1931-05-14

Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Na-pierville):: Mr. Speaker, before the house proceeds with the regular business of the day, I rise to a question of privilege. I am a member of one of the chief religious bodies in this country which observes this holiday, namely Ascension day, as fully as it observes Sunday. I wish to ask the government to relieve us from the necessity of sitting this afternoon. I give the following reasons:-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I gather from what the hon. member has said that he is not raising a question of privilege. To-day the house is sitting regularly and in accordance with the rules. The only way the house could dispense with the sitting is by a motion to adjourn. At the close of the last sitting there was no such motion, and consequently the sitting to-day is perfectly in order. In addition the hon. member is not raising a question of privilege.

Ascension Day Sitting


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for your-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call the hon. member to order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: I hope the cries of "order" I hear from the other side of the house do not mean that hon. members object to my speaking on the, subject.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have called the hon. member to order. He is out of order in continuing to address the house at this time.


Vincent Dupuis: May I quote-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The ruling has been given.


Vincent Dupuis: I rise to a point of order. Probably not according to the rules, but at least according to the jurisprudence of this house, Ascension day is a legal holiday.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am quite familiar with the passage in the book to which the hon. member refers. Whether the house sits on public holidays or not lies within its own discretion. It has not chosen to adjourn for this holiday, and the sitting is in order. If the hon. member who has just spoken or any other hon. member did not wish the house to sit to-day it was his privilege to move the adjournment. However, that has not been done. The hon. member should not attempt to stress the point when he has been called to order.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is too late.


Vincent Dupuis: I think not. I move the adjournment of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Who seconds the motion?


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis).


Pierre Édouard Blondin: A motion for adjournment is not debatable.


Vincent Dupuis: I would ask that we take the vote.


Mr. QUINN:: More obstruction, absolutely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is moved by Mr. Dupuis, seconded by Mr. Denis, that this house do now adjourn.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. TUMMON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere). Had I voted I would 'have voted against the motion.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman). Had I known pairs did not count I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Peter Heenan: Sometime ago some remark was made about smart alecs in the house. Apparently they are not all gone. I was about to say that I was paired-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Pairs do not count.


Peter Heenan: Apparently there are some smart alecs with us yet. I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PERRAS:: Since the vote has resulted in this way I wish to say that I will not sit in the house to-day.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 46, to amend the Criminal Code (Bail).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cai*e Breton):: This bill is intended to repeal the section of the criminal code dealing with the granting of bail to convicted persons. Under the present arrangement, when a person is convicted only the chief justice or some judge designated by him may grant bail. This is very inconvenient for lawyers practising in the country, because the chief justice usually resides at the provincial capital. This amendment is designated to give any trial judge the right to grant bail to a convicted prisoner, if he thinks fit, until his appeal has been heard. As a matter of fact I know of cases where bail has been refused and the prisoner has remained in gaol for two or three months until his appeal was heard. Then, on the hearing of the appeal, the conviction has been quashed. This amendment is designed to do away with that situation and to enable any trial judge to give bail, under proper circumstances, pending the hearing of the appeal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved:: That standing order 63 of the House of Commons relating to the appointment of the select standing committees of the house, be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National railways and the Canadian government merchant marine for the present session, for consideration and report to the house.
Provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply, and that the said committee consist of Messrs. Beaubien. Bell (St. Antoine), Both-well, Cantley. Chaplin, Duff, Euler, Fiset, Fraser (Cariboo), Geary, Gobeil, Gray, Hanbury, Hanson (York-Sunbury). Heaps, Kennedy (Peace River), McGibbon. MacMillan (Saskatoon), Manion, Power, Rogers, and Stewart (Lethbridge).
Reparations-Armenian Claims


Mr. DUFF:: ' Are the Canadian National steamships included in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I desire to lay on the table of the house a report made to His Excellency the Governor General in council by Errol M. McDougall, ICC., commissioner on reparations, dealing specially with Armenian claims. If the house would permit it, and at the request of hon. members on both sides, I should like to make a very brief statement as to the purport of the findings of the commissioner.
These claims arise out of the Armenian massacres in 1915, when the Armenian population of Turkey, which was then estimated at
1.800.000,	was two-thirds wiped out, one-third by death and one-third by deportation and dispersal in other countries. Apparently one-third survived, dispersed throughout Turkey. There are a number of Armenians who are naturalized British subjects residing in Canada, and who therefore came within the definition of Canadian nationals within the terms of the treaty of Versailles. The commissioner on reparations has disallowed these claims, to the number of some 270, on three grounds, which may be briefly summarized as follows: First, the property destroyed in Armenia as to the majority of claims, was, according to his findings, the property of Armenians who were Turkish nationals at the time of such destruction, and not the property of their relatives who were then resident in Canada who have proved that they were Canadian nationals at that time. This conclusion rests upon the facts disclosed by the Bryce report and by the findings of the Canadian commissioner, that the destruction of the property took place concurrently with or before tihe massacre of the Armenians, to the number of
600.000.
There occurred, in fact or constructively, a seizure of the property by the Turks before the claimants resident in Canada inherited the property from their relatives then resident in Armenian Turkey. The commissioner therefore finds that the claims of the Canadian claimants did not fall within sections 231 and 232 of part 8, and the annex thereto, of the treaty of Versailles.
The second ground is that by an international convention of November 23, 1923, an international commission was set up at Paris, La Commission Devaluation des Dom-mages subis en Turquie, whioh is known generally as the Paris commission of 1923.
These claimants filed their claims with the Canadian custodian during the term of the late government, and their claims were by that government, through the Canadian custodian of that date, referred to the international commission sitting at Paris. The claimants appeared by counsel before the Paris commission, submitted to that jurisdiction, and put their cases before the commission, offering evidence both documentary and oral. The Paris commission granted awards to certain Canadian claimants for the loss of wife or children at the time of the massacres, but dismissed the property claims of the Canadian nationals on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to support those claims. The documentary and oral evidence submitted before the Canadian commissioner. Mr. McDougall, was practically identical with the evidence submitted before the international tribunal at Paris, and therefore the Canadian commissioner has dismissed these property claims on the ground that the claimants were estopped in respect of claims which they had submitted already to the Paris commission whose findings were against them.
The third ground is that even although the Canadian commissioner were to assume jurisdiction, the evidence submitted to him, including the evidence submitted before the Paris commission, does not constitute proof of the claims preferred and cannot form the foundation for awards by the Canadian commissioner. In other words, the bulk of the claims made by the Canadian nationals, that is by Armenians who were naturalized British subjects and resident in Canada, were not valid because there was no legal title vested in them prior to or at the time the massacres took place, and when the destruction of property occurred, but their claims were based on title by inheritance to property which would only vest in them upon the death of their compatriots and relatives who were massacred in Turkey; and the commissioner holds that at the time of its destruction the property was vested in Turkish nationals-Armenians then resident in Turkey-and not vested in the Canadian nationals who would have inherited by reason of the death of their relatives by massacre. There was no proof of title nor proof that individual Canadian claimants became exclusively entitled to inherit. Some
600.000	Armenians survived and became dis-

Reparations-Armenian Claims
persed, and there was no proof available to show that even in respect of title by inheritance these Canadian nationals would necessarily have exclusively inherited the property. The commissioner finds also that there is an utter lack of concrete, conclusive evidence as to the value of any property alleged to have been destroped.
These are the general grounds upon which Commissioner McDougall disallowed the 270 Armenian claims. A large number of the hon. members are interested in this matter and I am told that it is likely to be brought up again for discussion.
By leave of the house, I beg to move, seconded by the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley):
That four hundred copies in the English language and two hundred copies in the French language of the special report by Errol M. McDougall, K.C., Commissioner on Reparation, upon Armenian claims laid on the table of the house this day be printed forthwith and that standing order 64 in relation thereto be suspended.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Inasmuch as these Armenian claims have been dismissed, is the hon. minister (Mr. Caban) in a position to state when we are likely to have the final report of the commissioner on the other claims? Is it the intention of his department to recommend a vote of money to cover these claims when the report is brought down?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot answer that. I
gave a very conclusive answer to the hon. gentleman the other day as to the number of claims outstanding which have been heard, and those still to be heard. The commissioner has devoted his whole time to this work and at the earliest moment at which it is possible to give a reliable statement, I will furnish such a statement to the house. As to asking for a vote to cover these claims, that would depend entirely upon the final report being approved by the governor in council and the action taken thereon with respect to it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand that the
claimants covered by the interim report have been paid already.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The olaims covered by that report were paid out of an appropriation made at the last long session of parliament for the payment of such awards as were made during the past year. That appropriation which expired on March 31 was used before that date for the payment of those awards which had been approved by the governor in council in accordance with the procedure of previous years.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have some doubt as to whether or not the money voted last year was properly used to pay the claims covered by the interim report; I do not object to the principle of those payments but I do not think the money was voted for that purpose.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman can
raise that question at the proper time. The advice of the proper officers was taken and it was quite conclusive in respect to the legality of the payments made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) moved the first reading of Bill No. 42, to amend the Bankruptcy Act as respects locality of a debtor.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Maurice Brasset: Mr. Speaker, this bill has reference to the province of Quebec and would require a petition to be filed in the judicial district wherein the debtor resides, such district to be as defined by the Quebec statutes. This bill would lessen the expenses of insolvents. For instance, at the present time the courts in Hull or in Montreal may accept a petition to declare insolvent a resident of Gaspe county, and that person is obliged to come to Hull or to Montreal in order to defend the petition. The purpose of this bill is to obviate that trouble and expense.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
^PACIFIC SEALING AWARDS
['I do not want to proceed in that way. I therefore move:\nThat the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:\nThat it is expedient to bring in a measure for the appointment of a tariff board, to prescribe the constitution, functions and duties of the board, and to provide for the salaries to be paid the members, officers and employees of the board.']
Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, an answer
to this question was prepared by the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) but in his absence I think it can be answered directly. The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that the petitions are receiving consideration but whether or not the action taken will be favourable depends upon the decision arrived at after consideration.

Questions



Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: 1.	Is the government aware that the Canadian bants have advanced, in loans or guarantees, the sum of $68,000,000 to the Canadian CoOperative Wheat Producers, Limited?
2.	Has the government, to date, guaranteed the banks interested in these loans in favour of wheat pools, for said amount of $68,000,000, totally or partially?
3.	If partially, up to what amount?
This question, Mr. Speaker, was before the house on May 4, 1931, and was allowed to stand at that time on the suggestion of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that the question should be modified to permit an answer being given. Will he suggest how this question could be modified in order to permit this information being given?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the question now
reads, the answer to the first part would be no. The answer to the second part would depend upon what portion of the first part it has reference to. No guarantee has been given for $68,000,090. An arrangement was made. At the moment I think the responsibility would be $2,000 or $3,000, provided the security upon which the advances by the banks are made is liquidated at reasonable prices. At present market prices there will be practically no liability.


*BEAUIIARNOIS POWER DEVELOPMENT
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Has the program of construction provided for in condition No. 12 of the order in council No. P.C. 422 of March 8, 1929, been submitted and approved by the minister?
2.	If so submitted and approved, will the government table a copy?
3.	If not submitted and approved, when will the government require its submission?
4.	What is the meaning and purpose of said condition No. 12?
5.	What constitutes the "works' referred to in line 1 of condition No. 11 of said order in council ?
6.	What constitutes the "works" referred to in line 1 of condition No. 13 of said order in council ?
7.	What constitutes the "works" referred to in line 1 of condition No. 14 of the said order in council?
8.	Have the engineer or engineers referred to in condition No. 14 of the said order in council been appointed by the government, if so, when and what are their names, what are their duties in respect to: (a) the canal; (b) works to be constructed in the St. Lawrence river?
9.	Why were fixed spans permitted as set out in condition No. 10 of said order in council if the canal is to be used for navigation purposes?
10.	(a) Has the province of Quebec executed and tlie Dominion government accepted the
agreement referred to in condition No. 24; O)) if this agreement has been executed and accepted, will the government table a copy?
11.	(a) Have the plan and detailed construction provided for in condition No. 11 of said order in council been submitted and approved of by the minister; (b) if so approved, will the government table a copy?
12.	Will the government procure from the Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited (a Dominion company) and table the list of shareholders of said corporation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it well to say to the hon. member for Acadia that during the week we shall endeavour to work out an answer to this question. Without giving offence, may I say that the departments do not undertake to construe the meaning to be given to the word "works." I think he will quite readily understand that the administrative side of government should not undertake to exercise the functions of the judicial branch, so we cannot answer those questions asking what meaning is put upon the word "works."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Answered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In part.


Mr. GARDINER:: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that you declared this question answered, but the Prime Minister answered only in regard to questions 5, 6 and 7. If you turn over the page, there are other questions having no relation to what the Prime Minister answered, and I ask that those be permitted to stand and be answered at some future time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said "in part." The
hon. gentleman did not hear my observation.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question No. 4 answered
in part and allowed to stand.


AUSTRALIAN TREATY
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Is the treaty between Canada and Australia still in force?
2.	If so, when will it expire?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1925, provides that the governor in council, upon giving six months' notice to the government of the Commonwealth of Australia of his intention so to do, may order and direct that the tariff concessions extended to Australia by that act shall cease and determine.
Questions

l'assomption-montcalm tested area


Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture intend to establish a reserve zone against bovine tuberculosis, in the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm ?
2.	If so, when will said zone be established, and will it include the whole county?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The area will cover the whole county but the department is not yet in a position to state definitely when the test will commence.


MR. FORSYTH-NATIONAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	Has Mr. Forsyth, of the collection branch of the National Revenue department, resigned?
2.	If so, when, and who will replace him?
3.	Was Mr. Forsyth a lawyer?
4.	Do the duties of this position require some legal knowledge?
5.	If there is a substitute to Mr. Forsyth, is he a lawyer, ex-service man, an employee of the department from some other branch?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	April 14, 1931. A. A. McGrory.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	Lawyer, ex-service man, employed in Income Tax division, Department of National Revenue.


QUEBEC FRUIT INSPECTOR
Mr. LAFLECHE:: W hat is the name of the fruit inspector for the province of Quebec, and does this man speak both languages?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: There are a number of fruit inspectors employed in different parts of the province of Quebec, but Mr. R. E. Robinson is the district fruit and vegetable inspector for eastern Ontario and Quebec. He speaks both languages.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SALARIES OF OFFICIALS
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many officials are there in the service of the 'Canadian National Railways drawing salaries of $15,000 per year and upwards?
2.	What are their names, the position occupied and the salary of each?
3.	What was the expense account of each, including the president, for the past year? .


Mr. MANION:: 1.	35.
2.	The Canadian National railway management does not consider it in the interests of the railway to publish such information.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


MR. RODOLPHE DUPUIS
Mr. DESROCHERS:: 1.	Was Rodolphe Dupuis appointed to the position of pensions advocate at Ottawa?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	By whom was he recommended?
4.	Amongst h.is recommendations, were there any front ex-service men's associations?
5.	What was Mr. Dupuis' military service in Canada, England and France?
6.	For how long did he serve in each case, and in what capacity?
7.	Does Mr. Dupuis' name appear in the Canadian army list?
8.	Were there any other applicants for the position?
9.	If so, were any of these applicants exservice men with overseas military records?
Mr. MaoLAREN:	'
1.	Yes.
2.	1st March, 1031.
3.	The Canadian Legion, the Hon. Arthur Sauve, ME, and Mr. Louis Cote, K.C.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5 and 6. Service in Canada only.
Non-permanent active militia service. Appointed Lieutenant, 70th Regiment, 9-5-15.
Reappointed reconstituted Regiment de Hull and finally retired 11-10-22.
Canadian expeditionary force service. Appointed 230th Battalion, C.E.F., 10-4-16.
Appointed technical lieutenant 7-5-17.
Unable to accept this appointment and struck off strength, having resigned, 8-5-17.
Attached 2nd Depot Battalion, Eastern Ontario Regiment, 17-5-18.
Unable to accept appointment, due to administration of Military Service Act. (Appointment cancelled).
7.	No.
8.	Yes.
9.	Yes.


MR. J. A. HAMEL
Mr. BELEC:: 1.	Is J. A. Hamel, bailiff of Maniwaki, Quebec, in the employ of the Department of National Revenue?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, by whom recommended and what salary does he receive?
3.	Did the department have some trouble with him, and if so, was an inquiry held?


Mr. CAHAN:: 
GASPE RAILWAY TERMINUS
Mr. MARGIL:: 1.	Has the Right Honourable Prime Minister and the Honourable Minister of Railways received a petition from the municipalities of the county of Bonaventure, protesting against the change of the terminus of the Gaspe railway from Matapedia, Quebec, to Campbellton, New Brunswick, and wha.t action was taken, if any?
2.	Hid Sir Henry Thornton receive a visit from a deputation on this subject during the present week ?
3.	If so, who composed the deputation and what was the result of the interview?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	In consequence of petitions and correspondence received by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways and Canals, Sir Henry Thornton was requested to defer action until people of Matapedia had had opportunity to present their case to the management.
2.	Yes.
3.	Hon. Eugene Paquet, Bonaventure; Alex. Pratt, J. H. Adams, and George Lynch, Matapedia; J. A. H. Larue, Amqui; George M. Kempffer, New Carlisle; Thomas Maher, Quebec; John Ahearn, Montreal.
As a result of the interview the matter stands for further consideration.


BULL CLUB POLICY
Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: 1.	How many animals have the Department of Agriculture bought and placed with farmers' clubs under the minister's new bull club policy between October 1, 1930, and April 1, 1931?
2.	Who purchased these animals, and what prices were paid?
3.	From whom were these animals purchased?
4.	Were said animals purchased by private sale or under public auction?
5.	What is the breed and ages of the animals purchased ?
6.	Give the constituency, names and addresses of the individuals or clubs with whom these animals have been placed.
7.	Does this policy apply to all parts of Canada, if not, to what districts or sections in Canada does it apply?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	None.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See answer to No. 1.
. SWINE BREEDING


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: 1.	How many sows have been bought, bred and sold to farmers under the minister's swine policy between October 1, 1930, and April 1, 1931?
2.	Who were said sows purchased from?
3.	What prices were paid?
4.	What percentage of these sows bred and placed with farmers have proven to be
pregnant?
5.	To what sections of Canada does this swine policy apply?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	1,275 sows.
2.	Maritime provinces:	Maritime Live
Stock Marketing Board. Quebec: Canadian-Co-operative Live Stock Producers Ltd.; Canada Packers Limited; Charles F. Mitchell; U. Lauzon; Maher & Roberts. Ontario: United Farmers of Ontario; Canada Packers Limited, Toronto; J. B. Shields, Toronto;
G.	& R. J. Cook, Toronto; Dunn & Levack, Toronto; Rice & Whaley, Toronto; Dumarts, Ltd., Kitchener; J. M. Schneider & Sons, Kitchener; Saskatchewan-Moose Jaw and Regina: Saskatchewan Co-operative Livestock Producers Ltd.; Swifts Limited; Live Stock Pool; L. Willows; Dewey Gardner. Prince Albert: Bums Limited, Milne; Saskatchewan Co-operative Livestock Producers Ltd. Saskatoon: Provincial government; Weiller & Williams; Claude Campbell Comm. Co Ltd. Melfort: A. Dobson;
H.	J. Robson; Saskatchewan Co-operative
Livestock Producers Ltd. British Columbia and Alberta-Calgary:	Adams, Wood &
Weiller, Calgary; Alberta Co-operative Livestock Producers Ltd.; Parslow & Denoon; Bums & Company; Union Packing; Swift Canadian Company; J. Walls. Edmonton: Weiller & Williams Co. Ltd.; Claude Campbell Comm. Co. Ltd.; O. A. Brown; Alberta Co-operative Livestock Producers Ltd.
3.	Market prices.
4.	Estimated 90 per cent to 95 per cent.
5.	This policy applies to all the provinces.


PEACE RIVER CENSUS OFFICIALS
Mr. BUCKLEY:: 1.	Who was appointed census commissioner or commissioners for the electoral division of Peace River?
2.	By whom were they appointed?
3.	What are their ages, occupation and residence?
4.	What salary is paid?
5.	What persons were appointed by them as census enumerators in each district or subdistrict of the said electoral district?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Mr. R. C. Fitton for Peace River North and Mr. Alfred Koch for Peace River South.
Tariff Board

2.	By the Hon. the Minister of Trade and
Commerce.
3.	No information as to Mr. Filtton's age.
Occupation: farm lands, real estate, notary public. Residence:	Spirit River, Alberta.
No information as to Mr. Koch's age. Occupation:	barrister-solicitor. Residence:
Edson, Alberta.
4.	They receive an allowance of $600 each
to cover organization expenses and for vise-ing of the returns made by the enumerators; checking them and forwarding to Ottawa; verification of enumerators' accounts and the general supervision of the census within the district over which they are appointed as commissioner the following rates are provided:	1 cent for each name on the "population" schedule; 3 cents for each "agricultural" schedule; 1 cent for each entry on the "animal and animal products, not on farm" schedule; 1 cent for each record of blind and deaf persons; 1 cent- for each record of merchandising and service establishments.
5.	No appointments have been made as yet.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Are there employees being sent from outside of British Columbia to work on Dominion government work in British Columbia, by the national parks of Canada?
2.	Will the government consider giving the preference for this work to those unemployed resident in British Columbia?
3.	Will the government consider giving the preference to ex-service men on work on the Dominion government highway, known as the Big Bend road in British Columbia?
4.	What opportunities will be given ex-service men to earn a livelihood on this Dominion government work, if any?


TARIFF BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for the appointment of a tariff board, to prescribe the constitution, functions and duties of the board, and to provide for the salaries to be paid the members, officers and employees of the board.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The notice of motion standing in my name since May 6 with respect to the constitution of a tariff board, I desire now to move, seconded by Mr. Stevens. This resolution has been submitted to His Excellency the Governor General; it has been approved by him, and is recommended to the favour-

able consideration of the house. It provides merely for the constitution, functions and duties of *a tariff board. On the second read-ung of the bill, an adequate explanation will be given.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Is there a bill coming?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the bill is ready.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the motion for consideration to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This notice has been standing on the order paper since the 6th May. Is it necessary to make a further motion that we should go into committee on another day? I have seen different practices in the house and a moment ago I was discussing the matter with the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). As the matter stands, the notice has been on the order paper for eight days, and when it is said that consideration must be given on another day, it seems to me that the practice is certainly a waste of time.


Ernest Lapointe: I think we should go
ahead.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only desirous that
the practice should be settled, because clearly I could not give notice to-day for consideration to-morrow, for that would not be ample time; but when I have given eight days' notice on the order paper, it seems to me that to move now for consideration to-morrow, is only moving now what was done in writing on the 6th May. I mention this only for the purpose of having the practice cleared up.


William Duff: The question is one of assent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a question only of
practice.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Notwithstanding the fact that the motion has been on the order paper since the 6th May, the actual notice of it is given to-day. Standing order No. 60 appears to govern the case. It reads:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned until such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
I think the resolution comes within that description.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If Your Honour thinks
it cqmes within that description, well and good. My desire was only that the practice should be settled. It seems to be a needless

Unemployment Reliej
waste of public time to put upon the order paper a notice a week in advance and then move it. This is not public aid or supply; this is merely a public bill involving the expenditure of public money and it therefore must be preceded by a resolution. Whatever the practice is, I desire to have it settled, and that is the reason why I now bring the matter to the attention of the house.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I imagine there will be no objection to proceeding with the next stage to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might point out to my right hon. friend that at any time since he put the notice on the order paper he might simiply have said that to-morrow he would proceed with the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To preserve
the rule is to the advantage of everyone because it ensures at least one day's consideration of an important matter in advance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have had in mind what the right hon. gentleman says, but as the custom of the house is, preceding adjournment, to ascertain the business to be taken up next day, I cannot see that the purpose that is apparently in mind is not served in the manner indicated. That is the only reason why I bring it to the attention of the house although it seems to me that some of these rules are archaic. I remember this matter came up once before and as it did so, I desire to have settled definitely what course the house wishes to pursue with respect to it. I shall be governed by the ruling of the Speaker in that regard, although I cannot think this is one of the cases that come within the rule at all, because it is not a matter of public aid. The Speaker, however, having so ruled, we shall take the matter up to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But with the
assent of the house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to proceed in that way. I therefore move:
That the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for the appointment of a tariff board, to prescribe the constitution, functions and duties of the board, and to provide for the salaries to be paid the members, officers and employees of the board.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I wish
to ask the Acting Minister of Labour whether the local governments cooperating with the federal authority in the expenditure of money under the Unemployment Relief Act are required to make returns in detail of their expenditures? For instance, is the government of New Brunswick required to make a return in detail, submitting the pay sheets, with respect to work done under this act on roads and bridges?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :: The practice that has been followed where work is being done by the Dominion and the provinces is to have a statement from the province concerned, certified to by its provincial treasury and sworn to by its proper officers, stating in every instance that the amount certified to and sworn to by such declaration has been spent pursuant to the act and in accordance with the agreement. It has not been the practice to go into further detail, the department accepting such certification and proof as being correct and proper from each province.


Peter John Veniot: There are no pay sheets
submitted?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.



DOMINION CONVERSION LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I should say to the house
that in view of the fact that the response received to the invitation to exchange securities for the conversion loan of 1931 has for the first three days so greatly exceeded our expectations, and in view of the further fact that small holders throughout the country are just beginning to send in their applications, and cables are being received from Great Britain and other overseas countries where some of these securities are held, we have concluded that it would be only fair to give every person a reasonable opportunity to convert his bonds, and therefore the date named for the closing of the loan, the 23rd of May, will not at the present moment be changed.
Old Age Pensions



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: I
desire to ask the Prime Minister a question, based on a speech delivered by Mr. Val Switzer, provincial organizer for the Conservative party in the province of Manitoba. Speaking at Dauphin on May 10, he is reported thus:
With regard to the old age pension subject, Mr. Switzer said that the premier had not repudiated his election pledges, but that it was a question whether he would bring down the legislation at the present session or at a subsequent one.
The question I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman is whether he can inform the house whether the legislation will be brought down at this session or subsequently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in order that this house may preserve some semblance of dignity, may I point out that such a question as has just been put is wholly improper on the orders of the day. Had the hon. gentleman desired to ask the question that he did, it was wholly unnecessary for him to precede it with a statement from a newspaper as to what somebody else had said somewhere in Manitoba. The question will not be answered.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the right hon. the Prime Minister has any right to accpse me of violating the rules of this house or lowering its dignity. There is no member whose conduct in this house has been more dignified than my own. I have my rights as a member representing a constituency in this house, and I say that the Prime Minister has no right to speak as he did.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING): (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Prime Minister, so that there may be no mistake about the form, is it the intention of the government to introduce any legislation this session with respect to old age pensions, and if so, what legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be answered in due course.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Mercier: May I ask the Acting Minister of National Revenue

if the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. F. W. Cowan, chief of the preventive service, has been filled; and if not, when it will be filled?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman will have to allow that question to stand. I have no personal information with respect to the matter, but I shall make inquiries.


Paul Mercier: But you know that Mr. Cowan is dead?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Since I have been acting minister of that department I suppose I have one hundred or more things coming before me every day. I do not remember distinctly that particular matter of his replacement having been brought to my attention, but I shall make inquiries. In any case it is a matter with respect to which notice should be given, especially to an acting minister who has to make inquiry of his officials as to facta which are not within his personal knowledge.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the hon. minister who
represents the Minister of Labour in this house who are the delegates and advisers who are going to represent Canada at the International Labour Congress to be held before the end of this month. If the hon. gentleman has not the information at hand, I should like to have an answer to-morrow.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am not prepared to answer the
question now, but I shall make inquiries and give an answer to-morrow.



ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Some ten days ago I asked the Prime Minister when we might expect the tabling of the Stamp report. The Prime Minister replied on that occasion that it would be some ten days thence, but probably he would make a statement prior to that time. I wonder if he is now in a position to make that statement.

Inquiries jor Returns


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Stamp report will be tabled just
as soon as a cable is received from Sir Josiah Stamp. I had prepared a precis of the report, but it was thought undesirable to present it to the house until Sir Josiah Stamp had himself seen the final proof of the report which he had completed before he left America.



SMITHF1ELD BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):: May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) if he is now in a position to inform me whether it is the intention of his department to replace the Smithfield bridge on the Murray canal?


Robert James Manion: I did look up that
matter some time ago, and my recollection is that the engineers do not recommend that this bridge be replaced; I say that subject to correction. If the Iron, member will put his question on the order paper, I shall be able to give him a definite answer.
RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION On the orders of the day:


Robert James Manion: May I answer a question that was asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) a day or so ago with regard to the station at Riviere du Loup? He asked me to give, on the orders of the day, the dates -of the agreements that had been made between the different departments and the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways as to the extra works which these railway companies were doing under the Unemployment Relief Act. I wish to say that the report on the Unemployment Relief Act was tabled six weeks ago and gives all those details. I mention that in order that the hon. member may have time to study it and have his material ready when next my estimates come up.
PEACE RIVER OUTLET On the orders of the day:


Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: I do not
like to. trouble the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) but I would like to ask if he has the report concerning the Peace River-Pacific outlet, and if so when it will be tabled.


Robert James Manion: The report for which
22110-lot
my hon. friend has asked is of a provincial nature, and I do not know that I can obtain it. The provincial government has been discussing it. I suggest to the hon. member that he ask the provincial government to supply him with a copy. I might inform him that they have not supplied us with one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They paid for it, not
we.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter John Veniot: I do
not wish to appear to be in a hurry, but five or six weeks ago I asked for certain returns. Probably it was longer ago than that. Up to the present time they' have not been submitted. I have before me a list of the returns six in number to which I referred. We are going on with the estimates. The estimates to which these returns refer may be taken up any day and I will be deprived of the information I desire. The Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) is not in his seat, and for that reason I call the attention of the Prime Minister to these facts. The returns referred to are the following:
Dismissal of postmasters from September
1.	1930 to opening of house.
All papers connected with dismissal of postmaster at Lakeville, New Brunswick.
Papers, etc., connected with mail contract between Sonier office and Tracadie, New Brunswick.
All papers connected with contract, Hatfield rural route.
All correspondence touching payment of fish bounties in Gloucester coimty.
Correspondence relating to appointment of preventive officers at Campbellton, New Brunswick.
I do not wish to appear impatient but I would like to have the returns as soon as possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will see that the matter is brought
to the attention of the proper minister, I think however, the period of time which has elapsed since the passing of the motions is somewhat shorter than my hon. friend has intimated.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The list of dismissals of
postmasters is very difficult to supply because of the fact that the character of the partisanship is becoming so much more apparent that the list changes every day in consequence of the additions which have to be made to it.

Inquiries for Returns


Peter John Veniot: For the information of the Prime Minister may I add that I did not say-


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: That is not very dignified.


Peter John Veniot: For the information of the Prime Minister may I explain that he did not understand my request. I did not say that a period of six weeks had elapsed-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say there was a period of six weeks.


Peter John Veniot: -between the time the motion was passed and the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say anything
about six weeks.


Peter John Veniot: I said between the present
and the time I made my application.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The matter is not one
for debate.


Peter John Veniot: Surely-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The matter has been
called to the attention of the government, and further debate is not necessary.


Peter John Veniot: But surely I am allowed
to explain.
Mr, BEAUBIEN:	But, Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister gave an undignified answer.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This matter does not
require debate. The matter brought up by the hon. member is perfectly clear to the whole house.


Peter John Veniot: But a mistake was made
and a misunderstanding has arisen.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I hesitate to call the
hon. member to order, but I must remind him that at the present time he is out of order.


Peter John Veniot: All right, Mr. Speaker, but I shall bring it up again.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: May I remind the Prime Minister that he was kind enough to promise to expedite the tabling of one or two small returns for which I asked some months ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the Prime Minster
did not hear me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I did.


Alan Webster Neill: 
Ernest Lapointe: The promise still stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend understands that the minister has been ill, and as a result has been out of the city. I will look into the matter and see if I can obtain a report to-morrow.



RESTIGOUCHE RIVER BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: The legislatures of New Brunswick and Quebec having agreed each to pay one third of the cost of the interprovincial bridge over the Restigouche river between the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) if the matter has been called to his attention. Because of the fact that the matter is 6f an urgent nature I know the minister will give it his attention.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I am sorry I cannot to-day give
my hon. friend the answer which he desires. However, I shall investigate the matter and be prepared to answer to-morrow.



CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to appear to be, as the French say, trop exigeant in the matter of a question I asked some days ago. I would like to ask if the Prime Minister has received, since I brought the matter to the attention of the house, the official- report of Hon. Mr. Ferguson's speech, made on April 28 at Leeds, and if so, will the Prime Minister lay it on the table of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any
such official report.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last night at
the adjournment the Prime Minister intimated that among other matters we would proceed to-day with the estimates. Would he inform the house what department will be considered?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Trade and Commerce,
and then Railways.

Supply-Canada Grain Act


Robert James Manion: No, Public Works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, Public Works.


Ernest Lapointe: Those are the only two
departments to be taken up to-day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, Public Works and
Railways.



EXCISE TAX ON CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO

Eccles James Gott: I had
intended asking a question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). With reference to a question asked by me and answered on May 4, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in answer to queries 3 and 4 I find the notation on page 1234 of Hansard that the questions-
-will be answered by the Department of National Revenue.
I wish to advise the Acting Minister of National Revenue that I have not as yet received the information.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators, administration of, $2,681,000.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There was a question before the committee in regard to certain transactions by the board of grain supervisors, and by t'he wheat board, in the years 1917, 1918 and 1919. This question arose out of certain letters which passed between a gentleman named Whiteside and the minister of the day, Sir George Foster. As a matter of fact, the more one searches and looks into this matter at this late date, Ithe more one is puzzled to . know just why the matter has been stirred up in the way it has, because it must be clear to members of the committee that it is very difficult for the officers of the department, thirteen or fourteen years after the events have happened, and it having been assumed for the last ten years that the matter was closed and ended, to place their fingers on all the records, particularly when those records were very largely in the hands of the two boards.
However, I have here a statement regarding the board of grain supervisors, audited by George A. Touche & Company, which shows that the business of the board was very properly handled and all the funds accounted for. Such amount as may have been left, and the records of the board, were handed over to the wheat board which followed. Then 22X10-1011
in turn the wheat board completed its business in 1921 and there was printed and supplied by order of parliament in that year, although I have not the exact date, a complete report of the wheat board, with financial statement. This brought the matter to a finality, and showed a certain sum, approximately half a million dollars, left in the consolidated revenue fund. Under order in council the government which preceded this government paid out to the western provinces 8560,000.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: And to the eastern provinces as well.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, to all the provinces. I have the figures here. The order in council is P.C. 193, dated 7th February, 1925, and the moneys were paid out as follows:
Saskatchewan	 $284,200
Manitoba	 128,800
Alberta	 112,000
Ontario	 26,600
Quebec	 6,440
British Columbia	 1,960
This memorandum indicates that a further sum of $175,000 was sent to the Department of Finance and is still in hand, less a small amount which was deducted for certain expenses, leaving a net amount of $173,235.53. Very briefly that is the outcome of these transactions.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Before the minister leaves those figures I should like to ask a question. He said there was some amount transferred by the board, which was in charge in 1917 and 1918, to the wheat board in 1919. Can he tell us how much that -was?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was remitted to the receiver general at that time $428,781.94. That was the cash in hand, but the records and books and the other paraphernalia were turned over to the wheat board.


Albert Frederick Totzke: No money was turned over to the wheat board?


Mr STEVENS:: No. I notice there was a small item of about $500 paid to the Royal Bank of Canada at Winnipeg, which was a small amount held against some local account.


Mr. BROWN:: So that $428,000 was actually the proceeds of the transactions that had been carried on with those two crops?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


John Vallance: Then I should like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that
8428,000	was turned over from the operations of the 1917-18 crop by the wheat supervisors, what was meant by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) when he stated there was no profit made?

Supply-Canada Grain Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I can very easily explain that to my hon. friend. Certain very small charges were made by the board of grain supervisors for the handling and storage of the grain. They had a revenue, according to this statement, which arose from a small assessment on all grain which was exported, and which was used to cover their expenditures, amounting to S7,302,000. That was the revenue from the handling of 350,000,000 bushels of wheat. Then they had a domestic assessment of 83,017,420, or a total income of $10,320,161.06 under that head. This, of course, was spent in carrying charges for street wheat and for wheat held by or for flour mills. The amount expended in this way was $7,211,112.77. The Department of Agriculture seed grain purchasing committee received $146,000, and there were ordinary disbursements and expenses.
The administration expenses were very small. I commend these figures to the attention of the house, as they are about as good a guarantee as could be secured of the manner in which the business was done. Administration expenses amounted to $183,727.37, No salaries were paid to the members of the board, but wages were paid to employees, clerks and so on. The board secured their offices from the Winnipeg grain exchange, and paid nothing for rental as far as the head office was concerned. Travelling expenses amounted to about 825,000; there were rentals outside of head office; telephones and telegrams amounted to S6.000, and so on. A number of miscellaneous small expenses make a total of $183,000, so that is an indication of a very moderate expenditure in that regard. After all this work was done there remained the sum to which I have referred, which was landed to the receiver general.
Now I should like to make just a brief statement with regard to a report from Doctor Magill which we have succeeded in finding, made in March, 1920, with regard to the board of grain supervisors. Perhaps before I refer to that I should draw attention to a condition which obtained in 1916-17. In 1916 there was a large crop, and there was a considerable amount of tough grain which it was very difficult to market. I think I am right in saying it was the winter of 1916 and 1917. And when the overseas purchasing countries were drawing their usual purchases of high grade Nos. 1, 2 and 3, there, was a shortage of these grades for their purposes. There was a tendency for the market to be cornered. But there was in Canada a very large quantity of this tough or off-grade grain. It was in connection with that particular work, I believe, that the hon. member for South Winnipeg, 
who was then a member of the government, rendered such excellent service while in the old country. I think it was largely through his efforts that satisfactory arrangements were made with the overseas purchasing countries to take this grain off our hands. I recall, as
1	believe he will bear me out, that some of the purchasers over there-and, mark you, at this time they were largely government purchasers, later on solely such

were afraid to risk the transportation of this damp or tough grain to the old country under war conditions, and naturally they were looking for the usual high grade wheat from Canada. After negotiations by the Canadian government they undertook to take this wheat off our hands, and they did take it at an excellent price to the producers.


William Richard Motherwell: What was the price?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The price was around $2 a bushel.


William Richard Motherwell: But what was the price paid by the purchasing commission on the other side? Was it not $2.21 plus cost of delivery in United Kingdom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The prices varied. I have here a statement prepared by the bureau of statistics, showing the average price of wheat in Chicago and in Winnipeg. I shall give these statements in detail to Hansard, and in the meantime, if the committee so desires, I will quote a few figures. For No. 1 Manitoba northern the average price in 1917, Fort William and Port Arthur basis, was 220-5. In Chicago the average for that year was 2-278. In 1918 the average in Winnipeg was 222-1 and in Chicago 2-209. In 1919 the average in Winnipeg was 221-0 and in Chicago 2-35- 2-39.


William Richard Motherwell: That is 1918, is it not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is 1919.


William Richard Motherwell: In 1919 it was under the old wheat board, you know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course, it was a fixed price in both countries. These are the figures that have been given. In 1919 there was a free market in Chicago.


William Richard Motherwell: And in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But in regard to this last figure it must be recalled that, as mentioned the other day, there was a second distribution which brought the Canadian price up to 2-63 or 2-64. That is about correct.


John Livingstone Brown: The initial payment was
2	[DOT] 15 that year.

Supply-Qanada Grain Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. These are the official figures which I have given. I will hand the statements in to Hansard:
Monthly Prices of Wheat No. 1 Manitoba Northern, 1917-1919
Wheat No. 1 Manitoba northern per bushel Fort William and Port Arthur basis (average of daily closing prices)
1917	1918	1919cents	cents	centsJanuary	.. 180.1	221.0	224.4February	.. 169.6	221.0	224.4March	.. 187.6	221.0	224.4April	.. 230.0	221.0	224.4May	.. 272.4	221.0	224.4J une	.. 246.4	221.0	224.4July	.. 236.0	221.0	224.4August	. . 239.1	221.0	221.3September	.. 221.4	224.4	215.0October	.. 221.0	224.4	215.0November	. . 221.0	224.4	215.0December	.. 221.0	224.4	215.0Average.. ..	.. 220.5	222.1	221.0
Note.-The prices shown for September to December, 1919, are as fixed by the Canada Wheat Board. These prices were increased by the dividends paid on participation certificates, viz., 30 cents on July 15, 1920, and 18 cents on November 15, 1920, bringing the total price of No. 1 Northern to $2.63 per bushel.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-Internal Trade Branch
Wholesale Prices of Wheat at Chicago, by Months, 1917-1919
No. 2 Red
1917	Winter Cash
J anuary	 1.902
February	 1.797
March	 1.978
April	 2.467
May	 2.971
June	 2.639
July	 2.331
August	 2.256
September	 2.178
October		2.170
November	 2.170
December	 2.170
Average
2.278
January	 2.170
February	 2.170
March	 2.170
April	 2.170
May	 2.170
June	 2.170
July	 2.247
August	 2.233
September	 2.236
October	 2.235
November	 2.238
December	 2.309
Average	 2.209
No. 2 Red
*1919	Winter Cash
January		.. .. 2.35-2.40
February		.. .. 2.29 -2.31
March		.. .. 2.34 -2.40
April		.. .. 2.54-2.66
May		.. .. 2.75 -2.804
June		.. .. 2.35 -2.37J
J uly		.. .. 2.251-2.271
August		.... 2.23 -2.24
September		.. .. 2.23-2.24
October		. . .. 2.23 -2.25
November		.. .. 2.27-2.314
December		.. .. 2.431-2.45
Average		.. .. 2.35 -2.39
* Government basic prices for the year 1919 were as follows:
No. 2 red winter wheat-223e.
Buyers could pay higher prices than the government basic price if they so desired.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-Internal Trade Branch
Average Farm Price of Wheat United States and Canada
United States Canada Cents Cents
1917	
205.8	193.81918	
206.3	201.81919	
218.6	236.8
Official figures.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister has
given us everything except what we want. What we wish to know is how much wheat was sold those two years and what it brought in the British market. That is really the crux of the whole matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The amount sold was
350,000,000 bushels.


William Richard Motherwell: That is about right, for the two years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: find. The settling of the purchases was made by the British government, through the Wheat Export Company, a public body. Settlement was made direot, through the usual channels, with the farmers here, who got the full amount, whatever it was, less the small assessment which was made. The assessed amount was the only sum handled by the board of grain supervisors. Does that clear the matter up?


William Richard Motherwell: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not.
doing justice either to himself or to myself.


William Richard Motherwell: Possibly not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would ask the committee to note this. I have avoided anything in the nature of the tu quoque argument; I have

not asked, "Why didn't you do it"? May I call attention to the fact that from the close of the operations of the wheat board in 1920 -their report was presented in 1921-down to nine months ago, my hon. friend was a member of the government in office during that period-the government that had all these things in their custody.


William Richard Motherwell: We had not any
complaint except 1919.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The information in connection with forty-five cases was found to have been stored by the government of which my hon. friend was a member in a building down on Wellington street. As fas ns I know, every scrap of paper which was used by the two boards is there. Surely it is not suggested that we, because of absolutely unsupported suggestions-


Mr. DONNELLY:: They are not unsupported.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will pardon me-unsupported suggestions should reopen this whole question and spend an unknown amount in the reexamination of these transactions. If any hon. member or other responsible person will come forward and say that of his own knowledge there are grounds for suspicion that everything is not correct, then parliament would be justified in considering the reopening of this question and having all the documents examined. The committee should not forget that I have here the report of the board of grain supervisors and the auditor's statement of the amount handled by the whole system, which was a system of control in all parts of the world. No dissatisfaction was expressed; as a matter of fact those few years were the most prosperous years we have ever experienced, if we eliminate the war period. It is now being suggested that without any evidence being produced this government, my department and my officials should be able to give a complete statement of the transactions of these two boards operating in western Canada with headquarters in Winnipeg. Let me read briefly from the. report .of the Canadian wheat board, season 1020.


James J. Donnelly: That is the wheat board of 1910?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the title upon this parliamentary document, printed by the king's printer by order. of parliament. In this parliamentary record we have a history of the whole business, the transition from one to the other.

Supply-Canada Grain Act


William Richard Motherwell: I understand those are the records handed over by the board of grain supervisors to the wheat board of 1919.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It discusses the appointment of the wheat board. It refers to the two years previous wherein the transaction had been carried on under the control of the government and the board of grain supervisors. It discusses the armistice; it deals with the activities of the grain corporation in the United States under Mr. Julius Barnes, and it gives the plan of the organization of the board. There is one heading entitled "A Thorny Path", so I do not imagine it was all a bed of roses. It discusses the relations with the United States, seed grain, prospects for selling crops, the course of the world's demand, the decontrol of flour, the payment of dividends on participating certificates, the question of spread, branch offices of the board, and so on. At the end of the report is the financial statement which indicates the expenses of the board. This statement does not give all the figures, that is, the total amount received and paid out, but it does show that there was a balance of some $65,000,000, which amount was dispersed under regulations 1*1)9 and 127 at the rate of 48 cents per bushel on 135,000,000 bushels.


Albert Frederick Totzke: That is the balance from
the wheat board?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am speaking of the
wheat board.


John Vallance: We are agreed on that.
I would point out that the minister is bringing forth new evidence, and I would again submit that because of that new evidence this whole thing should be referred to the committee on agriculture. This matter could be cleared up more easily in that way. We do not desire to take up the time of the committee in discussing this matter.


Mr. SPENCE:: Why does not the hon.
member tell us what is in his mind?


James J. Donnelly: I will tell the hon.
member in a moment.


John Vallance: It seems to me it would be easier, both for the minister and for his department, to handle this matter in the way suggested. I cannot understand why the minister can produce a report submitted by the grain supervisors which gives' the volume but does not give a financial statement. He has been able to obtain that report; possibly he could obtain the financial statement from the same source.


Mr. LOUCKS:: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a suspicion in western Canada that a certain fund was left over, and I would like to answer the hon. member for South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance) in that regard. The farmers of western Canada individually, and not the government received that $2.21 per bushel. As was pointed out by the hon. member for South Winnipeg, each farmer received about $2.21 at his station.


William Richard Motherwell: We all agree on
that.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The hon. member for
South Winnipeg stated that the farmer got everything which was paid for the wheat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So he did.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Where did the surplus
come from that is mentioned by the minister?


William John Loucks: With a volume running
into hundreds of millions of bushels there will always be a surplus, and there was a surplus.


William Richard Motherwell: We agree on that.


William John Loucks: The suspicion as outlined
by Mr. Whiteside is that instead of the government selling this wheat at $2.21 less an expenditure for handling, it was sold at around S3 per bushel, which created a surplus of millions of dollars.


John Vallance: The Hon. Sir George
Foster stated:
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 the world's market price.


William John Loucks: That was on the basis
of $2.21 for No. 1 northern; the lower grades would be at a different price.


John Vallance: It was on the basis of $2.21 for No. 1 northern.


William John Loucks: If Mr. Whiteside's contention was right we would have millions of dollars of a surplus, but I do not think any hon. member of the opposition suggests that any such surplus exists. I received for my 1917-18 crop that amount, less a small expenditure, and I think most hon. members will agree with the statement that the farmers of western Canada as a whole received that amount less a small expenditure for handling.


William Richard Motherwell: The farmers got
$2.63 in 1919 and the provinces received a
Supply-Canada Grain Act

refund on a pro rata basis from the late government aggregating about half a million dollars, resulting from an operating surplus by the wheat board.


William John Loucks: That was in 1919, under
the wheat board. [DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: Why should we
not get it now for 1917 and 1918?


William John Loucks: Let us get this point clear. We cannot expect, as I have already indicated, to get now for 1917 and 1918 what was paid to us individually. When we marketed our wheat in 1917 and 1918, we got the whole proceeds of that crop, all we expected. Are hon. members not agreed on that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William John Loucks: I think we are agreed on
it. I want to ask this question: If we did not get it, why should we wait twelve or thirteen years to raise the question?


William Richard Motherwell: Because we did not know of it until last fall.


William John Loucks: Will hon. members not
agree with me that a man named Whiteside sent out a suggestion, let me say-he had no proof-


Mr. YOUNG:: He had a letter from the
minister.


William John Loucks: -that we had millions and millions of dollars in the treasury from the fact that wheat was sold at a profit of fifty or sixty cents a bushel. That is the contention Mr. Whiteside made.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is the point we
want to clear up.


William John Loucks: That is where the whole
suspicion lies in western Canada. Do hon. members not agree with me the suspicion is, as I have said, that the government profiteered on us in 1917?


William Richard Motherwell: We want the
government to show they did not.


William John Loucks: Are we not agreed to take the explanation?


Olof Hanson: Let us conduct business in an
orderly fashion. One member at a time should address the chair.


William John Loucks: The government could not show in dollars the amount of money involved in the sale of millions and millions of bushels because it never went into the treasury at all; it went to the farmers in 1917 and 1918. The government never handled that money at all.


Edward James Young: To whom was it paid?


William John Loucks: The money was paid to the farmers of western Canada.


Edward James Young: Through what body?


William John Loucks: Through the trade. Through whatever elevator the farmer delivered his wheat to. That is one way it was paid at that time.


Edward James Young: Was it not paid through the board of grain supervisors?


William John Loucks: Not at all.


Albert Frederick Totzke: What did the trade sell the wheat at?


William John Loucks: At $2.21, I understand. As far as the individual was concerned, the money was paid to him in western Canada through whatever elevator the wheat was delivered to. If the minister will forget about 1919 and the wheat board and clear up the 1917 and 1918 transactions, the latter is what the dispute is over; there is no dispute over the 1919 crop at all. It is in regard to 1917 and 1918 that this man Whiteside says those profits were made that we did not get.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The problem resolves itself into this: the minister has before him and has already given to the house the total crop value for the years in question. He has also stated that the average price in those years was so much, but of course the minister knows very well the average price for a year does not in any way indicate the price received for the total crop; that would depend upon the quantity sold at various price levels throughout the year.


William Richard Motherwell: And the grades.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes; and in order to get an accurate picture of the situation, one ought to foe able to place before the committee the total sum received from the wheat. We can -then deduct What the farmers got for the wheat and deduce whether or not there was any profit. Until that is settled, this will remain a cloud over the administration of that time. I submit to the minister that after all the requests are very reasonable; this is not being made a party question at all. All that hon. gentlemen to my right have asked is that the matter be referred to the committee where witnesses may be examined, documents tabled and facts ascertained. I strongly support them in that request. Even my hon. friend who belongs to the minister's own party, and who has just concluded his remarks, considered it fair that we should clear this matter up now. I think it should go to the committee.

Supply-Canada Grain Act


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Would the minister clear up this point-it seems to me we are in doubt about it also? Did the board of grain supervisors actually handle the cash for the wheat, or was it handled through the trade -for 1916, 1917 and 1918? Did they receive the money for the wheat and in turn pay it out to the farmers, or was the money handled by the trade, the board of grain supervisors merely supervising the matter and collecting certain handling fees?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As nearly as I can answer that question from the documents, the board of grain supervisors did not handle the money which was paid for the grain in 1917 and 1918. The board of grain supervisors, by a decision of the board, worked through the grain trade. The only sums that the board of grain supervisors handled were the sums to which I have referred and for which I hold in my hand an audited statement by George A. Touc'he & Company. The total amount handled by them was 810,478,000 for which they have accounted in every detail, with an audited statement from George A. Touche & Company Payments were made to the farmers by the trade through the usual channels. In his report Doctor Magill refers to that and says they had before them the option of two courses, if I am not mistaken, and that they adopted the course of working through the trade. Therefore, as far as I can see, the board did not directly handle the funds.


William Richard Motherwell: They must have
handled some, when they had nearly half a million in overages, elevator fees, storage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was an assessment. Let us get that point clear and then I think we can get nearer to a solution of 'the matter. That was a small assessment they made upon all the grain they handled. Out of the proceeds of that assessment, plus certain earnings they made by investing their surplus holdings in that regard in certain securities, they got a total revenue of $10,478,000. Then they iisbursed that. Most of it was disbursed for carrying charges and then there were certain administrative charges and so forth. That left them with the small amount, comparatively speaking, of $428,781, which was turned over to the receiver general. If my (hon. friend will permit me, may I attempt to make the point clear that out of the handling of that wheat for those two years, the board of grain supervisors had $428,781 left. It was that, plus a small surplus from the wheat board, which constituted what was remaining in the hands of the government. The government
in 1925-and -my hon. friend was a member of -the then government-disbursed that to the provinces in part, leaving still in the treasury $173,000.


William Richard Motherwell: For possible outstanding claims.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were no other funds left with the government than this. The records are, I think, clear on that point, unless hon. gentlemen go to the extent, which I do not think is reasonable, of having a reaudit of all the transactions of t-he board of grain supervisors and the wheat board. That I think all would agree would be a very foolish thing in the face of the evidence that we have before us, which I think is quite convincing that the matter was handled properly and effectively.


John Livingstone Brown: There is one point that
does not seem quite clear. We are told that all the money that the board of grain supervisors handled was that ten million dollars, but it has not been shown to the house yet who handled the money that was received from the sale of those 350,000,000 bushels. Who received that money when that wheat was sold?


Robert Gardiner: Who sold the wheat?
That is the first question that should be answered.


Olof Hanson: One at a time, please.


Robert Gardiner: Then I will go on. Was the board of grain supervisors responsible for selling the wheat, and for making the bargains? They bought our wheat in those two years, 1917 and 1918.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suppose if I read a few pages of this file I could make it clearer, but will hon. gentlemen take my word for it when I summarize in this way.
The board of grain supervisors, acting for the government of the day in Canada, in collaboration with the government of Great Britain and other countries purchasing through them, arranged for the sale of the wheat, but the actual transaction, that is, the passing of the money to the farmers from the wheat export board, which represented the British government in Canada and the United States, was done through the regular channels, that is, through the elevator companies, and so forth. In the meantime the trading in futures on the Winnipeg grain exchange was shut down. The elevator companies, however, were still operating in the normal way, and the report
Supply-Canada Grain Act

shows that they cooperated very satisfactorily in this respect with the board of grain supervisors.
Let me repeat: The board of grain supervisors did not handle the money. They made the arrangements officially, representing the producers or vendors on this side, with the governments of the purchasing countries on the other side. The governments of the purchasing countries bought through the wheat exporting company, and they paid the farmers through the regular channels, namely, through the grain elevator companies and the grain handling companies of Canada. I wonder if that is clear.


John Livingstone Brown: There is a point that is
not clear yet. It is true that the farmer received that price of $2.21 a bushel. There was no question of our getting more out of it at that time, no thought of its being an initial or an interim payment. We received that money. Now somebody took charge of that wheat and sold it on the markets of the world, and the amount sold is stated at 350,000,000 bushels. We are told that that was handled by a grain exporting company. If they sold that wheat, according to the letter of Sir George Foster, at the market prices that prevailed from time to time, the proceeds from the sale of that wheat came to them, and no accounting of that money has since been given to anybody. It is true that we sold that wheat as farmers and took the price of $2.21 a bushel, and were given no reason to expect we were going to get any more, but we did think that when the government guaranteed us a price of $2.21, that, wheat was going to the allies at that price, plus whatever handling expenses were necessary. That was our understanding of the matter. It now appears that that was not exactly what happened.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh yes.


John Livingstone Brown: No, it is not, because according to the letter of Sir George Foster, the wheat was sold on the markets of the world at varying prices from time to time. There was an amount of 350,000,000 bushels sold, and we have no record of what was received for that wheat by the body that was handling the sale of it for the farmers of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think that we are getting aearer to an understanding. My hon. friend has made one mistake. He said that the board of grain supervisors undertook to sell the wheat.


John Livingstone Brown: No. I accept the minister's statement as to that.
[Mr. Stevens.1


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend used that phrase, and I think that is 'where confusion is being caused in the minds of some. Let me read an extract from the report of Dr. Magill, which I think will at least assist in clearing up that point. He says:
For the crop year of 1917 there was no difficulty in this respect. The allies needed the whole exportable surplus wheat of Canada. They were willing to buy the whole surplus at the price fixed-
Which was $2.21, I think.
-and they gave a guarantee to that effect. In this respect wheat was in a different position from coarse grains.
That is 1917. Let us stop there for a moment. The allies, all of them, I imagine, represented through the wheat exporting company, undertook to take all our wheat and to pay a fixed price. Now what was the duty of Canada? One only, and that was to provide the mechanical means of getting that wheat to the allies. What did we do in that respect? We used all the existing machinery; physically, the elevators; from the financial point of view, the banks and the grain companies. The grain companies handled it just the same as they had done in any other year, but instead of going to the farmers in various localities and offering them a price, they paid a fixed price to all and that was the end of it, and the farmer got the full amount. The money was paid to him as he delivered his wheat at the station or at the car. That ended the transaction so far as Canada was concerned. The board bf grain supervisors never touched the money. I again quote from the report of Dr. Magill:
It was different with the crop of 1918. No guarantee was obtained from tbe representatives of the British royal commission with regard to the surplus of the crop of 1918, and when the armistice was signed there was considerable difficulty in selling the balance of wheat still remaining in Canada. Having, however, fixed a price tor the wheat of 1918, and having arranged for the purchase of wheat from the farmer by the trade on that basis, a guarantee was necessary and it was given by the Dominion government.
That was in the year 1918. That guarantee was given in the absence of a guarantee by the British or allied governments, or the wheat exporting company. The Canadian government guaranteed that that price would be continued through the season to the farmer, and that was done. The report continues :	.
Fortunately the allied countries needed the wheat, and in the end the balance of the crop of 1918 was sold at the fixed price.

Supply-Canada Grain Act
That was the end of the activities of the Canadian government through the board of grain supervisors, so far as those two years are concerned. If there is any clearer way in which I can give it, I shall be glad to do so.


John Livingstone Brown: What the minister has
said was done, is exactly what we thought was being done; I say that frankly. But it does not seem to harmonize with the statements upon which Mr. Whiteside acted. He understood from Sir George Foster that the wheat was sold at varying prices from time to time. There is that conflict of statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Suppose we look at Mr. Whiteside's letter again.


John Livingstone Brown: So far as Mr. Whiteside
personally is concerned, I never heard of him till I got down here at the beginning of the session.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think my hon.
friends really wish to embarrass the government in this matter.


John Livingstone Brown: No, we want to get the
facts; that is all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask them in all
fairness this question? I do not wish to reflect on Mr. W'hiteside at all. He is a citizen of this country and, as Sir George Foster frequently states in his painstaking reply, he takes him to be an honest citizen looking for information. 'Sir George Foster, I repeat, painstakingly answered him, and anyone who peruses these letters will find the complete answer in the letters themselves, I am sure, because Mr. Whiteside deals with nothing but rumours or conjectures that are in his own mind.


William Richard Motherwell: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: It is based upon
Sir George's own letter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, no.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


John Vallance: Let me read the quotation.


The CHAIRMAN:: The minister is making a statement, and he should have a chance to finish it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. member give me the date of the-


John Vallance: The minister will find
the extract from the letter on page 1525 of Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is in Hansard.


John Vallance: It is Sir George's own statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the date?


John Vallance: January 27, 1920. It was not ten or twelve years after. The letter states:
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 the world's market price.
Sir George Foster, the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, must have had available all the information that the minister has to-day. He makes that statement emphatically, on which Whiteside bases his whole argument.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot find that letter on this file.


John Livingstone Brown: It is the letter which has been read by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) that has led to all the confusion.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: Anyone
who knows of Mr. Whiteside knows that he is an authority on most subjects. If my memory serves me correctly this very subject was in the press of Saskatoon in the year 1920, 1921 or 1922. At that time hon. gentlemen opposite had an opportunity to go into the matter; they did not need to leave it until 1931.


John Livingstone Brown: I want to protest against the doctrine which has been promulgated again and again in the house this session. It seems to be the opinion of hon. members opposite that because certain reforms were not enacted by the previous government we have no right at this time to advocate reform. So far as Mr. Whiteside is concerned, may I say I never heard of the gentleman until the beginning of this session. We are getting tired of the statements made by the Prime Minister and by the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin and all-


Olof Hanson: Order, please.


John Livingstone Brown: -on this subject generally.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must confine himself to the item under discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: The matter is under discussion.


John Livingstone Brown: I think my hon. friend will get the meaning of what I have said.


William Richard Motherwell: Pardon me, but that is not exactly the point either. My hon. friend will excuse me for saying so, but no
Supply-Canada Grain Act

complaint came before tie previous government regarding the years 1917 and 1918. If the files show the contrary, let them be produced. We dealt only with complaints concerning 1919 overages, and that was settled by sending the money back to the provinces on a pro rata basis. What is the use of asking why we did not cure all the difficulties in
1917	and 1918 when as a matter of fact they never were brought before us? If any hon. memiber can show where it was brought to the attention of the previous government why does he not come across with the information now, instead of harking backwards and forwards. We did not settle the matter because there was no complaint made about it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh yes, there was.


William Richard Motherwell: Why is it not
settled now? Why do not hon. members opposite prove that it was placed before the late government? No protest was placed before us regarding 1917 or 1918. I want to point out another assurance Sir George Foster gave us. Replying to Mr. Whiteside he stated that if after the 1919 transactions under the wheat board were cleaned up there were any overages, they would be sent back to the farmers. Is that not right?


John Vallance: Yes, that is right.


William Richard Motherwell: But was it? It was not Sir George Foster's fault if they were not sent back, I admit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend-


William Richard Motherwell: Just a minute. A new government took office, and that new government, with Mr. Meighen at its head, seeing that the previous overages of 1917 and
1918	went back into the treasury, did the same in 1919. That action was contrary to the promise made by Sir George Foster. I am not holding Sir George Foster responsible, however; he had nothing to do with the
1919	overages when the time came for disposition. Those overages were put back into the treasury of Canada as they had been in the years 1917 and 1918. H hon. members apposite want to know, they may dig up the information and see for themselves.


John Livingstone Brown: I am not criticizing the present government-


John Vallance: And neither am I.


John Livingstone Brown: No, we do not intend to criticize the present government. However, a situation has been reported, and we as representatives of the farmers want to get at the facts.


William Richard Motherwell: Even if it involves only $428,000.


John Livingstone Brown: If I can go back to my constituency and say there is nothing in these rumours, I am content to do so. The minister must understand we are not criticizing him or any member of the government. He does not need the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) to come to his defence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like at this time to deal with the point raised by my hon. friend from South Battleford. My hon. friend has inferred-and I want to be as charitable as I can-that certain sums of money were held back and not distributed. I have told the house that those sums amounted to approximately half a million dollars. Why were they not sent back? I ask every sensible memiber in this house this question. How could half a million dollars be distributed among tens of thousands of farmers whose interests would be measured by the quantity of wheat they sold? What was done? There was about $60,000,000 over, and the wheat board distributed that $60,000,000 or $65,000,000 pro rata according to legitimate claims.


James J. Donnelly: That is for the 1919 crop.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That- is what my hon. friend is speaking about. I think we had better clean these matters up as we go along. The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), the ex-Minister of Agriculture, has referred to a letter from Sir George Foster in which it was intimated that Mr. Whiteside has been assured of certain things. I will read the clause to which my hon. friend has referred:
Now as to the year just passed, 1919, the Canadian wheat board was established with the same interests represented thereon. This board also is in the main giving its services to the country freely and without pay. Of course, clerks, etc., and managers have to be paid for the work they do, but that has to be done whether the marketing is done by the government or private traders, as you quite well understand. The farmers receive a stated amount as a first payment upon their wheat. This, of course, they receive whether the market price goes up or goes down. As in the case of the two preceding years the government, if the price goes down, will be liable for the deficit. If the price maintains its level or advances, the government nor any member thereof receive nothing of that amount.
Then, this is the part to which my hon. friend referred:
After the expenses of marketing are paid, if there is any surplus, as I believe there will be, this is divided amongst the farmers who were the original sellers of the grain. That is.

Supply-Canada Grain Act
under the arrangement, the farmers get all that the world's market price makes possible. Me gets a first payment on his wheat on the basis of $2.15 No. 1 northern and gets his proportion of the surplus which may be left at the end of the transaction.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not the
reference I made. That refers to the years 1917 and 191S.


John Vallance: No, that is 1919.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is in regard to 1919, and it is a quotation from Sir George Foster's letter in which he gave the assurance to' Mr. Whiteside.


John Vallance: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us clear the matter
up. Did the wheat board and the government discharge that obligation? Yes, certainly they did.


William Richard Motherwell: There was still an
overage of over half a million dollars and that was put into the treasury.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am trying to get the
matter down to a narrow point.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
pinning himself down.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Usually my hon. friend
from Melville is not so easily riled.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I try to be
fair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says there was still approximately half a million dollars left. We will agree to that.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question narrows down to what was done with it; was it properly handled.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes-was'nt it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have an order in council in my hand passed in the year 1925.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no dispute about that, surely. We are satisfied with that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the committee is content that in so far as that surplus is concerned it was properly handled we will leave that matter alone.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we have been pleading for that for two nights. Forget 1919.


James J. Donnelly: My hon. friend says that $400,000 was put into the general revenue and was not disturbed; that is what the hon. member for Melville refers to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The amount of $428,000 was sent to the receiver general and my opinion is that it formed part of the total which was disbursed in 1926.
.Mr. DONNELLY: That is for the year 1919.


John Vallance: Might I ask-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now, let us have it right. My deputy is unable to advise me whether or not that was included. However, for the sake of argument, or clarity, let us assume that it was not included in the total amount. Let us understand that it was still in the hands of the receiver general. I must make that answer subject to correction, because-


John Livingstone Brown: It would be very interesting to have the facts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -because my conviction is that it is part of the total which ultimately was distributed to the provinces and of which
8173,000	still remains. I confess I do not know whether it was included or not.


Edward James Young: I understand that a bargain was made with the allied governments that they were to have our wheat on a basis of $2.21 No. 1 northern, plus cost of handling.


John Vallance: Yes.


Edward James Young: That the farmer was to receive $2.21; that an assessment was made of 90 much per bushel to cover the cost of handling, which was paid by the allied governments, that this surplus of $428,000 is the residue of that assessment. Therefore it would be my opinion that this $428,000 does not belong to us ait all but belongs to the allied governments.


John Vallance: I am afraid I cannot
agree with the hon. member for Weyburn. I think when Hansard is read to-morrow it will be found that the minister did read the statement that the $428,781 was handed over to the old wheat board. If that is so, the 1919 wheat board had a surplus of only about $200, because they had less than half a million left after their operations in 1919. When the minister gave the figures I understood him to say that the wheat board received $428,781, so they must have showed a surplus of less than $300.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we can clear up
that point. I said that when the wheat board was organized in 1919 it took over the mechanism of the old board, largely the staff, office equipment and that sort of thing. It did not take over the $428,781; that was paid to the receiver general. I hope we have that clear.
Supply-Canada Grain Act


James J. Donnelly: What became of it?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I have been listening with a good deal of interest to the explanation of the minister. He has very clearly explained the transactions of 1917, which undoubtedly covered 1916 as well, but where did the $428,000 come from? If I understood his explanation, there was no surplus from the 1917 transaction, so the surplus must have come about in 1918.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend
was not in when that part of the discussion occurred. The $428,781 is a balance which was left over, not from the purchase or sale of wheat at all but from a fund which was set up by the board of grain supervisors through an assessment on all the wheat handled. The total amount of that fund was $10,478,000, which was disbursed in carrying charges, administration and so on. After their thirty-two months of administration they had left this sum of $428,781.


Charles A. Stewart: Which
covers the whole thirty-two months?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: There is one point
on which I am not quite clear. I understand that 350,000,000 bushels of wheat were handled, and according to the hon. member for South Winnipeg the British government agreed to buy that wheat at $2.21 per bushel. The question in my mind is this: Not all of that wheat was required by Great Britain for her own use; doubtless part of it was turned over to France and perhaps to Italy and other countries. Did those other countries pay more than $2.21 for their part of this 350,000,000 bushels? If they did pay more, does the minister know just what was paid?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think no one in this
country could answer that question categorically, but the evidence is all against any profit being made in that transaction, because the allies acted together. We have it in the record that the board of grain supervisors were acting with the allies, and Doctor Magill refers to it in that sense. I believe I am perfectly safe in saying that whatever price was paid by Great Britain was the price paid by Italy or France or whoever got a share of that wheat. I think there is no question of that.
Now we may be able to clear up this point of the half million dollars. We know that the board of grain supervisors placed in the hands of the receiver general the sum of $428,781 from the transactions of 1917-18. In 1919, the year the wheat board was in opera-

tion, the following resolution was adopted unanimously at a general meeting of that board held on the 11th of August:
Whereas the board's financial statement shows a surplus of $569,016.13;
Resolved that a cheque be issued for the sum of $560,000 in favour of the Receiver General, to be forwarded through Sir George Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce.
And be it further resolved that the Canadian wheat board, in general meeting assembled, strongly recommends to the Dominion government that the above amount be distributed to the provincial governments pro rata, on the basis of the quantity of wheat delivered by the producers in each of the said provinces to the board, such moneys to be used for the immediate relief of distressed farmers in the western provinces.
In 1925 the government of the day distributed this amount pro rata to the provinces, as indicated.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: What was the date of
that resolution?


Henry Herbert Stevens: August 11, 1921. '


William Richard Motherwell: The government
of that day did not distribute the money; that was done by the following government. The matter was not brought to the attention of the following government for quite a long time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one is quibbling
about that. The general elections came on shortly after this resolution was passed; our party went out of power and hon. members opposite came in.


William Richard Motherwell: A casual reader
would think we were six years in carrying out the recommendation of the board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The facts speak for themselves, and I have the order in council here if it is of interest.


Albert Frederick Totzke: If we admit, as I think
we all can admit, that the government made no money out of these transactions of 1917 and 1918, we must remember the statement made by Sir George Foster in his letter, in which he says:	[DOT]
I do not know whether or not you will take my word for it, but whether you do or not, I can assure you it would have been impossible for a member of the government or the government itself to have appropriated a single dollar of the proceeds of the wheat sales of 1917 and 1918 to their own purposes.
What is not clear to me is this. The minister says the British government bought wheat from the Canadian farmers. Now, the Canadian farmer was paid on the basis of $2.21 per bushel, plus handling charges. Can my hon. friend assure us that that was the

Supply-Canada Grain Act
price at which the allied governments bought our wheat? Because, further on in the letter, Sir George Foster states:
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 the world's market price.
There is the difficulty with us. Did the allied government get the Canadian wheat at the price at which the 'Canadian farmer sold it, or did someone else make an extra profit?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The excerpt read from Sir George's letter-


John Vallance: Of January 27, 1920.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -was correctly quoted.
The facts disclosed in the official report are those I read a moment ago. I fancy it would be more profitable at the moment to take the official report rather than an extract from a letter. I should not wish to reflect upon my venerable predecessor,-


John Vallance: We have not done so either.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -but he was dictating a letter to an individual and might possibly have been slightly in error. But here are the facts as disclosed by the chairman of the board. It might be profitable to read this again. For the crop of 1917 there was no difficulty.
The allies needed the whole exportable surplus wheat of Canada. They were willing to buy the whole surplus at the price fixed, and they gave a guarantee to that effect.
That is as regards 1917. I wonder whether we can close the book there, so far as that year is concerned.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, surely; it was never open.


John Vallance: I should like the hon. member for South Winnipeg to correct me if I am wrong in the statement I am about to make regarding what he said the other night, that when they took over the residue of the 1916 crop they sold it at S3 a bushel. Was it included in the 1917 sales?


Mr. ROGERS:: No.


John Vallance: Then we are now dealing with 1918?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. To proceed:
It was different with the crop of 1918. No guarantee was obtained from the representatives of the British royal commission with regard to the surplus of the crop of 1918, and when the armistice was signed there was considerable difficulty in selling the balance of wheat still remaining in Canada.
I pause to point out the harmony between that statement and Sir George's. But the following words will clear the situation.
Having, however, fixed a price for the wheat of 1918, and having arranged for the purchase of wheat from the farmer by the trade on that basis, a guarantee was necessary and it was given by the Dominion government.
Now then, the British government, or the allies, in 1918 did not give a guaranteed price. As Sir George Foster stated, there was a variation in prices. But the Dominion government guaranteed the price. The reason for this was that there was an expectation on the part of the allies that they would not require the wheat, but that expectation was not realized. The report now goes on:
Fortunately the allied countries needed the wheat, and in the end the balance of the crop of 1918 was sold at the fixed price.
I think we have pretty well cleaned up the whole question.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Is it a fact that they sold all the crop of 1918 at a fixed price?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I did not gather that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The report says:
Fortunately the allied countries needed the wheat, and in the end the balance of the crop of 1918 was sold at the fixed price.


John Vallance: I understand the minister to say that the Dominion government guaranteed a portion of the crop before the allies realized that they needed the rest of the crop that was still there. So that if there is any wheat over it must be that portion of the crop which the then government sold and guaranteed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me quote the statement in its entirety. This clause was not written in the light of Mr. Whiteside's ideas. It was written as a formal report and should be received in that sense and given due weight. Here is the statement.
No guarantee was obtained from the representatives of the British royal commission with regard to the surplus of the crop of 1918, and when the armistice was signed there was considerable difficulty in selling the balance of wheat still remaining in Canada. Having, however, fixed a price for the wheat of 1918, and having arranged for the purchase of wheat from the farmer by the trade on that basis, a guarantee was necessary and it was given by the Dominion government. Fortunately the allied countries needed the wheat, and in the end. the balance of the crop of 1918 was sold at the fixed price.


Edward James Young: To the allies?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.
Supply'-Canada Grain Act


Edward James Young: They took it all?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Albert Frederick Totzke: But prior to the disposal of the balance of the crop, what price were the allies paying?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a question of the interpretation of language. In this clause, undoubtedly, Dr. Magill, when he refers to selling the balance of wheat-that is, with respect to the surplus of the crop of 1918- means the exportable surplus. I do not think there is any question of that. The words,
and in the end the balance of the crop of 1918 was sold at the fixed price,
have reference to the exportable surplus of the crop.


John Vallance: He speaks of the balance of the crop. There must have been a portion of the crop which was sold not at that fixed price, and the government either made money, broken even, or lost money. Now, that is what we want to know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can assure the hon. gentleman-


John Vallance: The government gave a guarantee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -that neither the government nor the board of grain supervisors made money out of the transaction.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Can the minister assure us that no one else made money?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely. Of course, if my hon. friend suggests that there was some dishonesty here and there, I have nothing to say. But the evidence from every quarter is that the business was carried out in the most exemplary manner. It might be just as well to put on the record the personnel of the board of grain supervisors, whose report, I submit, ought to receive weight. These gentlemen were:
Robert Magill, of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
H. W. Wood, of Carstairs, Alberta.
Samuel K. Rathwell, of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
Thomas A. Crerar, of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
William L. Best, of Ottawa, Ontario.
John Charles Gage, of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
William R. Bawlf, of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
William A. Matheson, of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Lionel Clarke, of Toronto, Ontario.
Joseph Ainey, of Montreal, Quebec; and
James Stewart, of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Those are the gentlemen comprising the board of grain supervisors. And here is the

order of the board fixing the price of wheat in 1918-the order which my hon. friend enquired about a moment ago:
It is hereby ordered by the board of grain supervisors of Canada:
1. That the price of wheat from the 12th September, 1917. until the 31st August, 1918, inclusive, shall be-
No. 1 hard	 $2 21
No. 1	Manitoba northern	
2	21No. 2	Manitoba northern	
2	18No. 3	Manitoba northern	
2	15No. 1	Alberta red winter	
2	21No. 2	Alberta red winter	
2	18No. 3	Alberta red winter	
2	15
These prices are basis in store public terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur.
Price Out Of Private Elevators
2.	That on wheat loaded or shipped out of elevators licensed as private, hospital or mixing elevators the above prices shall be maximum prices, and that the minimum for such wheat shall not be in excess of 4 cents per bushel less than the maximum, and that upon all such wheat the buyer shall pay the jobbing charges.
Diversion Privilege-Interior "Western Flour Mills
3.	That flour millers whose mills are located west of Fort William and Port Arthur may pay a maximum of one cent per bushel ir. excess of the above fixed prices.
4.	That the above prices have now legal authority and any deviations from them will be regarded and treated as violation of the orders of the board of grain supervisors for Canada.
(Sgd.) Robert Magill,
Chairman.
(Sgd.) A. R. Macdonald.
Secretary.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I do not wish to convey
tlie impression that I doubted the word of any of these gentlemen who formed the board of grain supervisors, but. in view of the statement made in Sir George Foster's letter I am not satisfied that the farmer in Canada received the price paid for wheat by the allied governments. Can the minister assure us that a profit was not made, say bv the grain companies?
Mr. STEVENS; No, no profits were made by the grain companies. I am confident I can state quite definitely that neither the grain companies, on the one hand, nor the representatives of the allies on the other, profited out of the handling of this wheat.


James J. Donnelly: What was the date of
the order in council authorizing the formation of the board of grain supervisors?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Monday, June 11, 1917.


James J. Donnelly: Was the board to be
formed immediately or at some fixed date in the future?

Supply-Canada Grain Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it was formed
immediately. The order in council was dated June 11, and on July 20 we have order No. 1 of the board.


James J. Donnelly: It was in effect at that time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I presume it went into
effect immediately upon the ratification of the order in council. Order No. 1, dated July 20, 1917, headed "Wheat Price-Maximum-1916 crop," reads as follows:
It is hereby ordered by the board of grain supervisors for Canada that so far as the balance of the present crop is concerned and until further notice, the maximum price of wheat, basis one northern in store, Fort William, shall not exceed $2.40 per bushel, effective the first August, 1917, inclusive from 9.30 a.m. o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: That was the price.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was signed by
Robert Magill, chairman, and A. R. Macdonald, secretary.


Edward James Young: Is that the wheat which
was sold to the allies at $3 per bushel, as stated by the hon. member for South Winnipeg?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member had
reference to the crop year of 1916, which was prior to these transactions.


John Livingstone Brown: Those who are not interested in wheat sometimes think that the farmers of western Canada were given an extra deal in that price fixing, but the committee should understand that the price fixed was lower than that prevailing for some time previously on the open markets.


William Richard Motherwell: It was $2.40.


John Livingstone Brown: For the 1916 crop.


Robert Rogers: Oh, no, the hon. member is mistaken.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is referring to the order in 1917?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member will
refer to the schedule which I put on Hansard a few moments ago he will find that there was a very slight difference between the price fixed and the prices prevailing on the Chicago and Winnipeg exchanges. It was for a few days only that the prices began to leap.


John Livingstone Brown: But for a time wheat did
sell at a higher price than the fixed price.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certain sales were made
in the winter of 1916-17 prior to this control coming into effect. Those were actual con-
22110- 102
tract sales of Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and when the time for delivery came in the spring those grades were pretty well cleaned up. There was a large residue of the lower grades, but there was practically a corner on Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and that, to a large extent, precipitated this order. The speculators, and not the farmers, would have made the profits. The board made a successful effort to take the lower grades off the hands of the farmers.


James J. Donnelly: Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with several hon. members who have referred to this matter already, and state that this is not a political issue. I do not believe any hon. member thinks that there was anything wrong in connection with the 1917 or 1918 crops, and none of us thought anything about it until this letter from Mr. Whiteside was referred to. The hon. minister stated a moment ago that we have no grounds for our argument, but I disagree with him. We have this letter written by Sir George Foster, and that is the first intimation we had of any difference in the price. We knew that Sir George Foster was a responsible person; we had his definite statement that this crop had been sold at different prices from the 1917 and 1918 crops, and that information was not in accordance with what we knew to be the facts. We are simply trying to get at the facts. The minister has stated that $428,000 was taken from the board of grain supervisors and put into the consolidated revenue fund, the same action being taken with the five or six hundred thousand dollars taken from the wheat board. I believe that $428,000 is still in the consolidated revenue fund and has never been distributed, and it was to bring out these facts that we started this discussion.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, there is another reason for our starting this discussion besides the representations of Mr. Whiteside. That gentleman took this matter up before the municipal union alt Prince Albert early this winter, and that 'body, representing all the rural municipalities of Saskatchewan, after hearing his representation, sponsored his proposal and presented it to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister replied and his latter appeared in the press. His reply indicated clearly that he did not understand the situation at all, because it was directed entirely to 1919, about which Mr. Whiteside had not inquired at all. I do not know whether that correspondence is on this file or not.


John Vallance: I do not think so.

Supply-Canada Grain Act


William Richard Motherwell: That correspondence shows that a responsible body like the municipal union of Saskatchewan sponsored the request of Mr. Whiteside, and presented it to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's reply showed that he quite -misunderstood the question-just as it is evident that some hon. gentlemen present do not understand it-because he referred almost entirely to 1919, which was not a matter of consideration or dispute at all.


John Vallance: I am not at all apologetic for having interjected this question at this time. It is a matter that should be cleared up. I want to assure the minister that we appreciate the manner in which he has dealt with the whole matter and his sincerity in trying t-o clear it up. I Still -believe that if we had the privilege of taking the question to the committee on agriculture, where we would not have to occupy the time of the house in dealing with it, we could settle the matter. In spite of the fact that I may have convinced myself, or the minister by the arguments he has adduced may convince me, that there is n-o amount of $100,000,000 that rightly belongs to the farmers of western Canada in this connection, we still know, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Willow Bunch, -there is about $428,000 and some residue from the old wheat board, and in view of the present hard times among the wheat growers of western Canada I suggest that the government devise ways and means of helping to relieve agricultural distress with this m-oney, plus the interest compounded from the day it went into the treasury of Canada.


Edward James Young: May I refer for a moment to the surplus of something like $100,000 that is still in the treasury from the wheat board. I understand that this was retained in case any of the participation certificates held by the farmers should turn up. A few of them have turned up since. I think some of them were sent to the hon. member for Melville with the request that he endeavour to have them cashed. Some were sent to me. I endeavoured to have them cashed, but officials of the department coolly told me they would not -cash those certificates because it was too much trouble to dig up the records. Would the minister look up the records and see that these certificates are cashed, in spite of the fact that it may cause a little trouble ito his officials?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can assure my 'hon. friend no reasonable amount of trouble will be spared to arrange for taking care of any proper obliga-

tion. One thing which I think should be kept clearly in mind is that the money should be paid only to those -properly entitled to it, that is, to those to -whom the certificates originally belonged, or, in case -of their death, to their legitimate heirs.


William Richard Motherwell: Probably I can explain what occurred. I received a number of requests in connection with certificates that turned up after a lapse of a number of years. The government of that day kept the account open for several years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Eight yearn.


William Richard Motherwell: I had some correspondence with the deputy, who is at present sitting in front of the minister, with regard to the question of what we were going to do with the occasional lost certificates that turned up. I cited one instance of a gentleman who had $400 or $500 coming to him on a certificate. He had -been very kind to the government in presenting a whole square mile of land for experimental purposes. After he died, this was all to be provided for in his will and in the registry office, yet we were holding back $400 or $500 that we owed him on a found certificate. I agreed with the deputy that it was inconvenient to open up these files again, but I made the suggestion that a vote be included in the estimates to take care not only of this gentleman but of all the -rest of them which were found. There is plenty of money available to do this. I think it was quite reasonable on the part of the deputy to take the ground he did, and he will find in the department a file showing my concurrence. But there is still another way of handling the matter. In the Department of Agriculture in past years we used to bring down an item covering fifty or sixty head of animals that had been slaughtered, but in regard to the conditions under which they were slaughtered the law had not been complied with. That vote was never objected to and the money went to the individuals who were entitled to receive it. The same thing could be done with regard t-o these lost and later found certificates.
In 1925-of course that is five or six years ago-the then government dug up all the information which was necessary to find out about the 1919 surplus. It must be remembered that the late Mr. Robb had to be satisfied that he was justified in paying out the money, and it is not easy to satisfy any minister of finance on such a point. The evidence must be irrefutable. It took two or three years to do this. It was done, but the complaint was never made that there was

Supply-Canada Grain Act
any difficulty with regard to getting the information. The information was gathered without any difficulty, and as a matter of fact I saw all the documents. That is hardly six years ago. What has become of them since? There should be no insuperable difficulty in getting for 1917 and 1918 information similar to that which was got so comparatively easily five years ago for 1919.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Franly I may say all the documents to which my hon. friend refers are before us. I really do not want to go back over the question again.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not just
catch that, but I understood from the minister in the early part of the afternoon that all the documents went over to the wheat board the following year. The cash went into the treasury of the Dominion; the documents went over to the wheat board, but there is no record of the wheat board receiving them or handling them.
therefore not present in the house when a vote was taken. I wish to state that had I been here, I would have voted for the motion of the member for Laprairie-Na/pierville (Mr, Dupuis).


James J. Donnelly: The hon. member for
South Winnipeg, speaking of the 1916 crop, at page 1528 of Hansard of May 12, says:
We considered the crop on the basis of No. 1 northern at $3 a bushel.
Mr. Young: Was that f.o.b. Fort William?
Mr. Rogers: Yes.
Mr. Motherwell: The 1917 crop?
Mr. Rogers: The 1916 crop.
Again, at page 1530 of Hansard of May 12, he was asked this question:
Mr. Donnelly: My hon. friend said a portion ot the 1916 crop was confiscated, and that $3 a bushel was paid for it.
Mr. Rogers: No, it was sold at that price.
Mr Donnelly: To whom did you pay the $3 a bushel?
Mr Rogers: The people got it. Whoever had wheat in this country got every cent of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Except the auditor's report and these other reports.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a very
flimsy way of doing business, and if the farmers are going to ask the government, as apparently they are, to handle their business for the coming year, they certainly want to know how it is to be handled.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Why did my hon. friend not clean up the mess?
I questioned that at the time, but the hon. member for South Winnipeg still maintained that S3 a bushel was paid. Now I find by looking at page 376 of the Canadian Annual Review of 1917 this statement:
The first important action-
It is referring to the actions of 'the grain supervisory board.
wheat, then in storage, effect on August 1.
at $2.40, to come into


William Richard Motherwell: I have answered
that two or three times. I do not think my hon. friend was in the chamber at the time.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member told the house the other night he did not know anything about it.


William Richard Motherwell: Because it was not presented to us. How can a government solve a problem before it is presented to it?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James J. Donnelly: Just before six o'clock we had arrived at some kind of understanding with regard to the 1917 and 1918 crops, but one thing that is not yet clear in my mind, is with regard to the 1916 crop.
Mr. A. LaVERGNE (Montmagny) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Being indisposed this afternoon I was obliged to keep my room, and I was 22110-102J
f M1916?ANION ThSt WOuld be the price


James J. Donnelly: Yes. There again, we have a variance. The hon. member for South Winnipeg said that we got $3 a bushel, and he made the deal. Now we find by the Canadian Annual Review that we got 82.40 a bushel and I remember that that is what we did get! Whether the government or someone else made the deal and got S3 a bushel and the farmers were paid only $2.40 a bushel, we do not know. There is a conflict of figures again, just as there is with regard to the 1917 and 1918 crops. The Minister of Trade and Commerce of that day, Sir George Foster, said that the 1917 and 1918 wheat was sold at the market price from day to day, and we find that it was not sold at the market price from day to day at all, but at a fixed price of $2.21 a bushel. As a matter of fact, if I remember rightly, and perhaps the minister will be able to confirm this from his records, we got $224 instead of $2.21 a bushel for 1917 and 1918 crops. I may be wrong, but I have an idea that we were paid $2.24. There are such differences of

Supply-Canada Grain Act
opinion, and divergencies of view on the part of different individuals in connection with this matter that even yet I am at a loss to know whether we have got down to the real facts, to what is fair and square. Has the minister any information to give us with regard to the 1916 crop?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend is referring to what I might call a different portion of the 1916 crop from that which is referred to by the board of grain supervisors.


James J. Donnelly: No, it is the same thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will pardon me, in the autumn of 1916 the crop of that year was being poured on to the [DOT] market, and there were difficulties; there is no question of that. My hon. friend from South Winnipeg and other ministers of the [DOT] government of that day were in London at the time, and they made certain arrangements while there in connection with that crop. That was in the winter of 1916-17, before New Year's day, I imagine, of 1917.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The negotiations took place in the latter part of 1917.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, in the fall of 1916,
I am quite certain, and they were dealing with the. conditions of the moment. They made certain arrangements-I have not a record here of what those arrangements were -out of which arose the obvious necessity of appointing someone to take charge. Then in 1917, under the War Measures Act, on June 111 an order in council was passed appointing the board of grain supervisors. On the 20th of July, 1917, the board of grain supervisors fixed the price for the balance then remaining of the 1916 crop.


James J. Donnelly: That is what I refer to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That would be some six months after the incidents to which my hon. friend from South Winnipeg referred.


James J. Donnelly: I do not think so. I think it is the same thing. It was the balance of the 1916 crop that was left over and which was bought at that time, and the hon. member for South Winnipeg said that they agreed to pay $3 a bushel for the balance of the 1916 crop left over. The market was then open; in fact I remember quite well selling some wheat myself for over $3 a bushel at that time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I still must insist that there was a difference between the action of the board of grain supervisors in July 1917 and the action of the ministers who were overseas in the fall and winter of 1916. In this report

of the board of grain supervisors they do refer to a condition on the exchange. I do not know that they give very close dates, and that is one of the difficulties that we have in running these very obscure matters down. But they said:
The effect of all this was not only an increase in the price of wheat, with occasional violent fluctuations, but was in a word the disintegration of the grain exchanges both m Canada and the United States.
The report goes on:
This disintegration appeared dramatically in Winnipeg in the spring of 1917. During the previous winter months the agents of the allied governments had bought wheat freely to be delivered in May and July.
That is what I referred to this afternoon.
Thev bought this wheat mainly, if not altogether, from the operators of country elevators who, as they bought the wheat from the farmers from day to day, sold it for May and July delivery.
That was in the winter months. The report goes on:
Neither the buyers for the allied governments nor the elevator operators -who sold the wheat were gambling in futures. The buyers were providing to the best of their judgment for future needs of the countries they represented, and the sellers were securing their loans from - the banks by hedging their purchases in the only -way known to commercial men of providing against risk. These future contracts called for grades 1, 2 and 3 northern. It turned out that much of the wheat thus sold or hedged did not measure up to these contract grades. As a rule, and under normal conditions, this presents no great difficulty, because the buyers are willing to accept lower grades on the contracts at fair discounts. This, indeed, is a well-established commercial practice. In the spring of 1917, however, the British representatives intimated that they were unwilling or unable to accept lower grades at discounts, and that they would require the contract grades. This forced the sellers to try to buy the higher grades on the open market, with the result that the prices of these grades went skyrocketing. As prices soared the sellers were called for increasing sums of money, and the limit of their credits was soon reached. In effect the market was cornered and a disaster upon a large scale was impending.
To avert this the Winnipeg grain exchange investigated the conditions, found them as above, closed the market for futures, and by the aid of the Dominion government secured the consent of the British authorities to a settlement along commercial lines. As a result die British accepted the lower grades of wheat on the contracts at fair discounts, the discounts were speedily fixed and the situation cleared up.
I think that fairly well explains the situation. It must be borne in mind that we cannot differentiate as to the exact date, because many of these transactions were in the winter, but for spring and summer delivery. When it came to June and July of

Supply-Canada Grain Act
1917, this is the condition which developed. Then the board of grain supervisors stepped in. Having cleaned up the situation the price was fixed at $2.40 per bushel. I think that is as fair as I can make my explanation.


William Richard Motherwell: That is August 12.


Henry Herbert Stevens: July 20, of 1917.


John Livingstone Brown: That is for the balance
of the 1916 crop.


William Richard Motherwell: It was pegged
from then up to the time that the board of grain supervisors started out on the $2.21 price. It was pegged right up to that time at $2.40.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I would ask the minister if the following statement which I find in the Canadian Annual Review of 1917 is correct :
On September 12 the board-[DOT]
He has referred to the board of grain supervisors.
[DOT]-announced the fixing of prices for the 1917 crop of wheat on bases identical with those of the United States for the same grades at Minneapolis and Duluth; No. 1 Manitoba northern, $2.21, No. 2, $2.18, No. 3, $2.15; No. 1 Alberta red winter, $2.21, No. 2, $2.18, No. 3, $2.15. As in the United States, American millers and the allies were required to pay to the United States grain corporation one per cent on the wheat purchased, in addition to the fixed charges, and in accordance with a request from the United States government, the board decided that Canadian flour millers, the allies and other consumers of Canadian wheat would be required to pay, in addition to the fixed prices, a sum of two cents per bushel to the board, and the allies, including the United States, a further amount not exceeding two cents per bushel-the money to be used in carrying-charges on wheat held in country elevators.
I would like to ask the minister if that was the basis on which our wheat was sold, $2.21 plus two cents per bushel for handling; *charges?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, that is correct. I
have an order in my hand which I am looking at for the first time. While my hon. friend has been reading I have turned it over in my hand, and I think this order is the one upon which this statement is based. It reads:
Wheat shipments east from Fort William and Port Arthur; collections to carrying charge fund.
It is hereby ordered by the board of grain supervisors for Canada that for the purpose of supplementing order No. 8 of the board, there shall be paid to the board upon all shipments of wheat by rail or boat from Fort William or
Port Arthur a charge of two cents (2c.) per bushel if destined to Canadian points, and not less than two cents (2c.) and not more than four cents (4c.) if destined to points outside Canada. These charges shall be paid to the Lake Shippers' Clearance Association, the duly authorized agents of the board.
That is the authority upon which the statement is made. Apparently my hon. friend was not here this afternoon when I fully accounted for the $428,000 balance of the board of grain supervisors given at the end of their thirty-two months operations and vouched for by George A. Touche & Company, chartered accountants.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I heard that statement given, but I still wondered how that surplus was made up. How was there a surplus if the statement made by the hon. member for South Winnipeg the other night was at all correct?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the hon. member understand the matter now? There was $2.21 paid for wheat, and in addition to that there was a charge of two cents a bushel for handling charges. Out of that arose a fund of $10,000,000 odd.


Charles Edward Bothwell: My point was in connection with the two cents per bushel. I do not think we understood this afternoon what the handling charges were.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, that is correct. Out of that was built up this fund of $10,000,000, and disbursements show it was made up largely of carrying charges. They are charges ordinarily made in the business, leaving the surplus to which we have referred, which was paid to the receiver general.


Charles Edward Bothwell: There is one other
question which if possible I would like to have cleared up. I find in the Canadian Annual Review of 1917 a statement, that on November 21 the grain board received a cable from London which closed matters up for the 1917 crop. The cable reads:
Have received cable from royal commission on wheat supplies whereby they authorize us to guarantee to you that the Wheat Export Company will accept grain from grain supervisors, all allocations of Canadian wheat for the balance of season, basis of price of $2.21.
Will the minister confirm that as being the authentic cable from the old country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can say that the facts as stated seem to be in harmony with the general reports that we have; but I am afraid I could not verify a cable of that nature.


James J. Donnelly: I must say that so far as the 1916 portion of the crop is concerned I am not able to make the figures agree in
Supply-Canada Grain Act

any way. I do not see how the hon. member for South Winnipeg could have sold 100,000,000 bushels of wheat at $3 a bushel, as he said he did, for the 1916 crop, when in fact he had no wheat to sell. There is something altogether wrong in that. In the Canadian Annual Review it is stated that the price was $2.40. Either the one or the other is wrong. That $2.40 is for the remainder of the 1916 crop which in July was lying in the elevator. That is a portion of the crop referred to by my hon. friend; that is the only thing he could sell. When the wheat was confiscated and taken over he could not sell my wheat and other farmers' wheat and say what price we were going to take for it.


William Richard Motherwell: I think we might stay here until doomsday and not reach a satisfactory solution. Why does not the minister accept the suggestion to refer this matter to the agriculture committee? At such time we could have witnesses who could tell in a minute through what medium our wheat was sold in the years 1917 and 191S, whether it was the export marketing board or the board of grain commissioners. I think it was the export marketing board. I remember discussing the matter with Mr. Dunning, who had a great deal to do with it. There was Mr. Henry Wise Wood, Mr. Crerar, Jim Stewart, and Jim Richardson who could be called as witnesses before the agriculture committee, but who were not all on the board of grain supervisors. Imagine a 'board of six or eight or ten prominent grain men supervising something so thoroughly that you have no record as to what they, received for the wheat, and do not know who sold it or who bought it or at what average price. Is it wrong for us to want to know what that wheat was sold for and who sold it on behalf of the farmers?
This would not be a matter for us at all, since we got the full price we agreed to take, but the understanding was that any advantage in the selling of wheat at this low price would go to the allied purchasing commissions. We know the history of wars in regard to food prices. You have only to look to the American war of independence to see what they had to do to control food prices. See what happened during the French revolution with regard to profiteering in connection with food prices, and the extreme measures that had to be taken to hold it down. We agreed to this measure to hold down prices. May I quote Herbert Hoover without its being objected to? He was food controller in the United States during the war, and this quotation is taken from the Winnipeg Free Press of May 16, 1917. While this is not an authoritative docu-

ment, I would remind the house that the Free Press at that time was no rip-roaring Liberal paper, but was always a reliable paper editorially and as a news gathering agency also. There is a long article here having to do with Herbert Hoover, and among other things it gives the following quotation from him:
If, * however, the whole world, allied and neutral, is to have the unrestricted run of our markets in competition with each other and in competition with the speculator in this country, we may expect to see $5 wheat before the year is over.
We knew that, yet in the face of that knowledge, in the negotiations which were conducted a little later between the Canadian Council of Agriculture and Sir George Foster, he tried to keep the price down to $1.30 a bushel on the basis of Fort William. The Canadian Council of Agriculture finally agreed to take $1.70, which was refused. A little later the government would have been very glad if that price of $1.70 had been in effect, because wheat kept going up until finally the price of $2.21 was agreed to.
This quotation to which I have referred is not from any government file; it is from the Winnipeg Free Press. My hon. friends may object to it, but let them produce anything better, and then we will not have to produce this. I have been securing further information with regard to prices in 1917. I have taken these prices from the Winnipeg Free Press, and you will get exactly the same prices in the Winnipeg Tribune or any other western city daily newspaper of that time. On May 3, 1917, the price of No. 1 northern at Fort William was $2.82. That was just a little while before the time to which we have been referring. On June 1 the price dropped to $2.33; on June 14, it was $2.62; on June 30 it was $2.26; on July 4 it was $2.20; on July 23 it was $2.40. On July 25 it was the same, $2.40, and on July 28 it was $2.46. On August 1 it was $2.38; on August 10 it was $2.40, and then on August 20 the price wa3 set by the board of grain commissioners, until August 31, at $2.40. Between those dates it was pegged at $2.40 continuously. I think the files indicate that this was the period when they were completing negotiations with the United States as to what would be the fixed price for the balance of the grain year. They finally agreed that the price in Canada would be $2.21, and that in the United States it would be $2.17 on a Minneapolis basis and $2.20 on a Chicago basis.
This information is from an unofficial source, but I can assure the committee that as far as I know it is absolutely correct. It demonstrates the fact that the farmers were ready to agree to very much less than the ruling prices of

Supply-Canada Grain Act
that day, and that they knew the prices would go much higher if they were not fixed. However, it was on the condition that the advantage of that low price of $2.21 would not go to the Dominion treasury that this agreement was reached. We thought we had already contributed pretty heavily to the treasury through our taxes, and we understood this advantage would go to the allied nations with whom we were in very strong sympathy.
It would be the simplest thing in the world to let this matter go to the agriculture committee, and call as witnesses the members of this board of grain supervisors. We will take their word for it; they know the price that was received for the wheat. If we. can just find out the aggregate amount obtained through the sale of wheat we will do the mathematical calculation necessary to obtain the price per bushel. We. know there were
350,000,000 bushels sold, so it would be a simple matter of long division to get the price per bushel, but we lack one essential factor; we do not know what was received for the wheat abroad. Are we entitled to that information? If we are not entitled to it let the minister say so. If we are entitled to it, why does he not come across?
This would not be the first matter to be sent to the committee on agriculture. That is not a terrible place to go. We have solved many difficulties there; we have considered and solved the wheat mixing question, the immigration question and so on, and our solutions have been satisfactory and acceptable to all. I do not know a single question that has been sent to the. agriculture committee that has not been dealt with satisfactorily. Will the minister give the reasons why he does not want the matter to be sent to that committee? Does he think it will prolong the debate? I am led to understand from his remarks that these wheat files are still in the department. If he could say they all went over to the wheat board of 1919 and were destroyed as being out of date, we would know there was no hope of getting this information, but we have been told that all the files are in the department, and the information is there to be obtained. Why does he not dig it out? I want to tell the committee that I had some experience with matters of this kind in the Department of Agriculture. There was the matter of the old food board which used to be ragged so badly, over which Mr. H. B. Thomson presided. That board did a lot of good work, and the files were stored in the basement of the Department of Agriculture. On several occasions information was required which was contained in the files, and no matter how long it took we dug it out. We did
not tell the applicant that it was too much trouble, that there were too many files to look over, or anything like that. I am only asking my hon. friend to do in this instance what I did myself when I was asked for information contained in files which were just as old as, indeed older than the files in this case. We do not like to prolong this discussion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: We will stop it now if it is referred to the agriculture committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to see where the joke is. I will tell hon. members that if it is not referred to some committee they must take the responsibility of voting down the proposal, and then they will hear something about it.


John Vallance: During the dinner hour I was looking over some of the evidence which has been .brought out during this discussion. I have suggested to the minister on various occasions, as the hon. member for Melville suggested just now, that this matter be referred to the committee, and therefore I would move:
That item 363 stand for further consideration until the operations connected with the disposal by the government or any of its appointees of the wheat crop for the years 1916, 1917 and 1918 be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization for the fullest investigation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I say at once that
there has not been the slightest disposition on my part to resist the reference of this matter to the agriculture committee. I did seek, however, to point out to hon. members opposite that the discussion has been very broad. I think we have run down practically every point that has been raised, and there is nothing to be gained by referring it to the agriculture committee. If, for instance, there were some specific statements that could be referred to; if there were some point supported by reasonable evidence that there was something wrong, then there would be ground for referring the matter to a committee. Personally I have no objection at all to the agriculture committee exploring this business, but I feel that we have gone to a great deal of trouble. We have gone into the matter from every conceivable angle. I have answered, I think, many of the points time after time, and the point last raised by my hon. friend I can answer in a moment. Now, I think that for these reasons the matter should be disposed of. My hon. friend has proposed a motion which is perhaps not quite ordinary, and I was going to suggest
Supply-Canada Grain Act

before he did so that I should be quite prepared to have one of these items held over- this is constantly done in matters of this kind-on the understanding that any questions left undiscussed could be taken up later under such item. And in the meantime we could consider the question of referring this subject to the agriculture commits tee. If it is to be referred to the agriculture committee, this must be done by means of a substantive motion before the house, with the Speaker in the chair; the subject cannot be referred to a committee from committee of the whole house. That, however, is a matter of form, and I would not put anything in the way. I should not like, however, to commit myself definitely and finally and say that we will refer the matter to a committee in its present nebulous form. Let us try to get together and outline what is to be referred to the committee so that that committee will not, shall I say, be wandering all over the field. My hon. friends will perhaps accept that suggestioh on the understanding that if no agreement can be reached on the matter we will open it again at some future date to their entire satisfaction in committee of the whole. I wish to make it abundantly clear that I have not the slightest objection to the agriculture or any other committee exploring the subject.


William Richard Motherwell: Before the hon.
member for South Battleford replies, I would point out that, apart from the particular subject under consideration at the moment, there are a number of other questions bearing upon this vote which we desire to discuss.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to proceed
with them; that is the point.


William Richard Motherwell: But we cannot
proceed with them all at once.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not complaining.


William Richard Motherwell: There are other
questions connected with this vote besides the Whiteside letters or, better still, the communication from the rural municipal union of Prince Albert, forwarded to the Prime Minister. For example, I wish to discuss the Hudson bay elevator at Churchill. I should like to see it operated by the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is under the railways.


William Richard Motherwell: It is under the
Department of Trade and Commerce as well.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes; all these
elevators are under the Department of Trade and Commerce: that department has complete authority in respect of them. The railway department may, and do, build them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are quite ready to go on with that.


William Richard Motherwell: But we desire to
dispose first of this other question. I would point out again to the minister that, even if the matter now before the committee- Whiteside's letters and Sir George Foster's reply

were out of the way, there are still further questions to be considered in relation to the grain act.


John Vallance: I have no objection to the suggestion made by the minister, but I would impress upon him and the government, as the Prime Minister is already aware, that Mr. Whiteside is not the only individual who has been pressing this question. As has been pointed out by the ex-Minister of Agriculture, the rural municipalities held a convention in Prince Albert in February. They passed a resolution, a copy of which was sent to the government and we are in duty bound to insist that some means shall be found of disposing of this matter during this session of parliament. The minister nods his head, and if it will facilitate matters by allowing the item to stand, as he has suggested, then, as the individual responsible probably for introducing it, I am frank to say that the proposal is satisfactory to me, provided it meets with the approval of the committee.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	I have listened to this
discussion now for a considerable time, and as a member from western Canada I am very much interested in it, as are my fellow members on both sides of the house.
The name of Robert Whiteside has been brought up in connection with the promulgation of this question in the press. It seemed to me this afternoon that there was an atmosphere of apology surrounding the name of Whiteside whenever it was mentioned. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Whiteside is to be commended. What did he do? He did w'hat an awful lot of other people do not do when they write to the press. I am a newspaper man myself and I know whereof I speak. We get letter after letter without any name and often merely with a nom de plume. Such letters must, of course, be thrown into the wastepaper basket. Mr. Whiteside did not do anything of that sort. He made certain explanations and certain accusations and he revealed his identity. It seems to me, there-

Supply-Canada Grain Act
fore, he is pretty nearly all white. He is not afraid to say what he thinks. In a letter to which he signed his name he states:
Every farmer in western Canada is under the impression that our federal government-
The government of that day, of course.
-premeditated and entered into an agreement to handle the wheat crop to make gains for themselves at our expense.
Sir George Foster, replying to this, takes up Mr. Whiteside on the expression "every farmer". He replies to Mr. Whiteside's statement in this way:
Therefore, "every farmer" is too strong, and you will certainly have to modify that, and I am not going to take up my time or yours in controverting a statement of that kind. I do not think you really believe it. It is impossible that such should be the case, and it is contrary, of course, to the fact.
It will be observed that, in this reply, Sir George is arguing that Mr. Whiteside, when he used that expression "every farmer", meant quite literally every farmer in western Canada. But that was not Mr. Whiteside's meaning; he was using a definite term in an indefinite sense. Everyone knows that this is a common characteristic of either poetic or prose licence; and Mr. Whiteside is absolutely justified in using the expression "every farmer" to mean a great number of farmers. He does not mean literally every farmer in western Canada, but a great number of the farmers there. He is absolutely on solid ground and I see no reason for the reply which Sir George Foster made.
Now, that being the case, that point being established that thousands and thousands of farmers in the west believe the statements that Mr. Whiteside made, I think it is rather important for this house to take due notice of every statement which he did make. It seems to me we should do our best to clean up the situation, and I am under the impression that the best way to get the whole thing clarified, to have the problem analysed and properly presented to western Canada, especially to the farmers, is to have it sent to one of the standing committees of the house. I do not care to which committee it is sent. The suggestion has been made that it be sent to the agriculture committee. I noticed, as the discussion proceeded this afternoon, that Canada was concerned, the empire was concerned, the allied nations were concerned. So far as I can see, therefore, this is an international question and might very well be sent to the committee on international relations just as properly as to the committee on agriculture. But it does not make any difference which committee considers it. The matter involves money, and therefore the banking and commerce committee might consider it. My point, however, is this. Will the minister make up his mind to have this question referred to one of the standing committees of the house in order to have it thoroughly investigated for the purpose of giving the evidence to the country and clearing up the situation once for all?
Just one word in conclusion. To my mind, mathematically the question for us to examine is a simple one. We have the number of bushels. That is factor No. 1 in the equation. We have the price per bushel. That is factor No. 2. We do not know the price received- that is the unknown quantity. If you take the number of bushels, plus the price per bushel, you have next to ascertain what we received. All you have to do is to work out that equation: number of bushels, price per bushel: what is the value of the unknown quantity?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The only thing wrong with my hon. friend's last remarks was that he was adding instead of multiplying. But that is a mere incident.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I would direct the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that it is not all multiplication; from his knowledge of mathematical equations he will realize that if it is not addition it is division.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have stated already that I am quite willing that this item should stand and that we should consider the question of referring it to a committee with a proper order of reference. We are not prepared tonight to do that, because every hon. member seems to have a different view of the matter. The only reason I suggest that another item be taken up is that this is a large item covering different activities.


James J. Donnelly: I asked the minister yesterday if he could tell me how much money had been collected for the handling of grain since the grain act came into effect, as well as the amount expended. The impression seems to be abroad that the handling of grain has not paid its way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite prepared to answer that question, but I should like to know just where we stand. Are we going to continue with this item, or is it to stand?


John Vallance: I will withdraw my
motion if the item is allowed to stand.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Would the minister table the reports and articles from which he read

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
so that hon. members will have an opportunity of studying them? Would the hon. member for South Winnipeg table the memoranda from which he read?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In answer to the hon. member for Willow Bunch I give the committee the following information. From 1902-3 to 1912-13 the inspection and weighing of grain was carried on under what was then known as the Inspection Act. During that period the revenue was $1,556,868.13 and the expenditure, $2,131,474.34. The Canada Grain Act came into force in 1912, and from that date until 1930-31 the revenue amounted to $33,027,437.67 and the expenditures to $25,033,860.84. The total revenue from 1902 to 1931 amounted to $34,584,305.80, and the total expenditure to $27,170,335.18, leaving a surplus of $7,413,970.62.- However, there is an item of $10,871,706.69 covering the cost of construction of government elevators from 1912-13 to 1930-31. No interest is allowed on this item nor has any part of the principal been a charge against the total revenue.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I received a letter some time ago from one of my electorate in connection with the participating certificates. I wrote to the'department and received a very courteous reply from the deputy minister. This man claimed that he had delivered a certain number of bushels of wheat in 1919 but had not received any money for his participating certificates. I understand that when the money left from the wheat board of 1919 was turned over to the provinces, $100,000 was kept in the consolidated revenue fund tx>
take care of any further participating certificates. If I am wrong in that belief, perhaps the minister will correct me. I do not know just how valid a claim this man has, but I would like some information in this regard when this item is next before the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will do my best to supply that information.
Item stands.
Commercial intelligence service, including miscellaneous expenditure in connection with Canada's trade, $700,000.


Edward James Young: Does this item include anything for newspaper advertising in Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Could we have an explanation of this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The commercial intelligence service deals with overseas trade and is made up of thirty-five trade commissioners

located in different countries. I have a list of the names of the commissioners and where they are located, and so on, but I do not think these details are necessary at the moment. These trade commissioners act in the interest of Canadian trade, not only by keeping the government and the department advised of trade conditions in the different countries, but by making actual contacts between Canadian exporters and likely importers in the countries in which they are located. I think without exception the business public of Canada speak most highly of this service. The vote this year shows a decrease of $50,000 which is accounted for by a curtailment of travelling expenses.^ Last year a number of the senior commissioners were changed from one country to another and the cost of moving them with their families was considerable. That expense will not be incurred this year, and there is also a little stiffening up of the restrictions on other travelling. This vote is required chiefly for salaries, to pay rents of offices, travelling and sundries.


Charles A. Stewart: Is an amount being expended this year for assisted advertising to seek business abroad, particularly with respect to new products? I understand that a sum of $50,000 has been expended for this purpose during each of the last two years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That will be covered by another item.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What new oflices, if any, have been opened during the past year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only one new office was
opened in the fiscal year 1930-31, and that was at Cairo under Mr. Lamontagne, who was formerly trade commissioner in Brussels, but who was loaned nearly four years ago by the government of Canada to the government of Egypt as an expert adviser in the drawing up of the customs regulations. His engagement with Egypt expired and it was thought advisable to appoint him as trade commissioner in Egypt. His territory would cover the Soudan, Palestine, Cyprus, Arak, Syria and Persia. He covers a very extensive territory and his appointment, we believe, will have very good results.


Mr. GERSHAW:: How many trade commissioners are there and how are they chosen?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thirty-five at the present
time.


Mr. HANBURY:: How many altogether are employed in these different offices and what are their classifications?

Supply-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: To give this information
with the classifications is quite a task.


Wilfred Hanbury: I shall amend my question to just the total number of employees.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are thirty-five
trade commissioners, twenty-two assistant trade commissioners. That includes eight vacancies.


Wilfred Hanbury: Not filled?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not filled, but they are
about to be filled, as the next item will show. Then there are eight junior trade commissioners, one commercial agent, one inspector of trade commissioners' offices. That is vacant at the present time.


Wilfred Hanbury: What are the qualifications for these commissioners and what is the nature of their appointment? Are they appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely. The service
has been graded on a pretty high scale. The system was inaugurated first by Sir George Foster between 1912 and 1920, I am not sure just in what year. The system adopted then has been followed throughout the years down to the present time. The Civil Service Commission call for applications and hold an examination, which is based upon a university degree in economics with a high standing in that branch of university training. An important part of the examination also consists in languages, that is, commercial languages such as French, German, Spanish and, I suppose, some others, but those are the chief ones. I may say the recent examination resulted in 140 applicants passing, all with excellent standing, and there were only six vacancies. Following the written examination the practice is for one of the examiners of the Civil Service Commission and a senior officer of the department to give an oral examination, the object being, as is known, to check the qualifications as to personality and other such matters, and these are all strictly graded by a system of marking. As a result there will be chosen this year the six junior trade commissioners who will then come to Ottawa where they will spend a year in training. After that they will be sent out as assistants to the commissioners in different parts, and subsequently they will be drafted into the complete service.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is any length of residence in Canada necessary for these positions?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Recently the time fixed
has been fifteen years.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The minister has
so well explained exactly what I wanted to know that there is only one thing I should like to ask him in order to complete the information I desire. To whom should the applications be addressed of these young students who wish to enter the competitive examinations? Should they be directed to the deputy minister or to the Civil Service Commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The 'Civil Service Commission.


Mr. SANDERSON:: When the committee
was sitting the other day I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the negotiations that have been carried on for the sale of Canadian wheat in China. If my recollection is correct, I think he said he preferred to discuss the matter under another item. Is this the item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will
recall, he referred more particularly, I think, to Mr. Marler's visit to China. I suggested that it would be better to discuss that under External Affairs, but I may say that Mr. Marler is now in Canada. He was in Vancouver or Victoria yesterday and will reach Ottawa, I should say, within the next week.


Frederick George Sanderson: Has the minister any orders with him?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not quite sure, but
Mr. Marler is quite a capable salesman, and as I notice by the press, he will have some hopes in any case. But I think it would be advisable to let this particular subject rest until Mr. Marler reaches Ottawa and reports to the Prime Minister under whose direction he is.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not quite agree
with the minister that this should come up under External Affairs with the Prime Minister. This really comes under the Department of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I make myself quite clear; I was referring to Mr. Marler's visit. I have no objection to discussing any other matters coming under this item.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is Mr. Lamontagne being
permanently appointed to the position at Cairo?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: I remember discussing the matter with the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce and I suggested that a person more conversant with oriental languages, such as Hebrew, Assyrian and so

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
on, should be appointed, because, after all, we are dealing not with French trade but with oriental trade. I thought if Mr. Lamontagne could be further loaned to the Egyptian government and if some person more conversant with those languages could be appointed, this might be of some benefit!


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will be
most happy when I inform him that Mr. Lamontagne speaks not only English and French most fluently, but also Egyptian and Arabic. That is a fairly well rounded linguistic qualification for the position.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am particularly interested
in knowing whether he speaks Hebrew.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite satisfied all
the Hebrews there will understand him.


William Alexander Fraser: Have
we any trade commissioners in India, and if so, how many?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, one at Calcutta.


William Alexander Fraser: We
have only one trade agent for the whole of India?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is correct.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I be permitted to
ask the minister whether any port in Palestine is to be made a port of call in this new arrangement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend I suppose is thinking of Jaffa. The Elder-Demp-ster line, a most excellent line, which has given us a splendid service to India, was giving us a test service to the ports which my hon. friend has mentioned. That has been withdrawn because of lack of business. Now that Mr. Lamontagne has been appointed to that district, we hope to restore that service.


Samuel William Jacobs: I was referring particularly to the port of Haifa, where great improvements are being made and a very large sum of money is being spent by the British government to make it one of the best ports in that part of the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We did call there, but at present the service is not in operation.


Frederick William Gershaw: As this is a rather important item, would the minister be good enough to put on Hansard a list of the countries where we have trade agents?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall be very glad to
do so. We have trade commissioners' offices at the following places:	Athens, Auckland,
Batavia, Bristol, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Calcutta, Capetown, Chicago, Dublin, Glasgow,

Hamburg, Havana, Hong Kong, Rotterdam, for Holland and Switzerland; Kingston, Jamaica; Kobe, Lima, Peru; Liverpool, London, and as well a special fruit commissioner there; Melbourne, Mexico City, Milan, New York, Oslo, Panama, Paris, Port of Spain, Rio de Janeiro, San Francisco, Shanghai, Tokyo.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have not the
trade policies of the present administration an important bearing on the possible activities of this commercial intelligence service? If I understand the Canada-first policy of the administration aright, it is that commodities shall not be imported into Canada which can be produced or manufactured here. If it is the policy of the government to enact tariffs which will prohibit the importation of any goods which can be manufactured or produced in Canada, I fail to see what service can be rendered the country by these agents in other parts of the world, because, with the exception of a few things that are produced in tropical regions, we may be able, albeit at great cost to ourselves, if the worst comes to the worst, more or less to manufacture and produce whatever may be required for existence in the country and without exchange we cannot trade.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We would prefer our own interpretation of the government's trade policy to that which my right hon. friend has offered as his interpretation of it. Our policy is not indiscriminately to shut out the goods of other countries. Our policy is certainly that Canadian necessities shall stand first in the attention of the government of the country. Our policy is also this, so far as the manufacture of goods in Canada is concerned, that wherever it is possible for Canadians to develop and manufacture their own ressources, they should have every opportunity to do so, and that we intend, so far as we are able, to encourage. But while that is the case, we recognize that all countries, even those following most rigidly the sd-called protective policy, have much trade also with countries outside, and we intend to bend every possible effort to the sale of our goods abroad and to purchases abroad. But we find goods coming into Canada from countries in which our goods are not so largely sold, and that business could well be delivered by a government policy to countries that are better customers of ours. Our efforts, therefore, will be bent, so far as I am concerned in this department, to encouraging imports and purchases from countries that are our best customers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Great Britain?

Supply-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to digress
into an analysis of that subject to-night, but one could give some very interesting data with regard to it. So far as the trade commissioners are concerned, their purpose primarily is to look after the market for our goods in the countries in which they are located, to keep Canadian exporters advised with respect to markets that are open for our goods and the possibilities of sales, and at the same time to keep us fully informed on other activities in those countries.


John Vallance: The minister on the
17th of September 1930, at the special session of parliament, made this statement:
This government is not only not neglecting it, but I may tell them that within half an hour after entering office we took steps to assist in the marketing of and the extension of the markets for western grain and we have . achieved some encouraging results.
At that time the minister was not in a position, he pointed out, to go into any lengthy detail, but as the Prime Minister then intimated that we should have ample opportunity at this session to rehash all that was done in the special session, I would ask the minister to tell us now just what they have achieved and what encouragement there has been.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the government
took office, it was faced with very serious conditions in this country, as were governments elsewhere in their respective countries. We immediately sent out instructions to our trade commissioners throughout the world to bend every possible effort towards the extension of our trade in wheat and flour. I do not wish to prolong my statement and be tedious, but there are perhaps a few things one might profitably say in this regard. We have reports on the subject which perhaps it would not be wise to lay on the table, although I shall be very glad to show them to any member of parliament who wishes to see them.


Samuel William Jacobs: Our loan has been oversubscribed, so there is no danger.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Happily so. The people
of this country know a good government when they see one.


Wilfred Hanbury: And a good rate of interest.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certain facts came to light. One was this: In the fall of 1929-30 a condition arose in Europe which was really an attitude, of resentment rightly or wrongly, against the North American continent in regard to wheat. Rightly or wrongly they con-

ceived the idea that to their detriment we were attempting unduly to advance the price of wheat. Hearing that rumour the European buyers turned their purchases in other directions. For instance, the Argentine got a very distinct advantage, and further we found that many of the flour mills in the consuming countries of Europe-Holland, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, and I think, France-had changed or readjusted their screens so as to mill the Argentine wheat instead of ours. Then this year we found that millers in those countries were very reluctant to change their screens back again. In the meantime the governments of Europe had inaugurated a drastic policy of protection of agriculture in their own countries, encouraging the use. and production of more of their local wheat. To this end they raised tariffs against foreign wheat ranging from 87 cents to $1 per bushel. In addition to that nearly all those countries fixed a quota on foreigh wheat. Furthermore, a strong propaganda was carried on to encourage the use of black bread or bread made from rye flour or flour prepared from grain other than wheat. All these things combined to injure in those, countries the market for Canadian wheat in favour of wheat from other foreign countries. In the meantime, recognizing that situation, we have been doing our best to correct it and to disabuse the minds of the European people of the thought that we had any intention of cornering the wheat market. At the same time we have been trying to establish connections elsewhere in the world. That cannot be done in one year; it must be a matter of development *which in some respects undoubtedly will be very slow. We do feel however, that some progress has been made; in certain instances new markets have been opened up. For instance a market was opened up in Columbia. I will admit it was a very small market, but worthy of mention; and the same thing has been done in other countries as well. Our exports to China this year have been very satisfactory, although the low price of wheat has been more or less accountable for that. The Australian discount has prevented us getting as large a sfhare of that market as otherwise we. would have secured. Every effort however is being made to broaden and extend our wheat market. At the same time we are seeking to establish or to reestablish relations with European countries which were so seriously injured in the fall of 1929 and 1930.


Frederick George Sanderson: Since the minister has opened up the question of export trade for grain and flour I think the committee would be interested if he would give us a report,

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
even if it be only an interim report, on the negotiations with China in regard to selling wheat in that country. I have in my hand a report of an interview with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, dated January 3, 1931. It appeared in the Toronto Daily Star, and was really in the nature of a New Year's message to the people of Canada. Truly it was a very optimistic message. I will not take the time to read it, but I may point out that the Minister of Trade and Commerce covered the ground thoroughly in regard to the expansion of trade and commerce which he prophesied for the year 1931 under the regime of the new government. I have also a copy of the Regina Daily Star under date of Wednesday, December 31, 1930, in which there is a report of a meeting held in the city of Regina at which the Prime Minister was the chief figure. And may I add that the paper carries a very good photograph of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). The report of the remarks of the hon. member for Regina reads thus:
Frank W. Turnbull, M.P., introduced the Prime Minister. The member for Regina stated that he was glad that Mr. Bennett had chosen Regina for delivery of his great message. He reminded the meeting that Mr. Bennett was not only known for his business ability, his success in the marts of trade, his wide experience in legislative halls, and his intimate knowledge of world affairs, but that he also was known as one of the outstanding figures in the halls of the empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am glad my hon.
friends agree with that. Then I want to quote at least some of the remarks of the Prime Minister. During the course of his speech he touched the question of finding new markets for Canada. I have not time to read all that he said, but let me quote at least part of it. The Prime Minister is regarded as saying:
What great world markets then remain unexplored by us? I do not have to suggest the answer to you of the west, who for years have been turning inquiring eyes towards the Orient. There we have half a billion people to whom we should be selling our natural products, yes, and our fabricated products as well. Why have we not done so?
It is not my purpose to-night to condemn the indifference and apathy of the late Liberal government. In its lifetime many difficulties barred the way to the development of a great oriental export trade. Those difficulties yet remain. But as I believe they are not unconquerable, the government of to-day propose to overcome them. We will by all means in our power strive to secure a great market in the Orient for your products.


James Houston Spence: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Parkdale says "hear, hear."


James Houston Spence: My hon. friend has read that extract at least twenty times before.


Frederick George Sanderson: In passing I should like to say to my hon. friend from Parkdale that I have sat in this house now for about six sessions and I have not heard a single, solitary, sensible statement from him while he has sat in the house.


James Houston Spence: And I have heard less from my hon. friend.


Frederick George Sanderson: When the hon. gentleman was in opposition he used to let a couple of grunts out of him every day. Now he gives only one grunt.


James Houston Spence: My hon. friend is giving two grunts now.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is the sum and substance of his career in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: My hon. friend talks nonsense all the time.


Frederick George Sanderson: Now, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Parkdale will pay attention, I will proceed to read from the paper.


James Houston Spence: Well, I guess I will have to accept the punishment.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am prepared to hold this item up for any length of time, if my hon. friends on the other side of the house wish to interrupt.


An hon. MEMBER:: Send for the Prime Minister.


Frederick George Sanderson: The Prime Minister's address is further reported as follows:
I have no doubt but we will succeed. It is purposeless to discuss the difficulties. You know many of them. And it is not in the public interest that I should now disclose the means by which we plan to overcome them. But I can tell you these plans are maturing, and we will not relax our efforts until they are in effective operation.
Then in larger type I find a paragraph to which I would like my hon. friend from Parkdale to pay particular attention:
Our minister to Japan, the Hon. H. H. Marler is, I hope, at this very hour on his way to China to discuss with the government of that country the purchase of millions of bushels of our wheat. Nor will the government hesitate, if necessary, to assist by providing credit facilities and by any other means in its power the establishment of so incalculably valuable a channel of trade.

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
Then he follows:
Do you realize what a great market in the Orient would mean to you? I think you do, but I fear you have come to believe that the door to it which has been so long closed, it cannot be opened. We believe it can. The Orient is Canada's logical customer. We have the goods it needs. We have its good-will. We have a geological advantage over many other great trading countries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Sanderson: Whether or not that means "geographical" I do not know; I am quoting word for word.
And you have a government which will capitalize these facts and on them will build a trade route which will mean a reorientation of the trade of this nation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I did not know you were a comedian.


Frederick George Sanderson: In view of the remarks of the Prime Minister, and in view of the public statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce since this government came into power, together with the fact that Hon. H. H. Marler is now back in Canada, surely the government should have something to report to the house and to the country in regara to whether they have succeeded in establishing a trade with China for our wheat or our flour. I think this is an opportune time for the minister to make some statement.
I will pay this tribute to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think he is endeavouring in an honest, efficient manner, to do his very best to increase the export trade of this country, but apparently the Prime Minister, being leader, has led his Minister of Trade and Commerce up a blind alley as far as trade with China is concerned. If the minister has anything to report I know it will be agreeable news to hon. members on this side and to the whole country. I should like the minister to be good enough to take the committee into his confidence and tell us whether anything has come out of these negotiations with China, and especially whether the visit of Mr. Marler was productive of any results.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I stated before, so far as Mr. Marler's visit is concerned, I think it only proper that the matter should rest with the Prime Minister, under whose department he comes. Mr. Marler does not report to me. He is the minister plenipotentiary to Japan; he undertook the mission to China at the express request of the Prime Minister, and I might say his visit was more diplomatic than concerned with trade.
Questions of trade, trade commissioners under my control and direction and so on, are matters pertinent to this item and to the Department of Trade and Commerce. I may say very frankly to the hon. gentleman that I am not in a position to give him now a report of Mr. Marler's visit. But I will say this, on the general theme: it would be most unfortunate indeed if there were to go out from this house any impression that we treated this north China trade with levity or frivolity.


Frederick George Sanderson: I can assure the minister I am not treating it with levity at all. I am serious.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am speaking now in
general terms. I am certain that in the north Pacific we are on the very threshold of an era of development and expansion which perhaps will surpass in magnitude anything that has been seen in the lifetime of anyone in this house. That does not mean that this year or next year we are going to have a boom; booms are things to be avoided, but it is obvious to any thinking person who is Watching the trend of events that there is gradually being brought about in China a settlement of conditions which inevitably will result in an expansion of trade. I am not saying that we are responsible or can claim the credit for this; the point is that conditions are becoming settled and ordered in that great country. Our explorations and investigations demonstrate very clearly that in north China a really remarkable field is opening up. It is true that with the constant fall in the value of silver the purchasing power of that country has been curtailed, and during the past year the fall has been so precipitous that is has interfered very materially with external trade. However, there is a general conviction among students of the situation that bottom has been reached and that there is likely to be a recovery. I think it only reasonable for me to invite the attention of hon. members to the fact that scarcely a day passes that the public press does not refer to the great international problem of silver currency which, after all, is a very important factor in this oriental situation. I am not going to say to-night that the one solution of the economic difficulties of China and the orient will be found in the silver question; I am not seeking for the moment to discuss that phase of the matter, but I do present this as evidence of the interest that is being taken in this great problem. I say further that the indications are that the Nanking government of China has so stabilized its position that
Supply-Commercial Intelligence

now it can be looked upon as a stabilized government, and there is a strong probability that it will succeed in bringing about an economic stabilization in that country. In my opinion this will be followed by a tremendous expansion of trade. What we are seeking to do is to prepare ourselves to take advantage of that expansion, and at the same time we hope to be of some service to the great Chinese republic. So far as the present year is concerned, we have shipped, chiefly since the beginning of the new year, about
6.000.	000 bushels of wheat to that country. That is not a tremendous amount, but I think it is much more significant than at first glance the figures would indicate.


William Duff: How does that compare with the previous year?	*


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the previous year we
shipped 2,460,000 bushels. I do not want to give the impression that I am just putting those two figures side by side with the idea of indicating that we have accomplished something great. I do not think that is so; I want to get the proper perspective. These
6.000.	000 bushels, in my estimation, are not at all indicative of what we have actually accomplished in the realm of good will.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the minister say
6.000.	000 bushels have been shipped since January 1 of this year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said that was largely so, although I am not certain of the exact quantity shipped since the first of the year. There are considerable shipments going forward at present,


Frederick George Sanderson: What about shipments of flour this year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot tell the quantity of flour shipped this year, but it does not greatly exceed that of last year. However, within the last week I have had conferences with the flour trade of Canada; in fact I have been in contact with them a good deal lately, and special efforts are being made now to [DOT]increase our flour shipments to China. But I wish to direct attention to a fact which I have already mentioned and which it seems *to me is not properly appreciated. Our shipments of flour and wheat to China this year would have been very much greater had it not been for the unusual fall in the exchange values of Australian currency, which has enabled that country to get into the market very much below our prices. That is to their advantage. Their exports of wheat to China this year amount to nearly double ours, something like 12,000,000 bushels.


Wilfred Hanbury: Can the minister give a comparison showing their previous shipments to China?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They have shipped considerable quantities for many years, but this year they have been much in excess of the normal quantity owing to the condition to which I have referred. The point which I wish to emphasize, however, is that the indications are that we are going to have a steadily improving market in China. I have referred to wheat and flour. But we have done very well indeed in lumber also. For instance, we have increased our lumber exports to north China from 20,000,000 feet board measure to 39,000,000 feet board measure.


Wilfred Hanbury: That would be by reason of the subsidy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; it is due almost entirely to that. That, however, I should prefer to discuss under the other item. What is the significance of this figure I have given? While we have increased our lumber sales to China from 20,000,000 to 39,000,000 feet, with the anticipated exports for the current year of
50.000.	000, the United States exports, which, [DOT]of course, are larger, have dropped from
250.000.	000 to 170,000,000. In other words, we have increased our sales to China in lumber while United States sales have fallen off. That, I think, is a very good indication of what I am speaking of in the way of improved trade conditions.
There is much more that one might say. There are other lines which we are getting into China. But what I wish to impress upon the committee is this: I took upon the north Pacific trade, chiefly with China and Japan, as offering a remarkably profitable field1 for the future, and we are extremely anxious that the relations between this country and China in that respect shall be maintained on the most cordial basis, and that appreciation shall be evidenced by the Canadian parliament of the possibilities of a developing trade with that great republic.


Frederick George Sanderson: Before the Hon. Mr. Marler went to China, and while negotiations were being carried on before he was sent there, did the minister satisfy himself that financially China was able to purchase large quantities of wheat or of anything else from this country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We certainly made examinations in 'that respect. I have already indicated that, synchronizing perhaps with that

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
visit, or rtbout the same time, there was, as there has been since, a serious drop in the price of silver which militated against the achievement of all that we had hoped for.


Charles A. Stewart: I am a
little surprised to hear the statement of my hon. friend that we should not say anything detrimental to China for fear of injuring our trade with that country. I would remind him of what transpired in 1922 and 1923, when I occupied a seat on the other side. When something was said about the desirability of increasing trade with China-the Immigration Act being under review at the time-the present minister and other hon. members from Vancouver and the coast did not fail to register a strong protest against the government's admitting nationals of that country into Canada. I mention this in passing to show the difference between sitting on this side and sitting opposite.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will discuss that, if
you like.


Charles A. Stewart: I fail to
see why there should not be a splendid opportunity to sell wheat in China, and I fail also to understand why a drop in silver should have anything to do with the question, taking into consideration the drop that has occurred in the price of Canadian wheat. If silver has dropped, wheat has dropped correspondingly.


Wilfred Hanbury: More.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend interjects, more. I do not see the force of the minister's argument. If we cannot ship our goods now by reason of a depletion in silver in China, it must not be overlooked that there has been an enormous depletion in the value of the goods we have to sell and which we are offering to the public. I repeat, I do not at all appreciate the minister's argument; and if there is an opportunity of selling wheat in China, I do not see that the drop in the price of silver has very much to do with it, so long as our commodities, wheat, lumber and others which we are seeking to sell to them, have fallen correspondingly in value. I doubt whether there will be much of a market in China beyond that which we have already captured. Austrilia is very much closer to that country. We can sell in China our lower-grade wheats from the prairies, as we have always done, and we have sold flour in considerable quantities. I was surprised to read the report of the Prime Minister's speech in Regina when he was discussing this very question. It goes to show, however, as 22110-103
I have said, that there is a vast difference between being in opposition and being in office. Hon. gentlemen opposite are discovering now that there are some real difficulties when once you accept the responsibility of governing the country.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is good for them.


Charles A. Stewart: And they
will find greater difficulties if they persist in their present policy of shutting out trade, almost to the point of exclusion. I want to voice a Strong protest. It will not be tonight-


An hon. MEMBER:: The death knell.
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	Yes;	the
death knell is being rung very properly now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	You	are
doing it fine; I never conceived that you could do it so well, and I shall be delighted to see how you succeed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	You	are
doing it in first class order. Keep it up and you will succeed in disgusting everyone in Canada, as they are disgusted in other countries, with high protection, which in this case is not protection at all but complete exclusion. However, this is not the place for a discussion of that question; I shall have an opportunity some other time to go into it in detail. I would observe again, though, how surprised I was at the warning given by my hon. friend, now that he is in the seats of the mighty, so to speak, to us on this side of the house, that we must be very careful about what we say lest we interfere with international trade. That was not the case when hon. gentlemen were on this side. But, Mr. Chairman, we learn wisdom through responsibility.


Mr. GRAY:: With much that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said respecting the increase of trade with China, due to their increased purchasing power in the future, I agree. But I wonder whether he seriously wishes to leave the impression in this house that there will be any large increase in the purchases of wheat from this country by China. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I am reliably informed that China at the present time is producing in the north sufficient wheat to meet its own needs. Moreover, China is not a wheat-eating nation. The people live largely on maize and rice cakes, and it would take years of education



Supply-Commercial Intelligence
to cultivate among them a genuine taste for bread made from our flour. Is the minister really serious in his assertion to-night that, as the Prime Minister has intimated, we have a market there for millions upon millions of bushels of our grain? Is he serious in that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is a little awry in some of his facts. As a matter of fact, China produced last year-at least she produced in one year recently-about 600,000,000 bushels of wheat. That, of course, is not anything like sufficient to supply requirements. It is practically all of the soft variety. The belief that the Chinese are almost exclusively a rice eating people is not correct. Generally speaking, they will eat rice in preference to wheat and other cereals if the rice is cheaper, but within China wheat is usually cheaper than rice. These facts are not generally known or accepted.


Wilfred Hanbury: That is Chinese wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot agree with the
statement of my hon. friend that it would necessitate a serious process of dietetic education to induce the Chinese to use flour. Two different grades of flour are required in China. In southern China it is used mostly for what they call noodles and other forms of pastry which call for a soft variety. Farther north they use rolls and other forms of bread, which call for a different grade. The milling industry is exploring this enlarging market in the north. I say with perfect candour to the committee, as I did the other night, that there are those who seem to hold to the view that the Chinese will never import much wheat, that we have reached the point of saturation. I do not concur in that view. We intend to press the sale of Canadian flour and wheat in the Chinese market.


Edward James Young: Does the minister expect
that China will pay largely with silver for the wheat he hopes to sell? Does he hope by some international action to increase the value of silver? If he should succeed in that, then would we not be forced to take just half as much silver in exchange for our wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no desire to get
into an academic discussion of obscure economics. In the first place I did not say that we were going to sell wheat for silver only.


Edward James Young: I said "largely."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or even largely.


Edward James Young: Will the minister take
goods in exchange?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, my free trade friend, we will take goods in exchange.


Edward James Young: Will the minister let them
come into Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will let as much
come in as we require and as we are able to use intelligently.


Mr. CAYLEY:: The hon. minister has intimated a possible increase in the trade with China in wheat and lumber. What will Canada purchase in return?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will outline what we
are buying.


An hon. MEMBER:: Laundries.


An hon. MEMBER:: Rattles for the hon.
members over there.


Edward James Young: We did not hear that
remark.


Henry Herbert Stevens: First there are peanuts,
which my hon. friend can put in his pocket and take to the zoo; we imported about $996,000 worth last year.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister told us that
we must not treat this subject with levity.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am talking about imports, not exports. Then a small quantity of vegetables, amounting to nineteen or twenty thousand dollars.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about tea?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Strange to say, that item is not very large.


Samuel William Jacobs: It comes from Ceylon and India.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We may have an opportunity to expand our trade in tea.


Edward James Young: And take it away from the empire?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We could get it from
Hongkong. The imports last year of this commodity amounted to 370,000 pounds, with a value of $63,000. Imports of oil for refining amounted to $138,000. There are a large number of items here, such as drugs, bones or ivory, dried fish, and $107,000 worth of undressed furs.


Samuel William Jacobs: Those may be coming from
Russia via China.

Supply-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, they come from
China. When I was in China many years ago I saw some of the finest furs I have ever seen in any country in the world.


Samuel William Jacobs: Were they on the animals
when you saw them?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but on human
animals. Here is an item which will interest my hon. friend-bristles.


Samuel William Jacobs: I rise to a point of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Another item, manufactures of hair.


William Richard Motherwell: That is for me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. Then cotton laces,
cotton clothing, silk manufactures, a small quantity of furniture, manufactures of paper. This last item covers that fine paper usually termed India paper. There are small items covering books and printed matter, drugs and medicinal preparations.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does that include opium?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the item is too small for that. I am afraid that most of the opium comes in through the underground route.


Eugène Fiset: Ginseng.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The total imports made
up of miscellaneous items amount to about



S3.000,000.

Wilfred Hanbury: What is the total value
of the imports during the past five years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not the information for the past five years, but for the past two years it has been about $3,000,000 per year.


Wilfred Hanbury: And Canada expects to
expand her trade in wheat and lumber?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For some years China
has been in a very depressed economic condition, but we are convinced that she is now on the threshold of a renewed or stabilized economic life. That may not develop rapidly, but in my estimation China offers one Of the finest virgin fields for the development of trade in the whole world.


Samuel William Jacobs: That $3,000,000 compares
with $50,000,000 of trade with Japan. Is that difference due to the fact that we have a minister in Japan and have not one in China?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid my hon.
friend is out in his figures. The imports from Japan amounted to $12,000,000, not $50,000,000.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is for last year?
22110-103J


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, for last year and the year before.	'


Samuel William Jacobs: I understood our trade amounted to about $50,000,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is considerably astray.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I have listened with
much interest to this discussion on our export trade, and I appreciate the interest taken therein. For many years we have been looking eastward for a potential market, and we trust our hopes will be realized. The minister mentioned the diversion of British purchases of wheat from North America to other countries including the Argentine, and indicated as one possible reason the impression which had arisen in Great Britain that possibly we were holding up the price of wheat beyond what might be considered a reasonable figure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to be put in the wrong light; I was referring to the European importing countries rather than to Great Britain. I just want to make that correction.


Alfred Speakman: I apologize; I rather misunderstood. I was going to ask the minister whether the diversion-which we of course must recognize-of a part of the British purchases of wheat from Canada to the Argentine republic, was not due to the, necessity on the part of Great Britain of buying more largely from those countries which could accept more largely her own goods in exchange. I am not now speaking politically at all; I am not even discussing the effect of political policies; I am simply suggesting something that has become an obvious fact. It is a much simpler matter to carry on international trade in a large way as between an industrial country and a country that is almost purely agricultural, than between two countries both of which are largely industrial. In the last thirteen years-and I am discussing this from the point of view not of political policy but of actual fact-we are finding that we do not offer the same opportunity for extended trade with industrial countries as we did thirty or forty years ago. Possibly the minister will agree that one difficulty in the way of our trade with Great Britain and one advantage which an almost purely agricultural country like the Argentine republic must enjoy, is the necessity on the part of Great Britain to' purchase their goods in order that they may be able to purchase hers.

Supply-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. friend in his analysis. He has overlooked entirely two important factors in our trade with Great Britain. One is the interest we owe, which amounts, roughly speaking, to $100,000,000 a year.


Alfred Speakman: I appreciate that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then there is the amount, which I have estimated, in the best examination I could make of the figures, as being between $100,000,000 and $150,000,000 a year, that we are bound to pay Great Britain for carrying charges. Great Britain's excess of imports over exports, which has been so marked in many years, is largely due to the income she is receiving from carrying charges and interest. Taking the figures I have given, we should have an excess of exports to Great Britain over imports of approximately $250,000,000 a year to break even. Our trade with Britain, therefore, is on a more even basis than is generally admitted [DOT]or understood. I believe our trade relations with Great Britain are on a very sound economic basis. We are hoping to improve them somewhat by the policy that we are following, which will no doubt be discussed when the budget is brought down.


Alfred Speakman: I do not want the minister to imagine for a moment that I did not take into account such items as interest charges and so on, which during past years have certainly helped out the balance of trade and made up the difference in that regard. But the fact remains that during the last two or three years there has been a great diversion of wheat purchases on the part of Great Britain from Canada to other countries, including the Argentine, and more lately Russia. There must be a reason. It may be the difference in price, but I still believe, although the minister does not agree with me, that another factor is the greater ease with which Great Britain can sell her goods in those countries which are not themselves very largely manufacturing the goods which Great Britain has to sell.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were two main factors. One was the fact that Argentine money was at a discount of as much as 30 per cent. That was a very important factor. The other was this-and I do not want to harp on it- the British grain trade were tremendously hurt, whether rightly or wrongly I am not expressing an opinion, at the attitude of the grain trade of Canada in the fall of 1929. I had meetings with the corn exchange of London seeking to iron this out. We had

representatives meet them and give them a clear statement of the western position, but I doubt whether it made a great impression on their minds or immediately removed the prejudice. With the change, however, that has been brought about in the last three or four months, there is a marked difference in British corn circles, if I might so describe them, towards Canada, and I think a marked improvement in the attitude towards the Canadian grain trade.


Alfred Speakman: Is there a marked improvement in the proportion of Canadian grain purchased?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I think the whole
situation is likely to be corrected.


Alfred Speakman: Even with the Russian wheat purchases, which are growing very rapidly?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Wilfred Hanbury: By "carrying charges" I presume the minister means transportation and insurance?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Services generally.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister stated that the grain trade in Great Britain in the fall of 1929 rather resented what they felt was being done to them by the grain trade of Canada-


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the United States.


Wilfred Hanbury: I would ask the minister whether the grain trade in Great Britain did not change their attitude and feel very grateful to the Canadian people following the bringing down of the Dunning Budget?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should not like to be asked to give an endorsation of the Dunning budget.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister referred to the attitude, at one particular period, of the British buyer toward the Canadian grain trade.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall answer my hon. [DOT]friend, and I do it reluctantly. The .time I speak of was the months of October and November.	-


Wilfred Hanbury: 1929?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 1930; last year when I was there.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister referred to 1929 when he was speaking of the date at which they took exception to our methods.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and the Dunning
budget came down in May, 1930. I was overseas in October and November, 1930.

Supply-Commercial Intelligence


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After the general election.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and after the Dunning budget.


Edward James Young: And after the tariff was raised.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I found just what I stated, but. I never intimated that the Dunning budget had any influence one way or the other. The point I was making was that rightly or wrongly the impression was abroad that the Canadian and United States grain interests as a whole had not dealt fairly with the purchasing countries of Europe. That was the impression. I do not wish to be misrepresented in this. I took to a conference highly representative men of western Canada and I thought they made a most excellent presentation of their case; but I say again that I doubt whether it made any impression in the way of removing the prejudice from the corn exchange of London, Liverpool and other centres. I say that regretfully, but that was the fact and that was a very important factor in the falling off of purchases of Canadian grain on the European market.
But there has been a change in that situation. The grain trade of western Canada has changed its policy in regard to marketing in Europe and Great Britain, and that has been followed without question by a very much better feeling over there. I think happily the former splendid relations will be restored.


William Richard Motherwell: With Mr. Mac-
Farlane in charge of the selling, selling the grain at anything he can get for it, shooting it over as fast as they will accept it, of course one would expect they would be feeling better about (the matter. But it was only by a departure from the original policy of the pool that that was accomplished. They were trying to get as directly as possible in touch with the consumer and cutting out as far as possible the middleman-quite a commendable attitude for them to take in view of their cooperative character. But now it is under the administration of a regular grain trade salesman and a very good man. I am not criticizing him. An entirely new order has been introduced and of course more wheat is being sold, but at what price?


John Vallance: Are we to understand it was because of the negotiations that were made during the Imperial conference by those who were taken over in the interests of the grain trade that the entire sales policy was changed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot speak for the change in the policy of the pool.


Milton Neil Campbell: During the last few
months I have been reading articles in the newspapers about an arrangement supposed to have been made between the minister and the Prime Minister of South Africa while they were in London attending the Imperial conference. The story carried in the newspapers was that this involved an enormous importation of manganese from South Africa, and the sale of large quantities of Canadian lumber to South Africa. The manganese, according to the papers, was to be refined in a refinery to be built in Montreal, and then shipped to the United- States. I Wonder if the minister could tell us anything about that arrangement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a question just how far one is justified in discussing a subject which is substantially a matter of private business and private enterprise. The department, so long as I am the head of it, is prepared to lend every assistance and cooperation to any Canadian industry in the extension of its trade and business; but inorder to do that, I confess, one should ber* very careful in what one says in regard to=' any negotiations that may be carried on.. There has been a certain amount of publicity with respect to this matter, however; and it may not be out of place to make a brief statement.
While I was in England I was approached by certain Canadians and asked if I could assist them in getting contact with those who might supply them with manganese ore. I took the matter up with the colonial office and secured a direct contact 'between these Canadians and east South Africa, where the manganese ore is located. The contact was made, and out of that has grown a proposal which it is hoped will be successful. I question very much the advisability of premature publicity, but what was in mind was the establishment of a large plant near Montreal which would refine from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand tons of manganese ore a year. That would mean the bringing in of that much ore from east South Africa each year. We then explored the possibility of return cargoes. Our South African trade at the present time is rather one-sided, we shipping much more to South Africa than we get in return. We are improving that, though, by taking sugar and some other articles which they are now producing successfully. If this manganese business develops, the situation will be reversed, and we would have empty space on the

16 IS
Supply-Commercial Intelligence
return trip to South Africa. I then took up the question of lumber as a return cargo, and we are still working on that phase. It would have to be lumber from eastern Canada, because we are already shipping the heavy types of lumber from western Canada; that is a direct line. It is hoped that we can find lumber in eastern Canada which will be able to compete with Swedish, Norwegian and other classes of lumber. I would not care to say anything more than that. The matter is going ahead, and so far as my department is concerned, it is rendering every assistance possible in the development of this trade.


Mr. REID:: A few moments ago the minister spoke of our grain trade with China as compared with Australia's. Is it not a fact that for the past number of years Australia has done a greater trade in grain and flour with China than Canada has? Was not that the case even before Australian money was at such a discount as it is to-day. I was wondering what method the minister intended to pursue to increase our trade in grain and flour with China in competition with Australia, all things being equal. My information is that for a number of years past Australia has always done a greater trade in grain and flour in China than we have.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not the Australian export and import figures under my hand. I have said two or three times already that the Australians certainly got a large share of the China grain trade this year, due to the heavy discount to which Australia exchange is subjected at this time. As to the methods, I have been trying to explain as well as I could for the last hour what we are trying to do. We shall follow our usual method in dealing with this matter, use our trade commissioners' offices and render to Canadian exporters every possible assistance.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: A few minutes ago the
name of the Hon. Mr. Marler was mentioned, and the minister stated that his mission in the orient was rather of a diplomatic character than that of a trade commissioner. I have now before me a copy of the Montreal Daily Star of this date, Thursday, May 14, which contains an interview given by the Hon. Mr. Marler in Victoria, either on board ship or shortly after his arrival ashore. If the minister has read that interview he must have found out for himself that Mr. Marler, according to his own representations, acted very much in the capacity of a trade commissioner during his mission in China.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said he was acting in
both capacities.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But I think the minister
added that he would report to the Prime Minister on his return and until that was done the minister did not think he would have anything to tell the committee about Mr. Marler's mission. Mr. Marler's mission apparently being largely of a commercial and trade character, I would regret very much if it had been conducted without any contract with the Department of Trade and Commerce. The Prime Minister already has a kind of monopoly of portfolios in this government. He is not only Prime Minister, but Finance minister, Secretary of State for External Affairs, and for a time he was Acting Minister of Labour. I hope that in addition to all that he has not taken a slice out of the department of my hon. friend, because I think my hon. friend will prove to be a good minister, as good a minister as may come from the ranks of his own party. I therefore hope that he will make sure that he keeps complete control of his own department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can assure my hon.
friend that the Prime Minister in all his relations with his ministers acts in the most courteous manner. I would also say this: I do not know of anyone that I would rather have cooperating with me in matters of this character than the present Prime Minister of Canada. My reference to Mr. Marler was simply this, and I think it is quite proper: Mr. Marler is the representative of this government to the government of Japan. He is in direct contact with Prime Minister of Canada, and I have no right, except through the proper channels, to discuss matters with Mr. Marler. We have our own trade agents in China and Japan, and they cooperate with Mr. Marler and have done so through all his term of office. There are the most cordial relations between my department and Mr. Marler in the orient, but he does not report to me, and I think it is a little unfair to ask me to discuss Mr. Marler's mission to China because I feel that it is a matter that should wait until his return. The Prime Minister will undoubtedly wish to talk personally with Mr. Marler following upon any report that may have been received. It is a matter- shall I say?-of common sense to let the matter rest until Mr. Marler returns.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But what would happen
if Mr. Marler's report to the Prime Minister conflicted with the report of the minister's agents in China or Japan?

Supply-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: No conflict whatever.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The minister says they
would not conflict; how does he know?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know that the trade
commissioner in Tokyo from our department is Mr. Marler's special secretary. There is a most cordial relationship between them. However, Mr. Marler has wider duties than merely reporting to the Department of Trade and Commerce. He represents the Canadian government in Tokyo.


William Richard Motherwell: I am interested in
t'he debased or. discounted currency of Australia, and the fact that through the use of such currency Australia has been able to negotiate trade with China better than if her pound was at par. My hon. friend from Macleod has been preaching the doctrine of depreciated coinage, and I did not take much stock in his remarks. I do not like the thought of Canada's currency being debased. We have been proud to think that our currency has remained at par. However, we are told that Australia with her currency reduced in value to the extent of 25 per cent can sell wheat better in the interests of the farmers than if her pound was at top notch. Would that work the same way in Canada? If our dollar were down to a 75 cent valuation would we be able to sell our wheat to better advantage in the markets of the world than we are selling it at the present time? If we could I am willing to consider the advantage of such a condition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the hon. member
decides definitely that he would be willing to welcome a drop in the value of the Canadian dollar to 75 cents he had better ask himself what he could buy with that depreciated dollar.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the point. When we come to buy we have a horse of a different colour, have we not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it is a piebald horse then.	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: Where do we stand then in regard to that question? Do the advantages overcome the disadvantages, or the contrary?	.


Wilfred Hanbury: During the past year
the Conservative party, through its chief spokesman and also through the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, made the statement to the country on many occasions that after they were elected to power they would

cancel the trade treaties which were entered into by the Liberal government. Have any changes been made in any of the trade
treaties?	,


Henry Herbert Stevens: None, other than the
present negotiations being carried on with Australia, and the cancellation of the New Zealand order in council. The whole question of trade treaties will be considered during the coming year. It is a large question affecting some twenty treaties. There are very complex and difficult features in connection with it which I think my right hon. friend and other gentlemen opposite who were ministers in the previous government will recognize. There is no disposition on the part of the government to deal rashly or recklessly with these treaties. However, there must be certain readjustments. At this time I should not care to enter into a discussion of the matter which has been brought up by my hon. friend; the treaties are still in existence, and I think it desirable that the matter should not be discussed until actual proposals are brought forward suggesting possible amendments.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister has stated that he would not like rashly to discuss these treaties. Surely when the Conservative party promised that they were going to cancel all these treaties they must have had full knowledge of what the treaties contained and what they hoped to do by their cancellation. Under those circumstances I cannot understand why it should take a year and a half or two years after the government assumes office to correct a situation of which they were fully aware when they made the statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will take considerable time.


Wilfred Hanbury: When the Conservative party were telling how quickly they would cancel the treaties they did not say that it would take a considerable time to do it. The impression I received from hearing their statements was that we needed only to select a Conservative government and our treaties would be cancelled immediately. As a resident of British Columbia the question whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce would permit the Australian treaty to be cancelled gave me a good deal of worry. I must say I was much relieved when I learned that the present Prime Minister had included the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in his cabinet; I felt that there would be some protection for the Australian treaty. At the
W20	COMMONS
Supply-Commercial Intelligence
same time however, if there are features about these treaties which require changing it would be well for the minister to explain each treaty to this house and to tell in what way it should be changed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think I could give such an explanation under the present item. There are twenty or thirty treaties largely centering around the French treaty. The matter of treaties is of a complex nature and certainly I would not wish to enter into a discussion of them at this time. I might remind my hon. friend however, that the present government was engaged in the Imperial conference last fall, and so far as I am concerned I have been occupied to the limit of my strength and have not had the time to deal with the matter.


Wilfred Hanbury: I wish to assure the minister that I did not expect the treaties would be changed, and I do not anticipate they will be changed for a year or two. Like many other Canadians however, I resented the extravagant language used by the Conservative party during the election campaign when, among other things, they were discussing these treaties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before this
item is carried I should like to obtain from the minister further particulars concerning the fiscal policy of the administration and its bearing upon the all-important matter of Canada's trade. If hon. members on this side have a wrong conception of the government's policy I for one would like to be corrected. It seems to me that the fiscal policy of the government as announced is a policy of restriction of trade. The department over which my hon. friend presides is one concerned largely with the extension of Canadian trade. The item we are now discussing is one relating to the intelligence service, to Canada's trade representatives in different parts of the world. If the fiscal policy of the government cuts athwart all that my right hon. friend is seeking to do in the way of the extension of trade through commercial agents and commercial representatives in different countries, it seems to me that this item might as well be cut out or reduced. If we on this side have misunderstood the policy of the government let us be corrected. I shall state what I understand to be the government's policy in the matter of trade and if I am wrong I would like to be corrected.
In the first place, during the general election campaign in this country and at the Imperial conference in Great Britain, the Prime Minister stated that his policy was Canada

first. Canada first is a slogan, and as such it may mean one thing or it may mean another and quite a different thing. As a slogan it may have one meaning or one value politically and quite another economically, as for example in its consequences upon trade and revenue. When I asked my hon. friend the minister in charge of the estimates what was meant by the term "Canada first" he replied in an offhand way: "It means that Canadian interests stand first in the attention of the government." That statement is equally true as the objective and purpose of any and every party which has held power in Canada. My right hon. .friend will not say that his political opponents have not the interest of Canada as much at heart as he has. They may have a different point of view as to policies which will further those interests, but I think my right hon. friend would frankly admit that Canadian interests have always been the chief concern of the ministry of the day, no matter which of the old political parties may have been in power. The real significance of a slogan from a national point of view lies in the meaning to be attached to it not as a slogan which may have a general meaning, but as representing a concrete proposal, and I think in this connection the Prime Minister has been straightforward in his statement of what the "Canada first" slogan means. The Prime Minister says :
'Canada first," means adequate protection of Canadian industry, both agricultural and industrial.
That is the definition which he gave in Great Britain at the time of the Imperial conference. The question arises: what is adequate protection? There again the Prime Minister was equally definite when, in effect, he said:
Protection sufficient to save from the effects of competition from abroad those products or those articles which we can produce or manufacture in Canada.	,
In a word, it is the making of Canada into an economic unit,-a self-sufficient economic unit. That is the theory of the present administration, as I understand its policies. That may be an excellent thing, although I do not believe it can be done, and I believe if it were done, it would be a mistake. Similarly, going a step further, I think the administration have in mind making out of the British Empire a so-called imperial economic unit. This they believe would be a good thing. I think even were it capable of achievement it would be a mistake from the point of view of what would be in the best interests of all concerned.

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
Let us see if we are agreed as to what are the policies. As I say, in the first instance, the policy of the administration is adequate protection in order to make Canada an economic unit, and that is to be done by so restricting trade that commodities shall not come into Canada from other countries when we are capable of producing or manufacturing them ourselves. The minister says, "We can do our best at producing and manufacturing, but still some things will have to come in," and I assume-rightly I presume-that the first part of the world from which my hon. friend would admit commodities, where they are to be admitted at all, would be the other parts of the British Empire. That at all events was the statement made at the Imperial conference. The Prime Minister in that connection again was specific and direct at the conference. He said, "We will admit your goods into Canada on a preferential basis. You must subscribe to the principle of reciprocal preferences, but this principle of reciprocal preferences as applied to the empire shall be based in the first instance upon this idea of adequate protection which is held by the Canadian government. We will make an imperial preference by adding ten per cent to our existing tariff. You must do the same thing; you must have a protective tariff and as against the rest of the world add to it ten per cent, and in virtue of the relatively lower rate thus effected within the empire such trade will flow as comes on a reciprocal basis."
This means, from the point of view of hon. gentlemen opposite, three barriers, strata or layers, so to speak, over which trade may flow or come into Canada. In the first instance, in the creation of Canada as an economic unit, there is protection of existing industries by tariffs adequate to permit of our producing and manufacturing here all that can be manufactured or produced in this country. Then we will admit into Canada from other parts of the empire, over that tariff, on a reciprocal basis founded on tariffs, such goods as may flow in here, but we will keep them out from other parts of the world by a ten per cent or some other increase in tariff as against those other parts. Before this point is reached I think we will have come to a place where trade from any other source is hardly likely to come to Canada at all.
That is my understanding of the policy of this government. If that is not a correct understanding I should like to be corrected, because I do not want to misrepresent hon. members opposite. If that is a correct statement, I say that policy is making for the restriction rather than the expansion of trade;
it renders practically nugatory the work of commercial agents and trade representatives in other parts of the world. Only yesterday we had an interesting address by the right hon. member for Argenteuil with regard to his recent visit to the Argentine and other South American countries. I listened to hear him say whether or not he had expressed to one of those countries wherein Canada's trade policies would facilitate their trade with this country, would assist in the exchange of goods between the two countries, but he said nothing on that point. I do not see how he could say anything of advantage while the policy of the administration is what it is at present. If I am wrong in my statement of the fiscal policy of this administration perhaps my hon. friend would correct me, but if I am right I think what I say is true, that despite the efforts of my hon. friend to increase trade-and I am sure he wishes to do that-he will be frustrated from the very beginning to the close by the fiscal policy of the administration of which he is a member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I said about an hour ago, when the right hon. gentleman made a similar statement, I do not think he can expect us to accept his analysis of our policy. I do not wish to go into it at the moment-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Give me your interpretation.	,


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend said, for instance, that our policy virtually shut out trade. He may interpret it in that way if he so chooses, but that is not our view of the situation at all. Then the right hon. gentleman asked for a declaration of the principles of the government in connection with trade. Would not that come more properly from the lips of the Prime Minister when he delivers his budget speech, in the course of the next few days?
It is well known that this party stands for protection, in the generally accepted meaning of that word. It is well known that we stand for the development of Canada industrially and for the utilization of our resources to the greatest possible advantage. These things are well known. The right hon. gentleman and his colleagues have argued this matter with hon. members on this side, to my own knowledge and participation, for at least twenty years. I do not want to say that we never could get together, but generally speaking we have agreed to disagree on our interpretation of what these things mean. But the country has decided that question; we have been placed here for the purpose

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
of carrying out the policies which the country understood us to enunciate, and we are trying to carry them out.
My right hon. friend is quite correct in saying that we are anxious to develop trade within the empire. We are bending our efforts in that direction. I may say that we are hoping that the trade arrangement with Australia may be closed in the very near future. Really the cause of the delay has been the disturbed economic and political conditions in that country. These have had nothing to do with us directly, but undoubtedly they have embarrassed the government of Australia somewhat in determining this matter. We hope it may be decided in the near future, and the trade agreement placed before this house for its approval. We hope also to work out a satisfactory agreement with New Zealand, something we never had before. We simply extended to that country by order in council certain relationships which existed with other countries, but we are working on that matter now. The same thing applies to South Africa. We really have expectations of improving trade relations between this Dominion and the rest of the empire, to the advantage of all concerned.
At this time I do not wish to enter into a discussion of the fiscal policy of the country, which comes more properly on the budget debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to get into a discussion of fiscal policy, but certainly I do think that on an item dealing with trade and commerce and relating to commercial agencies in different parts of the world it is not only appropriate but obviously desirable to attempt to discover how far the fiscal policy of the government is operating either to improve or to injure conditions of trade. My hon. friend has spoken about what the government hope to do with regard to South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. He has said nothing about trade with Great Britain. Within the last couple of days wo have had in this city a trade mission from Great Britain, consisting of three gentlemen who have, been speaking their minds pretty openly with regard to the effect of the government's policy on trade between Canada and Great Britain. My hon. friend will not say that is a subject which we should not discuss at this moment. It bears on this very question of trade.
What is the. fact in regard to the policies of this government and how they operate? Last year, before the Imperial conference, hon. gentlemen opposite virtually wiped out the Brit-

ish preference by increasing the tariff against Great Britain. I do not think they had any mandate from the people to do so. Apparently they took this action on the theory that they were going to make of Canada an economic unit, whether that unit bore relation to foreign countries or to other nations .within the empire. Under that theory they made it as difficult for the most part, for goods to come into Canada from Great Britain, as to come in from other parts of the world. The effect of that action has been materially to reduce the volume of trade between Great Britain and Canada. My hon. friend is now asking us to vote the same amount of money for commercial agencies in Great Britain as was voted under a previous administration, following a different policy. If the government persists in its present attitude towards Britain, and, with respect to goods of a kind manufactured or produced in this country, raises the duties to such an extent as to prohibit all importation of such goods from the mother country, then there is no need of trade representatives there at all, and we might as well decide to give up that trade altogether. We oannot trade without exchange of commodities. That is the point I wish to emphasize now, for it is a very vital one. The Prime Minister has been most explicit in his statements. I know that my hon. friend would prefer to indulge in generalities and to skirt around the outside of the subject. But the Prime Minister has put his intentions in the form of a proposition comprising very distinct and selfevident statements, and each of those statements, it seems to me, must be debated on its merit.
If I am wrong, I wish my hon. friend to correct me. But as I understand it, the policy called' Canada first means " adequate protection". It does not mean having at heart the interests of Canada or anything of that sort. As a slogan it is Canada first, and as an economic or fiscal policy it is a concrete proposal or principle synonomous with a system of adequate protection. Am I wrong in that? My hon. friend does not reply, and I assume his silence signifies assent. Adequate protection, then, is what is intended. The Prime Minister has said, "We will be the judge of what is adequate protection; and we intend, in judging what constitutes adequate protection, that nothing shall come into this country from abroad which can be produced or manufactured in Canada." Again I pause to have my hon. friend correct me if I am wrong. The Prime Minister goes further and says, "We want to trade with other parts of the empire, but we will not begin until we have attained for Canada the ends of adequate protection

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
at which we aim; and if other parts of the empire wish to trade with us they must follow our example in the matter of creating protective tariffs. And we will increase by ten per cent, or whatever percentage is necessary, the duties against foreign countries to make it still more difficult for trade to come in from foreign countries; such trade as on a reciprocal basis thus established can flow in from within the empire may come in." That policy means a serious restriction of trade, and the country to-day is beginning to feel the very serious effects of it. It is not only crippling the trade of Canada but is also very vitally affecting the revenues of the country, as the Prime Minister himself, in his capacity of Minister of Finance, will make very apparent when he brings down his budget.
Mr. MoMILLAN (Huron) : This discussion has been very interesting to me and I have been indeed pleased to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has acquitted himself admirably in his very difficult situation. When he was explaining recently his conception of the trade policy of the present government, I happened to open Hansard of last September and I saw that the Prime Minister told us then very explicitly what the policy of this government was in that respect. He said:
We propose therefore to provide that so far as may be reasonably possible the requirements of the 10,000,000 people living on the northern half of this continent shall be provided by Canadian producers.
There is no equivocation in connection with that policy. Anyone who can read plain English ought to know what it means. It means that he is going to exclude from Canada any goods that we are capable of producing in this country. In other words, they are going to try to sell goods to the world, without buying goods in return. Now, surely it is an economic principle which every reasonable individual should appreciate, that if we are going to sell goods we must be prepared to buy goods in return.
I think the statement which was made by the Prince of Wales at the opening of the exhibition at Buenos Aires was one from which we might learn a lesson. That statement is instructive to people in all sections of the British Empire and throughout the world at large. His Royal Highness said that the real objects of trade, the purpose of trade was the interchange of products. I do not need to tell this house a second time that I do not believe that the representatives of this government met with any degree of success in their mission to the old countiy when
they attended the Imperial conference last fall. It is my candid opinion that the chief reason for their abject failure was that the Prime Minister and his colleagues seemed to have been convinced that we should not import from abroad goods which we can produce at home, and that the very idea of allowing Canadian industry to meet with competition was unacceptable to them. They did not believe that competition should be encouraged.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my experience in life in every particular convinces me that the spirit of competition, the spirit of healthy emulation, is the best thing for any nation or individual, if you wish to bring out the best that is in them. We see, on the other hand, what the policy of the present government is; and that policy being what it is, what is the use of spending 1700,000 on trade missions to other countries? What is the use of such an expenditure when evidently the government does not wish to encourage reciprocal trade?
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. The Prime Minister and his colleagues went to Great Britain, to attend the Imperial conference. The Minister of Trade and Commerce took a number of wideawake officials with him, and we know they have broken down the entire sales service of the wheat pool. They have thrown the selling of wheat right into the hands of those who for years have been the determined competitors of the pool. If that is the best thing to do in the selling of our wheat, then I fail to see how the wheat pool is going to be able to pursue its business in the future as it has done, in the past. I am not one of those who think that the wheat pool, those who had in hand the sale of our wheat, have never made mistakes. Nevertheless, I do think that the government is mistaken in its attitude. So far as western Canada is concerned, we know what has been the result of the establishment of the wheat pool and the work which they have done in the last few years. We know what was the situation of the grain growers in the west when they were at the mercy of the grain trade, and I cannot see how the action of the government in withdrawing the sales force which we have had, and placing the whole business of the grain trade in the hands of their competitors, will be of any benefit to the wheat pool in the west.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the minister tell us what has been the decline in the trade of Canada for the month of April 1931, as compared with the month of April 1930?

Supply-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: The figures for April are
not yet available.


Thomas McMillan: Perhaps the
minister will permit me to give them. The figures for April, in imports, are $51,189,376 for 1931 as against $71,401,839 a year ago. The exports this year were $33,935,075, and last year, S50,744,139. The total trade for April of this year amounted to $85,863,487, and for April of a year ago, $123,910,008, a reduction in one single month amounting to $38,046,521.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The hon. member should
take the place of the minister.


Thomas McMillan: For the seven months previous, September, October, November, December, January, February and March, the total reduction in trade, as compared with the same period one year ago, amounted to $396,700,947.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Apparently we have three ministers of trade and commerce, the Prime Minister, the minister whose estimates are now being considered, and the hon. member for South Huron.


Wilfred Hanbury: The Canadian government merchant marine or the Canadian National Steamships have some very fine boats which they use during the summer season. We listened the other day with a great deal of interest to the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) when he gave the house a description of his trip to South America, and I would suggest to the hon. minister that one of these boats, which are ordinarily tied up during the winter months, should be fitted up as a floating exhibition to visit the countries on the west coast of South America. I am sure many Canadian manufacturers would take advantage of an opportunity to exhibit their goods to probable purchasers in South American countries. During the winter these boats require a certain staff to look after them, and perhaps a small addition to the staff would enable them to be put in service.
I think the minister should consider the exchange of students with South American countries as well as with Japan and China. Much could be done in this way to encourage a feeling which would develop the trade of Canada with those countries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will take the first suggestion of my hon. friend into consideration. In regard to the second, I may say that we are working on that matter.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I understand that the trade commissioner in Egypt was the only new one appointed during the past year. What is our volume of trade with Egypt, and what are the prospects for increased business?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For some three or four years prior to this past year Mr. Lamontagne had been loaned by this government to the Egyptian government as an advisory expert in the preparation of a system of customs, and I can say that they were pleased with the services he rendered. Prior to that he had been located at Brussels, but it was thought advisable to appoint a commissioner in Egypt to look after the possible trade with that country, northern Africa, and the near east as far as Persia and Syria, which would include Palestine. Our trade with Egypt is not very large, amounting to about $145,000. It must be remembered that much of this trade is transhipped at London, and quite frequently the figures are not reflected in the returns. We are endeavouring to correct this discrepancy in our returns so that we will get credit for the imports from the country in which the goods originate and vice versa in connection with exports.


William Alexander Fraser: The
minister made a statement earlier in the evening relative to our trade balance with Great Britain, and mentioned that our favourable trade balance was offset by carrying charges, interest charges and insurance charges.


Henry Herbert Stevens: By service charges.


William Alexander Fraser: Is it to
be the policy of the department to figure invisible balances or just straight commodity or merchandise balances?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In making an estimate of trade one must take into account the invisible as well as the visible in the trade balances, that is that deal solely with trade, which will reflect only the trade figures.


William Alexander Fraser: If that
is followed in connection with one country, it should be followed in connection with all others, the United States, for instance.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Has the minister received
any representations with regard to the possibility of increasing our apple trade with Germany?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have perhaps one of
the finest trade commissioners in the service

Supply-Commercial Intelligence
in the person of Mr. Wilgress whose headquarters are at Hamburg. In addition, we have Mr. J. Forsyth Smith at London, who is one of the most able agents in his particular line, that of fruit. Unfortunately I have not the information at hand from which I could give my hon. friend a specific answer.
Mr. II.SLEY:	Nova Scotia is increasing
her trade in apples with the continent of Europe. Only a few years ago this trade was confined mostly to Great Britain, but during recent years larger quantities are being shipped to continental Europe. The trade commissioners of Canada have done a great deal to push this trade in Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. There is a large potential market in Germany, but it is almost impossible to sell apples in that country because the duty against American apples is only about one half the duty against our apples. During recent years, representing the largest apple growing constituency in eastern Canada. I have received many representations from the fruit growing interests asking that an attempt be made on the part of the Canadian government to better our trade relations with Germany.
Trade treaties have been mentioned this evening, but I am not so much interested in the cancellation or modification of existing treaties as I am in the attempt being made to negotiate new ones. One should be negotiated with Cuba in connection with potatoes, about which a great deal has been said this session, and another one with Germany with a view to facilitating the entry of our apples into that country. I do not know whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the minister to whom these representations should be made. Perhaps they should be made to the Minister of Finance, but certainly I wish to impress upon the government as emphatically and earnestly as I can the importance to Nova Scotia and particularly my part of it, of improving our trade relations with Germany.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall take note of what my hon. friend says.


William Duff: A few minutes ago the minister, speaking of the personnel of trade commissioners in different parts of the world, referred to the fact that the Civil Service Commission in the examinations made a point of the educational qualifications that were necessary. I notice he said nothing as to whether these men should have business training or qualifications. It is very import-

ant that men who go out into the world to negotiate with other countries for the sale of our goods, should have certain business training and know how to talk with business men in other countries.
I also notice that one of the trade commissioners has been appointed to Cuba and lives in Havana. As the hon. member for Hants-Kings said, it is most important especially at the present time that some trade arrangements be made with Cuba not only with regard to potatoes but also with regard to fish. Perhaps the minister can give the committee the figures, but I think I am correct in saying that more Canadian goods, especially fish and potatoes, are sold in Cuba than in any other island in the West Indies. If the minister looks up the returns for the last few months I think he will find that this trade in both potatoes and fish has dropped off considerably, due particularly to the fact that a short time ago the Cuban government, adopting no doubt a policy similar to that of the present government of this country, increased very largely the duties on fish and potatoes. This has crippled business, especially in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, with regard to both the potato trade and the fish trade. It is most important that something be done by the government to better these conditions. It is true, of course, that one of the ministers, the hon. member for Kings, was sent to Cuba a short time ago. Although he made a statement to the house a day or two ago, it was not a very definite statement and perhaps it was not the time that such a statement should be made with regard to what he was able to accomplish on his mission. I notice he said nothing with regard to the trade in Cuba for fish. That is a very important trade in the maritime provinces, and especially in the city of Halifax, the county which I represent and the county in which I live. Would the minister tell the committee if he receives reports from the different trade commissioners every month? I should like especially to know whether he has reports from the trade commissioner in Cuba for the last six months, whether they are monthly, fortnightly or weekly, and whether we can find from those reports what the commissioner says with regard to the falling off in trade in fish and potatoes in Cuba.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have very full reports weekly from all our trade agents and these are published in the Commercial Intel-
Copyright Act

ligence Journal. I think every member receives a copy regularly. They are widely distributed throughout Canada in business circles. I have not under my hand a special report from Cuba regarding the last few months to which my hon. friend refers. I have the figures for 1929 and 1930. In 1930 they were:
Exports	 $4,245,000
Imports	 3,500,000


William Duff: That is prior to the end of
March this year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. The chief commodities were:
Potatoes	 $2,081,000
Fish, dried, smoked and pickled 713,000
Then there are milk, condensed; newsprint and other items of that kind.


William Duff: Can the minister make a comparison with the previous year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The figures are almost
identical. They are as follows:
1929	1930
Exports	
$4,442,000	$4,245,000Imports	
4,900,000	3,500,000


William Duff: The figures just given by the minister for the two years do not show much difference, but if he looks up recent reports from the commissioner in Cuba I think he will find that, in view of the fact that this extra duty was not imposed until two months ago, the trade has been affected very considerably since then. Last week I received a report from my own office stating that shipments of fish to Cuba-and every fortnight a boat leaves from Halifax-had fallen off and that on the last two boats practically no fish had been shipped owing to this increase in duty. Perhaps the minister has not the information under his hand, but I should like to know whether his trade commissioner has made a report in regard to the serious situation which exists in connection with the trade from Nova Scotia of that particular item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall check up and get that information. May I ask that after the rather full discussion to-day, this item should be allowed to pass? It is almost eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 15, 1931