else can say definitely what the results will be until they make their final report at the end of the first crop year. But we expect that that report will disclose that the administration of the new act, with the changes brought about, has been beneficial. That is as far, I think, as I am warranted in going.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the minister for his statement. I believe that, receiving report after report from the board, and keeping in contact with them closely in a personal way, if there is any difficulty, the combined efforts will soon remove it.


George Gibson Coote: Is the construction of the new elevator at Lethbridge being proceeded with, and is provision being made therein for the establishment of a seed-cleaning plant?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The construction of the elevator at Lethbridge is being proceeded with under contract as provided for. There is at present no provision for the establishment of a seed-cleaning plant at that elevator. The elevator has provision for cleaning apparatus- at least space for the installation of such apparatus. We are of the opinion, and I think the board agree with us, that it is better to keep these seed-cleaning plants- that is, plants for the cleaning of certified seed-separate from the ordinary elevator service.


George Gibson Coote: Is that new elevator under the board?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is under the railway department.


George Gibson Coote: Has the board any inspectors at that elevator?


Henry Herbert Stevens: At present, I understand not. The question of inspection outward in the east is, I believe, being dealt with now by the Board of Grain Commissioners.


George Gibson Coote: They have some inspectors at Montreal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Have they any at Prescott?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Do the assistant Commissioners appear to be performing a good service through personal contact-that is to say, instead of going direct to the board, having the interested parties submit their difficulties to the assistant?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The other day I received a memorandum or letter with reference to that question. I have not got it under my hand. It was not an official report, but as I recall it, it is satisfactory.


William Richard Motherwell: We hear no complaints now at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.

Criminal Code-Trade Marks


George Gibson Coote: Is there an appropriation this year for continuing the work of the grain research laboratory?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; it is included in this vote.


John Vallance: I have here a voluminous and important letter which the minister has very courteously handed to me. I do not wish to read it to the house, but I should be glad, Mr. Chairman, if you would call it six o'clock so that I might have an opportunity to study the letter between now and eight o'clock, when I shall ask for permission to have it inserted in Hansard. It would do a service to the minister in clearing the matter up and would also be serviceable to a good many western members who are interested in the question.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved the second reading of Bill No. 34, to amend the criminal code (trade marks).
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains three sections and it is out of order in every one of them. This is the same point which I raised unsuccessfully the other evening, but since then I have had an opportunity to look into the matter and I am now fortified with data as to when and under what circumstances this rule was introduced. I am also buttressed by precedent and I am further emboldened by the fact that I have in print the considered opinions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the former minister (Mr. Lapointe) in support of the point I now raise.
Subject to the indulgence of your honour and to the good nature of the house, I will not deal as fully with this matter as the strength of my case and the quantity of my authorities would justify, but will state briefly my views on this matter, and if necessary ask permission to say a few words later on. I claim that this bill is out of order under standing order No. 70, which reads:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.

Under that standing order I find the following footnote:
If the Speaker finds that the bill is in blank or in an imperfect shape, he will decline to put the question and will return the bill to the member who must take another opportunity of bringing it up in conformity with the rules.
That is what should have been done with this bill on the first reading, and I submit that it should be now returned and dropped from the order paper. I find that these rules were passed in 1923 by a joint committee of both the Senate and the House of Commons. The report of the chairman of that committee, Mr. G. H. Boivin, appears in Votes and Proceedings of June 14, 1923. I will refer only to the pertinent part of that report. The chairman stated that the committee was appointed, first, to consider the forms of bills and the best means of affording information and assistance in the consideration thereof at all stages of legislation in both houses of parliament. The committee made certain recommendations, number three of which is as follows:
When a clause repeals an existing section, subsection or other minor division of a section, that section, subsection or division, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed opposite the clause.
Recommendation number four was to the effect that in addition an explanatory note should be put in by the draftsman of the bill. At page 4007 of Hansard of June IS, 1923, we find Mr. Boivin, the chairman, moving the concurrence of the report of this committee He said:
The first matter referred to the committee was the form of bills and the best means of affording information and assistance in the consideration thereof at all stages of legislation in both houses of parliament.
And later on he said:
The committee unanimously considered that, if it were possible to print on the opposite pages of the bill, the full section or subsection which it is desired to amend, showing in brackets or in italics the changes to be made, and also to print in a parallel column the section or subsection as amended, it would be a great time-saver and would avoid the necessity of many members asking the minister in charge of the bill: What is the present form of the section?-What is the nature of the change?-Why is the change being made?- and a great many questions which are very essential to a proper understanding of the bill, but which could be dispensed with if all this information were included in the bill when it was presented to the house.
That is the reason the committee made that recommendation. Further on, Mr. Boivin said:


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) upon his research work, and, if 1 may be permitted, take up one by one the the points to which he has referred. Beauchesne 's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at page 348, subsection 1, reads as follows:
In the preparation of bills amending existing enactments the amendments shall not ordinarily be made by clauses which add or leave out words or substitute words for others, but by clauses which reenact the section, subsection or other minor division, as it is amended.
I	submit that in regard to both section 1 and section 2 of this bill, that is exactly what has been done. The essential words of the. second paragraph, on page 348, are as follows:
Opposite each clause, on the right hand page, the enactment amended thereby, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed with the proposed changes to be made therein similarly indicated.
I think that instead of that rule being mandatory, so far as your honour is concerned, it is entirely discretionary, and it is within the discretion of your honour to conclude that the explanatory notes sufficiently indicate the proposed changes to be made by sections 1 and 2 of the bill.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I wish to support the contention made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). This bill, although it amends the criminal code, happens to deal with trade marks, and that is perhaps my excuse for rising.
In connection with this bill I think that both the rules and the custom have been very strictly followed. We took occasion the
Criminal Code-Trade Marks

other day to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and later of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) the omission of notes in regard to certain bills introduced by the government; but then there were no notes at all, not the least trace of them, and I thought we were quite in order in doing so. But in this case, Mr..Speaker, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has pointed out. in sections one and two of this bill the old sections are reprinted and the new words are underlined to show what is being added to the sections. The old sections, however, are right there in the bill and you can read them by omitting what is underlined. In section 3 of this bill the old section is reproduced in the explanatory notes. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, not only do I for once disagree with my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), but I wish to congratulate the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) upon having introduced his bill in perfect order. I think we should proceed with the second reading of the bill.


Mr. GEARY:: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) with the ordinary common sense that characterizes them, have exactly placed the (position before the house. I do not believe that were I to try ever so hard I could succeed in satisfying my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni. I must congratulate him on the assiduity with which he has sought for flaws in my unfortunate bill. I do not think there is anything I need add to what has been already said except that the case is amply covered by the rule. If one looks at standing order 70 one will see that it says that a bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape.


Alan Webster Neill: It says that no bill may be introduced in that state.


George Reginald Geary: If my hon. friend were so anxious about the merits of the bill or anxious for some reason or other to get it out of the house, he should have been seized with the importance of his objections when the bill was being introduced. It has been introduced and has had its first reading, and the objection was not taken. Even that defect, if there be one, has been cured. Beauehesne, at -page 348, says that when a clause repeals a-n existing section, the section repealed or so much of it as is essential Shall be printed opposite the clause. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members that the objection taken by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni has no merit whatsoever. It is not one that I think should weigh with this house, not being de-
sirous of proceeding upon the merest technicalities, but desirous of proceeding with the ordinary common sense interpretation of the rules which my hon. friends from Vancouver Centre and St. James have made. Their contention, I submit, are sufficient to dispose of the objections which the hon. -member for Comox-Alberni has -made to this house.


Alan Webster Neill: May I deal for a moment, Mr. Speaker, with the abjections raised by my friends to my right? They take an entirely superficial view, such as they have gained by glancing at the bill while I wras speaking, and without the slightest investigation into the rules and their implications. That is all that is wrong with them.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I cannot admit that. I wish to remind my hon. friend that as minister in the former government I was dealing with trade marks, and I gave all my attention to this bill. I again say that it has been so well prepared as to make it easy for any hon. member to understand what is meant by the bill. I cannot accept the statement of my hon. friend that I have taken but a superficial view of the bill. I have studied it and was ready to proceed to study it further in committee with its sponsor.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry to hear that, Mr. Speaker, because it makes a sad reflection on my hon. friend's intelligence. This is what I want to point out.


George Reginald Geary: Since we are on points of order and technicalities, I feel obliged to take one mystelf, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has already spoken on the point of order, and he cannot speak again.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre did not state the case correctly, and I place myself in the 'hands of the house that I did not take up much time before. I could have dealt with this for hours, but I saved the time of the house, and perhaps the house will now give me the privilege of rebutting this particular argument. I will not say a word about the hon. gentleman who introduced this bill.


George Reginald Geary: Say all you like.


Alan Webster Neill: There is no need to say anything because he said nothing requiring an answer. This bill has three sections. Sbct tions 1 and 2 are wrong in one regard, and section 3 is wrong in another regard, and my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre plays the two against each other. He points to section

Dairy Industry Act
3 and says, "There, it is right on that point." I admit that. Then he points to sections 1 and 2 and says, "They are right on that point." There were two points, Mr. Speaker, on which it was possible to go wrong, and the framer of the bill went wrong in sections 1 and 2 on one point, and went wrong in section 3 on the other point. Let me illustrate. If you will turn to section 3 of the bill you will see that it reads like this:
Section four hundred and eighty-nine of the said bill is amended by striking out the first seven lines thereof and substituting therefor the following:
That section is out of order because rule 1 on page 348 of Beauchesne says that amendments shall not be made by clauses which add or leave out words, but by clauses which re-enact the section. Section 3, does not reenact the section. They have stricken out seven lines. How do I know what was contained in those seven lines? How does anyone know? Was it not the very purpose of the rule that the whole of the new section should be printed in order that a man might grasp what was intended? It is in that regard that section 3 transgresses the rule. It does not transgress rule 3 of page 348, which requires the section stricken out to be printed on the opposite page; but sections 1 and 2 do transgress that rule. They put the new section in but they do not put the old section in, and they are wrong in that respect, although they are not wrong as regards rule 3. It is all very well to talk about a common sense interpretation, but either the rules are going to be obeyed in this house or they are not, and this particular rule was framed with the full concurrence of the house in order to make it easier for hon. members to understand the different bills as they come up for consideration. If we are going to abrogate the rule, very well; let us have a new set of rules: but as long as these are the rules, they should be obeyed alike by the rich lawyer and the humblest member of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), on -a recent occasion when Bill No. 35 was before the house he raised practically the same objection which he has raised to-night. I was of the opinion then that the objection was not sufficiently well-founded to prevent the house dealing with the bill, and it went off the order paper for another reason. If that bill is to be restored to the order paper, I would say now that the hon. member sponsoring it should confer with the law clerk of the house before reintroducing it. Although standing order 70 does 22110-97
not appear to apply at this time, yet rule No. 3 as it appears and has been quoted at page 348 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms has not been complied with in the preparation of the bill now before the house. Consideration of the bill would be more intelligible if the sections repealed were printed on the right hand page, as directed by rule No. 3. As the objection is seriously raised I am inclined to sustain it, and I would suggest to the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), who has charge of the bill, that he would be well advised to allow it to stand and to confer with the law clerk before proceeding further with it.


George Reginald Geary: This bill has already been through the hands of the law clerk.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think it should be returned to him for more careful consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.
Motion stands.



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gobeil for the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: At nine o'clock the other night I was reading section 5 of the Dairy Industry Act, chapter 45 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. For the information of the house may I say that I had finished the reading of section (c). At this time I shall repeat that section:
(c)	melt, clarify, refine, rechurn, or otherwise treat butter to produce "process" or "renovated" butter;
(d)	manufacture, import into Canada, or sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale, any milk or cream or substitute therefor which contains any fat or oil other than that of milk:
(e)	have upon premises occupied by him where any dairy produce is treated, manipulated, manufactured, or reworked, any substance that might be used for the adulteration of any such product and the presence upon any such premises of any fat or oil capable of being used for such adulteration shall be prima facie proof of intent so to use it.
This bill does not change the law in any way. It is brought forward merely 'to increase the penalties. Some hon. members may ask: Why change it this year? My reason, Mr. Speaker, is that in the last couple of years the adulteration of butter has increased on a tremendous scale.

Dairy Industry Act


Charles Gavan Power: It will not pay to adulterate it now, will it?


Samuel Gobeil: Yes, I am afraid it will. The other night I think I said that the particular kind of adulteration I had in mind when proposing the bill was the addition of cocoa-nut oil to the butter. My impression was that 20 per cent was the limit which could be mixed with butter. I have in my hand however a newspaper called Le Bulletin des Agriculteurs, wherein it is stated that as much as 40 per cent of cocoa-nut oil is added to' butter and that chemists would be required to find the adulteration when the butter had been reworked. I do not believe any hon. member will seriously oppose the bill, for the reason that I seek only protection for the producer of butter. I seek to protect the quality of our dairy product, and also to protect the consumer.
To demonstrate to the house that this adulteration has been going on, may I point out that the Dairymen's Association of the Province of Quebec, composed of farmers, butter makers, cheese makers, cheese inspectors, butter inspectors and men in the dairy trade generally, at their last convention held at Mont Laurier on October 15, 1930, passed the following resolution:
Moved by Mr. J.-N. Dumoulin,
Seconded by Mr. F.-X.-O. Trudel.
Resolved unanimously:-
That the directors of the Dairymen's Association of the province of Quebec, at a general meeting of the congress of the association held at Mont .Laurier, on October 15, 1930, beg to submit to the Honourable Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture, at Ottawa, their humble petition as follows:
Whereas the manufacture of adultered butter seems to spread throughout Canada, it would be expedient to amend the Dairy Industry Act of Canada so as to increase the penalty already provided by statute against the manufacturers of adultered butter, from $200 to $1,000 for the first offence; to $1,000 and the seizure of the implements used in that connection for the second offence; and to imprisonment for the third offence.
That the directors hope that the Honourable Minister of Agriculture will kindly give this resolution, which is felt necessary, they believe, owing to the spread of trade in adultered butter, his most serious consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have anything more to add. This resolution, coming from a body such as the Dairymen's Association of the province of Quebec, will bear more weight than anything I could add.


Mr. CAYLEY:: What amount of this
adulteration is being done in Canada, and where is it being done? I understood the old act provided penalties for such an offence. Is the adulteration being done in creameries?
*Mr. Gobeil.]


Samuel Gobeil: I am sorry, but I did not understand the hon. member's question.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Have there been any convictions for this offence?


Samuel Gobeil: Yes.


Mr. BOYES:: I wish to make a few
remarks-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Gobeil: I believe the hon. member asked whether adulteration had been practised, and to what extent.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Yes.


Samuel Gobeil: I do not know in how many different places adulteration has been practised, but I know that it has occurred on a large scale in the city of Montreal. No one could guess to what extent the practice has been carried on.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Is it being practised in the creameries where butter is manufactured?


Samuel Gobeil: I do not think it is being done in the creameries at all. I do not know of any creamery operator who has been convicted.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Perhaps it is-


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.	The question before the
house is a motion for the second reading of the bill. If there are to be questions and answers and a general discussion of the bill, why not go into committee and have such discussion at that time?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not understand that the hon. member who had introduced the bill had finished his speech. I thought he had resumed his seat merely to allow a question.


Hugh Guthrie: He was questioned and re questioned.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I do not with to oppose the second reading of this bill. I really think that the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) in moving this bill, ' was actuated by the very best intentions: that of improving the quality of butter produced by Canadian farmers and maintaining it on a high standard. I simply rise to point out to the hon. member for Compton a flaw in his bill which might prove dangerous. In principle, I do not approve fixing a minimum penalty and I note that in the measure under discussion, the minimum penalty is fixed at $500 for the first infraction to the act. My views are that we should

Dairy Industry Act
allow more discretion to the magistrates who have charge of the application of the act. So many phases surround such an infraction that we should give more latitude to magistrates, especially as regards a first offence. I notice that the act considers as adulterated butter that which contains more than 16 per cent water. Take, for instance, the case of a farmer who brings to the market butter containing more than the proportion of water stipulated by the act. It might so happen that this farmer, in very good faith and with no intention whatsoever of deceiving the public or violating the law by adulterating his butter, places on the market a product containing more than 16 per cent water. This man is arrested for having sold one pound of adulterated butter, pursuant to the act. He is brought before a magistrate and for this first offence

one committed in good faith-the magistrate has no alternative but to impose a fine of $500 on this innocent farmer who is selling his butter at 20 cents a pound. Truly, I think that the hon. member should further consider the question and allow a certain discretion or latitude to the magistrate, at least when it is a matter of a first offence. As to the principle of the bill. I have no comments to make. My views agree with those of the hon. member and I think he is quite right in trying to improve the quality of butter and prevent adulteration. I am in favour of the principle of the bill, however I wish to point out that the minimum penalty is too drastic for a first infraction.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I desire to support the stand taken by my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). It appears to me that throughout our statutes we have been altogether too liberal in providing for very heavy pains and penalties for offences which may perhaps be somewhat serious, but which do not strike the average layman as being so serious as to warrant the fines and penalties that we are imposing.


Samuel Gobeil: If I might say a word, I
think it would clear up the question. The hon. member for Bellechasse, I thought-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member cannot make a speech now.


Charles Gavan Power: The point made by the hon. member for Bellechasse is that it is sought to impose a minimum fine of $500 for a first offence and $1,000 for a second offence-and
22110-975	.
after all what is the crime? The crime is that mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Dairy Industry Act:
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, sell, offer, or have in his possession for sale, any cheese which contains any fat or oil other than that of milk or cream.
There is another enumeration in paragraph 5 of the same statute. That is to say, a person found with cheese containing fat other than that of milk or cream renders himself liable to these penalties. I do not know much about the cheese industry, but it is quite conceivable that somebody might, by accident, import or have in his possession cheese which does not come up to these specifications, and if proceedings were taken against him the magistrate on conviction would have to impose a penalty of at least $500. It seems to me that this excessive penalty defeats the very object that the hon. member has in view in presenting the legislation. It has been found, I think, by those of us who have had any practice before the courts that it is difficult to secure a conviction for what appears to the judge to be a not very serious offence when conviction means the imposition of a heavy penalty. I submit to my hon. friend that he is not advancing the cause of which he is so distinguished an advocate by proposing these increased penalties.


Mr. FRANK BO YES (East Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to support this bill The dairy industry is engaged in to a great extent throughout Ontario and Quebec, and to some extent throughout the other provinces. In my opinion this industry should be encouraged in every way possible. Let me draw to the attention of the house certain convictions for violations of the Dairy Industry Act. I will not give the names of the convicted persons, but merely state the fines imposed. These convictions were for having in possession for sale or selling butter manufactured wholly or in part of fat other than that of milk or cream. In the first case the fines imposed were $200 in 1926, $200 in 1929 and $200 in 1930; in the second case, $400 in 1927, $500 in 192S, and on a third conviction in 1930 the culprit was imprisoned for one month at hard labour; in the third case the fines imposed were $200 in 1927, $200 in 1928, $500 in 1929, in each case with costs; in the fourth case, $200 in 1927, $200 in 1928, $200 on two occasions in 1929, and $200 in 1930; in the fifth case, $200 in 1930. These oases show that a fine of $200 if not a sufficient deterrent. I repeat, the dairy industry should have every
Dairy Industry Act

encouragement possible, and therefore I am fully in accord with this amending legislation in that I believe that the heavier fines therein proposed would tend to discourage these repeated infractions of the law.


Mr. F. H. PICKEL (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the bill. It is not the creamery man who has been guilty of this adulteration, it is the large factories. They import cocoanut and cottonseed oil at a cost of 10 or 12 cents a pound, and they are using about 40 per cent of it in adulterating their butter. I notice in the Montreal Gazette towards end of April that such a firm was fined $200 and costs for adulterating butter. What does that firm care for a fine of $200? They will make it up in one churning and go ahead and repeat the offence. The purpose, of the law is to prevent adulteration, and to effect this purpose the penalties should be increased as proposed by the bill.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: 
Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), (or introducing this bill. For a number of 
years past, farmers have had to contend with an illegal competition as regards butter, not only in Quebec but throughout the country. A number of manufacturers and dealers adulterate this product so as to control the market price. The hon. member is further to be congratulated for his solicitude towards the farming classes because if there is a member on the government side who endeavours to help these people, it is certainly the member for Compton. Heretofore the government has made no move to assist the farmer.
The hon. member for Compton is quite right in wishing to increase the penalties against those who adulterate butter. It is of a daily occurrence in this country, and it must at all cost be stopped by increasing the penalties. I heartily support the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeili and hope that his bill will receive the approval of this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I just wish to say a word in regard
to this bill. I think all members are agreed as to the desirability of trying to effect what the mover of this bill has in mind in the measure he proposes. I also agree very heartily with the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in regard to the possible deleterious effect of the very high penalties imposed under the bill. It seems to me that the house as a whole has not had sufficient time to give full consideration to the facts concerning this measure. The motion before the house is that the bill be now read a second time, and in amendment thereto I beg to move that it be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization with instructions to investigate the bill and report back to the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The amendment is not
in order until after the second reading.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is of
sufficient importance to be read a second time and referred to the committee, as proposed by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). There is a great deal to be considered in regard to this question. We realize we have two acts which apply to butter, milk, cheeSe and all foods. One is known as the Food and Drugs Act, while the other is known as the Dairy Industry Act. and sometimes it is rather a nice question to decide under which of these acts a prosecution should be launched. The penalties under the Food and Drugs Act are not nearly so severe as the penalties under the Dairy Industry Act, and I believe it has

Dairy Industry Act
frequently happened that prosecutions which should have been taken under the Dairy Industry Act for some reason or other have been taken under the Food and Drugs Act, so that the penalty imposed in a great many cases has been only S20. I think the matter is of sufficient importance to be thoroughly discussed. If an anomaly exists by all means let us remedy it, or if the penalties are not sufficiently severe we can increase them. Therefore I should like to see the bill get second reading and be referred to the committee, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-boroughj: Before the bill gets second reading, it seems to me that as this is a very important matter affecting the public health, we should have some statement from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) with regard to the bill. As the minister in charge of agriculture he should be able to give us some information before we decide whether we should allow it to go to committee or kill it here instead.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Having regard to the importance of this bill, I would be in favour of seeing it go to the committee to be fully discussed.


Samuel Gobeil: May I be permitted to offer a word of explanation?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has the right to reply.


Samuel Gobeil: In
answer to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), and the hon. member for Quebec South lMr. Power), while I am not a lawyer I consulted the law officers of the house and they told me that this does not apply at all to butter which contains over 16 per cent of water when it comes from the manufacturer. Subsection (a) of section 5 reads:
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, margarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream.
Subsection (b) of section 5 is the important section:
(b) No person shall mix with or incorporate with butter, by any process of heating, soaking, rechurning, reworking or otherwise, any
cream, milk, skimmed-milk, buttermilk or water to cause such butter when so treated to contain over sixteen per centum of water or less than eighty per centum of milk fat.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree to the second reading of the bill, because on its face-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member who moved the second reading of the bill having spoken in reply, and as it was obvious to the house that he was doing so, the debate must be considered closed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While the rules are in a degree new to me, I understand that when an hon. member moves a substantive motion he has the right to reply. Does that apply to a motion for the second reading of a bill? My impression is that it does not. If that is so, I submit, sir, that it was not permissible for the mover of the motion for second reading to address the house a second time. I submit that the debate is not concluded and therefore the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is in order in speaking.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the rule which you have just invoked applies to a substantive motion; but I have never known it to be applied in the case of the second reading of any bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Always.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Technically there was no reply, for the hon. member who moved the second reading of the bill was not in order when he spoke the second time. That, I respectfully submit, was where the rule was broken.


Mr.   GOOTE@: We certainly understood at this end of the chamber that the mover was speaking only on the sufferance of the house. According to the rule he had no right to speak a second time.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There is no reply on the second reading of a bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: A motion that a bill be read the second time is, I take it, a substantive motion, which is open to amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
deference, Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Besides, there was an amendment before the house.
1522	COMMONS
Dairy Industry Act


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There appears to be a general misunderstanding as to the mover having spoken in conclusion of the debate, and inasmuch as other hon. members evidently wish to speak, the house might, I think, consent to a further consideration of the matter.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hour for consideration of public bills having expired the house will now revert to committee of supply.



PRINCE AND PRINCESS TAKAMATSU


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have recently entertained their Imperial Highnesses the Prince and Princess Takamatsu, I think the chamber would be interested in knowing that His Excellency the Governor General has received from the Japanese minister at Ottawa a cablegram from the Japanese foreign minister, reading:
The Emperor is highly gratified with the hospitality shown to the Prince and Princess Takamatsu by Their Excellencies the Governor General and Lady Bessborough, and with the cordial reception accorded to Their Imperial Highnesses by the government and people of Canada. I am commanded to authorize you to convey to His Excellency His Majesty's personal appreciation.
There is also a despatch from the Japanese minister in this city, expressing on behalf of our recent guests their deep appreciation of the hospitality extended them by the Canadian people.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators, administration of, $2,681,000.
John Vallance: Mr. Chairman, when
the committee rose at six o'clock I was asking
permission to place on Hansard without the reading thereof two letters to which I had referred. I find it almost impossible to accept that privilege from the committee because there are, I believe, members on both sides of the 'house who are very much interested in these letters; indeed, I do not believe an intelligent discussion could be carried on without a knowledge of their contents. The first letter, written by Mr. Robert Whiteside, to the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir George Foster, dated at Dunblane, Saskatchewan, January 19, 1920, reads as follows: As your humble servant I desire to seek information which will explain fully the motive our federal government had in undertaking to take over and sell the wheat crop for the year 1919. We fully understand the motive for selling the crop in 1917 and 1918, but one thing we don't know nor have we ever had any report on the same and that was what was the price the government got for the wheat that was exported in the year 191S. We know the growers received $2,262 f.o.b. Fort William but did our government sell it for export on this basis to appear to be good fellows when the price of American wheat was $2.40 to $2.60 or did some one pocket the margins? Wheat and wheat products were the only foodstuffs the government controlled. We feel justified in demanding a report of the wheat that was exported and to get at plain facts regarding the 1919 crop. Every farmer in western Canada is under the impression that our federal government premeditated and entered into an agreement to handle the wheat crop to make gains for themselves at our expense. Note I said federal government; it may have been only members of our government, at any rate it has been reported quite frequently and m bold statements that the time the gram exchange was opened our government did sell or offer for sale some 50 million bushels wheat to Great Britain at a price of $1.75 per bushel and not until the market was open did your government make any attempt to handle the wheat, and we all know the market was advancing and to take control of the wheat when it was at a price of $2.45 and attempt to offer to set a price of $1.75 or even $2.15 does not appear to the farmers as one of good faith, and for the Canadian wheat board to sell to our millers at $2.30 per bushel in the face of prices prevailing on all other products ifoints out quite clearly that our federal government is out to do what it has always done [DOT] and that is give the farmers second place. While I admit we were under military rule and the government had the authority to so act, the manner in which they acted does not show one of good faith, and if the report is really true that our government did sell or offer for sale a certain portion of our wheat any price in the minds of all well thinking men can only come to this conclusion that our government premeditated their action knowing they had power to control things to suit themselves. I further wish to say in all friendliness the farmers of western Canada are determined to demand a report and make an investigation to learn the facts. We intend to outline our plans, decide
Supply-Canada Grain Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend (Mr
Vallance) has opened up a question which really finds its basis in a series of letters which were written by a gentleman named Robert Whiteside from the province of Saskatchewan in the year 1920, and which were answered most painstakingly I think, by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir George Foster. The letters really might be summarized in this way:
Mr. Whiteside retails to the minister complaints that he hears and suspicions that he
Supply-Canada Grain Act

himself and others entertain to the effect that in the handling of the wheat crop during the years 1917, 1918 and 1919 full value was not returned to the farmers of western Canada. So far as I have been able to see, he does not in his letters support either with evidence or facts his suspicions or the rumours he alleges. In the last letter to which my hon. friend from South Battleford has referred, Mr. Whiteside asks certain questions, and my hon. friend indicated that he did not think that Sir George Foster completely answered them. I think that a little further examination of the latter part of Sir George Foster's letter will clear up that point. If not, I can supplement it with one or two observations.
Let me say at once that I am not at all criticizing the hon. member for South Battle-ford for bringing this matter forward, because I think it is highly desirable that it should be cleared up. Whether or not there are any grounds for the allegations made or suspicions entertained, it is a very disagreeable thing to have such rumours running loose in the country. Mr. Whiteside asks:
What was the price our government sold the wheat crop of 1018 for?
And another question:
Did our federal government or members of our government spII or offer to sell 50,000,000 or 75,000.000 bushels of our wheat crop of 1919?
In regard to the first question I would say that Sir George Foster was not at the time in a position to give the details as to just what price the wheat was sold for. It is quite well known and accepted I think by practically everyone throughout western Canada that the wheat board-


John Vallance: The wheat supervisors?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The board of grain supervisors under Doctor Magill, which consisted of representatives of the producers, the millers, the dealers and the consumers, discharged their functions honestly and well. I think it is generally accepted that this body of citizens discharged a public service and a public duty. If in the present day the house were to demand an audit of the transactions which took place in the years 1917 and 1918 I might as well say they wTould be asking for something which would be very very difficult to carry out. The making of that statement should not in the slightest degree detract from my other statement, namely that the board of grain supervisors at that time discharged its duties to the entire satisfaction of everybody.
Mr. Whiteside's letter implies that members of the government of the day sold

50,000,000 or 75,000,000 bushels of wheat on the grain exchange in Winnipeg and made a profit. That is the suggestion. Well, in answer to that I would say, if I may be allowed to use a rather strong expression, that the statement is absurd. My reason for saying that is that no member of the government handled a single bushel of wheat- not a single bushel-nor did the government as a whole do so. That wheat was handled by the wheat board, a properly organized body. Why was the 'wheat board appointed? The British government had a controlled market; they bought their wheat under government direction an control; there was not an open market. Canadian dealer? could sell wheat to the British government only through some organized body.


John Vallance: Did the British board buy all exports into that country at a fixed price from all sources, the same as they did from Canada, or did they fix the price at all?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot answer that question categorically, but I will give my friend my best recollection. I make my statement subject to correction, because these things happened many years ago and personally I did not have anything to do with them. From time to time the British government would make a bargain or an arrangement for the purchase of wheat from other sources. I refer to Canada, Australia, United States and other wheat producing countries. The prices would be fixed. The wheat board, however, guaranteed to the wheat producer an initial price, adopting a plan similar to that which the pools have since followed. In this instance I think the price was S2.21 per bushel, if I recollect aright. That was the intial price given. Then a participating certificate was given to each person who sold wheat. It is true that a number, small in comparison with the whole, of those receiving participating certificates thought the certificates were worthless and destroyed them. Those who retained the certificates and presented them afterwards received a small dividend.
An hon. MEMBEE: Forty-eight cents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, a very substantial dividend. I thank my hon. friend for giving the amount, as it had escaped my memory. At any rate through ignorance or carelessness a few people destroyed their certificates and as a result those certificates were never redeemed. The result was that there was left in the hands of the board a sum which amounted to 1467,000. Again I speak subject to correction.

Supply-Canada Grain Act


William Richard Motherwell: That was in 1919?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, 1919.


William Richard Motherwell: A little over


Henry Herbert Stevens: Probably my hon. friend is right. Out of that sum an expenditure was made subsequently for seed relief, leaving in the treasury to-day, or in the consolidated fund, a sum of about $173,000. These figures I have given from memory. I think however it is obvious to all hon. members that to have attempted a subdivision of this sum amongst all the vendors of wheat would have been a useless task, because the division would have resulted in a unit so small in each case as to make it unnecessary and quite useless. That, I think, is the whole story.


John Vallance: The minister is referring only to the 1919 crop. There has been no reckoning of the 1917-18 crop. We know about the 1919 crop, and we agree with the statement made by the minister in that regard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The statements in regard to the 1917 and 1918 crop, were presented by the board of grain supervisors. With the exception of this one instance I think they have never been called in question. Even now they are not called in question by allegation backed by any substantial statement or evidence but merely because of suspicion or rumour. I think my hon. friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) and other hon. members of the house who come from western Canada and who were active at that time in the matter of handling the grain crop will bear testimony to the efficiency and fairness with which the board of grain supervisors discharged their duty. I confess that while I recall taking a very great interest in the matter myself I do not not remember a single complaint regarding the administration of that board. I make that statement with force because in 1920 on the floor of the house I opposed the continuance of the wheat board. I merely mention that fact to show that I was not an advocate of the system and I gave it a great deal of study at that time. I do not recall any complaint however, and as I say if the complaint made by Mr. Whiteside were fortified with something of a tangible nature which would warrant our reopening the whole question fourteen years afterwards, I would not hesitate to say, reopen it. I submit to the house however that to embark at this time upon an exploration of those activities would be very unwise. The chairman of the board has passed into the great
beyond, and I have no doubt that other members have also passed on. The officers and the staff have disappeared. To make an investigation would be an impossible task.


John Vallance: Surely the facts are on record. There must be a record.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Reports have been made.
I do not know, but I assume that records may be found somewhere. But surely those who have had to do with the question of grain certificates and the innumerable documents involved would shudder at the task of reopening the matter and conducting at this time an audit of that business.


John Vallance: There is money at stake, Mr. Chairman.


James J. Donnelly: What has been brought out to-night, Mr. Chairman, is a most wonderful thing to me, and I do not know anything else that has disturbed the minds of western Canada just as much as this has. There has never been a thought concerning the 1919 crop; we realized that all that was left over on the sale of that crop was returned to the farmers. I want the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to keep the 1919 crop absolutely distinct and separate from the 1917 and 1918 crops. The latter are the two crops that we are dealing with right now. You say there was no question in the minds of the farmers of western Canada concerning the handling of the 1917 and 1918 crops. I grant you that, because there was never in the minds of the farmers of western Canada any question but what this wheat was being handed over to the allies in England at a price of $2.21. We thought this was being handled by the board of supervisors, and that it was being handed over by them to the British import purchasing board at that price of $2.21 Fort William. No one thought that there was anything left over. The farmers of western Canada said:	"This
is a patriotic gesture by the western provinces of the part they are talcing in the war". They suffered for it. That was the only commodity on which the price was fixed. While we were being paid S2.21 for our wheat we saw the price in Chicago go up to S3. But to-night we get this letter, and I want to draw the minister's attention to these words:
The wheat was sold during the season of 1917 and 1918 as purchasers were found, and of course for different prices owing to changes in world's market price.
Not for the S2.21; he does not say so; he says that it was sold at the market price. If we take the market price from day to day
Supply-Canada Grain Act

for those two years down in Chicago, which would be ours practically, we find that from
870,000,000 to S100,000,000 was taken out of the pockets of the farmers of western Canada, and we want an accounting.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, look it up. Take
the quantity of our wheat sold in those years, and it can be distinctly shown that there was a difference of 870,000,000 to 8100,000,000 between our price and the price that prevailed in Chicago. I think it is only right that we should ask for an accounting.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did you not
bring it up in the last nine years?


James J. Donnelly: It was not thought of.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James J. Donnelly: I want to tell you
right here that there was not a question of doubt ever raised in the mind of one farmer in western Canada, not one. They all believed that their wheat was sold at $2,21. I leave it to any of my hon. friends here from the west to say whether that is not so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James J. Donnelly: If you had gone into
the west and told them that their wheat had been sold at the market price they would not have believed it. It was not until this year that it was brought to their attention that this was the case. This man received a great deal of credit for having brought it to the attention of the farmers of western Canada. It is a serious thing. I think it is time we got an accounting. There must surely be returns for each of these years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt my hon. friend for one moment? Mr. Whiteside said that he interviewed Sir George Foster in January 1920. He continued:
We-
Using the plural.
-intend on some action at our convention in Saskatoon in February.
That would be February 1921. So the matter must have been fully discussed then.


James J. Donnelly: Excuse me, it never was brought up at any of our conventions until this year. Before this no one paid any attention to it whatever. I leave it to anybody who comes from the west to contradict that. They know very well that absolutely no one thought that this wheat was handed over at the market price. I did not believe it until this year.


Mr. GOTT:: You did not believe it for nine years?


James J. Donnelly: Yes, and we were foolish enough to believe the government in power at that time was honest.


Mr. ROGERS:: Mr. Chairman, probably I can throw some light upon the matter of the sale of our wheat during the years mentioned by hon. gentlemen opposite. In 1917 I went to England with Sir Robert Borden and Sir Douglas Hazen to attend an Imperial conference and to look after other matters. The price of wheat went up to rather a high figure by reason of the fact that a large portion of the 1916 crop was damp.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Off grade.


Robert Rogers: Yes, off grade. Naturally this portion of the wheat was not very suitable for shipment. Then the matter came up in England about that particular crop. The story is too long to tell now and I will not delay the committee except to say that we considered the crop on the basis of No. 1 northern at $3 a bushel.


Edward James Young: Was that f.o.b. Fort William?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: The 1917 crop?


Robert Rogers: The 1916 crop. Mr. Lloyd George said it was very fine to have that settled, and the night following the arrangement he made a speech in the Guildhall and told the story of his having bought this large quantity of wheat, something like 100,000,000 bushels, and assured the people that there was plenty of food to carry on the war until next year. Then the question came up before the war cabinet as to what price they would have to pay the year following. They thought that $3 a bushel on the basis of No. 1 northern was a very high price; and so it was. I was asked by the then Prime Minister of Great Britain if I would not fix a price for our next wheat crop. I replied that we in Canada could not do that because the minute we fixed our price, say, at $2, the Americans would put up their price a good deal higher, and this would mean a lot of bootlegging of wheat across the border from the western provinces to the American side and would involve a great deal of trouble and difficulty for everybody. They saw the force of this objection and they said, "Well, will you fix a price for the wheat you grow in Canada?" I answered, of course, that I could undertake to do so only if they would find a way of getting the United States to agree to a price. At the same session of the war cabinet Mr. Balfour was selected to go

Supply-Canada Grain Act
to Washington to see if he could not make the necessary arrangements with the American government. I went the length of assuring him that whatever price the Americans would agree to take for their crop we would also take for ours. Mr, Balfour went to Washington and later came on to Ottawa. On the day following our return to Ottawa Mr. Balfour came to this city, and when he got off the train at the platform here and shook hands with a lot of people who were there to meet him, he came over to me and drew a small sheet of paper from his pocket, which he handed to me to read. That sheet contained the proposal of the United States, which was that they would be ready to sell their wheat at $2.21 per bushel provided Canada would agree to a similar proposal. While I read that Mr. Balfour was standing beside me. I handed the sheet of paper back to him and he said, "Well, what do you think about it?" I answered, "We will agree to that price also," so that price was fixed, and it lasted for two years. At that time I wired Winnipeg asking a number of the grain exchange men to come to Ottawa so that they would understand all the facts. They came down here and we had a meeting in Sir George Foster's office, where we went over the whole case, and they were entirely satisfied.
As for the 1917 and 1918 crops, they were sold on the basis of S2.21 per bushel, and the farmers of western Canada went to any elevator with their wheat, got their money and took it home with them. So there was nothing wrong, and there was no chance of anything being wrong in respect of those two years. Mr. Whiteside is entirely mistaken in his statement with regard to those years.


John Vallance: May I ask a question?
When you summoned the grain trade to Ottawa, did you summon only the grain trade or did you summon producers as well? Did you give any consideration to the producers and ask them whether the proposal was acceptable to them?


Robert Rogers: No, I did not summon
anyone except those who were handling the grain of western Canada. I have never heard of any individual who was dissatisfied with the arrangements which were made for the sale of the crops of 1916, 1917 and 1918 at $2.21 per bushel. Those who seemed to be dissatisfied were some of the men in western Canada whom you would expect to be the last to have any such feelings.
I was explaining that I asked several people to come down from Winnipeg. I telegraphed the president of the grain exchange to send down six or seven of the best men
to consider these proposals. They wired back that they could come the next day, and they did come. Then some friend of mine in Winnipeg wired me that they should have selected Mr. Crerar and Mr. Wood, who was then down in Winnipeg from Calgary, and someone else, whose name I forget. I immediately wired these men individually and invited them to come to Ottawa, and we postponed any discussion of the matter until their arrival, when we went into the whole matter.
Then there was no supervising body, and this is what happened:	At our meeting in
Sir George Foster's office we were discussing any difficulties which might arise, especially any difficulties as between New York and the grain centres of Canada. Mr. Thomas^ Carruthers, who was then alive, and who was a large grain man, suggested that we should have a committee of certain members of the grain exchange in Winnipeg in case anything went wrong. The idea was that this committee could settle it up quickly, and members of the grain exchange in Winnipeg had the advantage of a direct telephone connection over which they could talk as long as they pleased to New York. If any difficulty did arise, then Mr. Carruthers and Mr. A. P. Stewart, another large grain man in Montreal, would be able to get on the train at night and go to New York and settle up the matter the next morning, so there would be no unfavourable publicity with regard to any mistakes which might occur.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Mr. Crerar
and Mr. Wood both came to Ottawa?


Robert Rogers: Yes, and then I was asked to name a number of individuals who would see to it that any mistakes which might occur would be attended to immediately. I placed Mr. Wood, Mr. Crerar and someone else on that little committee which was to become active as seon as the grain began to move. When they held their first meeting on September 12, 1917, they called themselves the board of grain supervisors, but they were really a. board designed to prevent any trouble or difficulties from arising, or to settle any difficulties which might arise so there would be no public fuss between the Americans and the Canadians in respect to the carrying out of this contract.
On September 12 these gentlemen met at Winnipeg in order to fix their plans and to determine, how they would be called in if they were required, and so on, but they went further. Mr. Crerar moved that the price of No. 1 Manitoba northern be S2.18 per bushel. This motion was seconded by-
Supply-Canada Grain Act


Mr. CAMPBELL:: That is, $2.18 to the farmer?


Robert Rogers: Yes, S2.18 to the farmer, and that motion was supported by Mr. Wood, president of the United Fanners of Alberta and at that tame president of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. The motion was carried by a majority of the board, though it was strongly opposed by the chairman of the board and Mr. Rath well. Because of this opposition the board reconsidered the motion and fixed the price of wheat at $2.21.


Albert Frederick Totzke: What is my hon. friend
reading from?


Robert Rogers: I am reading from the memorandum given me by Dr. Magill, who [DOT]was the secretary and president of that board. This is his own document, given me for purposes of reference. So the fixed price, as arranged between the United States, Great Britain and Canada, was the price paid to the farmer for his wheat. England agreed to pay any price Mr. Balfour could get fixed in the United States and Canada, and I agreed that whatever price Mr. Balfour could get the United States to fix would be satisfactory to us. When he came here and it was all settled, he told me he was going home the happiest man who ever crossed the ocean. He said it was a great and successful trip for him, and that his people were entirely satisfied to pay the price of $2.21.


Edward James Young: Did the United States stick to the agreement?


Robert Rogers: Absolutely.


John Vallance: Then all wheat sold by the United States to the British government-[DOT]


Robert Rogers: Every bushel was sold at


Henry Elvins Spencer: On the basis of No. 1 northern?	o .


Robert Rogers: Yes.


James J. Donnelly: My hon. friend said a portion of the 1916 crop was confiscated, and that S3 a bushel was paid for it.


Robert Rogers: No, it was sold at that price.


James J. Donnelly: To whom did you pay the $3 a bushel?


Robert Rogers: The people got it. Whoever had wheat in this country got every cent of it. They all got it. There was not one sixpence taken out of it in any shape or form.


John Livingstone Brown: On Fort William basis?


Robert Rogers: Fort William basis, No. 1 northern.


James J. Donnelly: The farmers never got $3 a bushel for any wheat.


Robert Rogers: Remember there was a lot of tough wheat that year-nearly seventy or eighty million bushels of tough wheat.


Edward James Young: That would not make it worth more.


Robert Rogers: No; a lot less. Those are the actual facts. They got more for their wheat that year than they did before or have done since. That is the explanation.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) has made one valuable contribution to this debate; he has let us know what the price of wheat at Fort William was in 1916. The farmers know what it was in 1919; it was $2.63. Add the two together and your average is S2.S0. Why guess any more about what we got in 1917 and 191S? There is approximately what we got $2.80. But why should we have to guess when there are the records? My hon. friend's memory, I believe, is correct. But why should we take an hon. gentleman's memory as against the records? That is extraordinary. There were three boards successively in 1917, 1918 and 1919 and in each case there was a surplus. It was brought to the attention of the late government that there was about half a million of a surplus in 1919. Two or three deputations waited upon the government and the Minister of Finance at that time, claiming that such surplus was theirs, the farmers': but the late Mr. Robb had to be shown that it was. He would not pay the money until it was absolutely proven that it belonged to the farmers and not to the treasury. He knew that it had been put into the general revenue fund, but he would not pay any of it out to anyone until it was shown, as finally it was, that he was justified in doing so. There was distributed to the farmers some $400,000, leaving in the treasury $100,000 to take care of any possible participation certificates which, having been lost, might eventually turn up. But we are not discussing that at all. I merely wish to show what disposition was made of the surplus that went back to the farmers through their respective provincial governments in 1919. I have shown that. Now what disposition was made of the other two surpluses in 1917 and 1918? That is what my hon. friend from South Battleford wishes to know. The minister says it was a long time ago. But my hon. friend from South

Supply-Canada Grain Act
Winnipeg is able to supply us information from memory. And Sir George Foster said there was a surplus which went into the treasury of Canada; it went into the general revenue fund. Why surround the matter with all this mystery and talk?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no mystery.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, there seems
to be a desire to becloud the issue:	No one
disputes-


Mr. SHORT:: You had nine years to pay
it; why didn't you?


William Richard Motherwell: No one disputes
the way it was conducted or the way the business was handled. All the boards were conducted exceedingly well. But we never knew until last fall that there was such a condition of things, and when the farmers came to the former government asking for the surplus of 1919 it was never suggested to the then government that there were surpluses for 1917 and 1918 also. I never knew it; I never heard about it until last fall. I see some hon. gentlemen grinning over there. If they think this is not right let them get up and prove that there is reason for that kind of incredulous smile. We are dealing now with the years 1917 and 1918. The minister knows that there were surpluses. He knows that Sir George Foster has admitted it. And the money went into the general revenue fund of Canada. Now, can we not find out how much it is? Can we not make the same disposition of it as was made of the overages of 1919? We did not get it easily in 1919; we had to prove our case. I suggest to the minister that the same practice be followed that was set up by the late government in regard to overages in 1919. Let us look into the matter; let us refer it to the committee on agriculture; let the officers of the department find out what the facts are as set out-in the last report of the board of grain supervisors. I saw the 1919 report myself. There was a final report indicating the disposition of the moneys and there was a cheque covering the surplus. There must be the same sort of report for 1917 and 1918 respectively. Let us have those reports.


Robert Rogers: Have we any for 1917 and 1918?


William Richard Motherwell: What is the report of the board of grain supervisors for 1917 and 1918? There must be one somewhere. What was the total revenue secured for wheat in those two years' what was the total disbursements, and how much went into
the government's pockets-not the individuals. None of us ever conceived of a particle of wrongdoing in connection with the minister. They simply let it get abroad, as the hon. member for Willow Bunch said, that anything that was over went to the British purchasing commission. As a matter of fact it went into the Dominion treasury. Now, we are not making contributions of that kind to the Dominion treasury in addition to paying our regular taxes; and inasmuch as the west has not been able to get anything from the government in reply to the reasonable requests made this year, not only by ourselves here but by the farmers, the ministry might very well come across with what they owe us in the same way that the government led by my right hon. leader did in 1919. According to my calculations, if the price of wheat was $3 in 1916, on the basis of No. 1 northern, and $2.63, on the basis of No. 1 northern, in 1919, it is obvious that the price for 1917 and 1918 must be somewhere in between. So that, as I see it, the farmers have at least 50 cents a bushel coming to them yet for these two years. Mr. Whiteside was not so far wrong.


Robert Rogers: May I say to my good friend that the farmers went to the grain elevators and got $2.21 and went home with it.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right; and
the government got the balance.


Robert Rogers: Where do you get the
surplus?


William Richard Motherwell: Where do I get
the surplus? The government was handling the wheat and Sir George Foster oflicially says surplus went into the federal treasury.


Robert Rogers: They didn't have a thing
to do with it.


William Richard Motherwell: Then refer to the
record.
Mr. VALLAN'CE:	Sir George Foster was
Minister of Trade and Commerce, administering the grain act at that time, and the board of grain supervisors was under his control. He said:
In the end, after all expenses were paid and the accounts closed, a small surplus remained in the hands of the board of grain supervisors, the body that was established to conduct the buying and selling of wheat.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was for 1919.


John Vallance: No, it was not. Let me finish the quotation:
Now, as to the year just past, 1919-
Supply-Canada Grain Act

Then he deals with that. Surely if there is even a small surplus it should be cleaned up. Let us decide it once for all, because I am rather suspicious, with all due respect to the minister and .the officials. When I asked for the return these two letters were not there, but there was that letter of Sir George Foster. They failed to take that one off or we should not have had any record o:f this. There was a slip somewhere, and that makes us doubly suspicious, notwithstanding what the minister has said. I believe he is sincere, but we still believe there is money there. If not, we want to know.
As regards the question which an hon. member opposite has asked, as to why we did not clean it up nine years ago, this is not' a political matter, and the administration at that time was not recognized in the country as a Tory government. It was the Union government. Why, therefore, should the hon. gentleman object to anything being raked up as to what they did? I see many hon. members sitting behind the government to-night who should be just as keen as we are to have the matter cleaned up, and I respectfully submit to the minister again that he refer the whole question to the committee on agriculture and allow this item to stand until it has been investigated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Vallance) has referred to a letter written by Sir George Foster, the last letter in the series. I am sorry he has suggested there is some reason for leaving this letter out of the file, and I would again assure the committee, as I have done already, that I knew nothing whatever about it. This return was prepared by the officers of my department and I have every reason to believe that it was prepared in good faith. The correspondence is twelve or thirteen years old, and although this letter should not have been overlooked, it was not done intentionally. The answer to the question asked by my hon. friend is this: On April 19, 19211, Sir George Foster wrote to Mr. Whiteside, complainant in this case, as follows:
Yours of April 4th has been duly received.
Vou will have noticed that the membership of the commission to investigate the handling of grain has been completed and I hope will be at work in a short time.
The amount turned into the consolidated revenue fund by the board of grain supervisors was $428,781.94.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is 1919.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just wait a moment, please. The letter continues:
The wheat, board has not yet completed its accounts but it is probable that there will be a small surplus to be gathered into the treasury when all accounts will have been adjusted.
If the committee will notice, Sir George Foster has differentiated between the two bodies, the board of grain supervisors, which had turned in $428,781.94, and the wheat board, which had not completed its transactions. As a matter of fact, the business of the wheat board dragged on for seven or eight years because these participating certificates kept turning up and were taken care of out of the remnants of the fund.


John Vallance: You are referring to 1919.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know I am, but if my hon. friend will content himself for a moment I will endeavour to explain. The board .of grain supervisors, that is the 1917-18 board, turned in $428,781.94, according to the statement given ten years ago to Mr. Whiteside by Sir George Foster.


William Richard Motherwell: Which year was that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was for the year 1917-18.


William Richard Motherwell: Was it for both 1917 and 1918 or one of them?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He says, "The amount turned into the consolidated revenue fund by the board of grain supervisors was $428,781.94."
Mr. MeINTOSH: What was the final disposition?


Thomas McMillan: What date is that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: April 19, 1921.
Mr. MeINTOSH: Was that the final disposition for 1917-18?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. Then he adds:
The wheat board-[DOT]
That is the board of 1919.
-has not yet completed its accounts but it is probable that there will be a small surplus to be gathered into the treasury when all accounts will have been adjusted.
I sent to the library for the report of the wheat board but as yet I have not had time to look into it. We have had a full day on this matter; the questions raised are important, and I should like to have an opportunity of consulting with the officials of the depart-

Supply-Railways and Canals.
ment on the points which have been brought up. When this item is next before the committee I will endeavour to have as complete information as possible for the benefit of hon. members. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this item be allowed to stand for the time being.


William Richard Motherwell: Will the minister
consider the proposal to refer this matter to the agriculture committee?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will consider that and
give an answer when this item is up again.


Robert Rogers: I would like to make it
clear to the committee that in 1917 and 1918 the money was paid direct to the farmers when they brought in their wheat.


John Vallance: Where did the surplus
come from?


Robert Rogers: There was no surplus.


Mr. GARDINER:: The hon. member for
South Winnipeg has given to the committee to-night some information which is of value. But would he go a little further and give the details as to how the crop of 1917 and 1918 was handled, and if possible give some information as to what became of the surplus of over $400,000 referred to in Sir George Foster's letter?


James J. Donnelly: I would refer the hon.
member for South Winnipeg to the statement in Sir George Foster's letter to the effect that during 1917 and 1918 the wheat was sold as purchasers were found and at different prices owing to changes in the world market price. But he does not say it was sold for $2.21.


Robert Rogers: During those two years
every bushel was sold on the basis of $2.21.


John Vallance: The hon. member made the statement that the farmer received $2.21, and from his manner in giving that information to the committee I assume he knew what the grain trade got for handling that wheat.


Robert Rogers: They did not get anything.


John Vallance: How much was the
grain trade paid for handling it?


Robert Rogers: They got their allowance
for elevator charges, that is all.


Milton Neil Campbell: Yesterday I forwarded
to the minister a file in connection with this matter and I would like him to read it before this item is considered again.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-Railways and Canals- salaries. $283,235; contingencies, $46,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are there any increases in this item other than the usual statutory allowances?


Robert James Manion: No, as a matter of fact there
is a decrease of about $3,000. The number of employees remains the same as last year, namely, 119, but, because of some reclassifications of positions and some coming in at a lower classification, the amount required is less.


Mr. DUFF:: I notice by the details that
$10,000 is provided for "deputy minister and government director of Canadian National Railways." Does that $10,000 cover his remuneration as deputy minister and also as a director of the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: No. His salary as deputy minister is $10,000, and he receives $2,000 as a director. That has been the custom throughout.


William Duff: Then why should he be put
down as deputy minister and government director if he gets a separate amount as director of the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: He is paid as a director
by the Canadian National Railways, and he gets his salary as deputy minister from the department. The $2,000 which he receives as director comes in the estimates of the Canadian National Railways.


William Duff: I can understand that. But
the item as it reads is misleading. It should read: "deputy minister, $10,000." It reads now:	"Deputy minister and government
director of Canadian National Railways. $10,000". That would leave the impression with the public that he receives only $10,000 for the two positions.


Robert James Manion: That should not be there. I confess that until the hon. member drew my attention to it I had not noticed it. The director should be paid as a director. The $10,000, of course, is paid to him not as a director of the National Railways but as deputy minister of the department.


William Duff: May I ask the minister, if he occupies the same position next year, to see that these estimates are made up properly so that the public will understand them? If the Deputy Minister of Railways is deserving of this $2,000 which he receives as a director of the Canadian National Railways I have

Supply-Railways and Canals.

no objection, but I do not want the public to be misled by the way the item reads. I had occasion some time ago to object to the way the estimates are made up, and I am now raising this objection, so that the public may know exactly what the estimates mean. The estimate certainly is misleading as it reads, because it says that this official gets $10,000 for the two positions, whereas the minister has said that instead of getting $10,000 he receives $12,000 for the two positions.


Robert James Manion: I think it is wrong to read as it does, but I am informed by the officers that it has been done that way for many years; it was done that way under the late government. I quite agree with my hon. friend that "government director of Canadian National Railways" should not be there, and as far as I am concerned it will not be there next year. Of course it is about as difficult to change the form of an estimate as it is to change the laws of the Medes and Persians.


William Duff: I think I heard someone behind the minister interject, "Why did you not have it altered last year?" I am not interested in what happened last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: There was an election on July 28 as hon. gentlemen opposite know, and any sins of omission or commission on our part were then settled by the public, and well settled. We are not going to stand here now and every time we make a criticism have the question thrown across the floor, "Why didn't you do it last year?" We expect that this government, which went to the country with such glowing promises, should give good government and better government than ever before. I would ask the Minister of Railways to see that the wording of this item is changed next year. I have no objection to the deputy minister receiving $2,000 as a director of the National Railways, but I do ask that the item appear properly in the estimates.


Robert James Manion: I entirely agree with the hon. member that this government should give better government than last year's government did. I shall endeavour to have the wording of the item changed another year.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid the
minister is going too far. He should not make such rash promises; if he wants his deputy minister to get two salaries next year he will have to mention the title, "Government director of Canadian National Railways." I do not 'believe that there is any law of parliament authorizing a civil servant to get extra

emolument unless his name or the position he occupies is mentioned in the estimates, and I think that is why the title "director of Canadian National Railways" is mentioned in the details. I think you have to leave that in, in order that be may be paid.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the hon. gentleman is correct in that, because the estimates we are dealing with are those of the Department of Railways and Canals, not of the Canadian National Railways. The national railways are permitted at the present time to appoint seventeen directors, who are paid $2,000 a year each.


Eugène Fiset: That does not matter. I say that the Civil Service Act requires that a civil servant who is receiving any extra emolument must have his name mentioned in the estimates, and the very reason why this position as director of the Canadian National Railways is mentioned in the estimates is to enable the deputy minister to receive out of the income of the Canadian National Railways the emolument of $2,000 a year as director. I would point out to the minister that this house deals only with the .capital expenditure of the Canadian National Railways, and nowhere in those capital expenditures do you see special mention made of $2,000 to be paid to the deputy minister as director of the Canadian National Railways. I think in fairness and justice to the deputy minister his name and position should be put in there.


Robert James Manion: The directors are paid by the Canadian National Railways.


Eugène Fiset: They are not civil servants. This is the only civil servant that gets this extra emolument.


Robert James Manion: Oh no, he is not. There are other civil servants in different departments of this government who get extra emoluments.


Eugène Fiset: But their names or positions have to be mentioned in the estimates, the same as this position is mentioned. I am trying to help the minister.


Robert James Manion: But they are paid by the government. However, I do not intend to make any changes without first knowing that they can legally be made. Personally I think that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is right in his protest because this $10,000 does not include the $2,000 which i3 payable to the deputy minister as a director of the National Railways. I do not

Supply-Railways and Canals.
think it should be there, but I have legal advisers in my department; I intend to find out as to the facts, and if the change can legally be made, we will do it. If not, it is a different matter.


Frederick George Sanderson: I notice that in 193031 there was an item of $4,080 for a private secretary to the minister. No amount appears to be included for that position for 1931-32. Has the minister dispensed with his private secretary?


Robert James Manion: At the present time the
secretary to the minister is paid out of contingencies, the next item after salaries. The hon. member will notice that the vote is divided into two: salaries, $283,235, and contingencies, $46,000. Among those contingencies is the item which my hon. friend speaks of. "Contingencies" cowers various items, and if there is a balance left over it may be used, as is done in this case, to pay the salary of the private secretary.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would the same explanation apply to the messenger to the minister, who received $1,600 in 1930-31, but for whom there does not appear to be any provision for 1931-32?


Robert James Manion: As far as I know that position is not filled at the present time, although there are messengers in the department; nor is it included in contingencies.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister will 'have a lot of applicants if the position is advertised.


Robert James Manion: I have a lot of applicants anyway.
'Sir EUGENE FISET: In the vote for contingencies there are three specific items-printing and stationery, sundries, and clerical assistance. Are the travelling expenses of the civil staff as well as of the minister included under "sundries"?


Robert James Manion: Travelling expenses are included in the contingency vote of $46,000. Probably I would save some time by explaining this item. There is the salary to the minister's private secretary, $3,600, and salary to the secretary of executive, $1,860, making a total of $5,460. Then there is office equipment, stationery, and supplies for the use of the department, amounting to $14,000; travelling expenses of officials of the department, $18,000; temporary emergent clerical assistants, $5,440; telephone, telegraph, express and postage, $3,400. making a total of approximately $46,000.
22110-9SJ


Eugène Fiset: It does not include travelling expenses for the civil staff?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I read the item of $18,000 covering travelling expenses of officers of the department.


Eugène Fiset: Does the minister say that one of the executive secretaries is paid out of contingencies?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: That is usually paid out of civil government.


Robert James Manion: No. The secretary to a minister, and also the secretary of the executive, which actually is a secretary or stenographer to the secretary, are appointments of the minister himself, and when the minister goes out the secretary of the executive goes out with him. There is more or less a rule to look after the secretary but not the secretary to the exeoutive.


Eugène Fiset: Is the minister sure of that?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: In my day the secretary to the executive was appointed through the Civil Service Commission and formed part of the staff of the department.


Robert James Manion: At the present time the secretary to the executive is appointed by the minister himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would it not be better practice to have the amount of the salary set opposite the item in the estimates relating to the secretary to the minister? The impression one gets is that the position has been abolished instead of being covered by contingencies.


Robert James Manion: Probably there is something in the suggestion of my hon. friend. However, the estimates were handed to me in their present form, and I did not think of the matter in that way. I was informed that in cases where the contingency vote is more than required, the salary of the private secretary is taken out of that vote. I do not think there was any reason for it except that it was handed to me in that way.


Peter John Veniot: Apparently the amount
appeared under a separate heading in 1930-31 -"Private secretary to minister, $4,080."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the last item in the details, "allowance to private secretary, $600." If the secretary receives
Supply-Railways and Canals.

$4,200 under contingencies and in addition an allowance of $600, he gets a total of $4,800. As against that the item last year amounted to only $4,080. There is a difference for which I think the minister ought to account.


Robert James Manion: The secretary I have now is the secretary I had in 1926.
Mr. STEWART Edmonton):	Is he a civil
servant?


Robert James Manion: No, he was not a civil
servant. I do not pay him as much as most private secretaries receive, not because he is not worth it-I think he is worth as much, because he is an excellent man-but before he came with me he happened to be working with a private corporation and getting considerably less than I pay him. I gave him more than he was getting then, and since he has been with me I have raised his salary once. He is still below 54,000. His services are entirely satisfactory and apparently he is satisfied with his position. Probably within the next year he will receive the full salary of a secretary. At the present time, however, he is receiving less than other secretaries receive. The $600 to which my right hon. friend has referred is given in all departments as an allowance to the secretary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where the
secretary is a member of the service he gets $600 in addition to his regular salary?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to read a copy of
a letter from the Canadian National Railways at Montreal, Quebec, dated October 7, 1930, file No. 1920-217. It is as follows:
Gentlemen:
With reference to your letter for the construction of new station at Riviere du Loup.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Jean-François Pouliot: No.
The Department of Railways and Canals has refused to sanction the construction of this new [DOT]tation, and all tenders and deposit cheques rave been returned to the railway.
I am therefore returning herewith your ieposit cheque for $8,398.30, and if you have lot yet returned your set of plans and specifications, I would suggest that you do so at an ;arly date, so that arrangements may be made to also return your deposit cheque for $50.
Thanking you for your tender, I am,
Yours truly,
H. T. Hazen,	.
Assistant Chief Engineer,
Operation Department-
May I ask the minister what was meant by the words "Department of Railways and
Canals"?
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has brought this matter up quite a few times during the present session. The expenditure in connection with Riviere du Loup station was not treated any differently from very many other expenditures proposed by the railway. Because of the fact however that the railway was not earning anything like as much money as it had earned the previous year, and that the earnings were so low that the situation had become serious, the station Riviere du Loup and various other proposed works were not carried out. My hon. friend seems to have the impression that the station at Riviere du Loup is the only station or the only railway building of any kind which was not built as originally proposed. Such, however, is not the case; many other works originally proposed to be carried out by the national railways were not gone on with. The government took the attitude that these capital expenditures should be delayed until later. It is natural that a railway which is earning $30,000,000 less than the interest owing to the public should not be too quick to make capital expenditures. It was the opinion of the government, and I think the stand was properly taken, that at least some of the capital expenditures should be postponed until a later date. The Riviere du Loup station was included with a number of other structures the national railways intended to go on with if earnings had continued in reasonably good form, or as they were in 1928. In 1929 the earnings were decreasing, and with conditions as they were in 1930 I repeat that the government thought unnecessary capital expenditure should not be made. Then, in connection with the Department of Railways and Canals, not referring particularly to the Canadian National Railways, construction of many branch lines, hotels and other projects of that nature is being deferred. In all probability had the earnings of the railway company been in good shape those works would have been proceeded with. My hon. friend has made it quite clear to the house that he would like to have a station at Riviere du Loup; surely there is no hon. member doubts that. Having done so, he has performed his duty to his constituency, and when the time comes the station will be built. With no desire to hurt his feelings, I beg to assure him that he will not get a station any sooner by bringing the matter up very many times in this house, instead of being content with having brought it to the attention of the railway department and the management of the Canadian National Railways.

Supply-Railways and Canals.


Jean-François Pouliot: Two weeks ago the minister said: "Don't mention it again and you may have a chance of getting a station." I have followed his advice for a fortnight and said nothing about it since, but still I am not rewarded. It reminds me of an experience I had when arguing a case before three distinguished judges in the court of appeal. I concluded my argument between four and five o'clock in the afternoon and they did not seem to understand it very well, but next morning after I had recapitulated my argument they told me, "Oh, here is a point that enables you to win your case." I asked my hon. friend a question, but he did not answer me, and I regret to notice that although I have stated it three or four times, he does not yet appear to understand my point, so I shall have to try once more to make it clear to him. The other day the hon. Minister of Railways said that he had had nothing to do with the refusal to build a station at Riviere du Loup, but here is a letter from the Canadian National Railways saying that it is on account of the refusal of the minister to sanction the project that it was not gone on with. In brief, the minister says one thing and the officers of the Canadian National Railways say the direct opposite. If Mr. Hazen does not tell the truth he should be dismissed at once. But there is something more serious than that, Mr. Chairman. I do not come here as a beggar, I do not come here to annoy the house. I repeat, this is a most serious matter, for the other day my hon. friend was contradicted by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a point of order. We are not dealing with the estimates of the Canadian National Railways, we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals, and I do not think the hon. member is in order in bringing up the question of a station at Riviere du Loup.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of
order, Mr. Chairman, I have under my hand a letter from the Canadian National Railways stating that it is on account of the refusal of the Minister of Railways and Canals that the station has not been built. I am not speaking of the Canadian National Railways, I am speaking of the Department of Railways and Canals, and the question I have asked of the hon. minister is this: Who was the official of the Canadian National Railways who refused to sanction the construction of that building? This is the only question that I have put to him. Instead of giving me an answer he made a speech,
a dilatory speech. I believe I am strictly in order in asking for an answer to my question. I am not discussing the doings of the Canadian National Railways, I am discussing the doings of the hon. member's colleague when acting Minister of Railways and Canals, and if my hon. friend is dissatisfied with him he has only one course to follow-to resign or to ask that his colleague be reprimanded. This is a most serious question. I could speak- to it on every item in the estimates, because the money which was voted for this definite purpose was spent for another purpose, but the hon. minister cannot tell me where it was spent.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: I think the point of order is well
taken. The matter that the hon. member has reference to does not appear in the item now under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask for a vote on
the ruling of the chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Am I in order, Mr. Chairman, when I ask what official of the department has refused to sanction the building of that station?


Robert James Manion: I have explained to the
hon. member that I do not know anything about what the officials of the railway may have done. The hon. gentleman one minute says he wants to know what official of the railway-


Jean-François Pouliot: What official of the department.


Robert James Manion: I have told the hon.
gentleman that the government rightly took the view that the Canadian National Railways were not earning sufficient to spend much on capital account, being already committed to an expenditure of well over $100,000,000. I subscribe to that view. In my opinion the government took the right course. And they did not discriminate against the hon. member. What I said to him the other day was something to this effect:	Less talk and more station. But I did not say a station would be built in one year or two years, neither do I say so now. I may tell the hon. gentleman that it is not the best way to get a station to obstruct the business of the house, because that is what he has been doing many times this session.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of
privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.
Supply-Railways and Canals.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has
been inconsistent. He knows it and the house knows it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not a bit.


Robert James Manion: If he thinks he can bluff us into building a station at Riviere-du-Loup, in other words, changing the whole policy of the Canadian National Railways, simply because he calls for a vote, he has another guess coming to him; because he cannot. I wish to treat the hon. gentleman with every courtesy, but again I must remind him that he is not taking the proper course to get a station at Riviere-du-Loup.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask who brought
about that refusal?


An hon. MEMBER:: You have been told
a dozen times.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister
who brought about that refusal?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has
pointed out in this house on a number of occasions that I was up at Fort Churchill when the matter went through council. But although I was not present, I take full responsibility for what was done. I have told the hon. gentleman that the station was not built for the same reason that many other structures on the Canadian National Railways were not built. As a matter of fact he has been treated the same as many hon. gentlemen on this side of the house. I may say that they have given me a pretty severe reprimand privately because they did not get stations and other public buildings that they expected for their constituencies. The hon. gentleman and other members of the house were so treated because of the exigencies of the situation. My hon. friend was not discriminated against. I want to be courteous to him but I cannot go any further than that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not complain, Mr. Chairman, that I am treated differently from others, but I do complain that my constituents are treated differently from other constituents. The east block is not situated at Napier or in any other earthquake zone- the building has not been destroyed, so the records must still be there. If my hon. friend takes responsibility for what has been done, there must be in the department records to show at whose request this action was taken by the minister.


Robert James Manion: I have told the hon.
gentleman that it was done at the request of the government; I am part of the government; I take the responsibility. I repeat that

other buildings of this sort were not proceeded with because the government thought that the Canadian National Railways was already committed to a sufficient capital expenditure.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has my hon. friend the
Minister of Marine nothing to say about this? He is silent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No it is not carried at
all.


Mr. YENIOT:: I do not want to discuss
the Riviere du Loup station, but perhaps it would save time if I should ask the minister a question now so that he would be prepared to give the information when the Canadian National estimates come down. Would it be possible to obtain a list of contractors or contracts in the different sections of the Dominion of Canada?


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend mean railway contracts?
Mr. VF.NIOT: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I shall gladly endeavour to get that for my hon. friend. It is not in my department, but I will ask the railways for it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I notice that for 193031 the item for stenographers amounted to 810,980, and for 1931-32 this has been increased to $12,885. Is that increase due to increased salaries or to a greater number of stenographers?


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will look at the column on the extreme left of the page he will find that there is an increase of two stenographers. I have been checking up the staff a good deal; certainly mine is one department which has not increased the staff as a whole, and I am informed that this increase in stenographers or clerical help of one kind or another has been caused largely by the auditing that has to be done in connection with the construction of the Montreal terminals, for instance, and other large capital expenditures made by the Canadian National Railways. We have in the department an audit branch whose duty it is to audit the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways. The rather heavy capital expenditures of the railways such as the Montreal terminal, which required some S8,090,000 last year, have necessitated more clerical help. Many of them are temporary.

Supply-Railways and Canals.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then it would appear from the remarks of the minister that while the business of the Canadian National Railways is decreasing, together with the earnings, the business of the department is increasing. That is hardly consistent.


Robert James Manion: It might be consistent if
the department were checking up very heavy capital expenditures. A very small part of my department has to deal with the Canadian National Railways, with the exception of the audit branch. My friend Colonel Dubuc here, the chief engineer, has nothing to do with the railways. He deals with the canals, the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, the Welland ship canal and so on. I should say at least seventy-five per cent of my department, if not ninety per cent, has practically nothing to do with the railways. The audit branch has been increased, but there has not been an increase in the other work of the department.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: There is provision here
for S3,720 for an assistant secretary. This is a new position. I should like to know the reasons for .the appointment of this new official.


Jean-François Pouliot: So much money has been
spent on the Welland canal that it is not surprising that the expenses of the department have increased.


Robert James Manion: I am informed that one of the officers of the department who previously was rated as a head clerk was promoted to the position of assistant secretary, and that position was created as far as the name was concerned. This meant a slight increase in his salary, but his previous salary was wiped out, so instead of meaning an additional man it meant only a different rating. As I have pointed out, really there has been a decrease in the expenditures of the department of about 83,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was that position created by the Civil Service Commission?
Mr. MANIO-N: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I see there is also the addition of a principal clerk as compared with last year. Is that a new appointment which was made by the Civil Service Commission, and what was the reason for it?


Robert James Manion: That is part of the reclassification I have been speaking of. I will again point out to my hon. friend that due to the
various reclassifications, while the staff remains the same the salaries have been decreased by about $3,000, so there has been an improvement instead of the reverse.


Eugène Fiset: I notice that provision is made for a secretary to the executive. We were told a few moments ago that another secretary to the executive is provided for out of contingencies. May I ask if two secretaries are required?


Robert James Manion: This position was in existence previously. Mr. Pugsley is secretary of the department, and this man is the assistant. This has nothing whatever to do with my personal staff.


Eugène Fiset: The minister made a statement a moment ago which struck me rather forcibly. He said his department audited the capital expenditure of the Canadian National Railways. I think the minister made a mistake. The capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways are voted every year, and there is a firm of auditors, Price, Wlaterhouse and Company, or somebody else, who audit all the accounts of the Canadian, National Railways. Once a capital expenditure has been voted in the form of a loan I do not believe it is audited iby the department. That must be so, since the minister stated that he has nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Canadian National Railways. What has the minister to say in that regard?


Robert James Manion: I will explain to my hon. friend. In regard to statutory capital expenditure, where the government provides the money, we conduct an audit. Where the railway itself makes expenditures without statute, we do not have an audit. Price, Waterhouse and Company are general auditors for the railway; my hon. friend is correct in that, but with regard to expenditures such as the Montreal terminal, the different branch lines, the Toronto terminal, the Hudson Bay railway and so on, those are all statutory. They are audited by the department, because they go through our department by statute.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid the minister used the word "statutory" in a wrong way. The minister means money which is provided by a special vote, but that is not what we call statutory with regard to these estimates.


Robert James Manion: Yes, the money provided by statute. The Montreal terminal was incorporated in a statute, and that was the
Supply-Railways and Canals.

case also with the Toronto terminal, the branch lines and so on. They were all bills passed by the house.


Eugène Fiset: The minister can assure us that the audit branch of the Department of Railways and Canals has nothing to do with the audit of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: It has nothing to do with the operating expenditures of the railway.


Eugène Fiset: Will the minister tell me. whether the Auditor General has anything to do with auditing the accounts of the Canadian National railways?


Robert James Manion: He has not.


Eugène Fiset: In other words, the only audit which is carried on, as far as the Canadian National railways are concerned, is the independent audit by Price, Waterhouse and Company, who report to the Canadian National Railway officials and to no one else. And this parliament, notwithstanding the fact that we are supposed to be shareholders in the Canadian National Railways, has nothing whatever to say in respect of any one of those expenditures made by the system. Aim I correct?


Robert James Manion: The independent audit of
the books and records of the Canadian National Railways is conducted by Geo. A. Touche and Co., but of course, that is a matter over which I have no control.


Eugène Fiset: I beg the minister's pardon; I should not have asked that question. The only reason I asked it was that he himself had mentioned something about auditing.


Robert James Manion: My understanding is that the Canadian National Railways have their own official auditors, and in addition to that there is an outside group of auditors who do auditing as well. But where there are statutory expenditures we have an audit branch which audits those expenditures. They audit the expenditures that go through our department, as they also do the canal expenditures.


Eugène Fiset: Expenditures authorized by special act of parliament?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: On what date was the order in council passed granting $1,500,000 to both the large railway companies in order to provide work for unemployment relief?


Robert James Manion: There was $1,500,000 taken out of the $20,000,000 fund to provide for the

railways the interest on certain works which they did and which they would not otherwise have done for perhaps a year or two, and in some cases four years. That sum was divided between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National for works which they chose to do-various works scattered around from one end of Canada to the other. These undertakings amounted to something like $22,000,000, and out of that $20,000,000 fund the interest was provided for, amounting to $1,500,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: At what date was the order in council passed?


Robert James Manion: I do not think I can tell my hon. friend. It was passed shortly after the brief session of last September. I should imagine it was passed some time in October.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister be kind enough to give the information to-morrow on the orders of the day?


Robert James Manion: Yes; I can look it up.


Jean-François Pouliot: The date of the order in council granting the $1,500,000 to both railways.


Robert James Manion: As a matter of fact, I do not know that there was an order in council. I am not sure there was. But an arrangement was made with the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific. The Deputy Minister of Railways and myself met with officers of the two railways and we discussed the works they proposed to do, but I doubt whether there was an order in council. There was an agreement with the two railways but I am sorry I cannot inform my hon. friend offhand as to the date. I should imagine, however, it was towards the middle or the end of October.


Jean-François Pouliot: Can I get the date of that agreement, please.


Robert James Manion: Yes; I will do the best I
can to get it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister give it
to-morrow on the orders of the day?


Robert James Manion: I will try. '


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Robert Gardiner: In these agreements between the railway companies and the government, were the works to be done specified?


Robert James Manion: Yes, they were.


Charles A. Stewart: I have been somewhat interested in listening to the explanations of the minister. There has been

Questions
no change from the custom followed by the late government in dealing with the Canadian National Railways, and it seems to me that my hon. friend is taking upon himself a good deal of responsibility in relation to the works of the Canadian National. My understanding was that after the moneys were appropriated by the government, which moneys were for capital account, the responsibility in regard to stations, maintenance and everything else in connection with the national railways rested entirely with the management and was altogether free from interference on the part of the government.


Robert James Manion: That is quite right,


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot,
therefore, understand why my hon. friend should be responsible for Riviere du Loup or why he should have anything to do with that or any other station.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has misunderstood me. I did not say that we had anything to do with these expenditures except in so far as they are statutory. Riviere du Loup is on a government line, and in the case of government railways the contracts have to come before the government. Such contracts came before the government of which my hon. friend was a member. There has been no change, and I have not implied that there has been any change, with respect to the handling of the affairs of the Canadian National Railways or the auditing of the accounts.


Charles A. Stewart: That applies only to government-owned railways that are now operated by the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I can understand that. But I was desirous of knowing whether any change had taken place with respect to the Canadian National Railways generally-


Robert James Manion: Not at all.


Charles A. Stewart: -because,
if that were the case, I think my hon. friend would be taking on a considerable responsibility.


Robert James Manion: I might tell my hon. friend that, by reason of the decreased earnings, the government has taken the attitude that there should be no unnecessary expenditures on capital account. Beyond that, there has been no change.


Charles A. Stewart: I understand -that. The government must find the money; but having found it, neither the government nor the minister has any further responsibility.


Robert James Manion: That is quite right.


Mr. HEENAN:: I wish to refer for a moment to the definite pledge given the electorate at Woodstock, Ontario, on June 24, 1930, by the present Prime Minister. There was depression in the country at that time, and the right hon. gentleman promised the construction of national highways and the building of branch lines, as reported in the Mail and Empire of June 26.


Robert James Manion: I may say there are a number of branch lines still being built.


Peter Heenan: The point is that this was an undertaking to build branch lines to take care of unemployment. Here is an hon. member who wishes to have a station built, a station which is essential to the commerce of the country. I would point out to the Minister of Railways that this work would give relief to the unemployed in that particular town.


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Chairman. I beg to direct your attention to the fact that it is eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 13, 1931