1931-06-25

[Stage Direction]
Second report of select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, controlled and operated by the government.-Mr. Chaplin.

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

Mr. LAFLEOHE:: 1.	What is the name of the director of first aid on the Canadian National railways?
2.	What are the qualifications and experience of said director?
3.	What are his salary and expenses?
4.	By whom was he recommended?
5.	Does he devote all his time to this service?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Mr. A. 0. Beck.
2.	Twenty-seven years railroad experience, having charge of first aid on the National , Transcontinental at Hervey Junction, and the Quebec and Saguenay railway.
3.	The management consider it not in the public interests to bring down such information.
4.	Chief medical officer, Canadian National railways.
5.	Time divided as between first aid and accident prevention departments.

Questions


CHARLES P.VSKOWITZ AND ALLEN KIRK
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the Department of Marine, meteorological branch, Toronto, dispensed with the services of Charles Paskowitz and Allen Kirk, telegraphers, and both returned soldiers?
2.	If so, why?	*


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LOUNGE CARS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What number of lounge ears were put in operation by the Canadian National Railways in 1929 and 1930?
2.	'What was the cost of these ears?
3.	What was the cost of Canadian National Railways diesel electric engine of the 9,000 class ?
4.	Is this engine in service?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Twelve (12).
2.	$67,040 each, including furnishings.
3.	Capital cost $200,000 for each unit.
4.	One is in daily service between Montreal and Toronto; the other is having a replacement made by engine builder and will be in
service in two weeks.


DISMISSAL OP POSTMASTERS
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed since March 1, 1931?
2.	What were the reasons assigned for each dismissal, the name of each postmaster and the location of each post office?
3.	How many dismissals were made after investigations were held on charges of political partisanship, and what are the names of those dismissed?
4.	What postmasters were dismissed on recommendation of the sitting member of the constituency, on the charge of political activity?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	103.
2.	See attached statement.
3.	(a) 41; (b) See attached statement.
4.	See attached statement.
Prince Edward Island Nil
Nova Scotia
Postmaster
Post Office
Electoral District
Reason
John E. Cashen. Angus J. Gillis..
Marc Jeddry	
Leo. E. Thibault.
Mrs. M. E. Blinn.
Irving A. MacDonald Chas. W. Hockley...
Edward Burke	
Ernest Schnare___
John T. Campbell.
Wm. McDonald...
John R. Gillis...
D. A. MacDonald.
Geo. J. Mason....
Caleb Backman...
Lemuel Wynacht...
Mrs. L. Freeman..
W. P. Freeman....
Wilbert Bruhm____
J. E. Swinamer....
James Shannon....
Port Felix.
Beechmont.
St. Alphonse de Clare. Mayflower	
Grosses Coques....
East Lawrencetown. Tufts Cove	
Portuguese Cove.
Canada Creek. Judique South.
McDonald Glen. Skye Glen...
Stewartdale.
Blue Rock.. Aspotogan..
Stonehurst.
Greenfield (Queens). New Grafton	
New Cornwall. Gold River_____
Lennox Ferry.
An tigon ish-Guy sborough
Cape Breton North-Victoria.
Digby-Annapolis	
Digby-Annapolis	
Digby-Annapolis.
Halifax	
Halifax	
Halifax.
Hants-Kings. Inverness....
Inverness.
Inverness.
Inverness.
Queens-Lunenburg. Queens-Lunenburg.
Queens-Lunenburg.
Queens-Lunenburg..
Queens-Lunenburg.
Queens-Lunenburg..
Queens-Lunenburg..
R ichmond-West Breton.
Cape
Political partisanship (Postmaster refused to sign declaration). Political partisanship (Investigation).
Change in site.
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Change in site.
Change in site.
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Change in site.
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Postmaster addicted to drink.
Political partisanship (Postmaster admitted charges).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Postmaster admitted charges).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Change in site.
[Mr. Manion.J

Questions
New Brunswick
Postmaster
Post Office	Electoral District
Black Rock		
	
	
Village St. Jean		
	
Young's Cove Road		
Head of Millstream		
Coleman Corner		Saint John-Albert	
Fox Creek		
	
Nashwaak Bridge		York-Sudbury	
Reason
Bernard Driscoll.
Edmond Cormier.
W. P. Melanson (OAS) Pascal Thebeau	
Bernard Roy.,
Mrs. M. A. Ferris..
W. S. Mason	
Mrs. A. O'Connor.. Sa 1. G. Barter...
E. G. LeBlanc....
Angelo Corbin....
Mrs. M. Urquhart.
Political partisanship (Postmaster admitted charges).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Postmaster not desirable.
Political partisanship (Postmaster admitted charges).
Political partisanship (Postmaster admitted charges).
Shortages.
Unsatisfactory management.
Change in site.
Change in site.
Change in site.
Incompetency of postmaster.
Unsatisfactory conditions and inflation of stamp sales.
Quebec
		
Geo. Morin			
Adelard Dallaire			
Mars. Marie V. Leroux	St. I.azare Village		
A. Boisclair	Renversy	Berthier-Maskinonga	Horace Belanger	St. Simeon de Bonaven-	Bonaventure	W. Bigaouette	Israel Bugeaud	Leon Menard	J. J. Marchand	Montreal Sub No. 4	Mrs. Azilda Delisle...	Montreal South Sub	Chambly-Vercheres	Lucien Brunalle	Cyrias Mercier	St. Fereol	Charlevcix-Saguenay	
J. II. Tremblay			
Ludger Lavigne		Notre Dame des Bois...	
Philias Bureau		Compton Station		
Zephora R. Dallaire..	Ste. Rose de Watford...	Dorchester	
Louis P. Rousseau			
Ephrem Lafrance		Ste. Helene de Chester..	Drummond-Arthabaska
Joseph Reeve			
J. D. Bourget			
Gyriac Lapierre			
Henri Auclair			
J. A. Larivee			Hull	
Jos. Levesque			
	raska.	
J. It. Desbiens			
J. L. Larouche		Taillon		
Henri Royal		St. Sulpice		
		Montcalm.
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Unreliability of postmaster's assistant and postmaster's lack of attention to duties.
Political* partisanship (Investigation.)
Change in site.
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Change in site.
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Shortage.
Shortage and unsatisfactory management.
Abandonment of office.
Postmaster illiterate.
Political partisanship (investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation.)
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Change in site.
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Change in site.
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Postmaster admitted charges).
Shortage and unsatisfactory management.
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Postmaster unable to give full attention to office and assistant unreliable.
Questions

Quebec-Coni inued
Postmaster
Post Office
Electoral District
Reason
Adrien Gauthier	
Jos. Levesque	
James Skelly	
Alphonse Crevier....
Herve Dumoulin	
Alderic Legault	
Pascal Dumoulin	
Jos. Carrier	
Albert Bouchard	
Jos. Ouellet	
Alphonse Dupuis	
Zotique Proulx	
Eugene Gregoire	
Jos. C. Tanguay	
Henri Mailhot	
Eugene Gariepy	
Aime Goudreault	
F. X. Jobin	
J. E. Trudel	
Wilfrid Leveille....
Auguste Proven cher... J. Remus Boulais....
Philibert Auclair...
Hector Hardy	
Omer Sirois	
Dolor Mesnard	
Jos. B. Merleau	
L. H. Merleau	
Frank Nault	
LaPlaine	 St. Jacques	 Rawdon	 Ste. Dorothee	 St. Elzear de Laval	 St. Canut	 Cap St. Martin		L'Assomption-Montcalm. L'Assomption-Montcaim. L'Assomption-Montcalm. Laval-Two Mountains.. Laval-Two Mountains.. Laval-Two Mountains.. Laval-Two Mountains..
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Ange Gardien Est		Quebec-Montmorency...
Les Saules		Quebec-Montmorency...
Charlesbourg Ouest		Quebec-Montmorency...
St. Augustin de Quebec.	Quebec-West	
	
	
Ste. Angele de Monnoir.	St. Hyacinthe-Rouville.
Mont St. Hilaire		St. Hyacinthe-Rouville.
St. Mathias		St. Hyacinthe-Rouville.
Riou		Temiscouata	
St. Justine Station		V audreuil-Soulanges	
	
	
Messines		Wright	
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation ).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Personal statement of sitting member).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Unsatisfactory management.
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Change in site.
Unsatisfactory management.
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Ontario
H. A. McGillivray___
J. B. Laird	
Mrs. M. McCluskey.. W. H. Snider (OAS).. Mrs. Agnes Marr	
J. A. Page	
Michel Dupuis	
Mrs. C. Fin lay son.
North Bruce		Bruce North Riding....
	
	
La Vallee		Kenora-Rainy River	
Vermilion Bay		Kenora-Rainy River	
	
	
Gardiner		Timiskaming North Riding.
Political partisanship (Postmaster refused to sign declaration). Shortage.
Unsatisfactory management. Shortage.
Political partisanship (Investigation).
Change in site.
Postmaster illiterate.
Financial irregularities.

Questions
Manitoba
Postmaster	Post Office	Electoral District	Reason	
			Political	partisanship (Investiga-
			tion).	
Chas. S. Root
Saskatchewan
	
	
Change in site.
Alberta
J. M. Youzwyshyn
	
	
Shortages and irregularities.
other financial
British Columbia
W. Walsh
	
	
Change in site.


HECTOR CYR
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Hector Cyr, of New Richmond, Quebec, been replaced as keeper of buoys at New Richmond?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	What price is being paid, and on whose recommendation was the change made?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Mr. Cyr's contract will terminate July 2, 1931.
2.	A new contract has been entered into with Mr. George W. Hardy, effective from July 2, 1931.
3.	$70 per annum; the contract was awarded to Mr. Hardy at this price on the recommendation of Mr. E. A. D Morgan.


SHELBURNE WHARFINGER
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Who is the wharfinger for Shelburne public wharf?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Is he an ex-service man?
4.	On whose recommendation was he
appointed?	_
5.	Were there any other applicants for this position wrhen it was last vacant?
6.	If so, who were they?
7.	How much revenue has the present incumbent paid to the department for: (a) side wharfage; (b) top wharfage since taking office ?
8.	How much has been paid to or retained by the present incumbent for his remuneration as wharfinger since taking office?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Samuel James Swaine.
2.	November 26, 1930.
3.	No information.
4.	He was appointed on the recommendation of Mr. W. H. Currie.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	(a) Side wharfage	$19 10(b)	Top wharfage	60 13Total	$79 238.	$19.82.


RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was the station at Riviere du Loup built before the Intercolonial railway?
2.	If so, in what year?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes.
2.	About 1860. Subsequent improvements: roof raised and building extended 1883; further extension 1888; remodelled and enlarged 1900.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COST OF STATIONS
Mr. POULIOT:: What has been the total cost of the Canadian National Railways' station buildings at Vegreville, Parry Sound. Wainwright, Salvus. B.C., Redbank, Ont., Creek des Prairies, P.Q., Levis, P.Q.?
Questions


Mr. MANION:: Station	Contract
V egre ville	 $42,000
Parry Sound	 1,387
Wainright	
Salvus	
Redbank	
Creek des Prairies		....
Levis	 71,896
Additional		Work performed by		
	work	railway forces		Total
1929				
1930	$ 6,568 45			$48,568 45
1930	38,613 00			
1931	3,210 86			43,210 86
		1929	$43,250 87	
		1930	19,150 00	62,400 87
		1929	2,825 00	
		1930	7,022 00	9,847 00
		1930	6,360 00	
		1931	254 16	6,614 16
1,801 18	73,697 18


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LEVIS STATION
Jean-François Pouliot: What amount from the insurance fund of the Canadian National Railways has been used for the reconstruction of the burned station at Levis, Quebec?


Robert James Manion: 


$23,250. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-QL'EBEC DIRECTORS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who are the directors representing the government of the province of Quebec in the executive committee or in the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	At what date was each of them appointed?
3.	Were the tenders for the building of a new station at Riviere du Loup submitted to them before or after they were received by the Department of Railways and Canals, on or about September 4, 1930?
4.	Did they pass a resolution relating to it?
5.	If so, at what date?
0.	Did they recommend or not that authority be given to approve the acceptance of any of such tenders?
7.	At what date was such resolution forwarded to the Department of Railways and Canals?
8.	By whom?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No directors appointed to represent the government of the province of Quebec. Directors resident of the province of Quebec, all of whom are on the executive committee, are: Sir Henry W. Thornton, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. George Henderson, Mr. J. E. Labelle, Mr. Lucien Moraud.
2.	Present directorate appointed as of December 24, 1930.
3.	Abstract of tenders received was submitted to executive committee, September 2, 1930.
4.	Yes.
5.	September 2, 1930.

6.	Acceptance recommended.
7.	September 4, 1930.
8.	E. E. Fairweather.


ANTONIO BERTHIATJME
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Was Mr. Antonio Berthiaume employed in Quebec City before July 28, 1930?
2.	If so, was he working in the office of the non. Postmaster General, in the post office building, at Quebec?
3.	If not, in what department was he working?
4.	How was his nomination made?
5.	What was his salary?
6.	By what department was he paid?
7.	Is he still in the employ of the government?
8.	If so, what work is he doing?
9.	By what department is he paid?
10.	Is he still receiving the same salary?


Mr. GAGNON:: Dropped.
Question dropped.


PUBLIC WORKS-FRASER RIVER
Mr. REID:: 1.	At what dates were the respective tenders submitted by the various tenderers for work on the Fraser river, as from July 1, 1930, up to the present time?
2.	At what dates were the respective contracts let for work on the Fraser river, since July 1, 1930?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Names of Tenderers-Date tenders received
1.
(a)	Construction of 8,000 feet of south jetty, Steveston, Fraser river:
W. R. Jaynes Company, July 24, 1930; The Vancouver Pile Driving & Contracting Co Ltd., July 24, 1930; The Coast Quarries Limited, July 24, 1930.

(b)	Completion of section 5 and construction of 3.000 feet of section 6 of north jetty, Steveston, Fraser river:
The Coast Quarries Limited, July 24, 1930; The Vancouver Pile Driving & Contracting Co. Ltd., July 24, 1930.
(c)	Extension of north arm jetty, Fraser river:
The Vancouver Pile Driving & Contracting Co., Ltd., September 30, 1930; The Coast Quarries Limited, September 29, 1930; McKenzie Barge & Derrick Company, September 29, 1930; W. Greenlees, September 29, 1930; Walkems Shipyards. Limited, September 29, 1930; A. B. Kvle and H. Hodder, September 29, 1930; H. F. Martin, September 29, 1930.
(d)	Extension to dyke, Annieville Bar, Fraser river:
Fraser River Pile Driving Company, Limited, August 12, 1930; W. Greenlees, August 14, 1930; The Vancouver Pile Driving & Contracting Co. Ltd., August 13, 1930; The Coast Quarries Limited, August 13, 1930.
(e)	Dredging in the north arm, Fraser river:
British Columbia Bridge & Dredging Co., Limited, July 16, 1930.
(f)	Steveston-repairs to tide gauge platform at Point Garry:
Local tenders were invited by District Engineer Worsfold and received by him as follows: Fraser River Pile Driving Co., Limited, September 8, 1930; W. R. Jaynes Company. September 10, 1930.
2. (a) August 6, 1930; (b) August 6, 1930;
(c)	November 5, 1930; (d) September 3, 1930; (e) July 23, 1930; (f) Instructions to accept successful tender sent district engineer at New Westminster, September 30, 1930.


RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works buy some lumber or materials for the Riviere du Loup wharf between November 1, 1930, and March 31, 1931?
2.	If so: (a) on what dates; (b) for what amounts; (c) from whom?
3.	Was this lumber or material delivered?
4.	If so: (a) where; (b) on what dates?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Spikes, etc., (a) November 5, 1930; (b) $559.67; (c) Chinic Hardware Co
Electric supplies, (a) November 10, 1930; (b) $15.31; (c) Paul Hodgson & Co.
Spikes and iron, (a) Not given, 1930; (b) $329.04; (c) Emile Dube, blacksmith.
Nuts and bolts, (a) Not given, 1930; (b) $72.58; (c) Emile Dube, blacksmith.
Question as Order for Return
Steel, (a) November, 8, 1930; fb) $4.93; (c) Fonderie & Machinerie Montsarrat, Ltee.
Nuts, (a) November 30, 1930; (b) $3.20; (c) Fonderie & Machinerie Montsarrat, Ltee.
Timber and planks, (a) November 8-15, 1930; (b) $305.03; (c) Aime Dionne.
Sundry hardware, (a) November 3-December 9, 1930; (b) $104.80; (c) La Ferronerie Riviere du Loup, Enrg.
Gas and oil, (a) November 10-28, 1930; (b) $15.41; (c) Emile Marquis.
Moulding, (a) December 5, 1930; (b) $7.50; (c) J. O. Nadeau.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Riviere du Loup wharf; (b) Answered by No. 2 (a).


BONAVENTURE-WHARF LIGHT
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is in charge of the light on the wharf at Bonaventure, Quebec?
2.	What is his salary, and on whose recommendation w-as he appointed?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Alexis Bourque.
2.	$120 per annum. He was appointed December 9th, 1922, by direction of the Honourable Jacques Bureau, acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries at that time.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. TOTZKE:: 1.	What was the total number of bushels of wheat disposed of for export for the years 1917 and 1918 under the authority and supervision of the board of grain supervisors of Canada?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid by the allied purchasing commission or other overseas purchasing body for such wheat?
3.	What was the average price paid for such wheat abroad by the purchaser or purchasers thereof during each year?
4.	Was the price paid by the allied purchasing commission for Canada's wheat during these two years, $2.21 and $2.24 respectively, per bushel, basis one northern Fort William or Port Arthur plus all delivery costs including land and water freight rates, insurance, interest, etc., or were the usual fluctpating wheat prices on the world's markets also determining factors in establishing the ultimate price the allied purchasing commission paid for this wheat?
o. Were there any changes in the railway, ocean or insurance rates during these two years?


Mr. STEVENS:: May I ask the hon
gentleman if he still desires to go on with this question? I may say that some of the information asked for will take a great deal of time to compile and sort out. In view of
Secretary oj Slate

the action of the committee in regard to this matter I thought my hon. friend might not wish to proceed, but if he does, I would ask that the question stand as an order for return.


Mr. TOTZKE:: The information for which I am asking was not brought out in the committee, and I think it is very desirable that we should get that information, even though it may take some time.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Stands as an order for
return.


SECRETARY OF STATE
[Stage Direction]
On the order of questions:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to give some information which I promised during the discussion yesterday of the estimates of my department. In reply to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot), the total revenue for printing, from both houses of parliament and all departments for the fiscal year 1030-31, was $3,821,617.45, as against an expenditure of $3,760,883.98.
In reply to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), with regard to the printing and binding of government publications the total revenue was $68,562.67, and the excess of revenue over expenditure was $28,562.48.
In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the total circulation of Hansard is 5,487 English and 1,079 French. Of these totals, 2,040 English and 445 French represent subscribers at $3 per session. There are also about 750 copies in English and 40 copies in French at the subscription rate for the houses of parliament and the departments. In addition, some 500 spare copies are printed for general sale, and these are usually sold at the end of the session. Other copies are sent out on various complimentary lists.
In reply to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) with regard to the three clerks who were regraded in the Department of the Secretary of State, as to one the report to council under which he was regraded was dated February 17, 1930, and the Civil Service Commission issued its certificate on June 17, 1030. As to the second clerk, the requisition was dated March 12, 1930, and the report to council September 22, 1930. As to the third, the report to council was

dated November 23, 1929, and the certificate was issued on February 17, 1930. In each of these three cases the re-grading was made on the report and certificate of my hon. friend and predecessor in office.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Pension Act be amended to provide that the number of members of the pension tribunal may be increased from nine to not more than twelve, of which the chairman and eight members shall hold office for ten years, and the other three for two years, subject to earlier removal for cause, and that the number of commission counsel may be increased from seven to ten, and to provide for the further reconsideration of applications.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Mr. DUFF:: I would ask that this motion
stand. Six weeks ago a motion was passed for the production of papers in connection with the pension tribunal, and until these documents are tabled, I submit that it would be wise not to go on with this motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Unless the minister in
charge consents, there is no reason why it should stand.


Mr. MacLAREN:: The returns to which
the hon. gentleman refers will be available in two days. This is simply notice of a resolution.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


William Duff: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All those in favour of the motion will say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those opposed will say
nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


William Duff: As a matter of courtesy, the
minister might let the motion stand until the returns are brought down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The minister has signified no intention of allowing the matter to stand. In my opinion the ayes have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Bonus on Wheat

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: If the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will intimate what day he would like to take up the motion standing in my name, with reference to the statute of Westminster, I shall be glad to accommodate myself to his wishes.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Perhaps Monday or Tuesday would be convenient.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are going on with
ways and means on Monday.


Ernest Lapointe: It will not take long.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Tuesday, then. Stands.
Motion stands.



BONUS ON WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I inquire of the Prime Minister as to the accuracy of a statement which appears in The Financial Post of June 25, with respect to an important matter of government policy. It is, the report says, "from our own correspondent", Ottawa, and reads in part:
It was learned here officially that when Mr. Bennett made this announcement no definite policy had been worked out. Upon closer study, the difficulties of contributing 5 cents per bushel only to export wheat were disclosed. The government, faced by these difficulties, have abandoned the policy of a freight rate subvention on export wheat, and, instead, propose to bonus all wheat marketing by farmers, whether for export or for domestic consumption, by 5 cents per bushel. Just how the policy will be applied remains to be decided.
I should like to ask, first, whether the statement is a correct one, and secondly, in the event of its being correct, whether my right hon. friend does not feel that an important announcement of this kind should be made in the first instance to parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wholly agree with the view expressed in the last observation of the right hon. gentleman, that it would be highly improper to make a declaration of policy, in the first instance, elsewhere than in parliament when it is in session. I have endeavoured, so far as it has been within my power, strictly to adhere to that rule, bearing in mind that on many occasions I have heard the right hon. gentleman refer to the rule- a rule with respect to which, as I have often
said to him, I am wholly in accord with his views. No such statement was, to my knowledge, made to the correspondent of any newspaper, officially or otherwise, and I am sure that the right hon. gentleman would be the last to seek to hold any government accountable for what appears in the public press with respect to policies of governments. For if it were so, the policy of the late government would have been very much like that of its predecessor, and the policy of the present administration would probably be no policy at all. I can only say that the policy of this administration with respect to the matter in question will, of course, be made known in the measures founded upon the resolutions to be submitted to the house in due course.



TRADE AGREEMENT WITH AUSTRALIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to a question yesterday my right hon. friend intimated that, before the close of the day, he might have a statement to make with regard to the Australian treaty. Possibly that statement was inadvertently made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I had expected a cablegram
before eleven o'clock. I looked into the matter after my right hon. friend had left last evening, and the position is this. A trade agreement has been signed between Australia and Canada. Duplicate copies were prepared. The copy signed here was mailed on the date of execution. The copy signed in Australia was mailed from that dominion, I believe, the next day after it was executed. In the ordinary passage of mails, it is not expected that the copy that left here will reach Australia before July 5, and the copy mailed from Australia will probably not reach here until July 7, as it is coming by way of 'San Francisco, there being no direct mail that could be utilized advantageously at that time. The government of Australia desires that statements with respect to the agreement be made simultaneously, and we have agreed to that view. As soon as they receive the copy signed here, they will immediately communicate with us. and when we receive their copy we shall at once communicate with them; and at the earliest possible moment thereafter a statement will be made on the same day to the parliament of Australia and to this house. One would hesitate to express a precise opinion with respect to the matter, but I should say that somewhere between the 7th
Trade with Australia

and the 9th-that is, either on the 8th or on the 9th-we should be able to make a state* ment here, as it is clear that the agreement will reach Australia prior to the date on which their copy will reach us. There should therefore be no delay after our receipt of the copy signed in Australia.


Mr. EULER:: I do not want the Prime
Minister to disclose prematurely any matter of policy, but in connection with the Australian treaty, I noticed the other day, in a press despatch from Reuters, a statement made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand to the effect that they were prepared to negotiate a treaty with Canada but that no steps had been taken by the Canadian government. Will the Prime Minister say whether that is the case and, if so, whether steps might not be taken to arrange such a trade agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know whether
I should speak without referring to the documents, but I might say for the information of the house that, I think, my first experience of the administration of public affairs was the receipt from New Zealand of a message which was directed to the Prime Minister-and at the time it was sent that would have meant my right hon. friend opposite-in which that dominion veiy strenuously objected to the repeal of the agreement under which their butter came into our market at a cent per pound. And certain steps were then taken by the parliament of New Zealand to make it less easy for Canadian goods to find access to their markets. When the tariff was subsequently raised, the matter was discussed with the Prime Minister of New Zealand and his party as they passed through Canada, and later in England, but for some strange reason the Prime Minister of New Zealand represents the view of his government as being exactly as indicated by the newspapers: we must provide a market for their butter.


An hon. MEMBER:: They will negotiate
on no other basis?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry to say that
just what Mr. Forbes said to the newspaper Correspondents was practically said to us, and that must be faced. The government sought recently some negotiation with the government of New Zealand looking towards a possible discussion of the whole matter, and it was suggested that one of our ministers should go to New Zealand. It was said that that would be very useful for many. reasons, and would be a friendly act on our part; that they had frequently come to our country but none of our ministers had been there. We were unable to give them any assurance 
in that regard. Influential bodies such as boards of trade and chambers of commerce have been interesting themselves in th>
matter, but in every instance there seems to be some difficulty with regard to butter. Whether or not any member of the government may be able to take that pleasant trip to New Zealand is a matter still under consideration; certain it is that at least one or two members will not be able to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has referred to a telegram which he has received from New Zealand in reply to one which was sent by the previous administration. He did not inform the house that in that telegram from Canada to New Zealand, to which the one he received was in reply, an arrangement was made whereby the duty against New Zealand butter would be four cents per pound pending the time when there might be a revision of the agreement, and it was suggested that that revision might be made when the Prime Minister of New Zealand was on his way to the Imperial conference provided he would come by way of Canada. That I understand was acceptable and the Premier of New Zealand came by way of Canada but on the day he arrived in Ottawa and began to negotiate with my right hon. friend, the government of the day, the present administration, raised the duty from four to eight cents per pound and the Premier of New Zealand a few days ago in advising his own parliament of the matter said that Mr. Bennett had slammed the door in his face the day he arrived at Ottawa and for that reason it was impossible to effect any further negotiation, and for that reason there was no alternative but to have the rate of the New Zealand general tariff made applicable to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the
right hon. gentleman's recollection is entirely accurate, but I will satisfy myself upon that point and make a statement to the house. As to raising the duty to eight cents a pound, we did take that action and we did it because we believed we owed a duty to Canadian butter producers which was greater than any duty we owed to the butter producers of any other part of the world.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the fact that upon looking up the records I find that

Inquiries for Returns
six or seven returns which I have asked for during the session have not as yet been tabled. Perhaps I should have drawn the attention of my hon. friend to the fact before this time. The first return, asking the reasons why an embargo was placed upon certain Russian commodities, can stand for another month or so because it is not so important, but the correspondence between Sir George Foster and the Canadian Council of Agriculture is more recent and I would like to obtain it as early as possible.
Hon, H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the last return to which my hon. friend refers, I would state that that return called for the typing of over two hundred pages, not only of correspondence but of statements containing technical matter and figures of a very complicated character. However, the officers of the department with what I think is unusual despatch have completed that return; it was sent to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and will be 'brought down tomorrow. I would remind my hon. friend that the typing of two hundred pages of foolscap, the originals of which had to be gathered from probably twenty or thirty files, is not a simple task and the officers of the department are certainly not to blame for any delay in the compiling of this return.


William Richard Motherwell: I thank my hon. friend for that, but there are other returns which I have not received and which could be answered in half an hour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know what they are and that remains to be seen.



WEST LAMBTON CENSUS ENUMERATORS

Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Some time ago I placed on the order paper some questions with reference to census enumerators in West Lambton. These questions stood as an order for refurn. May 1 ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the return will be brought down?


Henry Herbert Stevens: (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I shall make inquiries.



RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION

Jean-François Pouliot: On June 1 an order was passed, which was referred to on June 16 as reported in Hansard at page 2658, for certain correspondence from the Minister of Marine. It was an 22110-192
answer to a letter of October 2, 1930, addressed to him, but all I received was a letter from himself dated January 19, 1931, replying further to that letter. As he told me on June 16 that there were two letters, one from his secretary and one from himself, as I wrote him about the matter and as I have not received any letter, would the minister be kind enough to tell me whether he is ready to produce the first answer that was given to that letter? If not, I shall be in a position to make another motion to get it. I am very sorry the minister did not comply with the order of the house.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The return was prepared by the officials of my department and my instructions were that they should put into that return the whole correspondence. I shall inquire further to see whether there are other letters. If there are, I shall have no objection whatever to laying them before the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but he made the statement himself.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION

Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Will the Minister of Marine be kind enough to instruct his officers to comply with an order of a return placed on the order paper the first day of the session, which order was passed very early in the month of March. If deals with appointments to the Quebec harbour commission. The minister promised me privately he would see to it that this order would be brought down as soon as possible. Would he instruct his officers to expedite the matter?


Alfred Duranleau: I shall inquire again and I hope I shall be able to give an answer to the house to-morrow. I do not know why the return was not brought down sooner. Of course the matter was overlooked by me, but I am sure the return will be forthcoming soon.



ROSS RIFLE COMPANY

Charles Gavan Power: A similar question might be addressed to the Minister of National Defence, except that the order for return was passed perhaps a month later, with respect to correspondence dealing with the Ross Rifle Company.


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: The correspondence
affecting my department is already in the hands of the Secretary of State. The matter involves several departments.



Dominion Wheat Board



DOMINION WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, a headline appears in
the Financial Post of June 25 which states: "Wheat board is not likely, Ottawa hears.'' In view of the fact that the three western provinces have been stressing to the government the necessity of the establishment of a wheat board, and also because of the fact that many of the western members are receiving resolutions regarding this matter, I would like to ask the government if it is now in a position to state whether the farmers can expect the establishment this year of a wheat board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman
knows perfectly well that representatives of the western provinces were here yesterday and made their representations to the government, and that no conclusion was arrived at. The matter is under consideration and it affords me an opportunity to point out to my fellow western members that the question of the creation of a wheat board is now surrounded with legal difficulties in consequence of the decisions of the court of last resort of our empire, to which the attention of the house well might be directed. As I pointed out yesterday to the legal representatives of the provinces, these decisions in connection with the commerce and news print cases were to the effect that it was not competent for the Dominion to infringe upon the semi-sovereign rights-I think that is the language of Lord Haldane-of the provinces by endeavouring, for instance, to fix the prices of commodities or deal with matters of that character; that property and civil rights were solely within the jurisdiction of the provinces and could not be taken away from them by any act of the parliament of Canada unless a national emergency such as war existed. If my hon. friend cares to pursue further his study he will find that in the later case, in connection with the fixing of the price of newsprint, the matter was discussed further. Whether or not the Dominion parliament could pass any statute which would enable a board created by it to carry on business and function as a private trader representing the government is a matter not free from doubt. I suggested to the gentlemen another method by which the ends aimed at might be accomplished, and that matter is under their consideration as it is under ours. I am sure that if the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to consult with those who have had to give much fMr Sutherland.]
study and thought to this matter, if he will take into consideration the decisions of the courts fixing clearly the jurisdiction of this parliament in times of peace, on the one hand, as distinguished from the jurisdiction of the provinces in times of peace, on the other hand, he will realize that the creation of such an organization as he suggests entails more than the mere mentioning of it.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Could not
the constitutional difficulties to which the Prime Minister has referred be obviated by the provinces passing concurrent legislation validating the federal act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The privy council is very clear about that. The question of validating a dominion act by provincial statute, it is hardly necessary to say, is something not possible of accomplishment. Provincial legislation cannot validate dominion legislation. Dominion legislation either lies within or without the ambit of the powers of parliament; provincial legislation either lies within or without the legislative jurisdiction of the province. If without, no action on our part can give it validity; if within, it requires no action to give it validity. It is hardly necessary to say that in the case in connection with the peaceful settlement of strikes and disputes between employers and employees the provinces passed legislation which had been declared by the dominion to be ultra vires of the dominion; it being ultra vires of the dominion, it was, of course, intra vires of the provinces. It does not follow that the mere passing of legislation which is ultra vires of the dominion will in itself give the dominion powers even if the provinces ask that those powers be accepted. That is the real position with respect to the matter. But without an analysis of it in that sense, the discussion proceeded upon suggestions that were made for the purpose of endeavouring to see whether some method might not be devised that would accomplish the purpose aimed at without contravening any fixed legal principles. It is, I presume, unnecessary to say that there is a large body of public opinion that does not approve of a wheat board, and any single individual would have the right to resort to the courts for the purpose of testing the validity of any legislation that might be enacted. He would be entitled to an injunction just as any litigant might be. Therefore it is of paramount importance that the matter, when dealt with, shall be dealt with in some manner that will not invite litigation nor contravene any fixed legal principle that we know governs in the administration of our constitutional rights.

Safety of Life at Sea



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 96, respecting the international convention for the safety of life at sea, signed in London on the 31st day of May, 1929, and the international convention respecting load lines signed in London on the 5th day of July, 1930.
Motion agreed to, 'bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the minister whether this international convention is ratified in its entirety, or whether there is any reservation to our approval of it?


Alfred Duranleau: It is ratified in its entirety. I inquired from the Department of Justice whether we could ratify with some reservations, because there were certain cases which we would have reserved had we had the right to do so. The answer was: We have no right to ratify with reservations because the reservations would have to be sent to the Home Office in London and from there to all the nations that signed the convention and the protocol for their ratification. I think as a whole the legislation is quite satisfactory to Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: I heartily approve this step. The tendency nowadays is to have maritime legislation covered by international conventions and this convention with regard to load lines was a very important one at the 1929 convention where our country was represented. I think parliament should approve the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2.-Conventions confirmed and sanctioned.
Alfred Duranleau: I have a few amendments to make on the recommendation of the officers of the Department of Justice. They suggest that certain words be added to make it quite clear that the final protocol annexed to the load line convention is a part of the convention. Therefore I propose that the following words-
Together with the final protocol,
-be added after the words "load lines" in the eleventh line of section 2. The section will then read as follows:
The convention, known as the international convention for the safety of life at sea, signed 22110-1921
at London on the 31st day of May, 1929 (in this act referred to as the safety convention), and set out in schedule I to this act, and the convention, known as the international convention respecting load lines, together with the final protocol, signed at London on the 5th day of July, 1930 (in this act referred to as the load line convention), and set out in schedule II to this act, are hereby confirmed and sanctioned, and the provisions of the said conventions shall have the force of law.
I move that amendment, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. RINFRET:: My hon. friend cannot move an amendment to his own bill. If should be moved by one of his colleagues.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman.


William Duff: Will the minister be good enough to explain just what this means. What is meant by the load line?


Alfred Duranleau: This bill, as indicated by the title, and as provided for specifically by section 2, has for its object the ratification of twio international conventions respecting shipping. One of these, set out in schedule one of the act is the international convention for the safety of life at sea, which was signed at London on May 31, 1929. The other is the international load line convention, which was signed at London on July 5, 1980. The first convention becomes effective as from July 1, 1931, provided that the requisite number of ratifications have been effected before that date. The other convention does not become effective until on or after July 1, 1932.
It will be useful at this point to refer briefly to the steps that led up to the conclusion of these two conventions. I shall deal first with the convention for the safety of life at sea. It will doubtless be within the recollection of many hon. members of this house that following the disaster to the steamship Titanic in the month of April, 1912, there was a general awakening on the part of all nations in the interests of humanity to the necessity of examining with the greatest care and thoroughness the possibility of strengthening the measures then existing providing for the safety of life at sea. All the nations came to the conclusion that there should be a convention to study this question as well as the question of load lines. The first convention was held in 1929, and the other in 1930.	.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysbor-ough has asked what a load line is. I suppose it is the depth of the load that can be put into a boat, and that load line must be marked on the side of the ship. The loads differ in different zones.
302S
Safety of Life at Sea


William Duff: I always thought that the loads were in ships' holds, not in different zones. Might I ask what the load line had to do with the loss of the Titanic?


Alfred Duranleau: All the nations were awakened by that disaster to the necessity of providing for the safety of life at sea, and that is why the convention was held in 1929. The load line question was also dealt with at that first convention, which had to do with the protection of the life of passengers and of the crews on ships.


William Duff: Does the minister mean to say that in the case of passenger ships the load line determines how many passengers shall be carried.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not say that. I say that the convention of 1929 dealt with the protection of life at sea, particularly of life on passenger ships, but it also dealt with the load line in merchant vessels, for these vessels also carry passengers and crew as well as cargoes, as I suppose the hon. gentleman knows.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I do not think the minister has given quite an accurate explanation of the load line. The load line as adopted by the convention is based on the old Board of Trade rules of 1906 in Great Britain, which make it compulsory to put on the side of a ship a disc, the centre of the disc indicating the line to which the ship may be loaded in the summer, and roughly six inches below that mark being the load line for the winter months.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Ships on lakes and rivers.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I have to leave the house shortly may I refer the minister to article 2, subsection 2, of the convention itself, which reads as follows:
Ships when engaged on international voyages between the near neighbouring ports of two or more countries may be exempted by the administration to which such ships belong from the provisions of this convention, so long as they shall remain in such trades, if the governments of the countries in which such ports are situated shall be satisfied that the sheltered nature and conditions of such voyages between such ports make it unreasonable or impracticable to apply the provisions of this convention to ships engaged in such trades.
Following upon that article 2 of the schedule, the minister has inserted in the bill before the house section 3, which we are now discussing, and which reads:
(Mr. Du'anleau.]
This act shall not apply to ships while engaged on voyages between Canada and the United States of America on any lakes or rivers.
I have had extensive representations made to me from the shipping interests of British Columbia that the sheltered waters along the Pacific coast from a line from the north of Vancouver island to the mainland and also from Race rock to Port Angelus should be exempted and excluded from the provision of article 2, subsection 2, of the convention. I trust that the minister will be able to make the necessary representations to the nations, which I understand are quite willing to enter into a mutual arrangement to have these sheltered waters exempted from the provisions of this legislation. At the same time I should like to emphasize to (the minister the fact that the shipping interests of British Columbia desire this legislation, so far as it applies to international voyages, but in their own sheltered waters they would like to have exemption.


Mr. NEILL:: Does this refer to waters
between Vancouver island and the mainland, not on the west coast?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, just inside.


William Duff: I wish at this time strongly to object to section 3 of the bill. In my opinion it is more important that the act should apply to ships plying between Canada and the United States and to ships on the great lakes than that it should apply to ships on the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. Certainly there are more dangers both to passengers and crews on a ship running between Halifax and New York or from one point to another on the great lakes than there would be on the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. I certainly think the section should be amended.


Alfred Duranleau: The representation
has been made by our officials who attended the conference that it was better to exempt the great lakes and voyages between Canada and the United States. Although I am not an expert in the matter I think it is the desire of both countries, both the Department of Marine of the United States and the department of which I am the head, that the great lakes should be exempted from the regulations of the convention.


William Duff: A minute ago the minister
told us that this bill was to provide for the safety of life at sea. Of course we recognize the fact that the great lakes are not the great seas, yet every hon. member in this committee and every person throughout the

Safety of Life at Sea
country knows that there is more danger to shipping on the great lakes, especially in the fall of the year, than there is on the Atlantic ocean.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


William Duff: I say yes, and anybody who
says that there is not does not know what he is talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, easy, easy!


William Duff: Proportionately, there are
more ships lost on the great lakes than there are on the Atlantic ocean. To my mind it is most important that ships on the great lakes with their passengers and crews to which the minister referred a minute ago should be protected as well as ships plying between our Atlantic ports and the ports of European countries. The same applies, perhaps more strongly, to the coastal waters between Canada and the United States. Any man who knows anything about shipping certainly will know that there is more danger to the ships, and to the passengers and crews on ships plying between Canada and the United States than there is to ships, passengers and crews on the Atlantic ocean. Certainly I urge that this section should be exempted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, may I
be excused for intervening at this time for but a single moment. The bill before us is founded upon a convention that was agreed to in 1929 and which had to deal with the safety of life at sea. Under the international convention through which this agreement was arrived at the word "sea" excluded the inland lakes to which my hon. friend has referred. Therefore by the legislation now before us we could not bring such inland lakes within the terms of the agreement. At the moment we are only ratifying an international arrangement in connection with which the views of Canada were expressed, if my memory serves me correctly, by the Deputy Minister of Marine, Mr. Alexander Johnston, and by Mr. Lueien Pacaud, secretary in the office of the Canadian High Commissioner in London.
My hon. friend the member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff)-whom I sometimes designate as the admiral because of his knowledge of the high seas,-will realize that in this instance we could not deal with a subject which I agree with him is of great importance. Those of us who have followed the results of storms in the fall realize that death by misadventure on the lakes is very great. To deal with such a matter we would have to make it the subject of another convention altogether. If my hon. friend will do me the kindness to look at the words of the
preamble to the convention he will find the following:
.... being desirous of promoting safety of life at sea by establishing in common agreement uniform principles and rules directed thereto.
That is the reason that coastal waters and lakes are excluded from the word "sea".
Although the hon. member who referred to the load line is not now in the chamber may I say that the words to which he referred are of most interesting derivation. The line referred to is not usually described as the load line, but is usually termed the "Plimsoll mark." Samuel Plimsoll espoused the cause of humanity in the days when great shipowners sent out ships which were not seaworthy and which as a result of overloading were responsible for the loss of a great many lives. Through succeeding years of advocacy in the British House of Commons, Samuel Plimsoll was successful, through the Board of Trade, in establishing a load line, and his name and fame are now perpetuated by the use of the words "Plimsoll mark" upon that disc which carries marks, one for the winter season, another for the summer season, one for the north Atlantic and another for the south Atlantic. Anyone who wishes to inspect a ship in port will see the Plimsoll mark upon its side indicating the load mark or load line referred to in this convention.
Undoubtedly every hon. member on this side of the house at least would like to give effect to the very humanitarian suggestions of the hon. member, but the limitations imposed upon us are such that we can only reject or accept the convention; that is one of the prices we pay for conventions of all kinds. The international convention arrived at this agreement only after a tremendous amount of work, and I am sure if any hon. member will look at the list of names ait pages 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the schedule to the bill he will realize that the best men who could be secured from the various parts of the world attended for the purpose of endeavouring to arrive at satisfactory conclusions. For instance, hon. members will note that the German ambassador headed the delegation of that country. Australia was represented by naval men. Denmark, Spain and the Irish Free State were represented by men of high repute, and the United States of America was represented not only by distinguished diplomatic civilians but also by technical men of the first order. The same may be said of other governments of the world. I therefore suggest to the committee in no captious or critical spirit at all that we are very largely limited in the amendments we may be in a position to make to the legislation.
Safety of Life at Sea


Ernest Lapointe: And it is well that we are so limited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has anticipated my next statement. Perhaps it is well that we should be so limited, because a body of experts is perhaps somewhat better qualified to arrive at proper conclusions than would hon. members in the house, and the bill now before us represents the agreement to which practically all the maritime nations of the world have come.


William Duff: Have the other parties to
this convention agreed to the amendment moved a minute ago by the hon. Minister of Public Works?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand the amendment had nothing to do with the convention. I thank my hon. friend, however, for bringing that matter to the attention of the committee because had he not done so I had intended to do so myself. So far as the substantive body of the convention is concerned we must either accept or reject it. If we reject it we of course have repudiated the action of our own representative, and I am sure this house has no intention to take any such action.
I am told, and having looked at the bill [DOT]now before me, I am prone to believe that the convention represents a tremendous amount of hard work by the very foremost experts of the world. For instance, if hon. members care to turn to pages 46 and 47 of the schedule attached to the bill they will ascertain the methods by which certain calculations are made, and the formulae employed.
I am sure they will readily realize that in order to prepare such formulae a very thorough knowledge of higher mathematics is required. So that the convention did not deal only with the question of safety at sea. in the narrow sense of the term, but dealt with it in the broader sense of the term, and discussed many points which come within the realm of navigation. If hon. members would turn to page 42 of the schedule they will find the heading "construction," and in the following pages they would learn of methods to be employed for the purpose of ascertaining the tonnage of ships, and matters of that kind.
I apologize for trespassing upon the time of the committee in connection with a matter which, after all, does not lie within my own province in particular, but I desired to point out, as head of the government, that this is a convention w'hich was negotiated by our predecessors for the purpose of promoting safety at sea for those Canadians who may be engaged in navigation on the high seas.

It is now before us, as it is before other nations, for the purpose of securing parliamentary approval. In my humble judgment the conclusions at which these distinguished gentlemen have arrived in every sense warrant the approval of this parliament.


William Duff: Have the other nations aip-proved of it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They either have done so or are in process of doing so. I can give that information later, I think; I did not charge myself with that responsibility to-day. However, other nations are doing so. I cannot remember at the moment the nations which have ratified the convention.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: There have been no rejections?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know at the moment not one has rejected it. Perhaps the minister can answer that question more accurately, but as far as my information goes there have been no rejections.


Alfred Duranleau: Before the convention comes into force it must be ratified by at least five nations. We received word either yesterday or this morning that up to date the required number of ratifications have not been received. This makes it necessary to bring in an amendment giving power to the governor in council to postpone the date of the coming into force of this bill until it has been ratified by five nations. One of these conventions should come into force on July 1, 1931, but that date will have to be extended because the necessary ratifications have not been received.


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot very well
complain about the other nations, because we have nolt ratified it ourselves.


Alfred Duranleau: That is so, but we are proceeding to ratify it now.


Mr. ROSS:: While it has nothing to do with this convention, I might remind the minister that this year the navigators on the grealt lakes filed a very strong petition with the minister asking that a similar arrangement should be entered into with regard to ships navigating on Ithe great lakes, and I hope the minister will not forget that when our shipping act is under consideration.


William Duff: Between the United States and Canada?


Arthur Edward Ross: No, for our own Canadian
navigators, following this standard.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Safety of Life at Sea
On section 4-Regulations.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton South):: To this section there is an amendment moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to strike out the words "and costs" in the last line of the section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Canadian ships not to proceed
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Will this apply to oil tankers as well as to ordinary ships?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will apply to all ships which are on a register.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Including oil tankers?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a suggested new
section to be added as section 15, reading as follows:
The governor in council may from time to time by order in council postpone the coming into operation of this act or any section thereof for such period not exceeding on any occasion of postponement one year, as may be specified in such order.
That is added for the reason expressed by the minister.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I do not know whether
or not I understood the amendment correctly, but it seems to me that as it was read the postponement may be made for an indefinite period. I do not think the amendment should be carried in its present form.


Alfred Duranleau: As I explained a
moment ago, the convention with regard to safety of life at sea was supposed to come into force on July 1, 1931, but at least five nations must ratify the regulations in order that they may come into force. We have just received word from Great Britain that the necessary number of ratifications has not been received, so we must give the governor in council power to declare when this act shall come into operation. The moment we are told by Great Britain that the act has come into force, by reason of at least five nations having ratified it, then it will be proper for the governor in council to declare this act to be in force in Canada. That is why we are asking power for the governor in council to take the necessary action.


Angus MacInnis: But would it be as well
to state that the act automatically comes into force when the five nations have signed the convention? That seems to me the best way to proceed at this time. As the new section stands, parliament is ratifying the convention but leaving it within the power of the minister to postpone indefinitely its coming into operation.


Alfred Duranleau: The government intends to declare the act in force when the provisions of the convention are actually in force in all the nations of the world. There is no harm in giving this power to the governor in council.


Angus MacInnis: Surely the minister does
not suggest that we should wait until all the nations of the world agree to the convention.


Alfred Duranleau: Until at least five
nations have ratified it.


Angus MacInnis: I understood the minister to say that Canada would not ratify it until all the nations had signed it.


Alfred Duranleau: When five nations
have ratified the convention, its provisions will be in force throughout the world, for this reason, that ships coming from other countries will be fined if they have not the proper load line, even though they may not have ratified the convention.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the advantage
of the mode adopted by the minister over the custom that has prevailed of such acts coming into force by proclamation of the governor in council? This is done in very many statutes, and the proclamation might be issued after the government had been informed that five nations had ratified the convention. Perhaps there is some special advantage accruing to the method now proposed. If there is, I should like to know what it is.


Alfred Duranleau: The amendment was
suggested by the Department of Justice. I understand it is considered desirable that ships shall be given one clear year in which to comply with the requirements of the convention, and in view of the fact that it may be some months before the necessary five nations have ratified the convention, we propose this further section. There is no harm in the section.


Ernest Lapointe: No, no; I just wanted to know what the advantage was.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister is getting us more confused all the time.
Safely of Life at Sea

In one case he says the act comes into force when five nations have ratified the convention, and then he suggests it comes into force automatically. We shall be either in or out if five other nations come in. We are curious to know why he is departing from the ordinary custom of declaring the act in force by proclamation.


Alfred Duranleau: According to the
wording of the convention, its provisions were to come into force on July 1, 1931, but there is a section which provides that at least five nations must ratify the convention before the regulations shall be actually in force. I may be wrong, but I inferred that when five nations had ratified the convention it would come into force automatically. There may be some provision to the effect that, if it is not ratified on July 1, 1931, the convention shall come into force at a later date, perhaps a year later. That is why we want to have the power to declare its coming into force. We desire to conform with the procedure of the home office. When Great Britain puts it into force, it is our desire that the act shall be in force in Canada at the same time.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Does Canada count as one nation among the five for the purpose of ratifying the convention?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Paul Mercier: Suppose Canada ratifies it to-day, will it have effect here even if no other nation ratifies it?


Alfred Duranleau: It will not be in force in Canada until it is in force in Great Britain. It cannot be in force by July 1, 1931, because there is a proviso in the convention that five nations shall first ratify it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would direct
attention to the curious anomaly that a ship might go from Montreal through the Panama canal to Vancouver and still apparently be regarded as being in domestic waters throughout the voyage, although such a voyage is essentially international. Would such a ship come under the provisions of this convention? The Panama canal is decidedly not a Canadian waterway; yet, as the matter now stands, we refer to such a voyage as intercoastal. It seems to me that provision should be made for the safety of cargoes and passengers on such a voyage. Such provision is as essential as it is with respect to a purely international voyage.


Alfred Duranleau: This convention applies to ships making international voyages. It may be that a ship passing through the Panama canal on its way to Vancouver might

be liable to come under the act. If the navigation is only coastal, it does not apply. It does not apply to any voyage made in sheltered waters. The remedy in any case such as my hon. friend refers to would be under our own shipping act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If we had an up
to date shipping act it would cover the situation. The Panama canal may be considered neutral waters, but the Americans collect the tolls. I should like to know whether a voyage such as I have described should not properly come under the convention.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The same thing would
apply, under my hon. friend's reasoning, to a voyage from Port Arthur to Buffalo.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should have prefaced my remarks by saying that I am not sure of my position. But to all intents and purposes, a ship going from Montreal to Vancouver, is in international waters for a part of the time. That would not be what is ordinarily known as a coastal voyage. That is why I raised the question as it seems to me there should be something of that kind provided.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Some twenty nations sent
representatives to this convention and we have been told that should five subscribe to the convention it would make it compulsory upon all the others; is that right?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, in a sense.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Supposing Australia, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain, Canada, the Irish Free State and India expressed themselves as willing to subscribe to this convention, would that make it compulsory?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member will
look at article 65.


Ernest Lapointe: Article 65 reads:
The present convention shall come into force on the 1st July, 1931, as between the governments which have deposited their ratifications on that date.
And again:	'
Ratifications deposited after the date on which the present convention has come into force shall take effect three months after the date of their deposit.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I do not get that quite
clearly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I can clear it
up. The convention nominally comes into force between all the signatories on July 1,

Safety of Life at Sea
1931; that is point number one. But the convention only comes into force as between the governments which have deposited ratifications by that date and provided that at least five ratifications have been deposited with the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Upon agreement between the parties, there was only one of these documents executed, and that document is kept in the archives of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the ratifications are to be deposited there. Should five countries signify their adherence to this convention before July 1, 1931, then it would be in force between those governments; then the other governments may come in by depositing their ratifications, and three months afterwards, as my hon. friend has said the convention becomes effective as between them and the rest of the countries which have signed. However, it has no effect with respect to any country until that country deposits its ratification. As my hon. friend, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said, ratification is the essence, and that is what we are doing. The formality of ratification is a technical matter but what we are doing is giving the approval of parliament to the convention so that formal ratification may follow thereafter. The amendment moved by my colleague provides for the governor in council making a proclamation so that thereby notice may be given in our Gazette that the ratifications have been exchanged and the convention has become effective. As has been suggested, it is not competent for any five countries to make it binding upon the other fifteen; that is not the point at all, it is based upon the idea that there must be what we are doing this afternoon, namely, acceptance or rejection of the convention. The formal ratification is the technical means by which we deposit in the archives at London our accession to the convention and our acceptance of it as governing our maritime activities.


Alfred Duranleau: With reference to the query of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), I think he will find an answer on page 131, under article 3. This article covers definitions, and subsection (c) thereof reads:
(c) an "international voyage" is a voyage from a country to which this convention applies to a port outside such country, or conversely, and for this purpose, every colony, overseas territory, protectorate or territory under suzerainty or mandate is regarded as a separate country;
Following that definition we must infer that a voyage from Montreal through the Panama
canal to Vancouver would not be an international voyage and the act would not apply.


Alan Webster Neill: Should it not apply? Is it
not as dangerous?


Alfred Duranleau: I think our own law
should cover the voyages of Canadian ships from one Canadian port to another. If it is necessary we might take up that point when we come to revise the Canada Shipping Act and see that life at sea is protected on voyages from one Canadian port to another.


Mr. CARDIN:: Is there not a possibility
that an amendment as proposed by the hon minister would make our approval conditional? We approve of the convention, it is true, but we keep within ourselves the power of restricting the effect of out approval. Would that be considered by the other countries as an approval? Are we not qualifying our approval?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose the moment we adopt this bill, it means the approval of the convention. We declare that this act shall come into force only by proclamation because the convention itself is not in force I am quite sure that Great Britain would consider the passing of this bill with this amendment as a ratification of the convention


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The passing of the bill is
not sufficient; the approval of the convention has to be deposited in England. If we pass the bill and do not notify the authorities in England, the passing of the bill will have no effect. The important thing is the depositing of the ratification. We pass a bill approving of the convention but we reserve within ourselves the right to say that this approval shall not have effect until such a date. Are we not qualifying our approval?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, in order that he may consult with the law officers of the crown in connection with the effect of the suggested amendment to section 65. The important thing in international law is the ratification, and the ratification is predicated upon the approval being given by this parliament, and the extent to which a conditional approval may be given, predicating an unconditional ratification-the point raised by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. C&rdin)-is a matter which I think might well be considered by the law officers of the crown as well as by the deputy minister, who was present as one of the delegates. I suggest that my colleague ascertain the exact relation of the proposed amendment to section 65 to the various annexes of the convention itself.
Halifax Harbour

No doubt the former Minister of Justice has observed that it would be unnecessary to print some of the annexes as part of the convention as they represent merely the arrangements made by committees. It may be desirable to ascertain whether or not the deputy minister, who was present as a delegate, desires to have all the annexes printed in the statute. I myself have no settled opinion about that, and the minister can satisfy himself as to that point and advise the committee accordingly.
Progress reported.



HALIFAX HARBOUR


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 103, to provide for a further loan to the Halifax harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (|Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Loan of $3,500,000 to harbour commissioners for terminal facilities.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: Will the minister give the details of these works?


Alfred Duranleau: I have the details of the works which were asked for the other day by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) when the resolution was before the house. The new works cover thirteen items to complete the piers and sheds of the harbour as follows:
1.	Lighting system, marginal roadway, $15,000.
2.	Reconditioning pier No. 9 and construction of dolphin, $12,000.
3.	Construction of scow for explosives, $7,000.
4.	Miscellaneous items, plant and equipment, $46,000.
5.	Marine leg for grain elevator, $100,000.
6.	Reconditioning shed at pier No. 2, $95,000.
7.	Reconditioning cattle shed at pier No. 9, $3,000.
8.	Service buildings construction, $45,000.
9.	Additional offices, gear rooms, rest rooms, sheds Nos. 23, 24, 27 and 28, $10,600.
10.	Removal of existing communicating gallery, first floor and erection second floor, shed No. 21, $10,000.
11.	Additional shed facilities on pier No. 3 and water supply, $3,000.
12.	Additional shed facilities on pier No. 3 and emergency fund, $30,000.
13.	Water supply, $10,000.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not object to lending money to the Halifax harbour commission or the St. John harbour commission or in connection with other similar resolutions my hon. friend has on the order paper, but I think it is quite in order to ask him what is contemplated in the harbour of Montreal. I understand that certain works that had been decided upon in the harbour of Montreal were discontinued, and if I understood the Prime Minister aright the other day, the reason given for that was that the bridge had cost more than had been expected and pending some decision the government was to arrive at, works on certain wharves in the harbour of Montreal were discontinued. I do not want to enter into a discussion of the general conditions in the harbour of Montreal, but I would take this occasion, inasmuch as there is a great deal of unemployment in that city at the present time, to ask the Minister of Marine whether we can hope that works on such wharves as Windmill point and others, which had been decided upon and which were discontinued, will be undertaken very soon?


Alfred Duranleau: The intention of the government is to take care of and to provide facilities for all the ports of Canada and I am sure the port of Montreal will be cared for by the government just as any other Canadian port. It is true during last fall we had contemplated building the Windmill point wharf at an expenditure of about $1,200,000, but the work has been delayed on account of the state of business in the country at large. We felt that we could delay those works for a few months.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would think, on the
contrary, that would have been a reason to undertake them.


Alfred Duranleau: No, we had to advance $1,200,000 for that construction.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Does the minister mean
that the money previously lent under a bill passed by the house had been exhausted?


Alfred Duranleau: Not yet.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then the government does not have to advance anything. The money is there.


Alfred Duranleau: I think the harbour
commission have expended between $7,000,000 and $8,000,000 out of the $10,000,000 loan authorized by the house.

Halifax Harbour


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That was my information also. That is why I am asking why the government is not going on with the expenditure of the other $2,000,000.


Alfred Duranleau: It is on account of
the decrease in the revenues of the country. Therefore we thought, as there was no real urgency, we could suspend those works for a few months. That is why they were delayed. The harbour commission of Montreal has been authorized to do certain other work under the loan of $10,000 000, and I think they are going on with certain works at the present time.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps I should not
press the matter at this moment, but I want to point this out: at the last special session the house voted money for the government to spend in the different provinces, but in Montreal we have this peculiar situation, that while we are getting money in one way, through the vote of the last special session, the loan to the harbour commission of Montreal is suspended to the extent of $2,000,000, so that, taking all in all, we have received nothing from the government. I know my hon. friend has at heart as much as I have the interests of the harbour of Montreal, and I would ask him to urge his colleagues to allow the harbour commission of Montreal to spend the $2000.000 lent to them. According to the minister, the Montreal harbour commission has been deprived of the opportunity of spending $2,000,000 on account of the depression, but as on account of the depression we have been voting money to spend in other ways, if the two things are balanced, it will be found that in Montreal we have received very little if anything at all.


Alfred Duranleau: Out of the unemployment relief fund the city of Montreal had a large amount from the government. As a matter of fact, millions of dollars worth of works have been started by the city of Montreal due to the $20.000 000 unemployment relief fund voted by parliament.
Mr. ST-PERE: When?


Alfred Duranleau: During last winter.
Mr. ST-PERE: Not that I know of. A lot of properties were expropriated but work was never started.


Alfred Duranleau: Oh yes, a tunnel was started under the Lachine canal, and work will foe started very soon on another tunnel at the other end of the canal. Subways and sewers have also been constructed, and other works of all kinds have been started by the
city. I have not got the items before me at the moment, but I can supply them to my hon. friend. The city of Montreal has started a great number of works in the city.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I wish the minister would supply a list.
Mr. ST-PERE: Why did they ask for an extension of time from the federal government if the work has already been started?


The CHAIRMAN:: I would ask hon. members to keep to the question before the committee, which refers to a loan to the Halifax harbour commissioners.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Speaking on the question of Halifax harbour, I maintain, although I have every consideration for that maritime port, that it should not be favoured at the expense of depriving other ports of similar construction works. I asked a question the other day in ordeT to secure the information which my hon. friend the minister is now kind enough to offer me, and the Prime Minister said that the information was not available and forced me to amend my question. I know the city of Montreal has spent some money, as no doubt Halifax will, but I maintain the city of Montreal did not get from this government under the unemployment relief grant more than $2,000,000. In other words, there has been taken away from the Montreal harbour commission the poweT to spend more money than we got from this government under the unemployment relief grant. But I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and admit that I should not prolong this discussion. I thank the minister for promising to look into the matter, but this government has been more prolific in promises than in accomplishment. I hope that this time we may get somewhere.


Alfred Duranleau: This government is trying to help all the ports. In Halifax works are under construction which were started over two years ago and are not completed yet. There is a pier, for instance, which is not yet completed. We have to see that this pier and the sheds which were started a year ago are completed. All the money that we are asking to-day for Halifax is for the purpose of completing works which were started a year or two ago. In the city of Montreal all the work which has been started has been completed. During these last few months we have authorized work to complete certain sheds at Montreal and to build grain loaders costing many thousands of dollars. Every work in the port of Montreal which has been started has been completed, or its completion has been authorized by this government. I
Halifax Harbour

do not say that Windmill point pier will not be built. I think it will be built within a very short time. I cannot admit that we have unfairly treated the city of Montreal, and that we are favouring other ports at the expense of Montreal. I am just as anxious as are my hon. friends to give to the port of Montreal every facility that is needed to increase her shipping business.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: The sum of $1,500,000 was voted by the late government for the construction of a wharf at Windmill point, and that wharf has not been built although the money is at the disposal of the minister. If the minister is so anxious to help the port of Montreal, why has not that $1,500,000 been spent for the construction of a wharf at Windmill point? In answer to the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) the minister said that the government was most anxious to help the port of Montreal, but he gave no explanation of why that amount has not been expended for Windmill point wharf. The people of Montreal are very anxious to know why that wharf has not been built as part of the harbour improvements of Montreal. It is most necessary for the completion of the works in Montreal that this wharf be built. The government has the money at its disposal, having been voted by the late government, and we ask now, especially in view of the conditions that exist in the city of Montreal, that the government proceed with this work. We admit that a certain amount of money has been spent in Montreal, but for some reason or other the sum that was voted by the late government for this particular work has not been expended. I am sure that my hon. friend from St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan) is most anxious to know why the tunnel in Verdun has not been built. There is some disagreement as to just where the tunnel should be constructed, but the government does not tell us why it has not started work on that tunnel, or why the city of Montreal is not using the money that has been put at its disposal by the government. Not only the representatives of the city of Montreal, but the country at large, because Montreal harbour is a national project, would like to know why these moneys are not being expended. I ask the minister now to tell us why this $1,500,000 has not been expended in building a wharf at Windmill point, and why the city of Montreal is not taking advantage of the sums placed at its disposal to proceed with various works, particularly the second tunnel in the city of Montreal. Perhaps we may not be in order, but I understand that the chairman is allowing us a certain latitude, (Mr. Duranleau.]
and I think we should be told before this section passes why Windmill point wharf has not been built, and why the city of Montreal has not taken advantage of the money placed at its disposal by the government to start the second tunnel under the Lachine canal.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I hesitate to call my
hon. friend to order because, like myself, he does not often offend against the rules.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: Mr. Chairman-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think the chairman is
quite right when he says that discussion of the tunnel is not in order. I hope my hon. friend from St. Ann will not discuss that.


John Alexander Sullivan: My good friend and late partner the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont has been tantalizing me and making a kind of speech which I shall not make.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: No. I was simply asking the minister for information.


John Alexander Sullivan: At the same time I may say that the works at Windmill point are in the division which I have the honour to represent, very humbly, in this house. In the course of my election-perhaps I am a little out of order, Mr. Chairman-I said that we had spent billions of dollars to defend the allies and that we should spend at least a few millions of dollars to defend our own Canadians in Canada.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Was this an electoral promise that the hon. member made?


John Alexander Sullivan: Of course, I never spoke about Montreal harbour. I may say that when I go to my office after leaving this house I find from fifty to seventy-five people there looking for work on the Montreal harbour, and if there is still $2,000,000 in the hands of the minister available for harbour work I certainly agree with the hon. member for St. James, my neighbour to the east, that we should spend the money at once.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Monthly statement to be submitted and applications to be approved.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When the other day the resolution was discussed in committee the minister said that in asking for the loan he intended to cover certain expenditures which had been made by the commissioners without

Halifax Harbour
authorization by the department. I should like to know whether the work initiated by the late commission in Halifax has been continued since the present government assumed office?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Is the minister in a position to tell me what amount of money had been spent up to the end of July last?


Alfred Duranleau: The amount spent on unauthorized work up to September 23, 1930 -because the new commissioners came into office on September 24-was $182,198.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What amount has been
spent since that time?


Alfred Duranleau: As I stated the other day, when the new commissioners came into office and saw that unauthorized work had been started they asked for advice from our department, and we found that those works were so advanced at the time that we could do nothing but continue them. Up to December 31, 1930, the further sum of about $103,000 was expended. In this particular instance I have given only the round figure. The total sum expended was $285,185.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Has the minister any idea what it will cost to complete this work?


Alfred Duranleau: I think I gave the figures the other day. From this time forward the expenditure to complete the unauthorized work will be approximately $25,000. Does the hon. gentleman wish to have the figures in detail?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, that is all I want.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Repayment of loans.
Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) is not in his seat, because the other day he gave the house the meaning of the term "free port." In section 7 of the bill I read:
.... the principal and interest of the sums loaned under the authority of this act to the corporation shall be payable by the corporation out of all its property, assets, tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever,
Is that the free port that was promised to the citizens at Halifax?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Answer, answer. What about an answer?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend cannot answer that question, may I ask when he
intends the port of Halifax shall become free, and that the corporation shall not have to have all its property, assets, tolls, rates and other sources of revenue assessed for the repayment of the loan?


Alfred Duranleau: I thought my hon. friend was putting the question to the Secretary of State.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no, I am putting it to my hon. friend in the absence of the Secretary of State.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: To you, my dear minister.


Alfred Duranleau: As I said the other day, I did not hear any promise such as that to which my hon. friend has referred. Our bills are drafted in the very same terms as the bills which were presented to the house by my hon. friends opposite.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh yes.


Alfred Duranleau: I refer to bills which
were presented not so very long ago.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But we did not make
such promises.


Alfred Duranleau: These moneys are
only loans, and it must be expected that they will reimburse-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Alfred Duranleau: -if they can. Later on, if we adopt another policy of declaring all ports free ports we will have to enact legislation accordingly.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, I see.


Mr. VENIOT:: Since tolls are to be collected I may be permitted to make some observations in that regard. In the years 1927, 1928 and 1929, when under a previous administration bills were placed before the house providing for loans to the ports of Halifax and St. John, the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister, contended that we were absolutely wrong in our policy in regard to the development of these ports, especially those of Halifax and St. John; that it should not be continued and that we should adopt instead a policy of free ports by which the dominion government would not lend money to these ports, but under a commission would regard the advance so made as a charge against the federal treasury. Referring to the Duncan report the present Prime Minister is reported at page 2564 of Hansard, third volume, 1929, as follows:
It was not intended that these ports should be regarded as commission ports in the sense
Halifax Harbour

in which we ordinarily use that term, implying self-sustaining undertakings, but that they should be considered to be national ports out of which, summer and winter, goods might be exported in order that the idea which was behind the confederation of the maritime provinces and the other parts of the dominion should be carried out.
Then, in Hansard, of 1929, at page 2565, volume 3, I find the following:
The situation is one which if it continues cannot but be injurious to those ports, and must bring about a condition which will prevent the accomplishment of the purpose intended in the expenditure of the moneys in question.
Then in Hansard of 1928, at page 2245, second volume, I find the following:
I submit that the Duncan report did not contemplate that sort of national port development; it contemplated a direct expenditure of public money for the purpose of developing the ports of St. John and Halifax.
Again, on page 2388 of the same volume I find the following:
I cannot think that we are doing our duty by the ports of Halifax and St. John if we merely create harbour commissions under the conditions of the existing Harbour Commissions Act, and ask those bodies to issue securities at five per cent per annum and expect them to pay either the principal or the interest. We should make an appropriation of such money from year to year as is required for the purpose of developing those harbours, and it should be a charge upon the revenues of the Canadian people.
During the last election, as I pointed out the other day, the right hon. Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, speaking in St. John said:
The port of St. John should be a great free port, a national port, and towards the implementation of this object I give my pledge. It is said that I am opposed to the port of St. John as at present operated. I am opposed to the collection of tolls in this port which prevents it from being built up. My ambition is to see this port the cheapest in the world.
Now that the Prime Minister is in power, having laid down this policy on three occasions and having given this direct promise to the people of St. John and Halifax, I think it is about time for him to put that policy into operation. Instead of introducing a measure providing for a loan of 83,500,000 for Halifax, and a further loan of $3,500,000 for St. John, which I will discuss more fully at a later time, the Prime Minister should bring in legislation authorizing this government, under plans prepared and approved by the governor in council, to expend the money directly and not continue the practice which he so severely condemned when the Liberal party was in power.


Alfred Duranleau: We are continuing the work which was started or authorized by the

late government, and nothing else. If it is the desire of my hon. friends that this bill should stand, it will stand until another session, but they will get their answer from the people of Halifax.


Peter John Veniot: I am not opposing this bill.


Alfred Duranleau: We have to finish those works, but we have asked Sir Alexander Gibb, an outstanding marine engineer, to study our national ports and report on the improvements which should be proceeded with during the next twenty-five or fifty years, and also on a plan of administration. This clearly indicates that the government is not satisfied with the way our national ports are administered. For the. time being, however, since the works are going on, we feel that they should be concluded. This house voted loans last year to these harbour commissions; contracts have been let in excess of the amounts voted at that time, and now that the works are going on they must have more money. These works were under way when we came into power, and now we are being criticized by hon. gentlemen opposite when we are only continuing their work and nothing else.
I think my hon. friend will realize that when we have the report of Sir Alexander Gibb the administration of these ports will change, and we hope that with time our national ports will become free ports. Of course these things cannot 'be done over night or even in a year or two. Every hon. gentleman knows that perfectly well. We are only continuing the work started by the late government; we are helping these ports, and that is all.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understood the minister to say the dther day that he was asking for these loans in order to provide for works which had been started without proper authorization, as well as other works.


Alfred Duranleau: This money is required to finish the piers and sheds and the other work which was under way last year; it is to finish the unauthorized works, and also do put these piers and wharves into operation. There must be grain loaders and other facilities before the piers and wharves may be used.


Peter John Veniot: It is quite true, and I never attempted to deny, that 'the government are carrying on the works which were started by the late government, but the very conditions which exist now existed at the time 'the right hon. Prime Minister made his pledge to Halifax and St. John. He knew what the conditions were, and when he made that election promise to those people he had no idea at

Halifax Harbour
all that he would have to gelt Sir Alexander Gibb to come over here. This is just a blind to cover up a promise which the government do not intend to carry out. The minister says it will take time to carry out the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister. When that is done, will it be the policy of the government to assume the responsibilities carried to-day by the ports of St. John and Halifax, and relieve them of that financial burden? If the policy enunciated by the right hon. Prime Minister means anything, it means that this will be done, because when the government assumes the responsibility for improving these ports and making them national, they can no longer expect any revenue or tolls with which to pay the interest on the loans or even to provide a sinking fund to meeit the debentures and bonds outstanding. Therefore if the Prime Minister wishes to carry out this policy which he has paraded before the country, it means that the government will have to assume the whole responsibility for past expenditures as well as for .those made in the future.


Mr. RALSTON:: I think the answer to what my hon. friend (Mr. Veniot) has just said is found in the section under consideration. There does not seem to be the slightest intention that the promise to which he refers will be carried out, or that later the port will be relieved of interest on the loan made under this legislation. Section 7 provides not that this shall be a free port, not that the money shall be given to the port for its development as a national port, as was said so freely by the Prime Minister in the house a few years ago, but that:
Subject to the provisions of section 3 hereof, the principal and interest of the sums loaned-
I emphasize the word "loaned"; it does not say "given":
[DOT]-under the authority of this act to the corporation shall be payable by the corporation out of all its property, assets, tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall be charged thereon ir>
the same manner and to the same extent, and have precedence in regard to payment equally after the payments provided for in section nineteen of chapter fifty-eight of the statutes of 1927, without priority or preference.
I think my hon. friend who has just sat down is perfectly right, that at the time that statement to which he has referred was made in this house the right hon. gentleman criticized us severely for putting in the form of a loan any advance to these harbour commissions. He said at that time that it should not be a loan but a grant; and when he made that statement the conditions were just as they are to-day. I submit it is no excuse
whatever for my hon. friend to say that these moneys are for works which were planned before. Now is the time-


Alfred Duranleau: Not only planned but under construction.


James Layton Ralston: What is the difference?
The money is going to be paid out of tolls. The amount voted is going to be given as a loan, and that was represented as not being the policy of my right hon. friend. On a platform in St. John he gave this pledge:
I am opposed to the collection of tolls in this port, which prevents it from being built up.
That was the statement of the right hon. gentleman during the election, and the first bill he introduces provides for a loan necessitating the payment of tolls. In other words, the port is not going to be free in the sense in which the right hon. gentleman used that term. On the contrary, to use words of his which I remember distinctly, it is going to be a port with a mortgage on it. The minister is faced to-day with the promise made by his leader at that time, and it does not help him in the slightest to suggest that this money is for works already undertaken. The opportunity is his to free the port of Halifax from this obligation, as his leader proposed to do. The minister is not carrying out his leader's pledge. He made a statement a moment ago to the effect that he would have to have time. Was there any suggestion of time when the right hon. gentleman two or three years ago made the statement which has been referred to, in regard to this matter? None whatever. He intimated that when he came into power he would carry out that promise. Was there any suggestion to the people of St. John that it would be necessary for him to wait three or four years? Not at all. The point was that he was opposed to the collection of tolls. Yet the first bill the government brings down provides for a loan which will have to be paid back by means of tolls on shipping. I support the contention of my hon. friend that this is a violation of the pledge made by the Prime Minister, and it does not help the Minister of Marine in the slightest to suggest that this happens to be for work already undertaken. He has the power to provide that this shall be the beginning of a new policy.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not want to
criticize what has been done in connection with the harbour of Halifax or any other harbour under the late government. I would
3M0
Halijax Harbour

point out, however, that this legislation simply remedies the situation that existed when we came into power.


James Layton Ralston: And violates a promise.


Alfred Duranleau: Large expenditures
without proper authorization have been made in these ports-


Peter John Veniot: Does the minister mean to
include St. John in that statement?


Alfred Duranleau: I do include it.


Peter John Veniot: St. John did not exceed
its authority.


Alfred Duranleau: I include St. John in
that statement and I will give the particulars. Now, we are only helping the harbour commissions. They are in the hole and we are helping them out by this legislation. Pending the report of Sir Alexander Gibb we are following the policy of the late government-


James Layton Ralston: Which you criticized.


Alfred Duranleau: -which we criticized at the time, perhaps. But we cannot do otherwise at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: Why?


Alfred Duranleau: We are carrying out the work which the late government started. Now, I am ready to say that if hon. members of the opposition are opposed to this legislation, I am prepared to have it stand for another session.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Alfred Duranleau: But they take the responsibility for that position. I am ready to do that. The policy which was propounded by the Prime Minister when in opposition is still the policy of this government.


An hon. MEMBER:: When will you bring it into effect?


Alfred Duranleau: When all the harbours have been properly studied. I have been asked whether, in the event of a change of administration, we intend to wipe out the debts of these harbours. If the country takes over these harbours as an asset, the country will probably wipe out the debts. If we take over the whole of the assets of these harbours, the debts will be wiped out and there will be no more harbour commissions.


James Layton Ralston: And will the minister complete that statement and say that no tolls will be charged?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not empowered to state any policy. I have no mandate to

state a policy for the future. It depends upon the kind of administration that will be adopted. It may be that in the light of the report of Sir Alexander Gibb we may change our policy in some respects. We want to see the national ports of Canada progress; that is our ambition. If it appears to us that Sir Alexander Gibb's proposals are an improvement upon the present system, we shall adopt his suggestion. At the present time, however, as I have said before, we are merely remedying a situation which existed when we came into power. And I am surprised to hear such criticisms from our hon. friends opposite, who are responsible for the present state of things in all these harbours.


James Layton Ralston: I wish the minister to know that he cannot, by any threat of dropping the bill, get away from the promise made by his leader. No one has suggested that the bill be dropped; no one has said that he is opposed to this legislation. We ask only one thing, and that is that the minister and his leader implement the promise given to the people and not charge tolls nor make this a loan. We are in favour of a grant and have always been in favour of it. And when the minister says that he is now only ratifying something that was undertaken before, he is saying that in his opinion and in the opinion of the government the expenditure was desirable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily. The contracts were let, and we had to carry them out.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend mean to say the government cannot exercise their power to cancel the contract?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Nonsense! Throw away
$20,000,000?


Ernest Lapointe: That is Cahan's retort- "nonsense." Don't use it.


James Layton Ralston: That is the last resort of my hon. friends. I repeat, however, that the fact that the government have brought in this bill indicates that they approve of the work that was done. And my hon. friend cannot get away with any threat to drop the bill. If the bill is dropped, he drops it on his own responsibility. The clause provides that this shall be only a loan payable out of tolls, and we are opposed to that in view of the fact that this administration came into power on the express promise that that state of affairs would not continue.


Peter John Veniot: I would not have risen again had it not been for the little threat which the minister seemed to convey in his

Halifax Harbour
remarks with respect to those who are criticizing, not this bill, but the failure of the present government to carry out their promises. Let me say that there is no more financial responsibility on the government of the day, in providing the expenditure and charging it against the treasury of Canada, by way of borrowing, than there is in loaning the harbour commission this money. The financial responsibility will not be any greater because the minister has admitted that he does not expect the interest will be paid on the sinking fund. The Minister admits that the policy to be followed in the future will be the doing away with tolls, or at least an endeavour will be made in that direction. Therefore, if this bill, instead of making this advance as a loan makes i't a charge on the treasury, the government would be given the power to borrow money for this purpose, it could be expended under government supervision and the financial responsibility would not be any greater. Far from criticizing this bill, and far from criticizing the loan, as it is now called; far from opposing the vote of $3,500,000 to Halifax, and the $3,500,000 to St. John, which will come later, I want to say to the minister that knowing the conditions in our maritime ports as I do, that amount is not nearly enough. I am prepared to go further than that-


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: Why oppose it?


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member for
Victoria-Carleton has no right to say that I am opposing it. I'f he knew what he was talking about he would not say that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: I stated distinctly that I
was not opposing it. The other day, after the disaster which occurred in St. John, I rose in the house and asked the government to consider making an appropriation of $10,000,000 for that harbour, instead of $3,500,000, and not a member from the province of New Brunswick had the courage to stand up and back my suggestion. Yet the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton comes into the chamber and interrupts me without having heard half of the discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not even
stand up.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member does not know enough about the rules of the house to stand up when he asks a question. I am not opposing this measure and no one has a right to say I am. The former government laid 22110-193
down a program for the development of these ports, but that program was condemned. Not the expenditure, but the method of expenditure was condemned. And now those who condemned that program so severely-and they used it against me in the last election-rise in their places to support it.


An hon. MEMBER:: And it nearly licked you, too.


Peter John Veniot: I may have been nearly
licked, but it will be a long time before my hon. friend can do that. My hon. friend should look to his own laurels and not bother with the laurels of others. I can look after myself without any assistance.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what is worrying the hon. member right now.


Peter John Veniot: Nothing is worrying me
now. If I judge aright, the worries are all on the other side of the house. The action of the present government since it has been in power has been enough to worry anybody. I did not think that my remarks on this bill would encourage hon. gentlemen opposite to drag into the discussion what took place during the last dominion election. If my hon. friends want to take up that subject, then let us have a field day. We will see who will come out best in a discussion on the things which were said and done during the last dominion election. I will say to the hon. gentleman who is interrupting me that if he thinks he is going to hurry this bill through by that method, then he is sadly mistaken, because I do not intend to be browbeaten. I have my privileges in this house and I intend to take advantage of them.


Mr. COTNAM:: The hon. member is not
dismissing postmasters now.


Peter John Veniot: I did not dismiss as many
postmasters as hon. members opposite have done since they came into power. During the short time they have been in office, my hon. friends opposite have dismissed about half as many postmasters as I dismissed during five years. I do not know from what county the hon. member comes, but his interruptions are no credit to that county. He is out of place, and he should know it; if he does not know it, some other hon. member should whisper in his ear.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman, I desire to express my appreciation of the wonderful energy shown by the hon. member for Gloucester. He rather took me to task for saying that he was opposed to this measure, but it must be clear to every

Halifax Harbour

hon. member of this committee that the attitude which he and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth have taken is one of opposition to the passing of this measure.


Peter John Veniot: That statement is not true.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: The hon. member said that I did not know enough to rise when I made an interruption, but when he rose the other day to speak on behalf of the citizens of St. John he did not know that he was transgressing the rules of the house because that item was not under consideration at all.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order. The hon. member's statement is not correct; I asked the permission of the house and I received unanimous consent.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I regret
to say that the hon. member did not ask the permission of the house, nor did he receive unanimous consent to proceed.


Peter John Veniot: I object to such a statement.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: The
records will show that no such permission was granted.


Peter John Veniot: I asked Mr. Speaker for
permission and no objection was taken. The records will show that.


Finlay MacDonald: This discussion is entirely
away from the point.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Hansard
will decide who is correct, I or the hon. member for Gloucester.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: What
I desire to say is this: the hon. member has violated the rules of the house in order to try to-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: -to
place on Hansard something-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The ruling has been
given.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: The hon. member referred to this matter and I was simply making a reply.


Finlay MacDonald: The hon. member said he

was content to leave it to Hansard to indicate what were the circumstances on the occasion referred to.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman, if there is any point whatever in the argument advanced by the hon. members for Shelburne-Yarmouth and Gloucester, it is because of the broken promises on the part of the Prime Minister. I desire to point out to the committee-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: We are all in agreement.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: In my
judgment no prime minister has ever discharged so ably the duties of his high and honourable position, or has endeavoured so earnestly to fulfil the pledges he made to the people, as has the present Prime Minister. If the committee desire to look for broken promises, if they desire to look for broken pledges-


An hon. MEMBER:: Look to Bennett.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: -they will have to look to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Ernest Lapointe: Look to R.B.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I should not like to mention the right hon. leader of the opposition, as he is not in his seat.


An hon. MEMBER:: He can take care of himself.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Every
word uttered by the hon. members for Gloucester and Shelburne-Yarmouth would go to show that they are offering opposition to this vote to help the ports of Halifax and St. John. The port of St. John was built first by the people of St. John. In 1895 they put their hands into their pockets and taxed their own people to the extent of $500,000 in order to contribute to the upbuilding of that port. They introduced the first line of steamships that ever came into the port of St. John.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: It ill becomes those two members to obstruct the appropriation that is being asked for on behalf of the harbours of Halifax and St. John.


James Layton Ralston: I just want to say this for the benefit of the hon. gentleman opposite, that if he cannot understand the English language, then I am sorry for him, but I commend him to read Hansard and find out what I said. He will find that I stated repeatedly I did not oppose the bill, but because

Halifax Harbour
the Prime Minister had promised an entirely different arrangement for that port I was opposed to clause, 7. I repeat that.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: But I say that actions speak louder than words.


Peter John Veniot: I want to make a correction. This is what I stated the other day as reported in Hansard:
Mr. Yeniot:	This may be a little out of
order-


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Exactly.


Peter John Veniot: But this is what Hansard says. The hon. gentleman has made the statement that I was out of order the other day. On a question of privilege I have the right under the rules of the house, to correct that, and I intend to avail myself of that right.
Mr. Veniot:	This may be a little out of
order, Mr. Chairman, but may X ask the minister when he intends to take up resolution No. 2G, to authorize the loan of $3,500,000 to the St. John harbour commission?
Then the minister answered, and I continued :
Mr. Veniot: That is the reason for my question.
The minister made another interjection and then I continued:
Mr. Veniot: Yes, I know that. If I may be permitted, I wish to draw to the attention of the committee the great disaster that lias befallen the harbour of St. John. Without going into details

Then I went on. I asked permission to do this and permission was granted.


Hugh Guthrie: It was not.


Mr. QUINN:: I am quite surprised at the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite when a vote is under discussion in the committee regarding the port of Halifax. I am surprised because of their change of front. When a similar vote was before the committee a year ago, we did not find any obstruction from those who are sitting in opposition to-day, nor was there obstruction from members who were sitting in opposition then. The house and the committee were unanimous with regard to the votes in connection with the development of the ports of Halifax and St. John, and I am surprised at the. attitude of my hon. friends opposite now. The other day I listened to hon. gentlemen opposite discussing whether the ports of Halifax and St. John should be free ports or otherwise. It is a matter of indifference to the people of Halifax whether that port is a free port or not.


James Layton Ralston: Is that so?


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, it is so. When I am speaking about a free port, I do not mean the 22110-1931
kind of free port which was in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite just about a year ago in Halifax. Halifax was a very free port then. As the Minister of Marine pointed out, when the present government came into .power, the Halifax harbour commission had an overdraft of $1,500,000. How, might I ask the committee, was that amount of money overdrawn? Hon. gentlemen will recall that there was an election about this time last year and there were tremendous activities on the waterfront, particularly in connection with the Halifax harbour commission.


An hon. MEMBER:: Any butter there?


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, there was some butter there, but there was a striking development of interest on the part of the Liberal party in the port of Halifax at that time that was very commendable. They went about the whole city and the county trying to find out where there were men in need of employment. They hauled the men in trucks into the city and promised them jobs provided they gave a pledge they would support the Liberal candidates in the election of the 28th July.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Felix Patrick Quinn: I do not wonder at hon. members saying "oh, oh." The workingmen of Halifax were bribed with their own money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, hon. members may well say "oh, oh." There was not enough work for them, but they were put on the pay roll. Each day they were driven to their work and to their homes in trucks in the employ of the Halifax harbour commission. They were driven around the city twice a day, the trucks being placarded with cards: "Vote for Cragg and Jack," the Liberal candidates, and the money of the .people of Canada was used to pay those men to drive about in the trucks. Free port! Yes, I might say to the ex-Minister of Justice it was a very free port just about a year ago. The present leader of the apposition, then Prime Minister, came to Halifax, and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth will recall this well, because he was present with his leader. I remember the leader of the opposition saying to the people of Halifax: You electors of Halifax, do not make the same mistake as you made in the two previous elections; do not send representatives from your constituencies to sit in opposition. And the electors of Halifax took him ait his word; they sent to Ottawa two supporters of the government. I felt it was incumbent upon me to make these few remarks because of the
3(M4
Halijax Harbour

obstructive itacties of the opposition with regard to this vote of 83,500,000 for the Halifax harbour commission.


Ernest Lapointe: We all said "carried"
when the hon. gentleman rose, so he was obstructing.


James Layton Ralston: Since my hon. friend wants, for the benefit of the minister, to continue this discussion, perhaps we on this side of the house can oblige him. I wanit to mention just one or two matters to which he has referred. He spoke about a change of front. It is only a year or two years ago that his leader, then on this side of the house, was obstructing-if my hon. friend will permit the word, because he used it himself in connection with members on this side-in proclaiming the very same thing with regard to the port of Halifax, namely, the method in which the assessments were to be made and the payments provided. That is only what is being done to-day. I am not suggesting that thatt was obstruction then or is now. It is simply a matter of pointing out that the method of assessment, the method of collection and the method of charge should be considered by the house. That was pointed out by the opposition of that day, and it is being done now; so that I do not think we are advancing matters by talking about obstruction. We might talk about obstruction when a member rises to discuss a campaign speech which is now under investigation by a commission appointed by the government, the report of which commission will be received in due course. When that report is received might be a proper time to discuss these matters, but I fail to see how ithey are relevant to clause 7 of this bill, which has to do with making a loan to the Halifax harbour commission and the imposition of tolls which my hon. friend's leader said might not be collected.
Just in order that we may complete the record, as my hon. friend has spoken of a meeting in Halifax, let me refer to a report of a meeting in Halifax which his leader addressed during the last election campaign.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I rise to a point of order, Air. Chairman. The hon. gentleman is not discussing the question before the chair.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) has made certain statements, and I think the ex-minister should be allowed to reply.


James Layton Ralston: Here are two things with regard to the harbour of Halifax that were promised by my hon. friend's leader in the

last election campaign. First, here is the promise that was made by my hon. friend's leader as set out in the Halifax Herald of July 10, 1930, with reference to a bridge at Halifax harbour. I have not heard my hon. friend (Mr. Quinn) say a word about it this session, although bridge bills have been up repeatedly. There has not been a whimper out of the Halifax members opposite with regard to the Halifax bridge which formed so large a part of the propaganda in that constituency in the last two elections. This is (he first promise that was made:
Dominion cooperation in the construction of the Halifax harbour bridge, as a national obligation in relation to a national port.
And my hon. friend (Mr. Quinn) has not opened his mouth this session in regard to it, notwithstanding that bridge bills have been up repeatedly, and had I not mentioned it, my hon. friend would not have mentioned it at all this session because the promise has served its purpose.
Here is number two:
The development and equipment of the port
of Halifax as a great national port, to serve all Canada, and to be developed and equipped by all Canada, and not, as at present, on "promissory notes" given by the harbour commission, the cost of which the port of Halifax has to bear. His (Mr. Bennett's) policy is essential to meet the competition from the United States ports of the Atlantic seahoard and to give maritime ports every advantage in low rates to attract traffic both inward and outward.
I commend that to my hon. friend when he supports and votes for clause 7 of this bill, which provides that we shall give yet another promissory note, so that we shall not be in a position to meet the competition from United States ports of the Atlantic seaboard, and so tolls will continue to be collected.


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

[Stage Direction]
ADVANCE OP §300,000 TO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 104, to provide for a loan to the New Westminster harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time,
and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Finlay MacDonald in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
On section 6-Repayment of loans.
Mr. REID:: Will this section cover the rentals that will come in when the elevators are in use?


Alfred Duranleau: The harbour commission will have to pay interest and reimburse the loan the same as every other harbour commission out of its tolls and other sources of revenue. That covers everything.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators, administration of, $2,681,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This item has been called before.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock


Finlay MacDonald: When the committee rose we were dealing with item 363 on page 71 of the estimates.


William Richard Motherwell: I think this is the item in connection with which the Prime Minister stated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might be questioned concerning the report of the Stamp commission. Probably we might leave this item for a little while, because there are not many members in committee. In the meantime we might discuss something else, unless the minister is particularly anxious to go ahead immediately.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are ready.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, if my hon
friend is ready, I suppose we might get along with the item.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the
item carry?


William Richard Motherwell: Carry? Like fun
it carries. If my hon. friend wishes a specific question concerning the Stamp report I would state that hon. members on this side of the house are curious to know how that famous chart or appendix No. 10 crept into the
Stamp commission report. I presume the chart appears merely as an accident, and of course accidents will happen even in the best regulated governments. We would like to know however the particulars in connection with the publication of the chart. If hon. members look at the report they will find several charts at the back of it, and I refer particularly to No. 10.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing mysterious about the chart. I understand that with the exception of the chart at the end of the report all other charts and appendices are official and form part of the report. Chart No. 10 purports to set forth the open market trading cash price versus the Saskatchewan pool net payment, basis Fort William. I understand chart No. 10 was prepared by Mr. William Sanford Evans who was a member of the commission.


William Richard Motherwell: Tabled by him?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, tabled by him with the commission and inserted in the report without comment. I think I have laid before the committee all the facts concerning chart No. 10. Of course the information contained in the chart or what the chart purports to set forth is before the committee for whatever observations hon. members may choose to make.


William Richard Motherwell: The Prime Minister indicated his view in the matter by stating that if there were a reprint of the report this chart No. 10 would be eliminated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, if there were objections to it.


William Richard Motherwell: There are certainly many objections throughout the west.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is conceded.


William Richard Motherwell: The question arises as to how the chart appeared in the report. If it is wrong to print the chart in the reprint surely it was just as wrong to print it in the original document. Surely a piece of propaganda such as chart No. 10 on behalf of the grain exchange and against the pool is most unfair. The pool is up against it sufficiently without everybody jumping on its neck at this time when, if ever, its friends should be behind it. If the government pretends to be a friend of the pool I think some explanation should be forthcoming as to how chart No. 10 happened to appear in the Stamp report. I have noticed that William Sanford Evans was around here for some days after the report was understood to be filed. I wonder if his sojourn around the par-

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
liament buildings and the city of Ottawa had anything to do with chart No. 10 appearing in the report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I assure my hon. friend
most solemnly that his stay in the city had nothing to do with the appearance of the chart.


William Richard Motherwell: No?


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I reassure my hon.
friend that there is nothing mysterious about the chart. It was inserted when the report was compiled because it was with the papers tabled or filed with the commission. Further than that I have no personal knowledge of it whatsoever. So far as the physical effort of placing the chart in the report is concerned I should say it was inserted probably as an exhibit at the end of the report. I wish to state clearly however that there is no pretence that this chart is a portion of the official report. It is not commented upon, is not commended to anybody and no one is placing any deduction upon it.


William Richard Motherwell: I notice that Sir
Josiah Stamp was particularly fair with all parties during the investigation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought so.


William Richard Motherwell: I think he was a
model chairman.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought so.


William Richard Motherwell: For those reasons
I cannot conceive for a moment that Sir Josiah Stamp would have consented to the insertion of a chart such as No. 10. I think he would be very much surprised and probably astounded if he were to learn that this scandalous chart appeared at the end of the report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think he had
anything to do with it.


William Richard Motherwell: No, I do not think he had.


John Vallance: May I ask the minister how the chart happens to appear in the report? Are all the commissioners responsible? Had they knowledge that the chart would be placed in the report, and if not, who was responsible for its appearance, and for what purpose was it inserted? Those are the questions the farmers of western Canada are asking.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot add to what I
have already stated. For the third time may I say that there is nothing mysterious about 
the appearance of the chart. No one pretends that the chart is a part of the body of the report, and it is not referred to in the report.


John Vallance: Why is it there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: So far as I know Sir
Josiah Stamp did not authorize the placing of it there because I think the report was printed after he left the country. I do not think he saw the final proof or make-up of the report. The government does not seek in any way to defend the presence of the chart in the report, and without hesitancy we say if there is any objection the chart will not be included in any future copies. I think I can go no farther than that in the matter. The government had no knowledge that this chart was being inserted in the report.


John Vallance: It is all very well for
the minister to make a statement, but the farmers still want to know who is responsible for the placing of the chart in the report. The Stamp commission was set up by this government to do specific things. There appears attached to the commission's report a certain chart; can the minister tell us who printed it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I do not know, and
I do not see any markings on the chart to show who printed it.


John Vallance: Well then, who supervised the printing of it, and who is responsible? The minister says he does not know who printed it and I want to know who is responsible for its appearance in the report. Certainly someone must be responsible. The government set up a commission to do specific things, and at the end of the report of the commission we find this chart. This report is now up for discussion by the parliament that gave the commission its powers. I think it. is only reasonable that those of us who have some interest in this whole investigation should know the facts. This thing was printed by somebody, somewhere. Somebody was responsible for placing it there, and surely the commission which made the report must have some knowledge as to how it got there. I should like to ask the minister to tell us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already stated that so far as I know' the report was prepared by Mr. Sanford Evans, a member of the commission; was filed by him with the commission, and I am now7 hazarding a guess, which I think is reasonable, that with his authority it was put in the report, but that I do not know definitely. I assume that, and I think it is a fair assumption.

Supply-Royal Grain Commission


John Vallance: I suppose the government will assume the responsibility for having it placed here?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Vallance: Surely if you appoint
a commission and the commission reports, and the government accept that report, they must stand behind the commission which they created.


William Richard Motherwell: Is there no answer
to that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was no question involved.


John Vallance: I want to know if the
government are behind the report submitted by Sir Josiah Stamp, and whether this chart was attached to it when the government first received the report from Sir Josiah Stamp.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely yes; this report was received as it is, as I have it in my hand, with these charts attached. Furthermore, my hon. friend made three or four assumptions a moment ago; he assumed the government was behind this and behind that. The government appointed Sir Josiah Stamp to make a certain investigation, and we believe he earned out his work expeditiously, well, fairly and in justice to all concerned. We have had many encomiums passed upon his chairmanship. We received and accepted his report. As to whether the government is behind every word of that report is another matter with which I am not prepared to deal to-night. But this is a report submitted to the house by the government as received from Sir Josiah Stamp.
In reference to this chart which is complained of, we had no knowledge of how it got there or anything else until it was brought to my attention some time after the report was filed. I noticed that it was not referred to in the report, and upon inquiry I learned that the chart was prepared by Mr. Sanford Evans and filed with the commission or laid upon the table of the commission during some of its proceedings. Why it is in the report or why it was put in the report I do not know. It is quite open to anyone to criticize its presence there; we are not objecting to that, but, I think, I have made just as complete an explanation as I can make of the position of the government in this regard.


John Vallance: The minister himself
admits there is no reference in the report to this chart.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not admit it; I have stated it three times.


John Vallance: Was this chart presented to the commission as an exhibit? Was it submitted as evidence? Surely it could not have been, or it would have been referred to in the report, would it not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily.


John Vallance: Then will the minister say this chart was presented as evidence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: How can I say that? I
was not present at the meetings. My hon. friend must be reasonable.


John Vallance: I am reasonable, but
the farmers want to know how it got there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Vallance: It is all very well for
you fellows who do not want to get to the bottom of this-


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I repeat for the fourth time the position we take in regard to this matter. I understand the chart was prepared by Mr. Sanford Evans, a member of the commission, and was filed by him with the commission during the period of its sittings. I have gone through the report quite carefully, and I do not see that the chart is referred to. I am informed by others who have examined the report that it is their opinion also that it is not referred to. Therefore I make this assumption-and in this I may be doing an injustice to Mr. Evans-that when the report was completed Mr. Evans, thinking this chart might be of some value, had it attached to the report. Whether he was right or wrong in that is a question to be determined by those who are desirous of criticizing the chart, but upon the government discovering that it was not referred to in the report and obviously was not a part of the exhibits of the whole commission, we called in or stopped the further circulation of the report containing this chart. That is the position.


John Vallance: Then the report as tabled has not been accepted? Are we to assume that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know what my hon. friend means by "accepted." The report as presented by Sir Josiah Stamp has been received by the government and presented to parliament for its consideration. No action has been taken with regard to accepting or approving it; it is before parliament for what it may be worth. We think Sir Josiah Stamp discharged his duties in an exemplary manner.


Mr. YOUNG:: It seems to me that if this chart is in the report with the knowledge of all the commissioners it is a part of the report

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
and the government have no right to eliminate it from any future publication. If it is not a part of the report with the knowledge of all the commissioners; if it is there only at the instance of Mr. Sanford Evans, without the consent of the other commissioners, it has no business being there at all. We ought to know the exact situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to read a question asked the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), which appears at page 2812 of Hansard:
I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the farmers of Saskatchewan are somewhat concerned regarding appendix XII of the Stamp commission report which sets out comparative pool and open market prices covering the years 1924 to 1931, will the Prime Minister state whether the appendix referred to was included in the original report ?
Eight Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister): My attention has been drawn to the matter. As I understand it, the appendix was an exhibit filed with the commission ....
I suggest there is no evidence of that at all; I understand from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this is not so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is my hon. friend saying?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am quoting the language of the Prime Minister at page 2812 of Hansard, in which he says this was an exhibit filed with the commission. I deduced from the remarks of my hon. friend this evening that this is not so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me again make myself clear. What I stated was that my understanding was that Mr. Sanford Evans, a member of the commission, prepared this chart and filed it with the commission, or laid it on the table. Whether or not it was an exhibit, and whether or not he accompanied it with any evidence, I do not know.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course it is obvious that it could not be an exhibit, because if it were an exhibit it would be referred to in the printed portion of the report. The chart, therefore, was placed there absolutely without any authorization from any source whatever. Let me continue the reply of the right hon. Prime Minister:
.... and it was to be included in the report of the commission, but there is upon that appendix some printing which draws inferences that may or may not have been warranted, and that should not have been there. The diagram itself is not a matter of great importance; the objectionable feature is the printing that was put on it, I think by the grain exchange ....
IMr. Young.]
Here we have a most unique and anomalous situation. A commission is appointed by this government to make an inquiry into certain very important matters affecting the farmers of the west. A report is presented to the government, and in turn the government presents that Teport to parliament. We find an essential portion of that report is a certain diagram containing certain printing which is absolutely erroneous in intent, I think, which in my opinion should not have been there and which the Prime Minister says should not have been there. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this report should be returned by parliament to the government and by the government back to the commission, and that Sir Josiah Stamp himself should be consulted in regard to how this mysterious document was permitted to appear on the pages of the report.


William Richard Motherwell: The reply of the Prime Minister means this: "Somebody is guilty of a great blunder, but we will not do it again as far as the government is concerned." That is what it means. Well, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this house and also as a .pool contract signer in a big institution that is in economic trouble, like many others, I want to know more about this matter than the minister has so far indicated. My next statement will be that, simultaneously with the appointment of thi3 Stamp commission, an inquiry was instituted in Winnipeg with one Mr. Williams presiding as commissioner. That has just terminated, and the report of that commission shows up very badly, so far as it goes, against the elevator system of the Manitoba pool. It looks to me like a simultaneous attack all along the line against the pool. Just about two or three weeks before the Stamp commission was appointed, newspaper reports, both east and west, indicated that there was going to be such a commission, and actually forecast not only the personnel of the commission but the verdict. They brazenly indicated what the verdict was going to be, even before the commission was appointed. Then when it appeared that the pool had trouble within its own ranks on the 100 per cent question, someone concluded that, in view of these internal difficulties, they would leave the pool to itself and confine the inquiry to a report on grain futures. But, Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question which was submitted to the commission was already known; it was contained in the Turgecm report. But my hon. friends had committed themselves to a commission of some kind, and not wishing to go ahead with a commission of wider scope,
JUNE 25, 1931	3M9
Supply-Royal Grain Commission
such as they had been talking about, they decided to have a commission headed by a first class man, with two other admittedly capable men. And they narrowed the scope of the commission down to one question, as to what effect the selling of futures had upon producers, whether prejudicial or otherwise. Wliat a profound question that was to make all this fuss about. To think that a government, supposed to be composed of business men, possessed of all kinds of knowledge within its ranks, should seriously sit down and ask a capable commission such as this to inquire into one single question, a question the answer to which anyone who had any knowledge of business whatever knew before the question was asked, is hard to understand. Why, there is nothing so mysterious about grain futures. The Turgeon commission, among many other things, went into that question fully; and the Stamp commission was big enough to refer to the Turgeon commission's much similar report. Indeed, the results are practically the same except with respect to certain oscillations, as it is called, in the market, with regard to futures in abnormal times.
So that we have more than one count against my hon. friend. In the first place, we cannot understand why he should have appointed a commission of that nature to inquire into such a simple question, the answer to which they had themselves, under their hands, in the files which have been there for the last five or six years. The question of selling futures is a general one which does not apply to wheat alone. You cannot order a ticket from here to London without someone selling you future delivery of space or reservation. The same with goods: you buy summer goods by order in the spring. Yet this government seriously sat down and asked this question about futures-asked a commission of this character to investigate a question like that. The whole thing, in my estimation, was a thinly camouflaged attack on the wheat pools, and in the absence of a better explanation-


Edward Joseph Garland: Why does
the hon. gentleman call it a camouflage?


William Richard Motherwell: I qualified it; I
said it was a thinly camouflaged attack, on the wheat pool, and the camouflage was indeed very thin. My hon. friend the minister will have to put up something better, or we shall all arrive at that conclusion, and so will the public.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are twelve appendices in this report. If the
committee will look through it they will find in each appendix a statement with reference to the chart accompanying it, giving information as to where and by whom the chart was submitted, and upon whose authority. In connection with appendix 12, there is a curious diagram with most perverse propaganda at the bottom of the page. It says, "The above chart represents," and there is not a single authority in the dominion who has assumed responsibility for either the diagram or the words printed beneath.


John Vallance: I would direct the
attention of the committee to the order of reference to the commission. I quote:
The committee of the Privy Council on the recommendation of the Right Honourable Richard Bedford Bennett, the Prime Minister, advise that
Sir Josiah Stamp, G.B.E.,
The Honourable J. T. Brown, Chief Justice. Court of King's Bench, Saskatchewan, and
William Sanford Evans, Esquire, Winnipeg, Manitoba, be appointed, under the provisions of part I of the Inquiries Act, a commission to inquire into and report upon what effect, if any, the dealing in grain futures has upon the price received by the producer.
Those hon. gentlemen who know the purpose for which the wheat pools were established will recall that in the first years of their operation they sold direct; they never dealt in futures. This commission was appointed to look into the effect of futures on the producer, and we find in the report an appendix that purports to set out the operations of those who are dealing in grain futures to the detriment of the cooperative movement. As has been stated, it is nothing but sheer propaganda against the cooperative system of marketing. The minister may say what he likes now about deleting this objectionable appendix, but does he know how many copies have already been distributed not only in Canada but beyond the confines of this dominion. Does the minister know how far it has gone?


William Richard Motherwell: It will be filed in every library in the country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Chief
Justice Brown of Saskatchewan has already, in the public press, repudiated this very document which my hon. friend attributes to Mr. Sanford Evans. I do not know whether the government is going to pay Mr. Evans, but in the face of this gigantic blunder I suggest that he certainly should be deprived of remuneration for his services if he deliberately seeks to incorporate, in what is supposed to be an impartial report, absolutely perverse propaganda.

Supply-Royal Grain Commission


Edward Joseph Garland: I entirely agree with the criticism of previous speakers in this connection. It is quite obvious that this additional appendix has been inserted for a purpose. It is one too many, and although the minister has said that it will be deleted, its deletion will take place too late; the damage is already done. The conclusion one is expected to draw from the printed words is that No. 3 pool wheat brought less on the average in every year of the operation of the pool than, No. 3 wheat sold by open market methods. No such conclusion can be properly drawn from the chart itself. There is no evidence to show the real volume of wheat sold at any given time and at what particular price. As a matter of fact, a close analysis of the market situation during the periods under review in this chart might readily indicate that the open market selling of wheat was less advantageous than the marketing through the pool during the same period. A chart of this kind is obviously prepared for propaganda purposes, purely and simply to discredit the pool organization, which is the fruit of the cooperative movement in western Canada. Knowingly or unknowingly, the government has been made a party to this propaganda. I do not know to what extent the responsibility is attributable to this administration, either through the Prime Minister or through the Department of Trade and Commerce. But certainly this part of the report should at once be repudiated by the government. If they do not repudiate it, they become a party to and accept the propaganda it carries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have stated at least four ;imes in the clearest language of which I am capable that we had nothing whatever to do with the insertion of this diagram in the report. The moment our attention was drawn to the fact that it was obviously not part of the report we stopped the further distribution of the report and ordered that no more copies should be sent out containing this diagram. We have made inquiry and the full explanation is, as I have stated four times, that this chart was prepared by Mr. Sanford Evans, a statistician associated, I believe, with the grain trade, and he alone is responsible for the chart.


William Richard Motherwell: Who, Mr. Evans?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is my understanding, and I do not think I am doing an injustice to Mr. Evans in so saying. I desire to make it as clear as I possibly can that as far as Sir Josiah Stamp is concerned I believe he left the country before the final printing of the report
lMr. I. A. Mackenzie.]
was complete, and so could not have had knowledge of it. As every hon. member knows, he was in rather a hurry to leave the country. In studying the report I noticed among other things that there were certain discrepancies in this chart. I will not say that I have had either the time or the material with which to make a critical examination of the report, but I did take some time to look into it. I do not think Mr. Evans has been fair in not allowing the cooperative prices to include that which is deducted for elevator and certain other charges, amounting roughly to three cents. To my mind that is not a fair treatment of the subject. I do not think I can make it any clearer to the committee that the government is not responsible for this or any other portion of the report. We accepted the report as it was submitted to us, and as far as I know this particular chart was inserted by Mr. Sanford Evans and by no one else. The government is not sanctioning the further circulation of the report containing that chart, believing the chart not to be an official part of the report.


John Vallance: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has just made the statement that Sir Josiah Stamp left the country rather hurriedly and probably did not see the report when completed. On May 14 I asked the following question:
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.
The Prime Minister made the following reply:
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.
According to the reply made by the Prime Minister we must assume that the appendix was attached to the report when seen by Sir Josiah Stamp in its final form.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think the hon. member desires to be unfair either to Sir Josiah Stamp or to the government. The report as it is in my hand is a bound report, and I think that any hon. member opposite who has had to do with the printing of reports knows that what is done is to send the typewritten sheets to the printer. These typewritten sheets are submitted to the author of the report but frequently the complete compilation is not seen by him. I cannot

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
understand why there should be any question about this matter; it is quite obvious that this particular diagram was inserted after the report was printed.


John Vallance: After it was printed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Any hon. member who has knowledge of printing will see that.


An hon. MEMBER:: That makes it worse.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may make it worse, but I am just drawing that to the attention of the committee. I direct the attention of the committee to the physical conditions surrounding this diagram.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I desire to point out to my hon. friend that this chart is affixed to the report in exactly the same manner as the other authentic charts to which I referred. When this report was received, after it had been perused by Sir Josiah Stamp in England, was it read by the minister or any other member of the government before it was printed, and who authorized the printing of the said report?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not seeking to evade responsibility, but the fact is that the Sir Josiah Stamp commission was appointed at the instance of the government as a whole, on the diredt authority of the Prime Minister speaking for the government. That is indicated in the order of reference. Neither the Department of Trade and Commerce nor its officials had anything to do with the preparation of the report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did the minister or did the Prime Minister read the report of Sir Josiah Stamp before it was printed and distributed in its present form?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The first time I saw the report was in blue book form, and I read it then very carefully and with great interest.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I accept the minister's assurance in that regard. Did the Prime Minister peruse this report after it had been received from Sir Josiah Stamp?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know.
Mr. MaoINNJS:	I think the committee
should endeavour to get to the heart of this matter. As I understand it, the government appointed a commission to bring out certain facts with regard to a certain matter. If deductions had been made from the report, or if it had been mutilated in any way, then the governmenlt would have had an obvious duty to perform to find out who mutilated the report. In this instance, additions have been made to the report and the question is: What
is the government going to do with the members of the commission, or what action is it going to take against them for making an addition to the report? That is the thing in a nutshell.	[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friends across (the way seem to be rather fretful, but I desire to ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are some seventeen ministers in the present cabinet, and I desire to ask if any of those hon. ministers perused this report before it was printed. Did the hon. Minister of Railways peruse this report before it was printed? Did my hon. friend the Postmaster General peruse this report before it was printed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did the Minister of National Defence peruse this report? Did the Minister of the Interior peruse this report?


Mr. McINTOSH:: Name every one of them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did the
Minister of Agriculture, who is most concerned, peruse this report?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I can stand here until midnight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I see my very attentive friend the Minister of Public Works in the chamber. Did he peruse the report? I see the Minister of Marine in hi3 seat. Did he peruse the report? This is a government, the largest in point of numbers and the most extravagant that we have ever had in Canada. I wish to assure the committee that this is one of the most flagrant breaches of parliamentary etiquette that parliament has ever witnessed. This is nothing but a false report. I deliberately, on my responsibility as a member, term it a false report, presented to parliament on the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, if he assumes the responsibility, or, if he does not, then on the authority of the Prime Minister of Canada.
As the hon. member for Vancouver South has just said, if any departmental official or member of a commission mutilated a government document presented to parliament, it would be a most serious offence. In this case we have an equally serious offence: we have an un-authorized exhibit appendix XII, as regards which no one knows whence it came,
3052	COMMONS
Supply-Royal Grain Commission
who put it there or who printed it. The minister of the crown who was responsible did not read the report; the Prime Minister did not read it, or, if he did read it, he is guilty of negligence irP permitting the insertion of this appendix.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did my hon. friend
read it himself?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I
did; and I understood it, which is possibly more than my friend could do. We have before us to-day a false report entitled "report of the commission to inquire into trading in grain futures", a commission presided over by one of the most distinguished economists in Great Britain, brought to Canada for this very purpose. His reputation is absolutely endangered, I believe in my heart of hearts without his knowledge, throughout this dominion by the addition to this report of a spurious document not authorized or recognized by any well known body of public opinion in Canada. Not a single minister of the crown, not even the Prime Minister, has assumed responsibility for appendix XII, and I think the people of western Canada who are mostly concerned with this report are entitled to an explanation as to who is responsible for mutilating it in this unwarranted manner.


William Richard Motherwell: I notice the Minister of Trade and Commerce denies all responsibility with respect to this report. Am I to understand that such is the case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; my hon. friend must not put words into my mouth.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not trying to do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite sure my hon. friend is too honourable to do that.


William Richard Motherwell: I hope so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have repeatedly stated
to-night, and I should not have to repeat again, that this is the report of Sir Josiah Stamp which the present government received as a most excellent presentation of the subject upon which the commission sat. The government itself, that is, the Prime Minister, myself and other members of the cabinet, in so far as their attention was drawn to the report, noted the discrepancy regarding this chart. Surely I have made it clear to the committee that the government does not condone, does not excuse, the presence of this chart in the report, and to show its good faith in the matter, as soon as this chart was discovered, the government stopped further circulation

of the report with this chart attached. I want hon. gentlemen opposite to appreciate the fact that we tabled the report in perfect good faith, fully believing that it contained a report in toto, approved and sanctioned by the commission as a whole; but as soon as we discovered this particular chart, as regards which I say very frankly I think there are justifiable grounds for complaint-I myself drew attention to it as soon as I had an opportunity to read and study the report-we stopped the further circulation of the report with this chart attached. I have explained the situation as clearly as I can to the committee, and I cannot understand why the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Melville and others should insist upon accusing the government of seeking to hide or to condone something. I should be glad if the hon. member for Quebec East, who in his capacity previously as Minister of Justice used frequently to make such excellent expositions, would draft some form in which I could make this point quite clear, I am sure he understands it. I have not the slightest objection to my hon. friends opposite condemning this chart as strongly as they feel inclined, but I do not want them to saddle the government with the responsibility of it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Has Mr. Sanford Evans been paid any remuneration for this work, or has he been promised anything by the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know. I presume the commission were paid their expenses and perhaps certain remuneration was given to the commissioners other than Sir Josiah Stamp, who. I am proud to say, very generously gave his time without charge, feeling that he was rendering a service to this country. Again I take the opportunity to commend the exemplary manner in which he discharged his duty.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How much was paid to Mr. Sanford Evans for his services?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know. The
matter was not dealt with by this department. It does not come under this vote or any other that I have charge of so that I have not the information before me.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Where might we obtain it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will undertake this: tomorrow on the orders of the day the question will be dealt with.


William Richard Motherwell: A few moments ago the minister rose to correct me when I inferred from his remarks that the government

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
was not responsible. He rose and indicated that the government was responsible. Is that right?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not trying to understand me.


William Richard Motherwell: I am. If he denies that they are not responsible, then we must assume that they are responsible.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does my hon. friend desire me again to make myself clear?


William Richard Motherwell: The minister did not make himself clear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In so far as the receiving of this report from Sir Josiah Stamp and the commission over which he presided is concerned, we take full responsibility of presenting it to parliament as his report; but after the report was tabled it was discovered by the Prime Minister and myself, as members of the government, that a certain chart referred to as appendix XII was attached to the report, apparently without warrant. We have stopped the further circulation of the report with that chart in it, and we do not assume responsibility in any way for chart No. XII.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister mean to say that the government incurs no responsibility whatever for not reading a report before tabling and distributing it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend is well enough acquainted with the procedure of government and the work that governments have to do to know that a government receives a report in perfect good faith from a commission. I ask him now in fairness to the government: Had he received the report in the form in which we have it at present, including this chart, is there any likelihood of discovering the fact that this particular chart was not referred to in the report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot conceive of a report being received by the Prime Minister without his reading it himself or at least referring it to one of his colleagues, and requesting him to read it through and advise him upon it before having it printed and laid on the table of the house and made available for distribution. The very first obligation upon a government, it seems to me, is to read a report that is made to it. The next is to decide whether it will publish the report, and the third is to decide whether it will distribute it. But the government appeare to have published and distributed the
report without ever having first read it to see whether or not it should be published in whole or in part.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman is not correct. The report was received and was read. As far as this particular chart is concerned, I submit that unless it is examined very carefully for the mistakes which we will all now admit it contains, it is very difficult to discover or recognize them. I read this report over with great care and I will admit that I did not at the first reading notice the inaccuracies in this chart, and I question if there are very many who would have noticed them unless they studied the chart with particular care. The insertion of that chart in the report appears to have been done without the knowledge of Sir Josiah Stamp or the authority of the commission as a whole. I am not excusing it, I am not in any sense justifying it. The fact is that it was there, and when it was discovered we stopped it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The mistake
my hon. friend is making is in trying to excuse the government for an oversight of which ho ought frankly to admit the government was guilty.


John Vallance: Did the government
notice that this appendix was attached to the report prior to June 19, when the hon. member for Humboldt asked the Prime Minister a question regarding the report? Is that the first time the matter was drawn to their attention? Some members of this house have been rather annoyed at the insistence of some of us in asking for the tabling of this report. Here is the reason why we have been asking the Prime Minister from time to time when we could expect the report to be tabled. That is why I asked the Prime Minister today, on the orders of the day, if there would be a time set apart for the discussion of the Stamp report. We wanted to get at the facts of this matter. The first indication we had from the government that they had any knowledge of this appendix being attached to the report, which they now admit should not have been there, was on June 19, when the hon. member for Humboldt asked the Prime Minister a question which will be found on page 2812 of Hansard. Had the government any knowledge of the appendix being there prior to that date?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it was a few days prior to that. It was obvious that the Prime Minister was aware of the circumstance when the question was asked, so it would be absurd

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
to say that he had no knowledge of it prior to that time. Just what day or hour or place it was, I do not know.


John Vallance: I am not very anxious
about the hour. But will not the hon. gentleman himself admit that if a minister had announced, when the government became aware of the inclusion of this appendix in the report that it was there without the knowledge of the commission, this thing would never have happened? Just how would the matter have gone had it not been for the opposition put up by those not immediately interested in the grain trade so far as Winnipeg is concerned?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would not have gone any distance.


Mr. BUCKLEY:: Was it not Chief Justice Brown who drew the attention of the government to this appendix?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think so. I think the attention of the Prime Minister was first drawn to it so far as I recall-I am speaking now without absolute knowledge-by Mr. Travers Sweatman, counsel to the commission.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Has the government taken any steps to send out circulars to those into whose hands this pamphlet has been placed, to correct the wrong impression which they may have received? Have they taken any steps whatever?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not that I know of.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Do they propose to do so?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should be surprised if their attention was not drawn to it by the discussion in the house to-night. I think my hon. friends will agree with me that they have done noble work to-night in the defence of the liberties of the country by crossquestioning and pillorying me rather viciously. I have no objections to it; I rather enjoy it, but I am very sorry indeed, I say so frankly, that this appendix was attached to the report. In so far as any injustice has been done, it is regrettable, but I am quite certain of this, that with such energetic defenders as we have witnessed among the opposition to-night, and with their brilliancy of presentation, the derelictions of whomsoever may be responsible will be plainly put before the people of this country, and the government, of course, patiently and with all due forbearance, will have to take its medicine.


John Francis Buckley: It will have to have its appendix out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had mine carved out a while ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not my hon. friend now admit that this is a case where the government delayed too long in performing a very necessary operation upon the appendix?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Judging from the proceedings to-night, I would say that the appendix had burst.


William Richard Motherwell: The appendix has not quite burst yet. I was going to ask if the government had pursued the usual practice,, when a report is received, of having a minister or some of the officials of the department peruse it very carefully, including all the appendices, no matter how many in number.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend the other night used an expression that touched me very deeply. It was on a Friday night, and he referred to standing on the verge of Jordan looking across to the other side. It so impressed me that I took this report home and spent nearly all the next Sunday reading it.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not the river Jordan that you are nearest to, but I fear the river Styx.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am a pretty good paddler, and will paddle my way across.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
evading my question. Did the officials of the department, or anybody, carefully peruse all these documents in the usual way that any hobo government would do before the report was published? I know that I cannot get anything to the printer until it had been gone over a good many times so see that everything was right, and surely a public document of this character prepared by a recognized economist from Great Britain should have been done justice to. It should have been carefully scrutinized before it was ever sent to the printer, but apparently that was neglected. Am I wrong in that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will speak on behalf
of my own department. There is no official in my department who was culpable in any respect.


William Richard Motherwell: There is something wrong. I remember two years ago that when the Brown commission was investigating the grain question the farmers in dozens recommended that the whole grain problem be put into the hands of the Department of Agriculture, like all other agricultural matters and

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
products. There was no reason, they said, why grain should come under the Department of Trade and Commerce any more than live stock, and they recommended strongly that the Department of Agriculture should take it over. That was going to be rather embarrassing for certain gentlemen at that time to recommend, but now it can be recommended with more freedom. Now that we see how this matter is handled by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and now that we have a real Minister of Agriculture- accent on " real "-why cannot this grain question be handed over to the Department of Agriculture?
Evidently there was no particular supervision of this report before it was printed. I do not think I have ever heard of a report of a commission being brought down with this kind of blunder in it. Of course it is not unusual for this government to commit blunders. Here we have an object lesson of just what has been happening all over the world where any member of this government has gone during the last nine months, whether to Rome, or London, or Belfast, or Jericho, in connection with selling wheat. They have stumbled and blundered every time where wheat was concerned. I will tell you how I think this appendix got in here. I do not think any member of the government appreciated the significance of this appendix or what it meant. I am going to absolve them of any deliberate intention of putting it in there although it is difficult to imagine such simplicity. The chart reached the report, however, and stupid as this government is on grain questions, the significance of the chart was not recognized.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: Wh'o says "order''? Now my hon. friend would like to transfer some of the responsibility to one particular member of the commission, William Sanford Evans. There can be no more individual responsibility in a commission than there can be individual responsibility in a government. The government is an entity and so was the commission.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: A nonentity.


William Richard Motherwell: No member of the commission is a nonentity, and I must say that William Sanford Evans is technically at least no more responsible than is Sir Josiah Stamp or Mr. Justice Brown. Hon. members may try to dismember them, take their appendices out or anything they like, but they simply cannot make the commission anything but an entity. If Mr. William Sanford Evans
was the genius who did the trick, the whole commission is responsible-that is the unfortunate fact-just as this whole government is responsible for the costly blunder which has been made and the injustice which has been done to a great organization which has held the admiration of the cooperative world, and which to-day is staggering under the prevailing economic conditions. Under these circumstances this government has dealt a solar plexus blow-unwittingly if you like-but at the same time its objective seems to be while professing friendship to put the organization out of business. The Minister of Agriculture stated in his famous speech that when we learn what the government is doing for the wheat pool we will blush for shame. Well, whose turn is it to blush for shame now? The government professedly the friend of the pool, gives it a diabolical stab in the back which pretty nearly puts it out of business. I am sure we have never witnessed such extraordinary action before.
The Stamp commission was heralded throughout Canada as a real crackerjack commission; it was expected it would bring in a crackerjack report and that the report would be filed before a crackerjack government. Are we labouring under a delusion? Must we change our ideas and admit that we were then only in a trance, only in a dream? Must we consider that the whole thing is up in the air so far as all these crackerjack propositions are concerned?


Mr. SANDERSON:: Did the cabinet in
council ever examine or discuss this appendix?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As any hon. member acquainted with the constitution must know, it is not customary to discuss in the house what happened in council.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the minister wishes to give that answer, well and good.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does not the minister think that once the cabinet discovered an appendix which improperly appeared in the report it was the duty of the government immediately to disclose that fact to parliament and to the country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it was disclosed
very shortly afterwards.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only
when the information was dragged out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the information was
not "dragged out". A very direct and courteous answer was given by the Prime Minister to the question asked. I am sure the answer was not "dragged out", in any sense of the term.

Supply-Royal Grain Commission


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How long was that after the mistake was discovered?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I told one of my hon. friend's colleagues no more than a minute ago that I did not know. I do know, however, that the Prime Minister had knowledge of it as I had, and that the circulation of the report with the appendix in it has been stopped.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was it not the duty of the Prime Minister, as soon as the discovery was made, to make an immediate pronouncement to parliament? The announcement was not made to parliament *until a question was asked by the hon. member for Humboldt. According to the statement of the minister, however, he and the Prime Minister knew the fact some considerable time before the question was asked in the house. My suggestion is that it was the duty of the government immediately the mistake was discovered to make an announcement both to parliament and to the country so that nobody would be misled by the report.


Edward Joseph Garland: The moment I saw the appendix to which so much exception has been taken to-night I sought the opinion of one of the leading economists in our western university. At my request he made an analysis of the appendix. As an example of vicious propaganda, unjustifiable and gross misrepresentation this appendix stands almost without peer. The young gentleman who made the analysis had nothing to gain by the advice he gave me, yet he told me that the appendix contains no less than nine statistical errors. I am sure it could not have been the product of a mind like that of Sir Josiah Stamp or that of Mr. William Sanford Evans. If the latter named gentleman is responsible for this report, he can never again raise his head as an economist in Canada.


John Vallance: When the Prime Minister replied to the question of the hon. member for Humboldt, he said:
My attention has been drawn to the matter. As I understand it, the appendix was an exhibit filed with the commission.
Now we are told that is not so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has not been told that.


John Vallance: If it was an exhibit, Sir Josiah Stamp would be aware of the fact that the appendix is in there, and I agree with 
my hon. friend from Bow River; I do not think Sir Josiah Stamp knows anything about it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will read Hansard to-morrow he will see that on at least five occasions to-night I have stated that appendix XII, chart No. 10, obviously was a graph tabled with the commission by Mr. William Sanford Evans.


John Vallance: There i3 not another appendix in the report which does not state by whom and when it was filed. If appendix No. XH was filed there should be some indication of that in the report. Although I have read the report many times, I have found no mention therein of appendix XII.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No?


John Vallance: Or of who filed it, or when was it tabled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We agree on that.


John Vallance: Yet the Prime Minister says it was filed with the commission.


Hugh Guthrie: So far as he was aware.


John Vallance: All other exhibits are filed and marked.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is there any correspondence from Sir Josiah Stamp in connection with this graph?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have none; I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister has.


James J. Donnelly: Has there been any with the Prime Minister?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know whether the Prime Minister has had any or not.


James J. Donnelly: Has the minister any correspondence with Mr. Justice Brown in connection with appendix XII?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have none.


James J. Donnelly: Or has anyone else in the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot say. My hon. friends are not reasonable in their questions. I have stated I have no communications, and I think it must be clear that I cannot answer for the Prime Minister.


James J. Donnelly: In a press report the other day Mr. Justice Brown declared that his stand in connection with the graph had been sent to the government at Ottawa. I for one would like to know what his stand is. Someone in Ottawa and possibly someone in the government has received correspondence from

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
him stating his stand in connection with this particular graph, and I would like to know what it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall make inquiries, but I have no communication.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Where in Hansard does the Prime Minister say the appendix was filed as an exhibit?


John Vallance: In reply to the question by the hon. member for Humboldt I would direct his attention to page 2812 of Hansard.


William Richard Motherwell: Read it again.


John Vallance: The question by the hon. member for Humboldt, and the reply given by the Prime Minister, were as follows:
I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the farmers of Saskatchewan are somewhat concerned regarding appendix XII of the Stamp commission report which sets out comparative pool and open market prices covering the years 1924 to 1931, will the Prime Minister state whether the appendix referred to was included in the original report?
Bight Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister): My attention has been drawn to the matter. As I understand it, the appendix was an exhibit filed with the commission, and it was to be included in the report of the commission, but there is upon that appendix some printing which draws inferences that may or may not have been warranted, and that should not have been there. The diagram itself is not a matter of great importance; the objectionable feature is the printing that was put on it, I think by the grain exchange, in connection with certain propaganda, and it should not have been put upon the copy that was printed. That is my understanding of the situation. Either it can he taken from the report, or if any reprints of the report are made, that printing will not appear upon the appendix.
So now we must assume that it is only since June 19 that the government deleted from this report the appendix of which we complain, because in no uncertain words the Prime Minister says that it can be taken from the report or that if any reprints of the report are made the appendix will not appear therein. So that up until June 19 these reports have been printed and sent out as they appear tonight, and only those sent out since June 19 will be without the appendix.
he not give them any chance to reply to it? Did he say, "Sanford Evans put this in and you will have to take your medicine?"


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: I should like to ask the minister what further steps the government intend to take to investigate and repudiate the report containing this appendix.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we have taken very efficient steps in stopping the circulation of it. I should be very glad indeed to receive from my hon. friend any suggestions as to what he thinks might be desirable. We should be very glad indeed to have his counsel.


Thomas McMillan: I must thank the minister for that invitation; this is the first time in my experience in parliamentary life that any such consideration has been shown me. Surely, however, the hon. gentleman as Minister of Trade and Commerce and the members of the government sitting around him are not satisfied with what they have already said. Surely they are not satisfied simply to have the matter discussed by members of the opposition as it has been discussed this evening. Should they not publicly repudiate this report? They know it is wrong, and we should have some statement in that regard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can assure my hon. friend that after this last hour and a quarter I am inclined to repudiate it very viciously and savagely. I should like to have the chance to do that to-night, but I am afraid I shall be deprived of that opportunity. I do not know that I can add a word to what I have said, in all seriousness. The government have no intention whatever of allowing the public to be misled, or of allowing the cooperative movement of the west to suffer because of the insertion of this appendix in this report. Steps have been taken to correct it. I can assure my hon. friend that not only will this rather efficient barrage of to-night have its effect, but we shall very gladly do what is in our power to see that any unfairness contained in that graph is properly compensated for.


James J. Donnelly: When the minister Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):	I should
found this graph in the report, did he write like to ask just one question of the minister to the pool and tell them it had been in- while he is in this very friendly frame of eluded in the report inadvertently, or did he mind. It is quite clear, as he admits, that the tell them anything at all about it? Did he appendix was pasted in the printed report give them an opportunity to put in their after the report was printed. In other words, reply to this sort of thing, or did he just say, whoever is responsible for putting in this "Well, you will have to take your medicine, appendix must have had access to the entire This man has given you some dirty medicine, edition as it came from the king's printer, but you will have to take it, that is all." Did We will assume that the king's printer did 22110-194

3058	COMMONS
Supply-Royal Grain Commission
not put it in, because then we would have some place to which we could go and find out all about it. May I ask the minister whether he knows who is likely to have had access to the large edition of this report in order to be able to paste these appendices into the volumes? If he has not that information for the committee-and I presume he will not have it offhand-I am going to ask him this: Does he not think the incident is of sufficient importance to justify a full departmental investigation by himself in order to find out who is guilty, who had access to the printed edition, and who really is responsible for inserting this appendix?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly I shall make inquiries and cover the points set forth by my hon. friend.


John Vallance: May I ask the minister who finally handed the typewritten copy of the report to the government? Was it Sir Josiah Stamp? Did it come from him, or was it mailed by him? Was it handed in by Chief Justice Brown or by Sanford Evans? Just who did it? I think if we could get that information from the minister, if he has it, then we might arrive at some conclusion as to just who put this appendix in the report, because I think most of us are convinced that neither Sir Josiah Stamp nor Chief Justice Brown knew anything about it. Chief Justice Brown has stated that he did not know it was in the final report as presented to the government. Somebody must have put it in after the report was prepared. Was it put in between the time those gentlemen saw the report and the time it was handed to the government?


James J. Donnelly: We have also at page 89 appendix IX (b), which is supposed to give the total receipts and purchases of wheat exclusive of pool wheat, showing the price paid. This is absolutely erroneous. They take the average amount of wheat and the average price received; on August 31 they give
5.000.	000 bushels, purchased at 90.5 cents a bushel; then for September 30 they give
26.000.	000 bushels, and for October 45,000,000 bushels, the latter at 72 cents a bushel, but then they give 67,000,000 bushels, 78,000,000 bushels, 85,000,000 bushels, 93,000,000 bushels and 99,000,000 bushels at much smaller prices. They add all the prices given and divide them by the total amount received, getting an average price of 67 cents. In one case they only bought 5,000,000 bushels, and in the other case they bought 99,000,000 bushels. The volume is not taken into consideration; the

99,000,000 bushels have no more weight than the 5,000,000 bushels. Their mathematics are absolutely erroneous.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course my hon. friend understands, I am sure, that the government do not present this report as a statement from the government. It is the presentation of the case by the commission. The point raised by my hon. friend in regard to chart IXb may be well taken, but these charts illustrate certain matters which are brought out in the report. I am not for a moment quarreling with any construction my hon. friend may choose to place upon the chart; I merely wish to impress upon him that the committee 'is not called upon now to determine whether or not Sir Josiah Stamp made a correct report. The report is before the house for whatever use the house or committee may choose to make of it.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, and I am only referring to this matter to impress upon the minister and upon hon. members of the house that here is another illustration of the grain trade trying to hit the pool by showing that the pool did not get the same price the grain trade got.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask if the evidence taken during the hearings was tabled with the report, or handed to the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think not, speaking from memory. I think all that was tabled was the report.


William Richard Motherwell: On the order paper I inquired who had asked for this commission. I may have got an answer but if so I have never seen it. Can my hon. friend tell us who asked for the appointment of the Stamp commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot say.


William Richard Motherwell: It is like Topsy, it just growed up. Seeing that this commission was appointed to find out something which was already known; seeing that in the main it merely confirms the Turgeon report, which gave a complete answer to the same question four or five years ago; having regard to all this, it seems to me that we shall have to appoint another commission to find out who put it over the Stamp commission and the government at the same time. And that will be some task. This government must be a bird of very peculiar and strange plumage indeed. What are we to say about the government's rearguard Tory supporters from the west? The pool, to which many of them belong, was stabbed in the back by someone-

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
I do not know who it was, but it was stabbed by somebody-and they have never entered one word of protest. What kind of song and dance will they put up when they go back to their constituencies? Will they tell the people that the opposition was simply making politics out of it? If they want to be true to their colours why do they not get up now and say how delighted they are with this particular appendix, which apparently they do not want to have cut out? This government has advertised itself pretty well already as a babes-in-the-wood government, as the lambkins on the dreary moorside, as the victim of everyone that comes along. Somebody wanted to put a chart into this report, and lo and behold, that chart appears as part of the report! This government, I say, is capable of advertising itself quite enough without the assistance of any of the rest of us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, this item is
likely to Stand anyhow. We will give the government an opportunity to have the Prime Minister interpret for us to-morrow his statement that the proof would have to be gone over before it went :to the printer. If the hon. member for Bow River is correct then this chart was deliberately put in by somebody who knew something about printing- sticking these things in on the side. We want to know who that person was.


Thomas McMillan: The more one studies this matter the more serious it becomes. Here is the last edition of the report. The insertion of this appendix is a fitting climax to the whole record of the government in connection with the killing of the wheat pool. We know that as a result of the trip of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to Britain Mr. John McFarland was appointed as the salesman for the wheat pool. We know also that twenty-seven of the pool agencies have been withdrawn in Britain and on the continent. We know further, from the reports we have obtained, not only from Britain but, as well, from France, Italy and Spain, that the withdrawal of these wheat pool agencies has had a serious effect on the price which was obtained for the wheat that was held and marketed formerly by the pool. So that the more we study this whole thing-unless we get some further insight from members of the government into what has been done-the more we are forced to the conclusion that, as I have said, the insertion of this appendix is a fitting climax to the whole record of the government in regard to the wheat pool.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?
22110-194J


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Vallance: I think this item ought to stand until the Prime Minister is here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Vallance: Why not? Is this thing of no importance? It is of vast importance, and the Prime Minister should be here to explain the answer he gave to the hon. member for Humboldt.


James J. Donnelly: The item should stand until the Minister of Trade and Commerce has had an opportunity to table, as he has promised, the letters from Mr. Justice Brown in connection with the draft, and also the letters from Sir Josiah Stamp and Mr. Sanford Evans. I shall not be in a position to vote on this matter until we have that correspondence, and I think we are justified in asking for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not the minister think it would be possible for the Prime Minister to come in? He must be in the building, and I suggest that he come in and give an explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The committee appreciates the fact that the Prime Minister has enough on his shoulders without our calling him in just now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made the suggestion merely to facilitate the passing of the item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not withheld from the committee any information which it has been possible for me to give. The hon. gentleman asked for some letters to which he referred. I had no knowledge of those letters. I will call the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, and in so far as he considers it right and proper I have no doubt he will be willing to bring down any correspondence he may have. I do not think there is any reason why we should exercise our minds as to the responsibility for the appearance of this chart in the report. I made that statement an hour and a half ago. I am quite certain that neither Sir Josiah Stamp nor Mr. Justice Brown passed upon the chart as a part of the report. I am clear in my own mind about that, although I have not discussed it with them. This chart, so far as I am able to gather, and I think I am perfectly correct in this, was placed in the custody of the commission by Mr. Sanford Evans, and it would appear to me a reasonable deduction

Supply-Royal Grain Commission
that it was sent to the printer with the rest of the report and inserted. I am not excusing that. But I think I have gone as far as I should be asked to go. I do not wish to withhold any information the committee desires and I have answered every question that has been asked.


John Vallance: We want to know just who it was that was responsible for this chart. The chart is there for one purpose only and the western farmers have a right to know who inserted it in the report, to the detriment of cooperative marketing operations. We have a right to know, and I think the item should stand until the Prime Minister brings down the correspondence. The country has a right to know, and in fact we will demand it.
Mr. STEVEN'S: I have already stated, and I think the committee can take it as definite, that the responsibility for the putting in of this chart rests with Mr. Sanford Evans, a member of the commission. I do not think Mr. Evans would question it. Why ask that the item stand to ascertain that? I do not think there is any doubt of that.


John Vallance: Will the minister say
definitely that Mr. Sanford Evans is responsible for it? Will the minister tell us also what action will be taken to get after Mr. Sanford Evans or whoever is responsible? There must be some way by which the committee can get at those who are responsible for this matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot make it any
clearer than 1 have already. My opinion is, and I do not think there is any question about it, that Mr. Sanford Evans, one of the commissioners, is responsible for this graph being in the report. The hon. member asks: What are we going to do to get after Mr. Sanford Evans? I do not know what that may mean, but I am not prepared to say whether any particular action will be taken. However I have some very decided Opinions which have been formed after listening to the debate.


James J. Donnelly: If the minister thinks
that Mr. Sanford Evans has done an injury to the pool by means of this graph he should at least write to the pool and ask them what they think he should do in order to make it right with them. This graph is absolutely false and inaccurate, and therefore the hon. minister should write to the pool, apologize for its insertion, and ask them what they think should be done in order to make things right. The government appoints a commission in order to stab an organization in the back

and when that has been accomplished they hide behind a bush. Surely they should come out in the open and apologize.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Cluck, cluck!


James J. Donnelly: Hon. members opposite are a bunch of cluckers anyway.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are no bootleggers over here.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the minister would be well advised to take up another item. He is labouring under a delusion if he thinks this is the only phase of the grain act which we desire to discuss.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suggest that we proceed with the rest of the grain act.


William Richard Motherwell: The committee is
not in the best frame of mind to discuss the other phases. The committee, if not indignant, is amazed about this appendix or chart. We need skilled surgeons to take this critter out. The other day the Prime Minister gave evidence of being such a surgeon when he replied to the hon. member for Humboldt, so why not wait until the bull moose of the party is here and let him have the benefit of this discussion? I am sure that had the Prime Minister been here to-night he would have risen long ago and promised the committee that he would get up to-morrow and denounce the whole report until the guilty party was found.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member
is capable of doing a lot of yapping like some of the coyotes out on the prairie; we know the hum of them, and, as now, it is mostly heard at night. With the best intentions I say to the minister that we should not discuss the other phases of the act to-night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member will
give me an opportunity I will give him an answer; I have been waiting patiently for an opportunity to rise. This item has been discussed at three previous sittings and it has been discussed again to-night. I am willing to let it stand and proceed with other items, but I want to say that there has not been the slightest indication or disposition on my part to withhold any answers to questions.


William Richard Motherwell: If that were done,
it was done unwittingly, we will say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it was not; I have
my wits about me to-night.
JUNE 25, 1931	30&1
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. SPEARMAN:: The insertion of such
a graph as this is unwarranted and as far as I can see is intended to do harm. I assume that Sir Josiah Stamp examined the documents before they went to the king's printer; he would be the authority who handed them over to the printer. He is not beyond the reach of communication and we should be able to find out from him who is responsible for the graph and whether he himself was aware of it and understood its true purport. We could find out from Sir Josiah Stamp whether it was Mr. Sanford Evans who presented this graph and had it introduced in the report. If that were done the committee would know who is responsible and why.
Item stands.
Electricity and gas inspection, $236,600.


Mr. SPENCER:: What is the reason for
the decrease in this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The estimates of last year provided for a certain increase in the staff which we now find we can get along without.


Thomas McMillan: What are the
particulars of this expenditure?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the regular vote
for the inspection of gas and electricity served to the public by meter. This service is carried on throughout Canada and is for the protection and in the interests of the public.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Customs Tariffs Bureau, $1,500.
Edward James Young: Would the minister explain
this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is an International
Customs Tariffs Bureau which, I understand, meets at Brussels each year. We have an officer who is an expert on foreign tariffs, who makes a special study of the tariffs of other countries in order to advise and inform the exporters of Canada on the conditions under which goods are admitted to other countries. This vote is to provide for the membership of our officer in that bureau.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Motion Picture Bureau, $65,000.
Frederick George Sanderson: Will the minister kindly explain the item?


Alfred Speakman: I understood the different provinces had their own censorship boards. Just what are the duties of this particular official?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The motion picture bureau was established some years ago. Its chief function is the preparation, for the different departments, of films which are used for exhibition abroad and for educational purposes in Canada. A portion of these films return a revenue to the government; that is, they are lent out on the usual commercial basis. Some of the films are prepared and lent free. This is to provide for the expenses of this bureau. There is a revenue coming to the bureau from this service, amounting last year to $29,400.


Alfred Speakman: It has no relation to censorship, then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are the films used by the National Parks branch covered by this item?
iMr. STEVENS: I understand so.


Milton Neil Campbell: If I have any criticism to offer in regard to this item, it is that it is not used extensively enough. There are some excellent films, particularly those, brought out by the National Parks branch, that ought, if possible, to be shown more widely throughout Canada and other .countries. I have seen some of those films in the department. Any hon. member can go there and the films will be run off for his or her benefit. I think the public should be given a wider opportunity of seeing them.


Ernest Lapointe: Just after the last general election there was exhibited in all the moving picture houses in Canada a film in which the Prime Minister was, with a few appropriate words, introducing his ministers to the Canadian public. Was that work done by this bureau?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think so. I think that was done by the News Bureau, a Montreal firm. There is a Canadian company that makes news films and it was its organization that was here and, as I understand the matter, made the one to which my hon. friend refers. I make the statement subject to correction as to its absolute accuracy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National research council, $500,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: Has the minister himself or the administration made any representations yet to the national research council in keeping with his statement in the house, when the resolution of the hon. member for Red Deer was being debated,

Supply-Trade and Commerce
to the effect that the national research council could undertake a survey of economic and social -conditions in this country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not made any definite representations to the national research council. So far as I am concerned I have been giving the subject a good deal of study. My hon. friend will recall that what I said at that time was that we had available in Canada economists and experts quite competent to deal with these questions, now advising the government in some of its departments, and included in the national research council and other branches of national activity. As regards a specific reference such as my hon. friend mentions, I have not made any.


Milton Neil Campbell: Would the minister call those connected with the national research council economic scientists?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course an economist, if he is worthy of the name, is also a scientist, and there is no doubt we can very properly honour some of those gentlemen with the name of economists.


Milton Neil Campbell: Are there any what one would call social scientists? That was the question-raised by the hon. member for Red Deer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think there would be any great difficulty in finding some equipped for that purpose.


Alfred Speakman: The question is a rather serious one. Many suggestions have come from different parts of the country, and from organizations closely affiliated with the national research council itself, to the effect that this particular phase of research should be turned over to the national research council. The question whether the council as at present constituted lends itself to that work is a very important one. While we admit at once the outstanding qualifications of natural scientists or chemists or whatever you may call them, the branches of science with which they are concerned have little or no relation to the researches to which I was referring, namely, those of political economy, economics, social conditions. As the government is not inclined to accept the suggestion made previously to establish a body for that particular purpose, I would urge the minister to consider not only the widening of the powers of the national research council so that they might properly undertake such researches as I have suggested, but the addition to their personnel of such economists, scientists of

political economy, as may be necessary for that work. The question is a serious one especially at this time. While there may be, as I have no douibt there are, very competent officials in different branches of the public service, we must admit that after the passage of many years, viewing the conditions as they are, they have not been exerting their talents in that direction to any very obvious degree.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a good deal of merit in what my hon. friend said some two months ago and also in his observations this evening. I want him to understand that the whole question is not by any means being neglected.


Alfred Speakman: I thank the minister
for that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the work that is being carried on by the national research council in the nature for the most part of scientific and technical research?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very largely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This work, I
presume, will be carried on in the new national research laboratories for which provision has been made this session and last. There is just one observation I should like to make on that point while we are discussing this item. The amount that the government will have appropriated between this year and last year for national research council laboratories and equipment is something like $3,-
500,000.	The amount for the national research council amounts this year to $500,000. and last year it was also $500,000, so that in these two years there will have been spent by the government of Canada on national research council work, all of which is in the nature of scientific and technical research, the sum of something like $4,500,000. I think the government would be justified in taking that fact into consideration when it is considering whether or not the federal government is not adequately at this time doing its part with respect to the work of scientific and technical research. This is a year when the people are being very heavily taxed, and I submit that while it is properly the duty of the federal government to further the higher branches of scientific and technical research, the work of technical and vocational training, which is another phase of the same class of work, all intended to minister towards the same ends, might well be left to the provinces to carry on with the appropriations

Supply-Trade and Commerce
they have for the purpose, without any renewal of federal grants in aid to the provinces in addition to this four or five million dollars that we will have been spending this year and last year combined upon work towards that end. I just submit that as a matter for the government to consider at this time before proceeding further with the measure which the Minister of Justice has already brought forward for renewing grants which have been discontinued and for which there does not seem to be a special need at this particular time.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Are these laboratories
being equipped for research in fundamental science?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The laboratories are being completely equipped for research work in various branches, particularly in those branches which have already been undertaken. There are, of course, many branches which have not yet been launched into, but at present there is quite a number under way.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think the
minister just caught my question. I asked if the laboratories were being equipped for research in fundamental science as well as for industrial research.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, for fundamental
research as well as industrial reseach.


Peter McGibbon: The laboratories are being equipped for research in fundamental science?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I may
have misunderstood the leader of the opposition, but if I understood him aright, he submitted that there should not be the same amounts of money expended in the way of grants to the provinces for the carrying on of research work such is being done by the national research council. Was that it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is
this:	Both the provinces and the federal
government, it seems to me, have a duty with respect to advancing scientific and industrial research work. Our federal government is meeting that obligation at this time in connection with scientific and technical research work all of value to industry, to the extent, taking this year and last year, of $4,500,000 for laboratories and equipment and the payment of the services of those who are employed therein. In expending that amount, and I might add other amounts that are being spent on research in the Department
of Mines, for instance, for which another three-quarters of a million dollars was voted an evening or two ago just for this year's expenditure, this federal government is spending some $5,000,000 towards that end. It is, I submit, in all this adequately discharging, in relation to present conditions in the country, its obligations towards scientific and industrial research work and the services that will be rendered to industry thereby. Inasmuch as the provisions of the former bill for technical and vocational training, by which the provinces were given grants in aid to supplement their own obligations, have now expired, the government after taking on the additional obligation of millions with respect to the new research laboratories and equipment should not just at this particular time revive a measure which will obligate this federal parliament for another ten years to make grants in aid to the provinces for industrial and scientific training in addition to what it is doing in its own particular sphere. That is a matter which I think is deserving of consideration this year when the provinces and the municipalities and the dominion are all being hard pressed in the matter of taxation. I do not think there is any necessity for the additional expenditure at this time.


Mr. MALONEY:: May I remind my right hon. friend that at least 65 per cent of the $5,000,000 which he mentions is an obligation on capital account for buildings and so forth that he incurred? The annual grants in comparison are small indeed. I think the hon. member is placing on Hansard something that should not have been put there.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid I cannot allow the leader of the opposition to make unchallenged the statement which he has just made. He is of course entitled to his opinion in the matter, but I think this federal government does owe a duty to the provinces, particularly the younger provinces in the west, to facilitate the development of vocational training. But apart from that, the item before us is to vote $500,000, only half a million dollars to the national research council. A great deal of the balance of the amount which my right hon. friend has mentioned is for buildings, equipment, and so forth, and all that we are expending under this item is half a million dollars. Now for a country of this magnitude, and with the resources thaJt we have to develop, and the amount of work that has to be done if we are to keep pace with the other nations of the world, we are certainly not spending too much

Supply-Trade and Commerce
on industrial research. For my part I favour a slowly graduated increase in the expenditure of the national research council as the years go by and as the requirements for research grow. After all, we have to remember that the great industrial nations of the world, such as Germany, Japan and Great Britain, have attained their state of superiority on a basis of national research work of this particular character. It was only a few years ago that we finally decided to establish federal laboratories of our own. That work is proceeding and I hope it will soon be in full operation, and that in the future the government will keep in mind the necessity for the extension, rather than for the limitation which has been suggested, of research work by the federal government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not caught the intent of my remarks at all. In fact, what he is just saying bears out the point I am making. I am taking no exception whatever to the amount of money which the federal government is prepared to expend on scientific and technical research work administered by any department of government at Ottawa. If we are in a position to provide an additional million dollars or two or three million dollars on scientific and technical research work, I say that the money ought to go into laboratories and equipment and facilities for technical research work being done under this federal government, and that it should not go in the forms of grants in aid to the provinces, to be administered by the provinces in connection with work for which they must 'bear the full responsibility. That is my whole point. Frequently when the subject of technical education is being discussed hon. members seek to have the impression conveyed that I am apposed to technical education and to the government facilitating technical education. I am not opposed to anything of the kind. As a matter of fact, I had while Minister of Labour more to do I think than anyone else with the beginning of the investigation of the problem of industrial and scientific research and technical education by a commission, which led to the various steps which have since been taken. But what I want the house to see is this, that the provinces cannot be expected to spend money for the higher branches of scientific research and technical education work. They must look to the federal government for that. We should keep to our field, and permit them to keep to theirs, and see that the moneys we have available for scientific and research work are {Mr. E. J. Garland.!
devoted to the federal field. That was the whole point I was seeking to make.


Martin James Maloney: Education of all kinds
comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That is granted. It is true to-day of technical education perhaps more than of any other branch of education. This parliament is not in a position to begin operating technical schools. The bureau of research which has been established and is receiving the support of this government is a school of education and research. When we speak of education however we are speaking of something within the scope of provincial jurisdiction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit to
my hon. friend that in all universities post graduate work is linked with the work of research. To say that research work is not work educational in character is ridiculous. Scientific research is educational work of the very highest order. I submit that the federal government not the governments of the provinces, can best further that class of work in its own laboratories, and should devote to that end what moneys it has available for technical and scientific research and education. The provinces may pursue work of technical and vocational training in their own fields.


Peter McGibbon: What has the national
research council accomplished? I look upon the vote now before the committee as the most important vote in the estimates and I think a report should be made as to what has been accomplished during the last one or two years.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is a very full report published.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The research council
issues annually a very complete and voluminous report. I would commend that report to any hon. gentleman who is anxious to know just what is being done. I have under my hand an abbreviated statement about six or eight pages in length giving the headings of subjects with which the council is dealing. I do not know whether the committee would like to have these pages read.


Charles A. Stewart: I would suggest to the minister that instead of reading the information before him it would be an excellent idea to have it placed on Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to do that.
With the consent of the committee and if my hon. friends will be satisfied I shall place this information on Hansard. To illustrate

Supply-Trade and Commerce
however I shall cite one or two activities of the council. For instance, there is the utilisation of Canadian magnesite. A deposit of that mineral was found near Montreal on the Quebec side of the Ottawa river.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, near
Buckingham.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I believe that is correct.
The national research council considered on behalf of a company operating the deposits, the utilization of Canadian magnesite. The company paid part of the cost of the research work. The research council placed their scientists and experts at the disposal of the company and in addition paid part of the costs. As a result the deposits were made of practical use to industry in Canada and there have been very definite and satisfactory results.	.
Cereal grain rust has been given special consideration, and I believe very definite progress has been made. I do not think the claim is made that rust has been completely eliminated, but from being a curse to agriculture, the seriousness of the condition with respect to rust has been greatly minimized. Tuberculosis in man and animal has been the subject of special consideration and study, and excellent results have been achieved. The particular line of research has been carried on in conjunction with the universities throughout Canada. Certain problems in connection with the wool industry are now being studied and it is expected that the results obtained will be of great assistance to that industry. This particular research has not been limited to the, shall I say, live stock feature of the production of wool, but has extended as well to the treatment and utilization of wool in the woollen industry. Then in conjunction with the work of the associate committee on engineering standards definite progress has been made toward the establishment of Canadian standards in the different branches of engineering. We are hoping that as time goes on a very complete set of standards for all branches of industrial activity will be established in Canada. I have endeavoured to outline a few of the oustanding activities, but for the information of hon. members and with the consent of the committee I shall place the information before me on Hansard. It is as follows:
National Research Council Researches in Progress During 1930-31 Subject of Research:	.
The utilization of Canadian magnesite.
Alleged damage caused by smoke fumes from the Trail smelters.
Cereal grain rust.
Problems of the grain industry.
Tuberculosis in man and animals.
Problems of the wool industry.
Chemical control of weeds.
Diseases of animals.
Engineering standardization.
Foot and root-rot diseases of crop plants. Problems of the asbestos industry.
Problems of the leather industry.
Problems of the laundry industry.
Electrical measuring instruments.
Heating and insulation of buildings. Standardization of classification and analysis of coal.
Natural gas.
Problems of the honey industry.
Developments in nitrogen fixation.
The problem of slack barrels in apple shipments.
Utilization of Canadian iron ores.
Destruction of wood piling by marine boring animals.
Pressure variations inside the cylinders of the internal combustion engine.
Wireworms and false wireworms.
Concrete deterioration.
The inheritance of sugar and starch in Indian corn.
Generation of electricity using a windmill as the prime mover.
Emission and absorption spectra in the infrared and extreme ultra-violet regions.
Effect of radiant energy on protoplasm. Continuity of welded steel beams.
Surface energy of solids.
Plant resources of eastern Canada.
Physical and chemical oceanography.
Marine biology.
Fish technology.
Studies on humidity.
The effect of light on life processes.
Effects of electric and magnetic fields. Investigation of gas laws.
Effects of certain reagents upon plants.
The marine algae of the Canadian Atlantic coast.
Fungi. '
The effect of temperature and fatigue on the strength of castings.
Mechanical properties of metals at low temperatures.
Ultra-violet spectroscopy with vacuum grating spectrograph.
Colour vision.
The spectrum of the aurora and the light from the sky and its bearing on radio transmission.	_
Power loss in dielectrics.
The deterioration of rubber.
Earth's nocturnal radiation in relation to weather.
Cathode rays.
Chemical problems of the maple sugar industry.
Development of a rapid electrical method of determining moisture in grain, timber, etc. Mineral deficiency of Quebec soils.
Study of short radio waves.
The conversion of starch to glucose. Unsaturated hydrocarbons as a source of chemical products.
Studies of life in the Pacific adjacent to the Fraser river.
Ultra-violet spectroscopy.
The life cycle of fish tapeworm.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Investigation and preparation of yeast spores. Measurement of the Joule effect of hydrogen, carbon dioxide and other gases.
The lateral support of steel columns and struts.
Relation of bacteria to incidence of feed flavours and stable odours in milk.
The uses of the photo-electric cell.
Action of bacteria and enzymes on carbon-hydrates and products resulting therefrom.
Investigations on gas and water content of trees.
Microbiology of soil conditions in eastern Canada.
Mineral constituents of the floral parts and young frxiits of the apple.
Indirect ultra-violet solar radiation and its distribution.
Parasites of the Snowshoe rabbit. Investigations into the bark disease of the beech.
Status of slough itch in Saskatchewan.
Additional Researches Completed in Previous Years
Subject of Research:
The inheritance of earliness and lateness in wheat.
Water requirements of crops in western soils. The relation of bacteria to the quality of graded butter.
Fungi.
Acidity and lime requirements of soils in Quebec and New Brunswick.
The influence of acid in the soil on useful (nitrogen fixing) bacteria.
Insulin-like substances in plants.
Action of pure salts on the structure and growth of vegetable cells.
The influence of diet on the fur and health of captive foxes.
The resistance of plants to low temperatures. The biological origin of false wild oats.
Life history and habits of the Tabanidae (horsefly).
Study of the blood chemistry in animals with the super renal glands removed.
Investigation of the life history of the onion maggot.
The use of Canadian oils in ore concentration.
The extraction of benzene and toluene (valuable liquids) from coal gas.
De-tarring of gas by electrical precipitation.
Reduction of iron ores by gases.
A method of smelting titaniferous iron ores. The testing of oil shales in the field.
The treatment of silver-lead-zinc ores.
The preparation (production) of metallic barium.
Oil from shales.
Alberta tar sands.
Lake Agassiz clay deposits.
The microscopic examination of cement during hardening.
Causation of cracks in concrete protective coating on iron and steel structures.
The corrosion of iron and steel in the soil. Investigation on the utilization of the resources of helium in Canada.
The properties and liquefaction of helium. Canadian waste sulphite liquor as a source of alcohol.
The discolouration of cured codfish.
The discolouration of canned lobster.
Artificial propagation of the sturgeon.

The food relations of certain minute organism (Entomostraca) in the cultivation of fresh water fishes.
Bacteria found in frozen fish.
Nicotine from tobacco waste.
Utilization of milkweed.
Problems of industrial fatigue.
The utilization of peat.
Channel interference in wind channel testing.
Interference in radio broadcast reception.
Fog signalling.
Vitamines.
Surface tension in liquids and emulsions.
Chemical reactions at high pressures.
Conductivity and vapour pressure of salt solutions.
Crystalline shapes of bicarbonate of soda.
Investigation of Rontgen rays.
The bridging of the gap in the ether waves between those produced by the ultra-violet light and the so-called x-rays.
The spectrum of infra-red rays.
The action of ultra-violet rays.
Intensity of measurements in spectra.
The spectrum of tin.
Constitution of rubber.
Generation of explosive gases in electric water heaters and boilers.
The breeding efficiency of bulls and horses.
Experimental study of precipitation of iron and silica.
Cultivation of medicinal plants in British Columbia.
Laws governing the screening of crushed ores.
Grinding ore in ball mills and rock crushing by rolls.
Determining the elimination of magneto noises from aircraft receiving sets.
Storage of fruit in warehouses.
Use of ultra short waves for direction indicating apparatus.
Radium emanation.
Dielectric losses in different classes of porcelain.
Relation of silver ores to diabase.
Magnetic susceptibility of the alkali metals.
Chemical separation, identification and possible synthesis of antipressor substance from hepatic tissue.
Structure and growth of anchor ice.
Effects of velocity on reabsorption rates.
Effect of ultra-violet rays in eggs, chicks and laying hens.
Adhesions of ice to various surfaces of aeroplane structure.
Sound analysis of carillon on peace tower.
The active principal of yeast.
Factors governing the milling and baking quality of wheat.
Ultrasonics (inaudible sound waves).
Bacillary white diarrhoea in poultry.
Rotary derivatives of a boat type seaplane.
Fog alarm research.
Glucosides of plants indigenous to western Canada.
The habit and life history of the smaller mammals of the prairies.
Mistletoe, parasitic on jackpine.
Winter hardiness in crop plants.
The chemistry of fish curing.
Researches in the field of low temperatures.
Chlorination of methane gas.
Designing and testing of a series of windmills for producing electric power on farms.
Cause of the reversed blood pressure of fowls.
Experiments on catalysis.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Best methods for obtaining accurate results in testing varieties, strains and treatments of grain.
Reforestation experiments on cut-over and burnt-over lands.
Health hazards in spray painting.
Investigations in Progress in the National Research Laboratories at Ottawa
Researches in Physics Division:
Problems in aerial photography.
Grading of wheat by artificial light.
Heat insulation for buildings and houses.
The rapid determination of moisture in grain by electrical means.
Use of high frequency sound waves in aeronautics.
Voltmeter design.
Radium standardization.
Electrical filtration in relation to public health matters.
Short electro-magnetic waves.
Slow moving electrons.
Photoelectric effect in the far ultra-violet. Aeronautical Researches:
Construction of wind tunnel for researches in connection with aircraft and air flow generally such as windmills and wind pressures on structures.
Construction of test tank for studies in connection with floats and hulls of aircraft, design of vessels, rating of current meters and similar investigations.	_	_
Construction of an engine testing laboratory for the type testing of aircraft engines built in Canada for export and for researches in connection with internal combustion engines.
Investigation to determine the best design of slot and linkage (Handley-Page safety device) for application to Bellanca and Fairchild areo-planes (at the request of the Department of National Defence).
Comparative studies of three types of float for the Bellanca "Pacemaker" aeroplane to determine that possessing the most satisfactory performance for Canadian conditions (at the request of the Department of National Defence).
Study of the stability of rigid airships (at the request of the Department of National Defence).
Testing of samples of gasoline for detonation characteristics for the Department of National Defence.
Investigation of the effect of storage_ conditions on gasolines placed for long periods in caches (Department of National Defence). Researches in Chemistry Division:
Weed seeds utilization.
Utilization of bitumen from Athabasca for sands for purposes other than road making.
Honey.
Improvement of maple products.
Apple dehydration.
Problems of laundry industry.
Problems of leather industry.
Petroleum.
Problems of asbestos industry.
Utilization of Canadian magnesite.
Utilization of waste natural gas.
Alkaloids of weeds poisonous to live stock.
Investigation of the lignin component of straw.
Explosives.
Utilization of Canadian wood for battery separators.
Problems of wool growing and manufacture.
Synthetic plastics and resins.
Rubber.
Fish oils.
Loganberry residues.
Emulsions. _
Researches in Division of Biology and Agriculture:
Resistance of the wheat plant to rust.
Gluten proteins.
Wheat flour doughs.
Composition of wheat.
Crop residues.
Chemicals as herbicides, etc.
Weed survey of the prairie provinces.
Accurate plot work.


Peter McGibbon: I think I have been misunderstood. I did not ask for a list of the subjects under discussion; I asked what had been accomplished. The explanation by the minister has not been very illuminating.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry, if my hon. friend feels that way. My statement in regard to magnesite, grain rust, and engineering standards represents substantial accomplishments. In connection with wool research studies are being continued, and they are not by any means complete. There is a further research concerning natural gas in connection with which some very considerable results have been achieved.


Peter McGibbon: What are they?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course I could read the report before me, but I do not think my hon. friend-


Peter McGibbon: Never mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think my hon. friend would want that. There is a detailed statement in the thirteenth annual report of the national research council.


Charles A. Stewart: I must say the annual reports published by the national research council are not very well understood. The items of research are mentioned, but they are scattered through the report. I know that a year ago there were under consideration more than 140 different types of research. To my mind the most important work done up to date, apart from the construction of the laboratories at Ottawa, is the placing of research branches in the various universities of Canada equipped to carry on research work. In those universities the students have access to all the information disclosed by research and many of those young men are being trained to teach. The knowledge gained by research will be spread by them in a way much more extensive than otherwise could be attained. I may say that the national research council has been the object of some opposition. I think the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
minister will remember that there was a time when we were fighting for appropriations for the council; there was very little knowledge then as to the work being carried on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The council was never
opposed by me.


Charles A. Stewart: I must say I had the hearty support of the minister; he was always a strong advocate of scientific research. In the last few years much has been . established in the way of giving the national research council an opportunity of meeting the needs of the country in connection with scientific research. May I say that the pulp and paper industry were easily persuaded to erect a building on the campus of McGill university at a cost of nearly $300,000 so that their problems might receive the particular attention of a staff carrying on scientific research work for the pulp and paper industry. That is how much they appreciate the efforts of the government along these lines, and I want to endorse heartily everything the minister can do to further scientific research. I am glad to see these buildings erected, but I do think the most important work, and the work which will be most far reaching in its effects, will be to encourage the universities to go into the various lines of research for which they are equipped.
My hon. friend has mentioned wheat rust. Wheat rust is costing the farmers of western Canada annually from $50,000,000 to $75,000,000, and if a remedy can be found the whole of the money spent on scientific research will be well spent. I could go on and name half a dozen other matters just as vital; I shall not do so, but I do think the committee should endorse the spending of these sums of money for scientific research.
Mr, LUCAS: A few weeks ago, together with a few other hon. members, I spent a Saturday afternoon at the national research building. We found it most interesting, and discovered that they were doing work which I personally had no idea was being undertaken. Doctor Tory told us at that time that he would be very glad to have any members come down, go through the buildings and see what was being done, and I should like to say to every hon. member that if he will spend an afternoon in that building and see the work being carried on I am sure he will become a very strong advocate of the national research council. I believe it is performing one of the greatest services possible to-day. It should receive the very generous support of the house, and I believe this work should be carried forward in a young country like Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the
minister whether any paft of this appropriation is used by the council for the purpose of awarding scholarships, and if so what scholarships are awarded?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This grant is divided as follows: Grants in aid of research, $90,000; scholarships, $40,000; laboratories, $76,000; travelling expenses, $24,000; library and publications, $15,000; general administration, $18,000; salaries of staff, experts and so on, $237,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon friend from South Renfrew will regard scholarships for educational purposes as being along the line of education.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I should like to ask if it is not true that the research council have been working in conjunction with the scientists of the nickel companies in seeking a method by which commercial uses could be made of the products which hitherto not only have been wasted 'but have made the securing of the precious metals from the ores more difficult than otherwise would be the case. I am aware that as a result of what has been done in that direction a substantial amount of wealth is being secured from a product contained in the ores extracted in northern Ontario which formerly was not only wasted but which formed a very serious menace to the whole countryside because of the sulphur fumes which were being thrown off and which spoiled the whole district. I understand that this product now has a valuable commercial use.
Following that, may I say that if my information is correct the experts of these companies, in association with the national research council, are endeavouring to find a means by which they can also extract the iron content of these ores. If they are successful this will mean a tremendous addition to the national wealth of this country, because this is what is taking place: By the process of smelting they are wasting 53 per cent of the metal content of the ores taken from some of the mines, because they have not reached the point as yet where they can extract both the base and precious metals from the same ores. They are working on it all the time, however, and they have succeeded in devising a method by which the sulphuric content can be made of commercial value to a very large degree, instead of being a waste and a menace, which it has been ever since these mines were put in operation. My information is that they have been and Still are working with the national research council, and are getting very valuable assistance from the council.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend was really good enough to answer his own questions. I have been following his observations, and what he says is quite true. Professor Haultain and Doctor Moore and others have been working on these complex problems having to do with the treatment of ores in Ontario and other parts of the country, and I understand they are cooperating in the solution of these problems.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I just want to say to the minister that I very much approve of this vote. I was interested to read an article in the paper recently stating that research was being carried on with regard to the possibility of finding other uses for wheat, and I should like to ask if any success has been attained as yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are working on that question in the laboratories here, and I understand the same research is being carried out in Germany and other countries. I think the subject is so much in its infancy that little can be said with regard to the progress made.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to
draw the attention of the minister to the tendency of the national research council, in its desire to consolidate research work, to attempt to absorb non-absorbable research work which does not lend itself to other than agricultural activity. I refer more particularly to a seed laboratory for the seed branch of the Department of Agriculture, which is very much required at the present time. This work is scattered around the city to-day, as it has been for the last quarter of a century, and the opinion has been expressed that it should be attached to the new research building. A seed laboratory is a peculiar and special kind of laboratory. It requires special light for the purpose of analyzing and classifying seeds. They must be subjected to an analytical examination having regard to purity of variety, freedom from weed seed and so on, which requires an exceedingly good northern light exposure. In addition, several acres of land close to the building are required in order to conduct the necessary growing experiments having to do with the germinating properties, purity of variety of the seeds. I wish my hon friend to take note of that, because a seed laboratory associated with the present new research building, no matter how fine it may be, would be entirely unsuited for the work. The light facilities must be prepared when the building is being erected, and in addition there would be the lack of the
necessary land upon which to conduct growing experiments already mentioned. A seed laboratory requires a separate building with proper light, and a considerable amount of land upon which to conduct the necessary field tests.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing of parliamentary and departmental publications, including the Canada Year Book, $131,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask my hon. friend if that remarkable document entitled "My Creed'' comes under the head of departmental publications.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is not under this item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does it
come?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It comes a little further down; I do not know whether we will reach it to-night. If we hurry we may get to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Weights and measures inspection service, including the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, $355,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: What is the revenue?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For 1930-31, *420,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $250,000.
Mr. SPENCER What does this cover?
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is allocated to advertising in Canada and in Great Britain. The advertising in Great Britain is carried on under the direction of Mr. Garrety and consists largely in special displays and advertising of Canadian natural products, principally foodstuffs. The advertising consists of printed matter and there are also window displays throughout Great Britain. When I was over there last year I thought they were doing effective and useful work.
So far as Canada is concerned, the money, for many years, has been devoted to advertising campaigns along certain lines. There is, for example, window advertising. We also advertise the export business in the West Indies and in the orient, for which there is a small allowance. Then there is the weekly news service for Spanish and Latin American newspapers, as well as advertising in newspapers and periodicals. There is also the press clipping bureau. Last year I followed the practice that has been followed in previous

Supply-Trade and Commerce
years, of putting on more or less an advertising campaign of a general character. This, I believe, is the item that particularly attracts the attention of my right hon. friend opposite and some other hon. members. With regard to that campaign last fall, I consider that the results have been very satisfactory.


Edward James Young: From the standpoint of the
party?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From the standpoint of the good it did at the time. The results have been satisfactory and have been highly commended by a very wide range of newspapers in Canada, and also in thousands of letters we have received. I did not expect that this item would come up to-night or I would have brought some of the clippings and the letters, which I am sure would have been interesting to the committee.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How can the department ascertain what good certain advertising does, in the case of Canadian advertising such as the minister has spoken of? Can the minister tell us how much was spent in Great Britain last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In 1930-31 there was spent abroad S116,101-50.


Charles A. Stewart: Was this a joint expenditure with the manufacturers who were selling abroad? Was it the campaign put on by the department two years ago?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Charles A. Stewart: There was
$50,000 appropriated for that purpose, I remember, and there was to be a dollar for dollar contribution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year the money was spent direct by Mr. Garrety under a regular system they have been following for some years.


Charles A. Stewart: But was
there not an item under which an offer was made to the Canadian manufacturers, who wished to introduce certain goods abroad, that an amount would be spent if they put up dollar for dollar?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I recall that; the offer
was made in 1928.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think my predecessor took any action in that regard, although the matter was discussed. I am quite certain it was not included in any expenditure last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
has referred to the letters which were published in the press-a series of them. I suppose they constitute what he calls an advertising campaign. Will he tell us how much that campaign has cost up to date?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Speaking offhand, I think about $95,000. I have not the exact figures, but that . is approximate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The return
showed that it was between $90,000 and $100,000. But that did not include the amount paid for the publication of "My Creed." as it is called.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister tell us how much it cost to print "My Creed," and how many copies were printed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 69,259.


Edward James Young: Dollars?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, copies. And we have demands for at least 100,000 more, if we print more. There is a wide demand for them. The cost of printing was $7,300.60.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not my
hon. friend think it a pure waste of public money?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me read
the creed.


William Richard Motherwell: Is it a theological
creed ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is headed
"My Creed" and is printed on cardboard. It is highly illuminated, bearing the coats of arms of the dominion and of all the provinces, with maple leaves, roses-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very nicely done, I
thought.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And thistles-


William Richard Motherwell: Thorns, you mean.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it is very good.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but there are many things very much better. My hon. friend might take any chapter from the scriptures and print it, and it would be much truer and better than anything he has here. But the question is, what justification has the government for using the taxes of the people at the present time for this kind of thing? That is the point. Does the minister justify the use of public money for such a thing? Here is a copy of the document. As the committee will see, it is illuminated with all the colours of the rainbow and is highly decorated. How does the minister justify the use of public money for the distribution by the government of Canada of this sort of thing by the hundreds of thousands, or whatever the number is that he has indicated?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I stated a moment ago that had I anticipated reaching this item I would have brought with me the letters. I justify this in two ways: first, the sentiments I think are well worthy of support.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not paying for sentiments during these hard times.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A little sentiment is a very useful thing, and a little hope and confidence in one's country is very desirable.


An hon. MEMBER:: Under this government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is my first justification. My second justification is that there was an overwhelming demand by the. public for this creed.


Edward James Young: It is a pretty picture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will refer in a moment to the pretty picture. The first publication was made in newspaper form with an invitation attached for the purpose of ascertaining its effect. The responses to that inquiry were so overwhelming that I think I am justified in saying it was a complete success. We could distribute to-day at least 100,000; we have received requests from all over Canada and from every class of people. Hundreds have been distributed in northern Ontario, in the province of Quebec and in the prairie priv-inces. In many cases school inspectors upon seeing the creed have written in and asked
for a supply for distribution in the schools, claiming that it had a good educational value, and that the sentiments contained therein were such as should be disseminated as widely as possible. Whatever may be the opinion of the right hon. gentleman, I have no apologies to make for this effort; I think it has been wholly and amply justified.
A rather slighting remark was made a moment ago about the coloured picture, but I want to say that the lithographing or printing of this creed is a credit to the printing art of Canada. The design was not conceived by myself, but I think it is one which might appeal to the educative instincts of the people. It sets forth the various provincial coats of arms as well as the dominion coat of arms. It is open to my right hon. friend to laugh at it and make fun of it; I accord to him that privilege, if he desires to use it, but it has grown out of a response which was beyond our anticipation and we feel that we have done a very good piece of work in sending that creed throughout Canada. There was no thought of partisanship in the issue of that creed; if my right hon. friend has that in his mind I can assure him there was nothing of the sort.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, even if the Minister of Trade and Commerce can produce a whole file of recommendations, I do not think it would alter the situation. It would be quite, easy to find 100,000 people who would be glad to make application for creeds damning the present government from A to Z. They could be placed in every post office throughout Canada; I know that every farmer in the west would be glad to have an illuminated creed of that sort. It is ridiculous to think that public money should be spent in this fashion. The leader of the opposition has said it was a waste of public money; I would not say it is a "waste" of public money, but I say it is a misuse of public money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is both.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Both, if the right hon. gentleman likes, but it is much more serious to misuse public money than it is to waste it. Under the guise of government advertising, the government has carried on a definite political compaign.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is political propaganda.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has enunciated certain political creeds which are believed in by one. party in this country but are not believed in by the other parties. It has enunciated certain economic doctrinog which are
Supply-Trade and Commerce

false in almost every line and which are condemned by nearly all the leading economists in Canada and throughout the world. We who are responsible in this committee for the use of public money have a right to protest against a campaign of that kind. I hold in my hands a reproduction of one of these letters. I do not know how many of them have been published, but this particular one is directed to the wage earners of Canada. It is entitled "Don't be penny wise pound foolish!'' In the most approved style it attempts to persuade the consumer, especially the wage earning consumer, that it is absolute folly for him to buy goods which are not produced in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hon. gentlemen say "hear, hear"; they have a right to their opinions-


Edward James Young: They do not know any better.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not object to hon. gentlemen holding certain opinions, but I have the right to mine, and I object to public money being used to propagate their Opinions. That is where the trouble lies. I should like to read a few sentences from this letter which attempts to dissuade the people of Canada from buying foreign made articles. The letter reads:
Like as not the foreign producer, whom you would be helping out of a jam if you purchased his bargain, has a production cost that is far below the Canadian cost of producing the same article.
There is a statement which has nothing behind it. I could just as easily say: Like as not, the Canadian cost is lower than that of the foreign cost and therefore we are putting money into the hands of the manufacturer without receiving anything back. That was amply shown by the hon. member for Beauharnois who outlined the tremendous profits made by the textile corporations.


Mr. BAKER:: If the Canadian cost is less than the foreign cost, the goods would not be imported.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may or may not be the case; even the hon. members are endeavouring to delude themselves on matters of this kind. The letter continues:
And if you were to institute inquiries with a view to finding out why his production cost was so much lower, like as not you would find it was because he was paying his employees rates of wages that were away below the scale paid to similar work in this country.

Hon. members who have compared the wages paid in the United States with those paid in Canada have found that very frequently the wages in this country are much lower than those paid in the United States. Here we have an absolute misstatement of the situation. Assistance is given to the Canadian manufacturer who is paying low wages. The letter continues:
In that event, it would be reasonably safe to assume that a much lower standard of living prevails among the workers in his country than prevails here.
For all we know, the standard of living in other countries may be much higher than in Canada. The letter continues:
Possibly he requires his employees to work longer hours than is customary in Canada.
In many cases, the hours in other countries are shorter than those prevailing in Canada. The fact that an article is made in a foreign country does not mean that the hours worked were longer, or that lower wages were paid. And again:
Possibly the laws of his country are not as strict as they are here regarding the employment of child labour.
Any hon. member who has read the reports of the Department of Labour in connection with child labour must be shocked at the large number of children employed in industry in Canada. There are proportionately twice as many as in the United States. These are figures that are given by our own Department of Labour, yet in this advertisement all that is slurred over and we are led to believe that we have less child labour in this country than elsewhere, which is not true. The article continues:
Possibly he is not taxed, as Canadian manufacturers' are taxed, to ensure compensation on a reasonable scale being paid his workmen who suffer injury in the course of their employment.
Again let me say, when one looks at the reports of the International Labour Office and notes the large number of countries apart from Canada which have provisions for this very type of social legislation and notes how little of it we have in Canada, one realizes that this is pure bluff; there is nothing to it; it is misrepresentation. Yet this is being put over in the name of the government of this country. I quote further:
Possibly he is not required to maintain his factory at anything like as high standards of ventilation, of sanitation, of heating, of lighting, of protection against fire and accident, as are in force in Canada.
In all these matters-hours of labour, rates of wages, standards of living, factory inspection, social legislation and industrial better-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ment work-Canada is much more advanced than most of the nations that make products similar to hers.
That is absolutely untrue, as is shown, again let me say, by the reports of the International Labour Office as well as other authoritative documents. Yet we have that propaganda put over, for what purposes? Simply to boost some Canadian manufacturers, and in order to lull us into a kind of false self-satisfaction with things in general in this country. The article continues:
The result is that Canadian wage earners are more fortunately circumstanced in almost every way, than are the wage earners in most other countries.
Is that true? When for years such large numbers left Canada to go to the United States, it did not look as if they were so much better off in this country than elsewhere. I quite admit that present conditions are as bad and probably worse in the United States. I continue reading:
Obviously they can only hope to retain those advantages as long as their employers, the manufacturers of Canada, are able to overcome in the domestic market the competition of foreign-made goods that are produced under longer working hours, lower wage scales, and lower standards of living.
Again a misstatement of the situation.
For should the time ever come when they can no longer compete, either their Canadian employees must agree to wage reductions and the loss of decent living conditions, or the manufacturers themselves must close up shop.
Surely there are enough men of the stamp of Sir Joseph Flavelle going around this country preaching lower wages and threatening employees without the government doing the same thing and paying $100,000 of the country's money to do it. The article proceeds :
You can see therefore what serious trouble these bargains in foreign-made goods may cause you-what serious trouble any foreign-made goods may cause you whether they be bargains or not-if you allow yourself to be persuaded into buying them.
What in the name of common sense is the use of our having a Department of Trade and Commerce, having our trade officials all over the world at great cost, and publishing all sorts of documents if we are going to cut off our trade with the rest of the world? I would say that the Department of Trade and Commerce might as well go out of business. The idea of actually spending these huge sums of money simply to instruct the people they must not buy foreign made goods when we all know quite well that unless we do buy foreign made goods, we can never send goods out of this country! That is the elementary 22110-195
economics of the situation and we are beclouding the whole issue by this so-called campaign. The article goes on:
Should you say there is nothing harmful in buying them once in a while, you will probably see nothing harmful in buying them every chance you get.
This simply means that we ought to take as part of our creed that we shall never buy any foreign goods. That is surely a reduetio ad absurdum.
And if you buy them every chance you get, you cannot blame others for doing the same thing. Once everybody in Canada starts doing it, you know what will happen!
I ask hon. gentlemen if all the clothing they wear is made out of wool manufactured in Canada. Do they never buy suits made out of the best English cloths?


Edward James Young: What about their automobiles?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; I fancy they
sometimes buy things that are made outside Canada. What about those articles that come under our ordinary diet in this country? Are we to be told that all our citrus fruits must be grown in Canada and that we must never stop to buy anything that is made or produced outside this country? The situation is ridiculous. The article winds up on this high moral plane:
So for the sake of a small immediate saving or merely to satisfy a passing whim, why run the risk of setting in train a movement that in a few years might easily prove your undoing! Wouldn't it be far better for you, and your family, and all your friends, to stand fast by the policy of buying "produced-in-Canada," as the surest means of protecting Canadian rates of wages and Canadian standards of living?
Following up this wonderful campaign, we find almost every province taking up the cry and we have in my own province a "Pro-duced-in-Manitoba" campaign. Our local manufacturers are protesting against anything being brought in from Ontario and Quebec because we want everything produced in Manitoba. Out in Saskatchewan they are insisting that all their beers must be produced in that province, and none of them in Alberta or Manitoba, and so the idea travels. Every word of this campaign, if it be true for the dominion, is equally true for the provinces; it is equally true for each little city across the country. I mention this only to show how absurd the whole thing is. Let me say again, standing in my place as representing one constituency in Canada, I protest against the misuse of public money in carrying on a party campaign of this kind.



Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Richard Motherwell: When these display cards were gotten out by the government as a beautiful exhibit of lithographing and the advertisements generally were published, I put some of the clippings away, but they became so numerous I was not able to keep track of them. They were nothing but campaign literature. During these hard times fine words and feathers may be all right, but they do not butter any parsnips, and they cost a lot of money. May I quote one part of the creed:
We have unbounded confidence in the ability of her people to excel in whatsoever they undertake.
Supposing we substitute the words "the present government" for the words "her people." Then it would read:
We have unbounded confidence in the ability of the present government to excel in whatsoever they undertake.
Well, have we? If my hon. friends opposite have a large quantity of these cards on hand I would recommend that they sell them quickly because the demand is going down rapidly and these cards will soon be at a tremendous discount. Therefore they should sell them quickly while the selling is good, because the exhibition that we had this evening in connection with the Stamp commission report will discount them still further. I think the whole propaganda is ridiculous and absurd; the government have not lived up to the stuff contained in this creed, much less to the realities of life. Whatever major task they have undertaken, failure has dogged their steps from early morning until dewy eve. Of course they have been able to tax us. They are whales' on protection, on looking after the manufacturer. They rushed to Ottawa to a special session, fell upon the necks of the manufacturers and met them more than half-way. They were prepared to do all and even more than the manufacturers wanted to be done or could think of asking for. They are a success in such matters as increasing the postage rates, cancelling the penny postage and imposing all these little annoying taxes; they are certainly whales at that; but a3 regards dealing with any major proposition confronting Canada at this time, nobody can deny that they have fallen down all along the line. Look at the Minister of Justice-the picture of despair. I heard him over the radio during the last election campaign and he gave the most effective speech and the most damaging to the Liberal cause that was given in that part of the country, and that is saying something because his colleague to his right (Mr. Stevens), whom I also heard, 
was no mean stump speaker. I certainly admired the ingenuity with which he twisted things. And the Prime Minister, well, he was simply magnificent as an orator over the radio. I remember the Minister of Justice over the radio was complaining about the mixing of wheat, and he asked why did we not fix it up quicker. But we havn't heard a peep out of him since then, but we will attend to that matter before the grain act vote is through. The Minister of Justice has been significantly quiet all this session. Why does he not get up and defend this propaganda? Surety he can defend it as well as he defended the economic conference in London. This government should be condemned up hill and down dale for putting this advertising stuff out. It is purely Conservative propaganda. If I were a Conservative I presume I would look upon it with more leniency, but let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there are thousands and tens of thousands of Conservatives who condemn this kind of thing just as much as I do. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives in the west will soon be as scarce as hens' teeth. There will not be enough of them to say anything one way or the other about this propaganda. Who is murmuring over there? Why don't you get up and say something?


Robert James Manion: Why don't you say something yourself while you are up?


William Richard Motherwell: I am trying to
pretty hard. We have pretty nearly silenced the whole government to-night on every question that has been brought up. Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the house when we were discussing the Stamp report.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I was.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, if he did
not get enough then, he does not know when he has got enough and must have a hide like a rhinoceros.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to say a word as to one aspect in particular of what the government is doing by this propaganda. We hear a good deal from the Prime Minister and others about the desirability of people, to say nothing of the opposition, saying as little as possible about the existing unemployment and distress. Hon. members opposite are continually saying that we should soft-pedal on that sort of thing. Let me read what appears in the first letter which the Minister of Trade and Commerce sent out over his own signature. It is dated October 4, 1930, just when unemployment was beginning to get a little worse.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
This is what the government of Canada has been paying the press of Canada to publish far and wide from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Here is a paragraph by itself:
As you know, thousands upon thousands of your fellow-Canadians are out of work. Unemployment, always a serious problem when it occurs, is more serious than ever just now, not only because it has lasted so long and been so widespread, but because of the unusually large numbers who, by reason of it, are being forced to suffer real hardships.
There is a statement published as an advertisement in most of the papers of Canada by this government and paid for out of public money. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other members of the government how, in the face of that statement, they can justify the position they are taking to-day of having in this country no policy whatever on unemployment. They have advertised that the unemployment situation was bad, that thousands and thousands were out of work, that the situation was getting worse, with people forced to suffer real hardships. They have used public money to send that advertisement broadcast throughout the country, and yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself, who is asking us to pay for that kind of thing, told this house only a few evenings ago that it was too early even yet to look for any pronouncement from the government as to its policy on unemployment. He said that we might expect to get it at the end of the session. I say, Mr. Chairman, the government had better consider very seriously the effect of this kind of thing. This is the sort of thing that is causing the people of this country to feel a sense of outrage towards this government; this playing fast and loose with unemploj-ment for protectionist propaganda purposes, exploiting the sufferings of the unemployed to help specially protected interests. The minister seeks to justify this and to ask us to appropriate public money for such purposes; when, however, attention is drawn to the need of immediate action to relieve unemployment throughout the country, notwithstanding that the government itself has been advertising unemployment and the extent and the seriousness of it, the minister sits perfectly dumb. When he does speak he tells the house that we need not expect an announcement of the government's policy on unemployment until the end of the session. How does the minister justify out of taxation paying for the circulation of a statement of that kind? How can he justify the expenditure of public money in sending broadcast through the 22110-195J
press of this country a paragraph such as appears there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is justified in the remainder of the letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The remainder of the letter only makes the thing worse; for if the country were to follow out what is there suggested, business would become stagnant in no time. The letter from which I have quoted is dated October 4, 1930. Let me read the first paragraph of another letter, dated November 1, 1930, and remember that unemployment conditions have steadily become worse from October 4, 1930, up to the present time. On November 1, 1930, the minister issues a statement as follows:
Some day soon you will be called upon by a commercial traveller who is going to do his best to sell you some foreign-made goods.
And the rest of the article sets forth the reasons why that commercial traveller should, metaphorically speaking, be kicked out, why he should not be listened to, why no foreign made goods should be bought. This is from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the head of the department that exists for the purpose of extending our trade and furthering international trade. Read through the whole article, and there is no one but will be convinced that the whole purpose of all this propaganda is to restrict trade in the interest of a few specially protected concerns. Its whole purpose is to make anything in the nature of international trade impossible. What does that mean? These advertisements are being paid for by the people of the prairie provinces just as much as by the people of Ontario and Quebec, and I ask the minister what right he has to use the money of the people of Manitoba, Allberta and Saskatchewan to advise the people of Canada, regardless of the part in which they live, not to buy any imported goods.


Edward James Young: No right whatever.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What right has he to advise the people of Canada in advertisements paid for out of their taxes, when labour conditions are getting worse and worse throughout the country, not to buy any imported goods, and then to attempt to support his statements by whole pages of economic fallacies? I shall not call them economic arguments; they are economic fallacies.


Mr. MORAND:: Would the right hon.
gentleman advise the people of this country to the contrary, to buy foreign made goods?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would advise the people to expand trade all that they possibly can at this time, to make trade as

Proceedure in Taking Divisions
extensive as possible. I see the hour is just up, Mr. Chairman, but before sitting down I should like to repeat what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said, that no government has the right to use public moneys to further party political propaganda, and every bit of this advertising from beginning to close is, first of all, an effort to further propaganda in what it puts forth in the advertisements themselves, and in the second place to bring if possible the press of the country, through advertisements of this kind, under an obligation to the ministry for the advertising which they are being given in this way.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 26, 1931.