1932-05-18

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: On behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), I desire to lay on the table orders in council numbers 1154, 1155, 1156, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163 and 1164, all dated May 17, 1932, passed under the authority of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, and all relating to the payment of money.



WATERTON GLACIER INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 97, respecting the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MURPHY:: W:aterton Lakes national park in Canada and Glacier national park in the United States adjoin each other along the international boundary between Alberta and Montana; they have long been 41781-191
recognized by the public in both countries as constituting virtually one park unit and, therefore, in some respects, are international in character. Indeed, some of the principal features of the United States park are more readily accessible from the Canadian than the United States side, notably the upper Water-ton lake which lies partly in the United States and partly in Canada, and the Kintla icefields in Glacier park which are usually visited by way of Canadian trails.
Some months ago the government of the United States approached the government of this country for the purpose of ascertaining the views of this government in regard to giving these two park areas, namely Waterton Lakes national park in Canada and Glacier national park in the United States, one name which would be Waterton Glacier International Peace Park. The Canadian government, being desirous at all times of promoting that peace and goodwill which exist between the two countries, agreed on the understanding that similar legislation would be passed by both governments. A bill known as the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park bill has been passed by the United States and is now law, and the purpose of introducing this bill is that similar action may be taken by Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Was the contract to transport the mail between Rivi&re-au-Tonnerre and the island of Anticosti, held by Mr. Felix Duguay of Riviere-au-Tonnerre, cancelled ?
2.	If so, why?
3.	Who replaced Mr. Duguay in transporting the mail between Rivi&re-au-Tonnerre and the island of Anticosti?

Questions

4.	By whom was he recommended?
5.	Were tenders asked and an examination held in connection with said contract?
6.	What price was allotted to the person who at present holds the contract?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No. Service performed under a temporary arrangement which expired at the close of last season.
2.	See No. 1.
3.	Mr. Willie Boudreau.
4.	Mr. C. J. Belanger.
5.	No.
6.	$25 per trip-temporary agreement.


TOBACCO STATISTICS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many pounds of tobacco, raw leaf, were imported into Canada for the 12 months ending March 31, 1932: (a) from the United States: (b) from other countries?
2. How much manufactured tobacco was imported for the same period from all countries?
3.	How much excise duty was collected on cigarettes for the year ending March 31, 1931?
4.	How much in excise or other taxes was collected by the government of Canada, all branches, from the tobacco industry, all branches, for the same period?
5.	How much tobacco was exported from Canada during the same period?
6.	To what countries was it exported?
7.	How many cigarettes were manufactured and sold in Canada from which excise duty was collected for the fiscal year ending March 31. 1932?
8.	What was the total excise duty collected?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	(a) 12,216,403 pounds; (b) 858,932 pounds.
2.	308,403 pounds.
3.	S30,499,222.84.
4.	Import duties collected on manufactured tobacco in the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1931, $631,237; excise taxes and excise duties, $42,489,989.39.
Note-Sales tax not included being not available as separate statistics for each commodity are not maintained.
5 and 6. Exports of Canadian tobacco, by countries, fiscal year ended 31st March, 1931:
	Domestic	Foreign
	produce	produce
Country	Lbs.	Lbs.Great Britain	4,820,60S	41Australia	28	-Barbados	120	-Bermuda	318	-British South Africa..	17	-Ceylon	7	-Hong Kong	5	-Jamaica	1,041	-Malta	2,418	-Domestic	Foreignproduce	produceCountry	Lbs.	Lbs.Newfoundland	26,480	-New Zealand	649	-Nigeria	16,435	-Belgium	949,885	-Canary Islands	32,510	-China	269,609	-Denmark	11,074	-France	114	-French Oceania	-	20Germany	10,203	-Japan	2,525	-Miquelon & St. Pierre.	445	15Netherlands	133.958	38,306Panama	12	Switzerland	28,005	-United States	15,600	5,900Totals	6,322,067	44,2827.	Manufactured, 4,343,670,199 cigarettes; entered for consumption, 4,401,628,785 cigarettes.8.	As of 31st March, 1932, $49,322,471.37.


* PERMANENT FORCE ARTILLERY STORES
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What is the total value of the spare parts kept in store for the repair of the mechanized apparatus used by the artillery units of the permanent force of Canada as at the commencement of each of the years from 1928 to 1931, inclusive?
2.	What was the total value of the spare parts taken from store and used by, or in connection with, the artillery units during each of the years from 1928 to 1931, inclusive?
3.	Are the above mentioned stores kept in Ottawa and, if not, in what part or parts of the country are they located?
4.	Are public tenders called in the purchase and replacement of these stores and, if not, what method of purchase is employed?


Mr. BENNETT:: I think, by common consent, it will be agreed that the question should not be answered. It is not in the public interest, as that term has been defined in British countries, that questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should be answered. Question No. 4 will be answered. I may say, as parliament votes the money and provides in the first instance the uses to which it may be put, it is certainly not in the interest of the public nor in that of the administration of the department that answers should be given to the first three questions.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Paragraphs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of question No. 6 dropped, and paragraph No. 4 will stand.

Radio Broadcasting


MOTION FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
1LE-AUX-C0UDRES-LES EBOULEMENTS FERRY SERVICE
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents in connection with the contract to be awarded by the Trade and Commerce department, for the ferry-boat service between Ile-aux-Coudres and Les Eboulements, in the county of Charlevoix, since the 1st of January, 1932, together with the evidence taken in writing of all the witnesses heard at the hearing held by Mr. F. E. Bawden, of the Trade and Commerce department, at Baie St-Paul, in the month of May, 1932, and his report upon such matter to the minister, and the decision arrived at by the minister.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When this motion was first introduced, objection was taken that it was premature in that it asked for particulars in connection with a contract that had not yet been awarded. The request was made that the motion should be allowed to stand until it became appropriate. Therefore it stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a question of policy.
Motion stands.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of the report made by the commissioner appointed to inquire into the Fauvel post office, county of Bonaventure, together with copy of the evidence taken at that investigation.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 94, respecting radio broadcasting.
He said: In moving the second reading of the bill which stands in my name, I desire to intimate to the house that in a general way it follows the committee's report which was unanimously adopted a few days ago and it is based upon principles which the government believes should be adopted, because they fulfil two essential requirements without which radio broadcasting in Canada must fail in service to the Canadian people.
First of all, this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence. Without such control radio broadcasting can nev'er become a great agency for the communication of matters of 41761-191 i
national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals, and without such control it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened. Other and alternative systems may meet the requirements of other countries, and in any case it is not my purpose to comment unfavourably upon those systems. But it seems to me clear that in Canada the system we can most profitably employ is one which, in operation and control, responds most directly to the popular will and the national need. In this stage of our national development we have problems peculiar to ourselves and we must reach a solution of them through the employment of all available means. The radio has a place in the solution of all those problems. It becomes, then, the duty of parliament to safeguard it in such a way that its fullest benefits may be assured to the people as a whole.
Furthermore, radio broadcasting, controlled and operated in this way, can serve as a dependable link in a chain of empire communication by which we may be more closely united one with the other in that enduring fellowship which is founded on the clear and sympathetic understanding which grows out of closer mutual knoivledge.
No other system of radio broadcasting can meet these national requirements and empire obligations. Therefore, the parliament of Canada is asked to support the principle embodied in this measure.
Secondly, no other scheme than that of public ownership can ensure to the people of this country, without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of radio broadcasting. Private ownership must necessarily discriminate between densely and sparsely populated areas. This is not a correctable fault in private ownership; it is an inescapable and inherent demerit of that system. It does not seem right that in Canada the tmvns should be preferred to the countryside or the prosperous communities to those less fortunate. In fact, if no other course were possible, it might be fair to suggest that it should be the other way about. Happily, hoivever, under this system, there is no need for discrimination; all may be served alike. Equality of service is assured by the plan which calls for a chain of high power stations throughout Canada. And furthermore, the particular requirements of any community may be met by the installation of low power stations by means of which local broadcasting service may be obtained.
Radio Broadcasting
[Stage Direction]
Operation under the technical plan covered by the bill has been made possible by an arrangement between this country and the government of the United States, by which the necessary channels when required will be made available for effective domestic use.
I desire to acknowledge the friendly spirit which is manifest in this arrangement. I believe that the plan now suggested when in operation will permit Canada to enjoy a scheme of radio broadcasting unexcelled in any other country in the world.
Then there is a third reason to which I might refer, and one which I believe must commend itself to every hon. member in this chamber. The use of the air, or the air itself, whatever you may please to call it, that lies over the soil or land of Canada is a natural resource over which we have complete jurisdiction under the recent decision of the privy council. I believe that there is no government in Canada that does not regret to-day that it has parted with some of these natural resources for considerations wholly inadequate and on terms that do not reflect the principle under which the crown holds the natural resources in trust for all the people. In view of these circumstances and of the further fact that broadcasting is a science that is only yet in its infancy and about which we know little yet, I cannot think that any government would be warranted in leaving the air to private exploitation and not reserving it for development for the use of the people. It well may be that at some future time, when science has made greater achievements than we have yet a record of, it may be desirable to make other or different arrangements in whole or in part, but no one at this moment in the infancy of this great science would, I think, be warranted in suggesting that we should part >vith the control of this natural resource. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is a third and adequate reason why we should proceed with the bill.
The bill divides itself roughly into three parts. First, that part which provides for the appointment of a commission. We have been very careful to suggest no salaries for the members of the commission. Inasmuch as the report that came from the committee was a unanimous report, the government thought that it would be the proper thing for the house to consider the qualifications of the commissioners and what would be a fair compensation for them to receive for the services rendered. The commission is clothed with wide powers and with large discretions, as in the very nature of things must be so. There are assistant commissioners in each of

the provinces, nine in all, and provision is made for local advisory committees so that from the small unit up to the dominion there is effective democratic control of broadcasting.
In the second place, we have provided that no large expenditures shall be made, so that in the early stages of the development of this great enterprise the Canadian people might not be led into capital commitments the interest upon which would be too great a burden upon them. We therefore in this measure for the present have provided that capital expenditures and all expenditures shall be within the income derived from the licence fees. That is, if there are five hundred thousand licences at two dollars per licence, the commission would have an income of one million dollars, which sum would not be more than expended by the commission in any one year. It is also provided that if the sum thus collected is not expended in any one year it shall be cumulative and the balance shall inure to the benefit of the commission during the next and succeeding years.
Then there follows, of course, the provision for the commission expropriating stations when it is in a position financially so to do, with the limitations to which I have referred, and those expropriations will be made at such time and under such circumstances as will enable the commission to discharge its duties without incurring large financial obligations.
It will be observed that there are sections in the bill other than those dealing with the salaries to be paid to the commission which have been left blank, in order that the committee of the house when we are in committee on the bill may by appropriate discussion indicate what is thought to be, not in the interests of one party nor of any party but of the people as a whole, the best method with which to deal with these particular matters.
I think that I can say in no boasting spirit that the measure at least endeavours to meet the recommendations of the committee without regard to political considerations of any kind, and we leave to the house at large the determination of the type and kind of service the country shall receive having regard to the compensation it is prepared to pay to those who will be responsible for the administration of the act.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I just wish to endorse the views expressed by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and to say that I am in full accord with the principle embodied in this bill. I have been supporting this principle from the first, more particularly after the work of the Aird com-

Radio Broadcasting
mission, but I knew the difficulties in the way and the strength of the propaganda carried on to prevent the work of that commission from having the results which we witness to-day.
I am pleased with the work which was done by the committee which has been studying this question, and I congratulate the members of that committee on the excellent work which they did. I congratulate the house upon having this bill introduced at the present session, and I congratulate the people of Canada on the principle which is represented in the bill.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should just like to associate myself with the last speaker (Mr. Lapointe) in congratulating the Prime Minister on his promptness in bringing down this bill to implement the report which has been unanimously adopted. May I further express my own very great appreciation of the admirable statement which the Prime Minister has made?


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I just wish to correct a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and repeated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) namely, that the report was adopted unanimously. I voted against it.


Robert James Manion: That makes it unanimous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say that I think
the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) is more vocal to-day than then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Canadian radio broadcasting commission.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like the opinion of the committee on this section, and perhaps we might proceed with the next and succeeding sections and come back to this later.
Section stands.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Assistant commissioners.


Mr. CARDIN:: Would it not be possible
to strengthen the language of clause 6? It says that the governor in council "may" appoint, and so on. I should like to make it the duty of the governor in council to appoint the necessary commissioners for each province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think with his wide
knowledge of the interpretation section of the dominion statutes my learned and hon. friend will realize that this is the proper language for a statute. I can assure him action will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the section. I think if he will look at it he will find that the word "may" is the proper word.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I want to have it clear
that so far as the programs are concerned the provinces will have something to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Mr. EULER:: There was a clause in the
report which recommended that in the appointment of commissioners no political preference should be exercised. Is it possible to incorporate that into the bill, or what is the intention of the government in that regard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member realizes it is difficult to incorporate language such as that in a bill, having regard to the general rules which govern in the preparation of statutes. I assure him, however, that every regard shall be had to the principle indicated, and if he has any suggestions to make which will enable the government to have a more comprehensive list from which to make a choice, and if he will forward those suggestions to the government, they will receive every consideration.


William Daum Euler: May I assume the government adopts the principle that was suggested in the report?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, we have adopted the report.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Expenditure of moneys.
Richard Bedford Bennett: If hon. members will look at section 14 they will find the language is as follows:
Parliament shall not appropriate for such purposes any sum in excess of the estimated revenue from receiving licences,-
And so on. My hon. friend the Secretary of State has directed my attention to the fact that that is not good language to employ, because this parliament cannot forbid what another parliament or the same parliament may do. I am going to change the language of this section so that it will be more appropriate. I ask therefore that for the moment this section be allowed to stand.
Radio Broadcasting


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: When the
Prime Minister made his explanation of this bill he suggested that the revenue of the commission should be derived from receiving licences. This clause provides for not only receiving licences, but private commercial broadcasting licences, amateur broadcasting licences, and receipts arising out of the business of the commission under this act. That refers to advertising.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under this act.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to
have the Prime Minister make it clear that the revenues of the commission are not necessarily confined to those from receiving licences, but include also such things as advertising.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any sums of money that may be derived from any service rendered by the commission will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund as part of the revenue of the commission. It will be observed that in this bill we have endeavoured to establish the principle that the commission itself shall not handle this money-if I may use that word-but that it will pay it into the consolidated revenue fund, and parliament will vote, on the basis of what our revenues have been, the sums of money that the commission may have available. We do not want to meet an accumulated deficit, thereby injuring the value of the commission before it gets properly under way.


William Daum Euler: May I make an observation that comes to my mind after listening to what the Prime Minister has said with regard to possible deficits. Supposing there are surpluses, w'hich might be set aside by the commission as a reserve for future expenditures; what would happen in such a case? I notice that the second paragraph of part (2), clause 14 provides:
Provided that if at the end of any fiscal year there is a balance of appropriated moneys unexpended or if the revenue from sources mentioned in the preceding subsection exceeds the amount appropriated, parliament may appropriate any such balance or excess in addition to any appropriation permitted hereunder.
I suppose that means that the excess would come into the consolidated revenue fund, and could be used for other purposes. If the commission has in mind the idea of having that reserve for its own purposes, I do not think that should be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that this statute does not contemplate the possibility of the commission dealing with money,
[Mr. Bennett.!
other than to receive it and pay it into the consolidated revenue fund. As this work proceeds in accordance with the appropriation made by parliament from year to year, the drafts or cheques are drawn not by the commission itself but by the appropriate minister, or the appropriate authority, to meet the indebtedness incurred by the commission within the appropriation made by parliament. The money will always be in the consolidated revenue fund. When parliament makes its appropriation for one year, it is bound then by the expected revenues of that year. If however the revenues are larger and there is a surplus of $200,000 or $300,000 and parliament comes to make appropriations in the next year, the appropriation is not limited to the expected revenue of that year but also to the revenue that accrues from the accumulated surplus of the year before.


William Daum Euler: If there is a surplus taken from the owners of the receiving sets, and that money is used for other purposes, for purposes other than-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be.


William Daum Euler: If it cannot be I will be quite satisfied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be. If my hon. friend will examine the language carefully he will observe that it is to meet the very suggestion he makes that that language is used. In the very nature of things it would have to be so deposited as to be available for the action of parliament. Since appropriations come from parliament, and as any surplus will be in the consolidated revenue fund, it will thus be available to meet the necessities of the commission during the succeeding year.


William Daum Euler: I may appear dull, but may I put it this way: If there is a surplus in the account, will parliament or the government have any power to use it for general purposes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not have the power to expend it. But need I say to my hon. friend, who has been a minister of the crown, that in the consolidated revenue fund to-day there are accumulated payments of superannuation fund which are being used all the time. This money is not being spent, but it might be in use. It belongs to the radio commission, and to that commission only, subject to the direction of parliament.


William Daum Euler: I do not wish it to be used for other purposes, that is all.


Edward James Young: The Prime Minister says there cannot be a deficit. He also said parliament

Radio Broadcasting
would vote a sum for the purposes of the commission equal to the estimated revenue for the year. If we provide that sum and the revenue falls short of the estimate, will there not be a deficit?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The money will not be expended. I am not perhaps less mindful than the hon. member for Weyburn of the necessity of meeting that situation. I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that I do not think he will find on the statute books any provision as drastic as this to prevent that situation arising.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Are there any stated
licence fees, or will the commission have power to impose any fees they wish?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
will look at section 9 he will observe what the powers of the commission are with respect to broadcasting, and section 8 provides for the general determination of questions of that character. The minister's power under the Radiotelegraph Act still continues, as will be observed; but the commission has power to make recommendations to the minister in connection with all these matters, and I would take it the power conferred by the Radiotelegraph Act as to the governor in council fixing the licence fees still continues.
Section 14 stands.
Sections 15 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20-Oath of office.


Mr. POWER:: This section seems to be
somewhat peculiar. It is not found in any other statutes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want to criticize
it, but would the Prime Minister tell us what he has in mind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 20 contains the
form of oath which the commissioners will take. It must be within the experience of some members of this house that the ordinary form of oath, "I will discharge my duties according to law," has left some persons who have taken that oath in doubt as to just what their obligations were. To remove any doubt of that kind it was thought desirable in this instance that the obligations of the oath should be indicated clearly, that is:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully, truly and impartially, to the best of my judgment, skill and ability, execute and perform the office of chief commissioner (or as the case may be) of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, and that, while I continue
to hold such office, I will not accept or hold any other office or employment or be interested, either directly or indirectly, in my personal capacity or as a shareholder in any company or partner in any firm or otherwise, in any commercial dealing in relation to radio broadcasting or in the manufacture or distribution of sending or receiving sets or other radio equipment.
I think most members will agree it is desirable that whoever aocepts these positions with the provisions of the statute as they are, should have those provisions brought directly to his attention as he executes the oath of office.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-Offences and penalties.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This section contains two blanks. I would ask the house to look at the section:
Every person who commits a breach of any provision of this act or of any regulation made thereunder shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not
exceeding	 dollars or by imprisonment
for a period not exceeding	or by both
fine and imprisonment.
I am wholly in the hands of the committee with respect to the matter. I should say not exceeding a reasonable fine, because matters of very considerable importance are involved. Would "not exceeding one hundred dollars" be sufficient? My friend the Minister of Justice says that under some of our statutes it is somewhat higher, not exceeding two hundred dollars. This is the maximum discretion which might be exercised.


Mr. BROWN:: It does not occur to me
what offences might be committed against this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member for
Lisgar will look at section 8 and at section 9 he will realize the possibilities of offences in connection with over-running of time, blocking of channels, unauthorized programs, or interference with the work of the commission itself in connection with local or provincial undertakings. For instance, during the war the hon. gentleman will recall a station was found in South America that nobody knew anything about. Then there is the offence of operating stations without authority, and matters of that kind.


Charles Gavan Power: Say two hundred dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not exceeding two hundred dollars?


Mr. BRADETTE:: What is the exact meaning of "summary conviction"?
Radio Broadcasting


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words "summary
conviction" as defined by the criminal code mean a conviction before a justice of the peace, a stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace exercising the powers of such, or a police magistrate. The words indicate the process under which convictions are obtained, namely, the offender is brought directly before the magistrate and charged, and his case heard and disposed of summarily, that is, without delay and without recourse to other than the magistrate himself.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the blanks in
clause 21 be filled in by adding the words "two hundred dollars" and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Six months."
Mr. LAPOINTE; "Not exceeding."
Mr. BENNETT-:	Exactly, "not exceeding
two hundred dollars," and "not exceeding six months."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.
Richard Bedford Bennett: As the committee will
remember, section 3 is standing. I do not propose to take the bill out of committee at this sitting; there is the language of one section that I want to scrutinize a little more closely. I am sure the government would be glad to have an expression of opinion as to what the chief commissioner should be paid. Shall I say what in my judgment should be the qualifications of a commissioner?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There should be one
technical commissioner in my judgment, that is, one well informed radio engineer whose knowledge of the science would be such as to prevent him being imposed upon and enable him to appreciate to the full any technical advice he might receive. My experience with commissions is that it is highly desirable when you are dealing with technical matters that there should be one member who is at least capable of appreciating the advice he may receive or the assistance he may seek from technical sources. The commissioners should be men with an excellent appreciation and understanding of the value of broadcasting to the nation, and should have some understanding of what is pleasing to the major part of the people of this country in the form of programs. The assistant commissioners-one in each province, I take it-
[Mr. Bradette.J
would have effective control over what someone in the newspapers described the other day as "a too highbrow performance," whatever that may mean; but there seemed to be a great fear that something of that sort might emanate from this parliament.


William Daum Euler: No danger.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it they were
listening to the debates in this house.


William Daum Euler: Then they were very generous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But at any rate they
should be good average Canadians with a knowledge of their country and an understanding-shall I say?-of music, art and literature from the standpoint of being able to offer to their fellow citizens programs that would be in keeping with the general hopes and aspirations and ideals of the average Canadian family.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the salaries be subject to such modifications as may be made by act of parliament, or to any additional income tax as may be imposed by parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think in view of existing legislation, that might be fairly understood, for we have a statute providing that if they fail to pay their income tax we may deduct it from their salaries. With the aid of that statute I do not think it would be necessary to add this provision.


Mr. DUFF:: If the appointee is drawing a pension will the amount be reduced?


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: The Prime Minister has suggested that one of the members of the commission should be a radio engineer. Are there many radio engineers available in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I think there are
at least ten or twelve of whom I have knowledge.


Ernest Lapointe: Owing to the fact that
there is a provision in the bill which will preclude a commissioner from holding any other office or occupation or engaging in any trade, the salary of necessity must be sufficient to attract men who are well qualified. I would suggest that the salaries of the railway commissioners be taken as a basis for the salaries of the members of this commission.


Charles Gavan Power: May I point out to the
Prime Minister that I am afrgid the ex-Minister of Justice misunderstands section 20, which recites the oath which is to be taken by these commissioners. The oath only covers

Radio Broadcasting
employment in business directly or indirectly connected with radio or broadcasting, and there is nothing in this act as I read it- though I may have read it too rapidly-which prohibits the members of the commission from carrying on business in some line other than radio. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that perhaps some provision of that kind might be included, and I would suggest also that we make provision for the retirement on pension of these commissioners at the end of ten years. I think the Prime Minister knows, as every member of the house knows, the difficulty of obtaining the services of suitable men when they must retire from participation in ordinary business affairs to accept a position which will guarantee them employment for only ten years. If they have devoted their whole time to their work, at the end of the ten year period they probably will not be fitted to take part in any other business, and their future will be by no means secure. So I would suggest first that they be not permitted to carry on any other business, and in the second place that some provision be made for a retiring allowance or pension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that
the suggestion of the hon. member for Quebec South was in my mind, but in the beginning of this venture I hesitated to provide for retiring allowance. If it is the sense of the committee that such should be done, however, I shall be very glad to amend this section accordingly and make provision for payment by these commissioners into the superannuation fund, if it is thought desirable, as I think it is, to provide for the acquisition of an annuity in that way, and the salary might be based upon that assumption. I think it is unwise in a case of this kind to provide for a retiring allowance unless payments are made by way of contributions to the superannuation fund. I merely suggest that for the moment, and if the section stands, as it will, I will move that the committee rise, but I shall be very glad to hear further expressions of opinion on the matter. I might add that I thought it was clearly stated that the commissioners should not engage in any other business or occupation. That is not so, and that will be amended. My own view is that a salary of less than $12,000 for the chairman of the commission would not be adequate.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the salary paid
the chief of the railway board, is it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say with certainty, but that amount was in my mind.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: That is the salary of the chairman of the grain commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order not to delay
the business of the house, hon. members might be good enough to give some little attention to that question between now and the time when the bill is again considered in committee. As I say, I had in mind the sum of $12,000 for the chairman and perhaps $10,000 for the other members of the commission, with provision for a retiring allowance which they would purchase by payments into the superannuation fund. It was also my opinion that they should not engage in any other business or occupation, but in these matters I am entirely in the hands of the committee. The government has no policy in this regard, but we felt that the unanimous report of a select committee should be treated in the sense' in which it was made, and we leave these matters entirely to this committee. Therefore I will ask that this section stand, and in order that these questions may be considered I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


William Duff: If the commissioners are
appointed during the fiscal year 1932-33 will they, in the words of the Minister of Finance, be expected to make a contribution of ten per cent of their salaries to the consolidated revenue fund?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Marcil: I must congratulate the committee on the splendid work they have done, and I am glad that such general agreement with this measure has been expressed from every side of the house. There has been one question put to me, and I am bringing up the matter to enable the Prime Minister to make a declaration on this point. We have a large French population outside of Quebec in the eastern part of Ontario, in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia and even in Prince Edward Island. Radio broadcasting in French is carried on during certain hours of certain days of the week in these different localities, and I would like the Prime Minister to state whether this broadcasting would be continued under the new arrangement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is covered, Mr. Chairman, by sections 6 and 9 of the bill. I think an adequate safeguard is provided to ensure the continuance of the programs to which the hon. gentleman has referred, and which at times I have heard.
Radio Broadcasting


Mr. CAYLEY:: In our hurry to put through this bill I omitted to ask what was meant by subsection (g) of section 8. What has the Prime Minister in mind there?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be remembered that in small local communities where it is desired that there be local broadcasting stations, there might be some difficulty in the way of providing for the construction and operation of such stations, and this provision will enable the commission, if it is thought desirable, to assist and encourage the construction of such stations, since otherwise such communites be deprived of the value of any national broadcasting efforts.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: From the point
of view' of the avoidance of political partisanship, may I mention to the Prime Minister that possibly the appointment of the commissioners might be made by a method similar to that adopted some years ago, in the appointment of a chief electoral officer, at which time there was a conference between the two sides of the house. I do not urge that suggestion, but I place it before the Prime Minister for his consideration. He may recall that when Colonel Biggar was chosen chief electoral officer the appointment was made as the result of a conference between both sides of the house, and as long as Colonel Biggar occupied that position he held the confidence of all parties. Whether or not that method would be advisable in this instance I leave it entirely to the Prime Minister to say. We must recognize that in radio broadcasting political partisanship, should it be indulged in at all, might became a very serious affair. I do not for a moment suggest or insinuate that such would be the case, but we must recognize that if this were to be done the dangers might be very considerable and the resultant discontent very grave. Anything that will help remove the possibility of the slightest suspicion of political partisanship will be most helpful. In that regard might there not be an advantage in adopting, in connection with this measure, what was suggested and in fact is intended with respect to the modifications that are being made in relation to the Civil Service Commission. If I recollect rightly, it is intended that a standing committee of this house shall have an opportunity of reviewing from year to year, matters that come under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. It might be advisable to extend that provision to take in matters coming within the scope of the radio broadcasting commission's work. I suggest this for the consideration of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the last point raised by the right hon. gentleman is covered by section 4:
The commission may employ such technical, professional and other officers, and clerks and employees, as may be necessary. Such officers, clerks and employees shall be appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Act.
Therefore the operations of these employees and servants would, in my judgment, come within the purview of the powers of the committee. I do not think there can be any doubt about that; it is fairly clear. I fancy that in passing the section the committee did not observe that these appointments are all to be made by the Civil Service Commission. As to the first point raised by the right hon. gentleman, I certainly will give it serious consideration.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I w'ould direct the Prime Minister's attention to section 5. Subsection 1 provides:
The commission shall be a body corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and to be sued in the name of tile commission.
As I understood the right hon. gentleman's remarks, the commission are to handle no money whatever. Cheques are to be issued by the minister of the department in charge of this commission. We must remember that everything which is done in connection with operating radio stations is done subject to patent, and should patent litigation arise as a result of some action of the commission and should the holder of the patent be sued, what provision would be made for satisfying any judgment that might be given against the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously, I suppose, the same situation would arise as arises in any case in which judgment is recovered against any defendant. The defendant in this case would have to secure from parliament such funds as might be necessary for the purpose of discharging the judgment. Possibly I did not, I gather from what my hon. friend has said, make the situation as clear as I should have done. While the commission certainly will have a bank account and moneys, the moneys it receives must be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. The treasury department will provide the commission with money with which to carry on business. It does not mean that the payment of men who maj' do work around the commission's properties will be made through cheques from the treasury. The treasury will give them such funds as may be necessary to enable them to discharge debts under the act. It would be

Radio Broadcasting
rather too difficult for the commission to carry on as my hon, friend apparently understood me to indicate. Perhaps I was speaking hurriedly if he so understood me.


James Malcolm: The possibility of patent litigation is what occurs to me. Undoubtedly the commission will be empowered to issue cheques for current expenses, wages and so forth. But should a large patent suit arise, which the commission would have to defend -and this is quite within the realm of possibility in relation to so highly technical a business-would the judgment be satisfied by the commission taking out of current revenue a sufficient sum for the purpose, or would the plaintiff have to secure an act of parliament before his judgment could be met?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In my opinion, the
plaintiff obtaining such a judgment would, as this statute now stands, have to wait until an appropriation was made bjr parliament to enable the judgment to be discharged; and my view of the matter, having regard to my experience with the courts, is that the court would grant a stay until such time as parliament could make an appropriation to meet the judgment.


Mr. HOWARD:: I agree with the provisions of this bill, but there is one suggestion which I should like to offer to the Prime Minister. In view of the preponderance of French Canadians in my province-and indeed there are many French Canadians throughout the rest of Canada-I submit that one commissioner should be French-speaking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought that was understood in the committee. The chairman tells me it is so.


James Malcolm: There is one other point in connection with section 20 which I want to bring to the Prime Minister's attention. Under this bill the oath of office seems to me to be too broad:
... in my personal capacity or as a shareholder in any company or partner in any firm or otherwise, in any commercial dealing in relation to radio broadcasting or in the manufacture or distribution of sending or receiving sets or other radio equipment.
With the last clause I see no difficulty; but can anyone imagine any line of business in Canada that will not be affected by radio broadcasting? Almost every line of business will use the radio at some time or other for advertising purposes, and this requirement is so broad that it almost prohibits the commissioner from investing his money in any business or stock, because, almost every business uses the radio for advertising.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will look at it closely he will see that it refers to the dealings of the individual himself.


James Malcolm: Of the commissioner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Two things you have in mind; one is that he shall not be in a position where he would benefit by reason of being a shareholder or partner in any business that has any relationship with radio. The other clause to which the hon. gentleman refers must be read in the sense of the commissioner individually having dealings with such enterprises.


James Malcolm: But may I point out that two competitive firms might be demanding the same hour, one of them having a considerable number of shareholders among the employees of the company. Employees would not be shareholders in any company broadcasting, without showing preference to their own company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be construed so broadly.


James Malcolm: That is the way it is worded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think so.


James Malcolm: I submit that it could be interpreted in that way.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Section 14 provides that the commission:
may expend for the purposes of this act the moneys appropriated by parliament for such purposes.
Is it intended that the licence fees and other revenues must pay the salaries and everything else connected with the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Robert McKenzie: I have received a good many letters from people in my constituency, and there seems to be a misunderstanding with regard to this bill. These people intimate to me that they are satisfied with the present arrangement in connection with radio broadcasting in Canada. They appear to be rather apprehensive of this departure and one reason is that they are afraid that this new system will make the radio too expensive. The radio licence heretofore has been SI, and now it has been increased to S2, and some people are afraid that if we set up a commission and all the money necessary for its operations has to come out of licence fees, then instead of $2 the fee may be increased to $10 within a year. This is something of considerable importance to the people of Saskatchewan, and I should like to
Radio Broadcasting

have some assurance from the government that, should the cost of radio licences become excessive, some means will be devised of meeting that situation. The radio is one advantage which the people in the rural districts have enjoyed at a very reasonable cost, and I, for one, should not like to see the radio licence raised to an excessive point, because it would be a great hardship on the poorer people in the rural districts in my province at any rate.


James Malcolm: Before this bill leaves the committee, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in his opinion, this legislation will cover television which is probably the most important feature on the horizon in connection with general broadcasting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Undoubtedly the legislation is so framed as to cover any changes that may be made for the use of any new scientific knowledge applied to broadcasting. It would of course cover television as a feature of broadcasting. The definition clause is, I think, sufficiently broad to cover those matters. Paragraph (a) reads:
"Broadcasting" means the dissemination of radioelectric communications intended to be received by the public, either directly or through the medium of relay stations.
Paragraph (h), which defines "radio" reads:
"Radio" means and includes radiotelegraph, radiotelephone and any other form of radioelectric communication including the wireless transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by means of Hertzian waves.
I think that is sufficiently broad.
As regards the question raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia, he must realize that as parliament will determine the question of expenditures, the question of licence fees charged must also be reviewed every year by parliament.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I had it in mind to ask a question similar to that asked by the exMinister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). Another development that is now,
I think, well within sight, is transmission of power by the use of wireless energy. There is no question that this is now a scientific possibility and I have no doubt in the next few years it will become commercially possible.
I trust, under this legislation or subsequent amendments, we shall still retain our control over the air for that purpose also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This legislation does not contemplate the control of the transmission of electric energy, which, so far as we now knew, is transmitted by wires and not otherwise. [Mr. R. MoKenzie.l
If the time comes when wireless transmission of electric energy is a commercial possibility, no doubt this parliament having control of the air, as representing the people of the dominion, would be able to deal with the matter.


Alfred Speakman: That is what I had in mind. Our control over the air is now well established.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Has the Prime Minister any idea as to what amount will have to be expended in expropriating the stations already in existence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be a matter of gradual determination and it would be very difficult to say what the value of the stations now in existence would be, having regard to the fact of allowance for obsolescence.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How many stations are there?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sixty-six altogether, the chairman of the committee informs me.
Progress reported.


DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Agriculture-fruit, $390,200.
Alfred Edgar MacLean: Has the minister any information regarding the dismissal of the fruit and vegetable inspector at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and the appointment of his successor?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: What is his name?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Chester E. Shaw.


Robert Weir: My information is that he was discharged for political partisanship and the position has not yet been filled.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Has he asked for a public investigation or hearing of his case?


Robert Weir: My understanding is that he has not.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The file that has been brought down shows that he has asked for a public hearing and that one has been refused; would the minister consider granting his request?


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to look into the matter and at the next sitting of the committee give any further information I can.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Has my hon. friend any explanation or justification to give for dropping the grant, formerly $8,000, to the Canadian Horticultural Council? If this subject is going to cause any discussion, I shall not press the matter, but I presume my hon. friend has some reason for dropping this grant.


Robert Weir: The matter may be taken up in the supplementary estimates.


William Richard Motherwell: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc., also grant of $18,900 to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $413,200.
Mr. YENIOT:: What is meant by fertilizer control?


Robert Weir: The administration of the Fertilizer Act and the testing of the strength of fertilizers.


Mr. SANDERSON:: What is the Canadian Seed Growers' Association .to which there is a grant of $18,900? Just how does it function?


Robert Weir: This is in the nature of assistance to an organization known as the Canadian Registered Seed Growers' Association, not a government organization. It is to assist them in investigational work to keep up the standard of our registered seed and to help in the production of registered seed, and to help defray the expenses of meetings of the executive in this connection.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is this organization
dominion wide in scope, taking in all the provinces?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. DONNELLY:: There is quite a reduction in this item, amounting to $159,000. How does the minister account for the decrease?


Robert Weir: It is accounted for
as follows:
Publications and stationery	$	1,000
Subventions and seed competitions,
etc	 73,800
Market reporting	 2,000
Inspection and sale account administration	 3,000
Agricultural pests control act
administration	 5,000
Laboratory inspection services. . .	60,900
Chemical analyses of feeding stuffs,
etc	 8,000
Grant to Canadian Seed Growers'
Association	  2,100
Development of seed cleaning
centres	 4,000


William Richard Motherwell: What was the total grant to the seed growers' association last year?


Robert Weir: 

Mr. DONNELLY':	Did I understand the
minister to say that there was a reduction of $5,000 in the expenditure on the control of pests?


Robert Weir: My information is
that this reduction was made because the full amount was not necessary, as the work is being handled through the general laboratory vote. This has nothing to do with the administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.
Mr. DONNELLYr:	I was wondering why
the pests came in here.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Where is the headquarters of the Canadian Seed Growers Association, and what suboffiees, if any, have they?


Robert Weir: The headquarters
are at Ottawa. They have no suboffices.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: With reference to fertilizer, we were led to believe when our friends came into power that they were going to do a great deal to help the farmer. The farmer was going to get his fertilizer cheaper and be assisted in a great many other ways. We were led to believe that all the ingredients for mixing fertilizer would be allowed to enter this country free of duty, and that generally our farmers would be in a haven of rest so far as the cost of fertilizer was concerned. But according to the returns of the statistical branch last year, I find that there wras a large amount paid out in duty on the fertilizer that was brought in. Last year the ten per cent duty on fertilizer, not including the one per cent excise tax, netted the government a revenue of $144,185. This year, in addition to paying that ten per cent duty, our farmers will be faced with a three per cent excise tax on all fertilizer imported. The statistical returns of last year show that over $5,000,000 worth of fertilizer was imported, and an excise tax alone of three per cent on that would amount to $162,955. So I cannot see where this government is helping the agriculturist very much.
We were also told that the imposition of a duty on fertilizer would not increase the price. Some, indeed, claim that the price has not increased, but when we look at the decrease in the price of the raw materials entering into fertilizer, we find that the farmer during the last two years has been paying
Supply-Agriculture

more than he should pay, because the spread between the price of the raw materials and the finished product, the mixed fertilizer, has been too great. This is a matter which the minister should look into very carefully in connection with the imposition of the three per cent excise tax. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance has in mind putting fertilizer on the exempted list. At the present time I understand that the three per cent excise tax applies to everything that comes in, even to articles that were on the free list before. If that is the case, it will hit our potato growers in the maritime provinces very hard, and as we all know, they are having a difficult enough time carrying on under present conditions. They are almost in bankruptcy so far as their potato growing operations are concerned.
I would not stress this so much, Mr. Chairman, if it were not for the fact that our friends opposite promised so much during the election. They certainly promised to put our agriculturists in the maritime provinces on easy street if only they would return the Conservative party to power. They even stated in their compaign literature that was scattered throughout my county that they would compel the Americans to take off their duty against our potatoes so that our potato growers could ship their potatoes into the United States free. I am glad to say that our farmers were too intelligent to fall for that, but it just shows the extremes to which our friends opposite went in order to gain power. I am not blaming the minister for that, but I should like to draw his attention to a cartoon that I hold in my hand showing the Prime Minister kneeling at the bedside of a farmer sick in bed. The Prime Minister is saying to one of his colleagues that the farmer is certainly very sick, and he asks, "What can we do for him now? One thing is sure. We cannot bleed him any more." I agree with the Prime Minister that he cannot bleed the farmer very much more, but here is one place where this government is going to bleed him more by putting upon the farmer a three per cent excise tax, unless fertilizer is included in the list of exemptions and allowed to come in free. I do not think that the ten per cent duty should ever have been put on fertilizer, because it does not help the industry here and is a hardship to all our farmers.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: On what ingredients was that ten per cent duty placed last year?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It was imposed on different ingredients. The duty was on fertilizer
[Mr. MacLean.l
compounded or manufactured. My friend perhaps will take the position that the farmers need not have bought ready-mixed fertilizer, but he knows that in many sections throughout this whole dominion where there is not an organization that purchases the farmer's fertilizer requirements in a large way the farmer is only too glad to go to the dealer in his own town and buy the ready-mixed fertilizer, on which there is a ten per cent duty. In our own province the potato growers' association provide the fertilizer ingredients in a large way. They buy the chemicals and we do the mixing ourselves to a very large extent. But as I have said, there is still a large amount of ready-mixed fertilizer imported, as is proved conclusively by the fact that last year's importation netted a revenue to the government of over 8144,000.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I think
the hon. member has left a wrong impression on the minds of the committee so far as the mixing of fertilizer in the maritime provinces is concerned. There was no mixed fertilizer brought into the maritime provinces from the United States last year. There may have been in some other portions of Canada where the farmers do not use fertilizer so extensively as it is used in the maritime provinces. I think the government is to be commended for placing a duty on mixed fertilizer. It must be apparent to every hon. member that when fertilizer is required in Canada we ought to engage the services of Canadians to mix it, rather than pay Americans to do it. To my mind there is no doubt about that. No duty was placed upon ingredients coming into Canada last year.


Mr. VENIOT:: Yes, if those ingredients
were to be mixed.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Does my hon. friend
say that the three per cent excise tax will not apply?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I think
the three per cent excise tax is unfair to the farmers of Canada. Representations have already been made to the government and as a result they have the matter under consideration. Before the bill is passed I believe something may be done to relieve the situation.


William Richard Motherwell: What are the plans with regard to a seed laboratory for the seed commissioner's office? A few years ago some arrangements were made, which did not materialize, to have a central seed laboratory in Ottawa for the benefit of the whole dominion. I understand there is some suggestion of

Supply-Agriculture
establishing a laboratory in the National Research Council laboratory on Sussex street. Before yielding to anything the minister would do well to examine the location and find out if there is sufficient ground to conduct varietal tests of grain. The laboratory would require some ground for that purpose. There are three or four acres in connection with the Sackville laboratory. Has the minister looked into that phase of the matter?


Robert Weir: I agree that the
National Research Council laboratory, because of lack of space for experiments, would not be satisfactory. There is no intention this year of proceeding with the laboratory the hon. member has mentioned.


Mr. GARDINER:: What progress has been made in providing the province of Alberta with seed cleaning apparatus at Lethbridge or Edmonton?


Robert Weir: No steps are being
taken this year towards the establishment of a seed cleaning plant at Lethbridge or Edmonton.


Robert Gardiner: This matter has been
under consideration for some time. The former minister made provision for a seed cleaning plant at Moose Jaw, and when the estimate for that plant was going through he stated that the matter of providing Alberta with a similar or smaller plant was also under consideration. When hard times came we realized it would not be advisable to spend a large sum of money for a seed cleaning plant in Alberta. However there was a suggestion of and a good deal of discussion concerning the possibility of attaching a seed cleaning plant to the government terminal elevators at Edmonton or Lethbridge, or both. I understood the minister promised last year to consider this matter, and we had hoped he would have some proposal which would afford accommodation up until such time as conditions improve.


Robert Weir: There is a difference of opinion among the Alberta registered seed growers as to whether the plant should be at Edmonton or Lethbridge, and if at Edmonton whether it would be advisable to have it attached to the commercial elevator in that place. I am sorry I have not further detailed information. If I had I should be glad to give it to the hon. member for Acadia.


Robert Gardiner: I trust the minister will give the matter some consideration, because it is of great importance. I understand, however, that if the registered seed growers in the province cannot agree, he is faced with some difficulty.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: Is it not true
that there is a difference of opinion among the different growers as to the method of establishing seed plants? I recall that in Manitoba there are more localized plants. In that province I believe they receive some sort of subvention from the Dominion government, and they have established smaller municipal units. The Graysville Pure Bred Brome Grass Growers' Association at Graysville, have a first class cleaning plant, and I believe they received some assistance from the federal government. That applies also to the Seed Barley Growers' Association at Miami. I think there is a difference of opinion as to the advisability of establishing large or small units. I was wondering what the policy of the government would be with regard to extending the development of seed cleaning plants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For experiments in dehydration of fruits and vegetables, $10,000.
Mr. SPENCER:: What progress has been
made in connection with this work ?


Robert Weir: The work has been
along these lines:	We have had experts in
the old land studying the procedure they follow in their efforts to use fruit that is otherwise not salable. We supply the apparatus and the expert, and the goods manufactured in the plants where the experiments take place are disposed of by those plants. They receive whatever profits there may be. On the whole I think we may report that very satisfactory results have been obtained in connection with deciding what specimens of fruit are most satisfactory for this work.


Robert Gardiner: Are the manufacturers
taking advantage of this expert advice?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Live stock, $1,380,000.
Mr. MeKENZIE (Assiniboia): Under this item I feel in duty bound to make a few remarks. As will be noted, there is a reduction of $150,000 in the estimates, and in my view that is not in proportion to reductions made in some other departments. I join with those who have expressed their regret that at a time like this, when agriculture is so down at the heels, it is found necessary to curtail the expenditures for agricultural purposes. As the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) said a few days ago, agriculture is suffering to an extent far greater than any other department of the government. The estimates of
Supply-A gricul ture
[Stage Direction]
that department have been cut about 33 per cent, while other departments have suffered to a much lesser extent.
In 1929 the estimated value of all classes of live stock in my province of Saskatchewan was 8850.000,000. This has been very materially reduced, for as is shown by the monthly bulletin of agricultural statistics in 1931 the value had dropped to $687,000,000 and at the present time I think it has been reduced by another $200,000,000. So it is practically only half what it was three years ago. We notice, too, in the monthly bulletin that for all Canada the average values peir head of live stock fell very considerably between 1930 and 1931. In 1930 the average value of all horses was S61, in 1931, $50; milch cows, $59 in 1930, $43 in 1931; other cattle, $35 in 1930, $25 in 1931; sheep, $7 in 1930, $5 in 1931; swine, $15 in 1930, S7 in 1931. Under these conditions it is indeed regrettable that the minister has allowed the cabinet, or whoever was responsible for compiling these estimates, to cut down his estimates so severely. As has been said a good many times during this session, present conditions are driving our farmers more and more from the use of tractors and other power machinery back to the use of horses. They are more inclined to go in for breeding horses and cattle than they have been for a good many years, but they find they are not in a position to buy their foundation stock. Naturally our farmers and stock men are very much alarmed over the drastic cut that has been made in these estimates. We wonder how, without the money, the agricultural department is going to carry on the activities that are mentioned in the report of the minister for 1931. The stallion club, the breeding stations, the special grants to fairs and exhibitions to encourage the breeding of live stock, the bull-loaning policy, the free transportation policy, the cattle club policy, the boys' breeding club policy, the boys and girls calf club policy-these are all very popular amongst our farmers, but they are wondering how these activities can be carried on with the estimates reduced to such a serious extent. These things are more necessary to-day than they have ever been in the past. Our people must be encouraged. They are looking forward to breeding horses because they can see the necessity far them.
There are very many difficulties confronting our farmers, and one of the most serious is the excessive interest charges. Our farmers cannot stand the excessive interest charges that are being exacted, and apparently there is no relief since even this government and the provincial governments are paying as high as

almost seven per cent interest in many cases. Had the minister the welfare of our farmers at heart at the time the national service loan was floated, he would have objected to the excessive rate of interest then provided for. A one per cent lower rate of interest at that time would have gone a long way towards paying the bonus on wheat acreage which we have advocated a good many times in this house. One per cent on $220,090,000 would amount to $2,200,000 a year, which would go a considerable way towards paying the acreage bonus that our farmers so much desire.
The present government made some very extravagant promises to the farmers during the election campaign of 1930, and in this connection I am reminded of one of the pledges made by the Prime Minister in his speech in Winnipeg early in June of that year-a pledge that no doubt procured a good many votes for his supporters, simply because the honest, industrious people of the west believed that a pledge amounts to something. This is pledge number 2 of the program he laid down in Winnipeg:
We pledge ourselves to foster and develop agriculture through the live stock and dairy industries, now so sadly neglected.
Our people, I say, took the right hon. gentleman at his word and many supported him because of this and the other pledges he then made,-they thought these pledges would be redeemed. Let us see whether in truth agriculture was "so sadly neglected" at that time. I have here the live stock market reports which are issued from week to week. In the report for the week ending May 1, 1930, I find this summary on the first page:
Cattle markets showed surprising keenness, despite increases in volume at a number of our major markets. The activity in the buying end, following last -week's rather sharp price advances, offset the slight recessions of values in the Winnipeg market.
Turning to the Winnipeg market report for the same week I find that steers, good to choice, were selling at an average price of $10.30, top price $11, top price the previous week, $11.25; calves were selling at an average price of $10.57, top price $13, top price the previous week, $13; hogs were selling at an average price of $11.69; top price, $12.25, top price the previous week, $13.25; lambs were selling at an average price of $10, top price, 110, top price the previous week, $9.75; sheep were selling at an average price of $6. That was the condition in the Winnipeg market at the time the present Prime Minister said our agriculture was being "so sadly

Supply-Agriculture
neglected." A year later, for the week ending April 23, 1931, we have this report:
The outlet for cattle during the past week was again of rather narrow width, and where supplies were at all liberal the week-end found clearances rather hard to effect.
Turning to the prices on the Winnipeg market for that week I find that good and choice steers were sold at an average price of $5.19, top price $5.75, and top price the previous week, $5.50; calves sold at an average price of $6.74, top price, $8, top price the previous week, $9; hogs sold at an average price of $7.60, top price, $7.75, top price the previous week, $7.50; lambs sold at an average price of $8.27, top price, $8.50, top price the previous week, $8.50; sheep were selling at $3.50. Then I come to the dominion live stock report for the month of April, 1932. In the summary appearing on the first page I find this statement:
Another shipment of export cattle went forward to Great Britain this week, the heaviest load so far this year, totalling 619 head.
The present government appear to be taking a great deal of credit for the shipment of cattle to the old country; I hear reports of hon. members opposite going around the country saying what wonderful things the department is doing. Let me remind the committee that last year we had before the agriculture committee an English cattle dealer named Mr. Brown. He told the committee then that we had not been shipping cattle to Great Britain during the two or three previous years because the prices here were about as good as the prices in the old country. So this government should not take credit because that movement has started again; the only reason we are shipping cattle to Great Britain to-day is that the prices there are better than the prices here. Our prices are so very low that we can ship cattle to Great Britain or anywhere else. The statement continues:
A cable from Great Britain reports the sale of some of the Canadian cattle shipped two weeks ago on the steamship Manchester Commerce. They were good quality steers and made 81 d. to 8|d. dressed weight including offal. . . . Domestic cattle markets showed an improved condition this week, and not wholly because of a sharp reduction in receipts at some yards.
Turning to the prices during April of this year, about two years after the Prime Minister made the pledge that he would help live stock, dairying and those other branches of agriculture that had been so badly neglected, we find that during the week of April 14 the average price for choice and good steers on 41761-192
the Winnipeg market was $4.96, while the top price was $5.50 as compared with the top price of $5.25 during the previous week. The average price for calves was $4.91, the top price $5.50, and the top price of the previous week $5. It will be noticed that prices were even better during the week of April 14 than during the previous week. The price of hogs, bacon type, was $3.94, with a premium of $1 per hog on selects. The top price was $4, and the top price in the previous week was the same. The average price for lambs was $6.74, and the top price $6.50, while the price of sheep was $2.
When the Prime Minister made his pledges with regard to agriculture and said what he was going to do, we were told not only by the right hon. gentleman but by many others, that the tariff was the remedy. I think it is well known that tariffs have never been as high in Canada as they are at the present time, but the agricultural industry has never been so badly depressed as it is now. I hope I may be excused if I am a little out of order in what I am about to say; these agriculture estimates have been discussed in a more or less general way, and with the permission of the chairman I am going to say all that 1 have to say on this one item.
A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture referred to a proposed marketing board, and I think the idea of this board is fairly popular throughout the country. I believe the reason for its popularity is that people do not understand what may be the consequences. I do not hesitate to say that I have not very much faith in the establishment of a marketing board, for the reason that I fear that it will be just one more clog in the machinery that is already over-clogged with regard to the marketing of our farm products. In my view this board would either have the effect of increasing the prices of farm products, or it would not. Let us suppose that for the time being it increases the prices of farm products. We know that one of our greatest problems to-day is a lack of markets, and a consequent over-production because our marketing facilities are not adequate. If we do increase the value of these farm products will we not stimulate production, and then will we not have over-production and a decrease in the value of our farm products? On the other hand, if the board will not increase the value of our products what is the use of spending our time and thought on it?
A few weeks ago I sent a letter to the press in various parts of the country, largely to the weeklies but to some of the daily papers as well, drawing attention to a very live ques-
[Stage Direction]
Supply-A griculture
[Stage Direction]
tion in my part of the country. I refer to the excessive spread between the price of the raw material and the price of the finished article. In my letter I dealt with the subject of wool and woollen products, particularly woollen underwear, and I pointed out that wool sold at from 5 to 7 cents a pound, though as a matter of fact some wool is selling for only 4 cents. When we come to buy it back in manufactured form, however, we pay possibly $2 a pound. I directed attention to the fact that a certain brand of combination underwear weighing 29 ounces cost from $2.50 to $2.75 at retail, and there are other examples even more outstanding. Since writing that letter I have heard from a great many people in various parts of the country, many of whom drew attention to the fact that in dealing with wool and woollen products I was laying stress on a comparatively minor matter. At the time I wrote the letter I realized that this was so, but I dealt with wool because some of my people have been selling their raw wool for only 4 cents a pound, and in a cold climate such as we have, woollen underclothing is necessary. I regret to say that a great many of our people are not able to buy it at the prices they are asked to pay at the present time.
The question of hides and finished leather is just as important. I have here a clipping from a weekly newspaper, setting out a letter received from a clerk in a store, who wrote:
A short time ago a farmer came into the store where I am employed, bringing a calf hide. After looking up the market on hides I found the best I could offer him was four cents per pound. The hide weighed 12f pounds, which equals 51 cents, and in exchange he took one pair of shoe laces at 20 cents, one package of puffed wheat at 16 cents, and one package of health bran at 15 cents.
After the man left the store I began to compare the values of these articles. The laces were the sort used for lacing long boots, and were cut from common everyday calfskin. On weighing these I found there were 24 to the pound at 20 cents per pair, making the cost of $4.80 per pound. As leather gains five per cent in tanning, the hide would weigh about 16 pounds when finished and would be worth about $73.60 when cut into laces. So if the farmer wished to buy his same calf hide tanned and cut into laces, lie would need to bring in 80 calf hides at 50 cents, plus 60 sheep skins at 40 cents, plus 20 lamb skins at 25 cents, plus SO pounds of wool at 8 cents, and to make up the balance could hand over $1.40 cash.
This spread between raw products and finished products is a matter of more than passing importance, and I want to say to the minister that instead of establishing a marketing board, which, to say the least, will be of doubtful success, it would be wise for him to appoint a board to inquire into the spread in

prices. I am sure he could make a name for himself, and I may say, without any offence to the minister, that he needs something to make a name for himself throughout the farming areas of the country-I say, he could make a name for himself if he took advantage of something of this sort and established a board to inquire into the spread in prices. I can assure him that I should be willing to give him all the assistance I could in gathering information.
There is another thing in connection with this spread in prices, and from the letters I have received I may tell the minister that v/hat I am going to say is something the farmers in my part of the country are thinking about. Woollen manufacturers, tanners and other manufacturers throughout Canada are going to suffer very materially unless something is done along this line. Our people in the rural areas are seriously considering going back to the custom of fifty or sixty years ago, because some of them still know something about the spinning of yarns, and they are going to take the wool and make it into clothing themselves. This will be done, not because the people are particularly anxious to do it, but because it is becoming imperative. There are men, women and children in the province from which I come who have not been able to obtain woollen underwear, which is so necessary in that climate. It is very fortunate indeed that we have had mild winters the last two years; otherwise a great many of the people there would have suffered more severely than they have done, because they have not been able to buy woollen underwear. They were given a good deal of cotton stuff last winter through the relief commission, but that is not what they need in that country. In conclusion, I would urge again on the minister that he do something to find out the reasons for this spread in prices. Once more I assure him of my willingness to give him all the assistance in my power in that regard.
Mr. NEILL:: I wish to take just a few
minutes to suggest to the minister that he put some restraint on his officials in issuing optimistic, not to say flamboyant, highly-coloured descriptions of the profits to be made in the poultry industry. I have in my hand an editorial from a British Columbia poultry paper from which I will read a paragraph or two:
Another statement from the Dominion Department of Agriculture recently issued, says a flock of a hundred birds carefully managed are returning to many a farmer a profit, over feed costs, of from $200 to $500 a year, "which is not to be disdained by even the most successful farmers."

Supply-A gricul ture
And eggs are ten cents a dozen! Ask any farmer how much profit he has made in the past two years. And we venture to say not one can lay claim to such a privilege. Then ask him if he thinks he can make up to $5 per bird raising chickens, and he will look at you in a sad, wistful way suggestive of doubt as to your mental balance.
In conclusion it seems to us that as our governments appear unable to help the poultry industry they should at least desist from making it worse.
You will note that it says "over feed costs," so that the 85 is net profit. Now, the average cost of feeding a chicken is 82 a year, which makes 87 gross per year, and there should be added another dollar for replacement, because you have to pay as much for the day-old chick as you get for it afterwards. And feeding a chicken for six or seven months is expensive. However, let us put it at $7 gross income. At 10 cents a dozen, that would be 70 dozen, or 840 eggs, which would be the equivalent of 2^ eggs per day, and even in British Columbia our hens do not lay 2| eggs per day, or 16 per week. A much more accurate figure would be one-half an egg per day, or perhaps a little more-say 4 per week instead of 16. Of course, I am taking an extreme figure when I suggest an average of 10 cents a dozen, and we hope that eggs will not long average that. Still, they are selling at that figure out there to-day. But, taking the reasonable average number of eggs that a hen would be likely to lay in a year to bring the gross profit to S7, you would have to have an average of 37 cents a dozen; and as they vary, being sometimes 20 cents below that, it means that for a considerable time you would have to sell the eggs at 64 cents a dozen- that is, wholesale to the farmer-which, of course, is absolutely ridiculous.
It would seem unnecessary to waste time discussing such an idle statement, which requires, if it is to justify itself, that one hen shall lay 2^ eggs per day. But this statement has government sanction, and there are many people who, perhaps being less familiar with governments than we are, have a great respect for anything put out under the auspices of any government, and so they think that such statements must be accurate and worthy of attention. Statements of this sort published in the old country and in this country induce people to come here and go into the poultry business. I have heard it said that there cannot be much wrong with the poultry business because there are always so many people engaged in it. Yes, but they are not the same people; they vary. There are always a number coming in at the top, but there are just as many going out at the bottom, so that, as I say, they are not the same people. This 41761-192J
is doubly bad because not only do these men ruin themselves but they help to ruin others who are trying to make a living and who under ordinary conditions might make at least half a living. It is especially bad in this respect.
Suppose the government made some appeal to bring in tire manufacturers, let us say. They would immediately run up against practical men skilled in that business, who would at once ask a few pertinent questions in regard to opportunities, markets, cost of manufacture, and so on. This invitation on the part of the government to people interested in poultry is extended not to practical people but, unfortunately, to those who are wholly uninformed in regard to conditions in the poultry business. The appeal is made perhaps to small clerks who have been told by the doctor to get into the open air if possible; to small storekeepers tired of competition with the chain stores; sometimes even to farmers from the prairies, because a man can be quite well informed in regard to wheat and yet know practically nothing of the requisites of a sucessful poultry farm. These people read about 100 birds making a profit of S500; they multiply this by two and say: Two hundred birds would give us a net profit of 81.000 a year. A man says to his wife: "Why, Mary, look at this: if the government says that we can make that profit, there is nothing to hinder us from keeping 1,000 birds"-and 3,000 birds is quite a common poultry farm in British Columbia. The man says to his wife: "Supposing we cannot live up to the expectation of this claim; if we do even half as well; if we keep 2,000 birds, we. shall make 85,000 net," and that looks like a lot of money to people in those circumstances. So they go into the business. They take money that has been set aside for the education of their children; they sell out their little home, or business, if they have one, or their farm-I have known them to mortgage their life insurance-and they put the whole amount into what they think is going to give them a stable, comfortable, not too irksome living for the rest of their lives.
What is the result? The struggle lasts for a given length of time; you can almost estimate the time a man will stay in the business, judging by what reserves of capital he brings into it. Sometimes they last only a year; sometimes they struggle along, by infinite labour and hardship and by using up every resource they have, for two or three years, but the result is that within a comparatively short time they are cleaned out; they lose everything. I could take the minister or anyone else along the back roads of the agricultural sections of British Columbia
Supply-Agriculture

and show him farm after farm, giving the history of each. So-and-so started chicken raising on that farm. He had to abandon it. He owed a big feed bill; he could not pay his taxes, and he had to leave it, absolutely ruined, without any hope in life or any ability to start anew. I have known such a case to end in suicide, because there was nothing but black despair facing them.
I do not blame all of this on the government; that would be foolish, but it certainly has a considerable inducement when the government, believed to be accurate, to know what they are saying, put out a statement like this, because the inducement is unfortunately always to people who are entirely ignorant of the business. The government, as this editorial says, have not done much for the poultry business. They neglected to hear the appeal of the British Columbia people from the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners against their claim for an adjustment of freight rates, so that they would not be handicapped by seeing wheat and other grain shipped to China for less than they could buy it for themselves in British Columbia. In this regard the present government is no worse than the former one; this is not an attack on the government of any party. Further, we were advised that even if the government did hear the appeal, the most we could hope for would be that the matter would be referred back to the Board of Railway Commissioners.
This government dealt a severe blow to the poultry raisers of British Columbia when, a few weeks ago, they rejected a bill which was introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and which sought to give to the railway board the power for lack of which the board said that they were prevented from giving us the justice we sought, the power which the Duncan report said in practically so many words should be granted to them. All the forces of the government under the party whip, with the exception of the hon. member for Rose-town (Mr. Loucks), voted solidly against that bill. The result is that all prospect of justice to us in British Columbia is eliminated, at least until the situation is changed. As I say and as this editorial says, if they refuse to help us, at least they might not hurt us by disseminating statements that are so elementarily and obviously unsound. Of course this is obvious only to the man who knows; to the man on the street it is not so.
Supposing the government were to circulate throughout the high schools propaganda to the effect that it would be a grand thing
(Mr. Neill.]
for the pupils to become doctors or lawyers, pointing out the salaries paid to the judges of the supreme or the exchequer court of Canada, or some of the big fees paid to some of the higher specialists in the medical profession, and suggesting that such positions are open and waiting and that anyone and everyone can share in them. What would the doctors and lawyers in the house and the various professional bodies think of the government issuing such propaganda or inviting doctors and lawyers to come from other countries and concealing the fact that there are four lawyers where there is work only enough for one, and so on? The matter would very soon come to a head and objection would be raised to such a policy. Yet the one is just as fair as the other. I would ask the minister to instruct his officials to be more careful in these times in regard to issuing documents of that character.
Just before I sit down, might I say a word in connection with the marketing board which I hope the minister will inaugurate? If it will be as successful here as it is in the old country, it will be well worth while. If he follows the example of the old country, the board will be a large one with different sections relating to agriculture, industry and commerce. When he is forming the agricultural section, I hope he will realize that agriculture comprises something more than wheat raising or stock breeding. A man may be a very successful grower of wheat or raiser of pure bred stock, and yet foe totally unfit to deal with problems confronting the dairy industry and particularly poultry raising. I am not talking of the raising of 100 hens which sit around on farm machinery; I am speaking about keeping a flock of two or three thousand birds on an area in British Columbia. I hope, when the agricultural section is formed, one of its members will be a dairyman and one a poultryman from British Columbia. In 1930 the British Columbia poultry industry shipped out 310, not dozens, not cases, but car-loads of eggs. That is a very big record. Considering the importance of that industry, I think we would be justified in asking that a representative of that poultry industry be on any agricultural board which might be formed.


Edward James Young: I do not wish unduly to delay the committee at this late date in the session, but I feel that somebody should warn the minister against this crowning folly of establishing a marketing board such as he outlined in his speech the other night. There appears to be no limit to the ingenuity that protectionists display in dressing up their

Supply-A gricult ure
pernicious doctrines in such guise as to make them attractive to the people. There appears to be no limit to the ingenuity with which they will dress up the wolf in sheep's clothing, or with which they will try to persuade the people that they can be enriched by taxing themselves; that they can lift themselves by their bootstraps if only they do it in a roundabout way.
What is the plan which was proposed by the minister the other night? He said: We will take, for example, butter. We produce, he said, say 225,000,000 pounds of butter in Canada annually, of which we consume about
215,000,000 pounds, leaving 10,000,000 of exportable surplus. That 10,000,000 pounds, he says, we are unable to sell, and because it is hanging over the market, it depresses the domestic price. He proposes to set up this marketing board which will levy on all the butter made in Canada one-tenth of a cent a pound.


Robert Weir: I do not think I made that statement.


Edward James Young: I think the minister did.


Alan Webster Neill: That had nothing to do with the marketing board.


Edward James Young: This is what the minister said as recorded in Hansard:
It was felt, after consideration, that even if the large creameries in the west would agree to make a levy among themselves of half a cent per pound on the butter they manufactured, and put that into a fund to purchase the butter that was regarded as a surplus in western Canada, if there were, say, 10,000,000 pounds to export and 225,000,000 pounds produced, one-tenth of a cent per pound on the 225,000,000 pounds produced, distributed over the 10,000,000 pounds, would raise the price of the 10,000,000 pounds in the neighbourhood of 2-25 cents per pound. That, roughly, -was the scheme under consideration.


Robert Weir: All the butter made in Canada is not made in these creameries -a long way from it. I had reference only to butter made in creameries.


Edward James Young: 
Alfred Speakman: Where does the $5,000,000 go?


Edward James Young: We will consider that. That is to go, you say, to the producers of butter in Canada.


James Malcolm: Who export.


Edward James Young: 
An hon. MEMBER:: They will have to.


Edward James Young: Why will they have to?
We have in this country a great many creameries which are not paying because they are not large enough or are not efficiently managed, and they will say to the farmer: WTe cannot give you this extra price, for we must keep it ourselves in order to keep going.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: You laugh at that? Read
the history of your creameries and you will find out.
If this plan succeeds it will have two effects. First it will encourage the production of
Supply-Agriculture

butter. That is the effect desired by the minister in raising the price 2J cents a pound. It is to encourage the producer to produce more butter, and the other effect will be that the consumer will consume less because the price wall be higher to the consumer. Then what will happen? Our figures of 225 million pounds of production and 10 million pounds for export will no longer apply. We shall then be producing inside of a year or two approximately 300 million pounds of butter instead of 225 million pounds, and consuming 200 million pounds instead of 215 million pounds, leaving 100 million pounds for export.


Robert Weir: On what does the
hon. member base that statement?


Edward James Young: That is not a very great
reduction in consumption, from 215 million pounds to 200 million pounds, because the price has been increased 2J cents a pound. That is not putting it extremely, to say that the consumption of butter because of the increased price will decrease by some 15 million pounds; and when you add 2J cents to the price that the farmer receives for his butter he will increase the production I should think by at least 75 million pounds. That is a very moderate estimate.


Robert Weir: Does the hon. member make this statement, that if butter were two cents a pound higher than now it would be a sufficient encouragement for our farmery in increase their production by 75 million pounds, and then in addition we would consume 15 million pounds less?


Edward James Young: 
James Malcolm: Bonus it.


Edward James Young: The Minister of Agriculture used the word "compulsory" in his speech. He said, "If, however, it could have been made compulsory, dealing with that incident alone, I have no doubt that the condition that did arise would not have arisen."
What happened in Australia? This is merely a repetition of the Patterson scheme in Australia. They levied two or three cents a pound on the butter produced in order to bonus export butter, and what happened? The very day that came into effect Australian butter was shut out of this country. Well, other countries can do the same thing. We are not the only people who are crazy.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Let us all have a good
time together.


Edward James Young: Other nations are just as
foolish as we are in this regard. The government of this country says: No, you shall not dump your cheap butter into this country. But I think the British government would be quite willing to accept our cheap butter, willing to let us work and provide cheap butter for their unemployed while our own unemployed go without it. But suppose the world's market improves and there was no difficulty in selling this surplus, what would happen? We would be in the position of paying two or three cents a pound for a market that we

Supply-Agriculture
could have for nothing. But suppose the market did not improve, suppose it got worse; what would happen? Then other countries would see us bonusing our exports to the British market and by so doing reducing the price of butter on that market. What would they do? They would underbid us and a price war would be started with each country trying to undersell the other. You would demoralize the market, and the last condition would be worse than the first. Somebody has said, "Who will get the benefit of it; who will get this money?" I will tell hon. members this, that the farmer who makes his own butter and sells it himself would not have to contribute to the fund, but would receive the benefit of it. On the other hand the farmer who sends his cream to the creamery would have to contribute to the fund, because his contribution would be taken out of his cream cheque. When the butter was sold for the added price the creamery would say, "The cost of operating a creamery is more than it was; our overhead is more than it was, and we will have to charge a higher price for manufacturing and selling." The creamery would absorb the bulk of the increase.
It would be interesting to know who asked for this legislation-not who asked the minister, but whose fertile brain originated the scheme so that somebody else might ask the minister. We know where the agitation came from against New Zealand butter, or butter coming from the Antipodes. It originated not among the farmers, but among selfish creamery interests who had imported large quantities of New Zealand butter and wanted to shut out further importations. They wanted to corner the market and to make a killing, if I may use the term, on the rising price of butter. It would be interesting to know if some such ingenious body was not behind this scheme in the hope once more of getting a corner on the market.
If we do this in connection with butter, where are we going to stop? Already the member for Bow River is asking that we do the same for cattle, and the hon. member for New Westminster is asking for the same thing in connection with eggs. Then there will be apples, potatoes, fish-


George Spotton: Bananas.


Edward James Young: -lumber-is there anything we produce which would not demand similar treatment? And what would foe the result? If this takes effect you would increase the cost of living in Canada by at least five or ten per cent. I ask this question: What nation is going to be the first to recover from

the depression? The nation that can so reduce its production costs that it can undersell its competitors in world markets. Here we have a scheme which can have no other result than to increase costs of living and costs of production. Not only that, but the increase that is added to the cost of production in this country will be subtracted from the cost of production in the country to which we are going to send cheap food and cheap supplies. How can we hope to compete with other countries in the world markets when we tax ourselves in order to pay the board of the working men in those countries? We will not have a ghost of a chance. This step, if taken, will tend to put Canada in the background and put us in a position where we cannot compete with other countries. I have used a quotation in this house before, which I should like to use again; I believe it should be repeated on every possible occasion. Bastiat has said "Study all economic questions from the standpoint of the consumer, for the consumers' interests are the interests of the human race." If the consumer can be satisfied he will keep the producer busy. If goods can be placed on the market at the price the consumer can afford to pay, he will buy the goods, and the producer will have the work of producing them. The legislation passed these days however, not only in this country but-


Robert Weir: How long does the hon. member for Weyburn think the farmers would continue to produce butter at its present price? If they could not continue to produce it, and ceased production, what would be the effect on the price?


Edward James Young: The minister assumes that this scheme presents the only way of increasing the price of butter. My argument is that it will not increase the price of butter. If he wishes to increase the price of butter he and the government with which he is connected must devote all their energies towards breaking down the barriers which are making it impossible to ship goods back and forth across the world. The tariff barriers which the government opposite and other governments are constructing are making it impossible to sell butter or anything else.
The government cannot in this roundabout way raise the price of butter. As I have said by erecting tariff barriers they make it impossible for us to buy or sell anything. If the consumer can be kept satisfied, and if he can be put in a position to buy, there will be a market for goods. Because of legislation passed in this house within the last two years, and legislation passed in other countries, the
^056
Supply-Agriculture

consumer cannot buy goods. That is the reason there is so little trade in the world, and the only way to remedy the condition is to find means of reducing, not increasing, production costs.


James Malcolm: I wish to say a few words to the minister by way of assistance, rather than criticism. I believe that the remarks of the hon. member for Weyburn to which we have just listened appeal to the common sense of most men in this house who are interested in agriculture. One board exists in Canada for the assistance of agriculture, and I believe it stands out as probably the greatest assistance to any branch of agriculture in any country in the world; I speak of the Board of Grain Commissioners. Canada is producing the finest grade of wheat in the world, and is marketing it under the very best system obtaining in any country. This parliament votes money yearly for the services rendered by the Canada Wheat Board in weighing, grading and inspecting Canadian grain. Our grain is accepted on the markets of the world on the certificates issued by the inspectors of the Board of Grain Commissioners. The wheat growers of the Dominion of Canada pay all the costs of this service; the people of Canada are not taxed. Payment for this service comes out of the money received for the grain. Therefore we may point to the Board of Grain Commissioners and say that it renders to one branch of agriculture a distinct service without any direct cost to the rest of the dominion. Under this system Canada's grain moves freely, in fact more freely than the grain of any other country.
In dealing with a commodity such as butter, the minister has to consider not only one, but all the products of milk. Milk may be consumed in its fresh state; in the form of butter; in the form of cheese or in the form of condensed milk, the preparation of which has become a very extensive industry. I want to warn the minister that the Patterson scheme in Australia has not done for the butter producers of that country all that it was expected to do. Particularly, it has not done for the farmers of Australia what was expected of it. I warn the minister against the representations of those hiding behind farmer's interests. I warn him against the representations of the dairy people, because I have grave doubts that if a tax were put on all domestic butter in order to bonus export, that the bonus would not pass into the hands of the dairy industry and not back into the hands of the farmers.
IMr. Young.]
Just a word to the minister with regard to butter. He knows perfectly well that Canada's production of butter in all its forms runs about 300,000,000 pounds annually. He knows, further, that a few years ago we were short of butter and were on an import basis. At that time butter prices in Canada were very much higher than they were in Great Britain. We were compelled to import butter or to use more of our milk for the manufacture of butter. A very considerable quantity of milk was consumed in its fresh form, a large quantity was used in the production of cheese, and much in the production of condensed milk. The fact is that during the period of prosperity Canada's consumption of butter went as high as 35 pounds per capita, five pounds more than per capita production. To-day, due to the lack of consuming power, it is down to 21 pounds per capita. My hon. friend from Weyburn is quite right when he says the interests of the consumer are naturally the interests of the producer, because when consumption is high, production is high. Now with regard to the Patterson scheme in Australia-which I have no doubt someone is pressing the minister to inaugurate-this country does not permit dumping and ruled against Australian butter. Did Australia benefit in the British market with her butter, did the Patterson scheme help her? No. New Zealand and Denmark met the very low price at which Australia was exporting her butter resulting from the bonus payment. I doubt very much if the price was not driven down two or three cents on the British market by virtue of the Patterson scheme. If the minister goes into the business of bonusing the export of butter he will certainly have to consider bonusing the export of cheese and condensed milk, even though he does not extend the scheme to other branches of industry. Any plan he can work out comparable to the Canada Grain Act which will help to educate our farmers to produce the class of commodities for sale on the foreign market and to market our products under a brand or a certificate, every hon. gentleman in this house should support; but when the minister considers actually taxing the people of Canada for the benefit of export, he is entering a field to which there is no end not only in Canada, but among the other nations of the world. In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is a game we all can play at, and I doubt very much whether the minister will not get himself into a whirlpool from which he will never be able to withdraw.


IS, 1932
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Unquestionably we have unusual world conditions. But how will any of these schemes break the law of supply and demand? The law of supply and demand has undoubtedly governed in all individualistic and capitalistic countries since world trade began.
Edward James Young: They are going to repeal
that law!


James Malcolm: The very best cure for
low prices always has been low prices. Overproduction is always caused by high prices. I have said time and again that the minute a business becomes too highly protected the result inevitably is that too many men go into that business and over-production results. We have had it evidenced in the United States to a degree never before known. That country has too many factories; take shoes as an example. The United States can produce enough in six months, if they run their factories three shifts of eight hours, to supply the world for a year. That, of course, has been brought about by the unusual conditions during the war. If the minister raises the price of butter beyond the normal price, which is caused by the law of supply and demand, he will admit with me that he is going to increase the production of butter to a point that will inevitably cause a worse overproduction and a lower price level than exists to-day. I say to him in all kindness, based on opinions I have had expressed to me by some of the best marketers in the world: Do not depart from the functions of government; which functions are to give all service possible to the producers. Do not ignore what his own Minister of Trade and Commerce will tell him, and what I have said to my former colleague the ex-Minister of Agriculture; our chances in the markets of England are dependent entirely upon the service we render to the buyers there plus the quality of our commodities. We have established that in grain. We can establish it in other commodities. But it would be just as absurd for us to try to tax the consumers of wheat in Canada in order to undersell the Argentine, India, Russia, Manchuria or any other country producing grain as it would be to do what he suggests doing with milk products. The government can, I believe, assist the farmers in every branch of agriculture by compelling packers and exporters to put up Canadian products in a way that will be suitable to the export market. By so doing they can assist in selling those products in the British market. This has been pointed out by the present high commissioner in Great Britain; it has
been pointed out by our trade commissioners under several governments. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce has on many occasions mentioned it in this house and in public speeches. I advise the minister to create marketing boards for grading products; to give all the assistance the government service can to the producers of agricultural commodities, but not falsely to stimulate any branch of agriculture by any export bonus system. I am quite satisfied that by so doing he would be entering a field that would be destructive in the end, both to the people he is trying to help and to the trade of this country.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Mr. Chairman, I am
not one of those who think that a farm marketing board would cure all the ills of agriculture, but I am certainly not able to follow the illogical arguments that have come from some of our friends to the right with respect to such a plan. My hon. friends from Weyburn (Mr. Young) and Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) seem to be afraid that a marketing board would raise the price of butter- both of them expressed that quite clearly- and so increase production. I am not afraid of the government doing anything that will raise the price of butter; that is certainly the object of a marketing board. If it does not increase the price of butter, but on the contrary lowers the price, then all the ills that my hon. friend from Weyburn mentioned will not follow. So we do not necessarily need to worry about that part of his argument. The argument is advanced that it would increase the cost of production by increasing the cost of living. Well, if the increased cost of living consequent on raising the price of butter is distributed throughout this country in increased purchasing power in the hands of the farmers and other workmen, who are themselves consumers, then I cannot see any great evil is going to ensue from such a policy. Certainly the buying power of the farmers would be increased to the extent to which the price of their butter is increased.


Edward James Young: Would you make a present of $3,000,000 to the British workmen?


Milton Neil Campbell: My hon. friend is all
wrong there. That might be a fine argument to use on the hustings, but it cannot convince members of this house that any such plan will work out in that way at all. It is a most illogical argument. Now, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce quoted
305S
Supply-Aqriculture

some figures that seemed to deny his own arguments. He stated that some years ago when the prices of butter were high Canadians were consuming 35 pounds per capita.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend will
admit that during that period there was great prosperity and forty per cent more industrial employment than exists to-day.


Milton Neil Campbell: Certainly. At the same time his argument is destroyed in part at least by the figures he quotes when he points out that now when prices are low we are consuming only 21 pounds per capita.


James Malcolm: It is because we are
not consuming butter that prices are low. My hon. friend has the cart before the horse.


Milton Neil Campbell: That may be so.


James Malcolm: That is it.


Milton Neil Campbell: Supposing we get prosperous times within a few months, the first thing that will happen will be an increase in the cost of living. Will we be complaining at prices going up? For certainly that is one of the first things that will happen. Prices are low to-day because there is depression. If we can increase the buying power of the farmers there is no doubt in the world that that buying power will immediately be reflected in increased purchases on their part. My hon. friend will be able to sell more furniture, and all the factories of Canada will be able to sell more goods. I think every dollar of that money will find its way back to the industries, and I cannot for the life of me see that it will adversely affect the country as a whole. The figures contained in the bulletin of the Economic Annalist show that the farmer has suffered to a very much greater extent than has the industrialist. It shows that the prices of farm products have dropped much more than the prices of manufactured goods. This policy has not been brought forward as yet; the minister has only suggested it, but I am in favour of trying it or anything else that may assist the farmer in his difficulties. I am not going to sit on the fence, as some hon. members seems to be doing, and say we must do nothing and make no effort at all to control conditions. I think the troubles we are facing to-day are partly due to the fact that the government has not done enough to try to meet those conditions. Certainly I say it is no bonus to the buyer of butter in Great Britain to have a small tax put on the butter at the point of production and used to take the surplus off the market in order to raise the
[Mr. Campbell.!
price level at home. I think no one can reasonably use an argument of the kind. It seems to me this is at least worth attempting, and the very argument brought forward by my hon. friend with respect to the wheat board and the marketing of grain applies here. What we want is some centralized body that can direct and control the products of the country at a time such as this. After all, that is the main object of a marketing board, and I hope the minister will not allow himself to be influenced by the arguments which have been brought forward by members of the opposition.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Might I point out to my hon. friend that there was no tax levied on all the wheat produced in Canada in order to market the exportable surplus. I might point out also that the moment you start to subsidize anjdhing, whether it is butter, grain, live stock or something else, immediately you increase the production and your problem becomes more acute.
As I remember it, the other night the minister merely threw out the .suggestion that some time a marketing board might be considered. I speak now to those members who come from the province of Saskatchewan; I know they have had communications from various cooperative bodies in that province suggesting a marketing board, but I think they will agree that the wool growers, the live stock pools and the various cooperative associations that have seen fit to write asking for their cooperation and assistance, represented only those who were vitally interested in the production of those commodities. If you attempt to set up a marketing board today, with officials who have not their own money invested in the industry, I think you will find a considerable difference in the marketing of surplus products by subsidies. As I pointed out the other night, when Australia adopted the Patterson scheme for the export of their surplus butter, Canada met that surplus with the dumping duty, and if we adopt this plan we will only aggravate the people in those countries where we propose to dump our surplus goods. So before any legislation along this line is brought in I would advise the minister to get in touch not with those who are promoting this idea but with those who are producing the commodities that to-day find their prices governed by the small surpluses which are exported.
In talking with some of these individuals the point has been brought up that if you set up a marketing board you then compel those


IS. 1932
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
producing that commodity to supply their goods to some group of individuals who have no investment in that industry. Take the live stock industry as an example. I question whether the minister can mention any responsible group of live stock men who to-day are suggesting to him the taxing of the entire production of live stock in Canada in order to bonus the small exportable surplus. So I would suggest to the minister that if it is the intention of the government at this late hour to set up a marketing board, the wisdom of which I doubt, some consideration should be given hon. members, who should have an opportunity to express the views of those vitally interested in this scheme.
Robert Weir: I should like to take just a few moments to reply to some points in connection with this item which is supposed to be under discussion. The hon. member for Assiniboia referred to the reduction in' this vote, but that decrease of $175,000 is due to the ten per cent reduction in salaries and to a change in the method of dealing with travelling expenses. Apart from those two points, this item has been increased by $25,000.
The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that the farmers were worried because of the reduction in this vote; he suggested that they were wondering if they would get the money for their clubs and so on, and he particularly mentioned the stallion clubs. Some time ago we decided, because of the difficulties experienced in the formation of clubs this year, to make a special grant in addition to the other assistance ordinarily given. The hon. member also made the statement that at present many farmers were unable to buy better live stock and improve their herds. We realized that fact also, and if the hon. member had consulted the department he would have found that the matters he brought forward have been and are being well looked after.
In connection with the purchase of live stock may I say that we have filled all the applications received, to the extent that we have been able to do so with the stock we have been able to secure which is up to the standards set by the department. With regard to the decrease in grants to fairs and the effect that it may have on breeders, I believe the average constructive breeder does not breed live stock for the purpose of showing it at fairs; he breeds live stock in order to sell it.
Reference has been made to prices. We all know that prices the world over have come flown, but this country has not suffered in that regard as much as some other countries. I am credibly informed, for instance, that in the
memory of the oldest farmer the price of bacon in Denmark has never been so low as it is at the present time. The point was also brought up that tariffs never were as high and prices never as low for farm products as is the case at present. One commodity on which we have never placed a tariff is wool, but the price of wool has dropped more than the price of almost any other farm commodity. We cannot fairly discuss this question as it affects one country alone, because no country can stand alone in this connection.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister said, presumably in reference to the bull policy, that all applications had been filled where stock could be obtained. Could he tell the committee what percentage of calls could not be filled because of the lack of stock?


Robert Weir: There were five hundred applications, and we estimate that we can fill four hundred of them.


John Vallance: What report has the minister received with regard to the success of the bull policy and the boar policy? Have these policies been successful, according to the information received by the minister from the various individuals or clubs who have taken advantage of them?


Robert Weir: The best answer to that would be that last year we put out over 800 bulls under the bull loaning policy, and we have had in the neighbourhood of 650 to 700 letters, commending us on the policy and stating how valuable it has been to the farmers. Some of the letters praising us most highly came from farmers whose birthplace is the same as the hon. member's, and who appreciate good live stock better than the average farmer. They express their appreciation in this way, that after having been able to have good sires for a number of years they were unfortunately forced to go out of the business, and they declared that no words of theirs could convey what this policy meant to them. Regarding the brood sow policy, there was made in the house the other day a statement which misrepresents the situation. I made it clear at the time that policy was announced that I was not advocating farmers going into increased production in pigs, but owing to the fact that coarse grains were so cheap, and the price of pigs being so high at that time, nothing that we could do could prevent the farmers from going into the increased production of pigs. Realizing that, we made it possible for them, at no extra cost to themselves, to get seed stock which we
Questions

thought they should have. We did not in any way encourage it either on the public platform or in press notices, but we felt that inasmuch as they were going into increased production we might, without encouraging it, make it easier for them to get the seed stock which we thought they should have.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 19, 1932