1932-02-12

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the following message has been received from the Senate informing this house:
That the Honourable Senators Aylesworth, Sir Allen, Buchanan, Chapais, Dennis, Donnelly, Green, Hatfield, Horsey, Legris, Lewis, McDonald, McLean, McLennan, Pope, Prevost, Raymond, Robertson, Taylor, Todd, White (Inkerman), and White (Pembroke), have been

appointed a committee to superintend the printing of the Senate during the present session, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that the following message has been received from the Senate informing this house:
That the Honourable the Speaker, the Honourable Senators Aylesworth, Sir Allen, Beaubien, Chapais, Gillis, Gordon, Griesbach, Hatfield, Laird, Lemieux, Lewis, Logan, McDougald, McLennan, Poirier, Taylor and Wilson (Rockeliffe), have been appointed a committee to assist the Honourable the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the Senate are concerned, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the said library.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that the following message has been received from the Senate informing this house:
That the Honourable the Speaker, the Honourable Senators Hardy, Logan, McMeans, Michener, Tanner and Taylor, have been appointed a committee to assist the Honourable the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant of parliament, so far as the interests of the Senate are concerned, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the said restaurant.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the house as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Beaubien,
Burns,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
[Stage Direction]
Elliott,
Esling,
Gagnon,
Gardiner,
Guthrie,
Gray,
Hanson (York-Sunbury),
J acobs,
Lapointe,
Lawson,
Lennox,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), MacNicol,
McPhee,
Marcil,
Mereier (St. Henri), Mitchell,
Morand,
Ralston,
Stinson,
Sullivan,
Thompson (Simcoe East),
Turnbull-29.
(Quorum 10)

Select Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Ahearn,	MacMillan (Saskatoon),
Anderson (Toronto-High McGibbon,
Park),	McIntosh,
Beaubier,
Bell (Hamilton West): Beynon,
Bothwell,
Bradette,
Bury,
Butcher,
Cantley,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
Clievrier,
Dor ion,
Dubue,
Dupre,
Edwards,
Esling,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Fraser (Cariboo), Gardiner,
Geary,
Hacket,
Hanbury,
Hanson (Skeena), Harris,
Heaps,
Jones,
Kennedy (Peace River) Lacroix,
Laurin,
Macdonald (King's, P.E.I.),
McLure,
Manion,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Moore (Ontario), Nicholson,
Pouliot,
Price,
Rogers,
Ross,
Ryerson,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Shaver,
Simpson (Algoma West),
Smith (Cumberland), Speakman,
Stewart (Edmonton West),
Stitt (Nelson), Totzke,
Turnbull,
Urquhart,
, Vallanee,
White (London), White (Mount Royal).-60.
(Quorum 20)
[Stage Direction]
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messieurs
Ahearn,
Anderson (Halton), Arsenault,
Barber,
Barrette,
Bell (St. Antoine), Boucher,
Bowen,
Brown,
Chaplin,
Chevrier,
Cormier,
Cowan (Long Lake), Denis,
Deslauriers,
[Stage Direction]
Dumaine,
Edwards,
Ernst,
Fournier,
Gobeil,
Gott,
Guthrie,
Hall,
Irvine,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre),
Lafleche,
Larue,
Lawson,
Luclikovich,
Maclnnis,
Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre),
McDade,
McGregor,
McMillan (Huron South),
Maloney,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Mitchell,
Moore (Ontario), Myers,
Peck,
Pettit,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Spence,
Stinson,
Sullivan,
Tummon,
Verville,
Wilson.-50.
(Quorum 15)
STANDING ORDERS Messieurs
Arthurs,
Bell (HamiltonWest), Bell (St. Antoine), Blair,
Bury,
Cahan,
Deslauriers,
Fontaine,
Fraser
(Northumberland),
Hay,
La V ergne,
Luchko vich,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), Mercier (St. Henri), Munn,
Plunkett,
Rowe,
Thompson (Lanark), Woodsworth.-20.
(Quorum 8)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Anderson (Halton), Munn,
Baribeau,
Belec,
Boulanger,
Bourgeois,
Brasset,
Charters,
Desrochers,
Dubois,
Embury,
Esling,
F actor,
Fortin,
Girouard,
Gott,
Gray,
Hay,
Heaps,
Howden,
Lucas,
MacLean,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), McLure,
Maloney,
Marcil,
Matthews,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon),
Murphy,
Parent,
Peck,
Perras,
Pickel,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Rheaume,
R infret,
Roberge,
Robinson,
Rowe,
Ryerson,
St-Pere.
Short,
Simpson
(Simcoe North), Spankie,
Spencer,
Spotton,
Taylor,
Tetrault,
Verville,
Wilson, Woodsworth, Wright,-54.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Anderson (Halton), Arthurs,
Beaubien,
Kpq Ilia! pp
Bell (HamiltonWest), Bothwell,
Bourgeois,
Cahan,
Coote,
Cowan (LongLake), Cowan (PortArthur-Thunder Bay), Donnelly,
Dubue,
[Stage Direction]
Dumaine,
Duranleau,
Edwards,
Embury,
Fournier,
Fraser (Cariboo), Fraser
(Northumberland),
Gagnon,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Girouard,
Hanson (York-Sunbury), Ilsley,
J acobs,
Lennox,
MacDonald
(Cape Breton South), Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre), Macpbail (Miss),
Perras,
Pouliot,
Power,
Ralston,
Rhodes,
Robinson,
Ross,
Rutherford,
Smith (Cumberland),
Select Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
Smith (Victoria-Car leton), Smoke, Speakma.il, Stanley,
Stewart (Leeds), Swans ton,
Taylor,
Weese,
Willis.-50. (Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Arthurs,
Baker,
Beynon,
Bothwell,
Bowman,
Campbell,
Casgrain,
Chaplin,
Donnelly,
Dorion,
Ernst,
Euler,
Fafard,
Gagnon,
Ganong,
Geary,
Hackett,
Hanson (York-Sunbury), Harris, Hepburn, Howard, Hurtubise, Iryine,
Jacobs,
Laurin,
Messieurs
Lawson,
MacMillan (Saskatoon), McGibbon,
McPhee,
Matthews,
Mercier (St. Henri),
Peek,
Perley (Qu'Apelle), Pettit,
Power,
Ralston,
Raymond,
Rhodes,
Rinfret,
Rutherford,
Ryckman,
Sanderson,
Smoke,
Spencer,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lethbridge), Sullivan,
Yallance,
White (Mount Royal), Willis.-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Barber, Bertrand, Blair, Bowman, Bouchard, Boucher, Boulanger, Bowen, Boyes, Brown. Burns, Campbell, Carmichael, Cayley, Coote, Donnelly, Dubuc, Duguay, Dupuis, Elliott,
McPhee,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Motherwell,
Mullins,
Myers,
Perley (Qu'Apelle), Pickel,
Porteous,
Rowe,
Sauve,
Seguin,
Senn,
Shaver,
Simpson (Simcoe North).
Smith (Victoria-Carleton),
Spotton,
Sproule,
Garland (Bow River), Stewart (Lethbridge), Gobeil,	Stirling,
Gott,	Swanston,
Goulet,	Taylor,
Hay,	Thompson (Lanark),
Jones,	Totzke,
Loucks,	Tummon,
Lucas,	Vallance,
McGillis,	Weese,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), Weir (Melfort), McMillan (Huron	Weir (Macdonald),
South),	Young.-60.
(Quorum 20)
fMr. Rhodes.]

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Baribeau,
Barrette,
Beaubien,
Black (Halifax), Brasset,
Cantley,
Cardin,
Dickie,
[Stage Direction]
Dupuis,
Duranleau,
Ernst,
Ganong,
Hanson (Skeena), Ilsley,
Johnstone,
Larue,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South),
Macdonald (Kings, P.E.I.),
Maclnnis,
MacLean,
McDade,
McLure,
Neill,
Pouliot,
Plunkett,
Price,
Quinn,
Reid,
Ross,
Short,
Speakman,
Stitt (Selkirk), Urquhart,
Veniot.-35.
(Quorum 10)
[Stage Direction]
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messieurs
Bell (St. John-Albert), Beynon,
Boucher,
Bowman,
Bradette,
Cotnam,
Cowan (PortArthur-Thunder Bay), Desroehers,
Dickie,
Duguay,
Esling,
Fraser (Northumberland, O.), Garland (BowRiver), Gershaw,
Gordon,
Hurtubise,
Ilsley,
Johnstone,
Kennedy (Peace River), Macdougall,
Mitchell,
Mullins,
Nicholson,
Parent,
Plunkett,
Roberge,
Simpson
(Algoma West), Smith (Cumberland), Stanley,
Stewart
(Edmonton West), Stitt (Nelson),
Tetrault,
Weir
(Macdonald).-35.
Beaubien,
Belec,
(Quorum 10) No. 11

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Arsenault,
Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John-Albert), Black (Halifax), Bourassa,
Ferland,
Gordon,
Hackett,
Hall,
Heenan,
Howard,
Johnstone,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Lacroix,
Macdougall,
MacNicol,
Macphail (Miss), Matthews,
McGibbon,
McIntosh,
McMillan
(Huron South), Morand,
Neill,
Nicholson,
Parent,
Perley (Sir George), Reid,
St-Pere,
Stanley,
Stitt (Selkirk), Turnbull,
Veniot,
White (London), Woodsworth, Wright.-35.
(Quorum 10)

Australian Treaty Rates

[Stage Direction]
Bouchard,
Coate,
Cormier,
Esling,
Lafleche,
Macdougall,
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs Marcil, Rinfret, Rogers, Stirling, Sutherland, Young.-12 (Quorum 7)

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of
Railways (Mr. Manion) advise the house if he will be prepared during the present session to table the report made last year by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways and the province of British Columbia regarding the Peace river outlet to the Pacific ocean.
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker
Barber,
Bertrand,
Bourassa,
Boyes,
Butcher,
Carmichael,
Charters,
Chevrier,
Cotnam,
Dubois,
Factor,
Ferland,
Fontaine,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon,
Girouard,
Guthrie, [DOT]
Hepburn,
Irvine,
Jones,
Lafleche,
and Messieurs
Larue,
LaV ergne,
Marcil,
McGillis,
McGregor,
McIntosh,
MacMillan (Saskatoon),
Peck,
Perley (Sir George), Pouliot,
Quinn,
Rheaume,
Rinfret,
, Short,
Smoke,
Stirling,
Thauvette,
Thompson (Simcoe East),
Thompson (Lanark), White (London), Wright.-44.

PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT (Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Ahearn,
Barrette,
Black (Halifax),
Bourassa,
Carmichael,
Cayley,
Garland (Carleton), Hanbury,
Howard,
Howden,
Mr. RHODES moved concurred in.
(Miss),
Lafleche, Macphail Ryerson, Senn, Spankie, Spence, Sproule, Thauvette, Wilson.-2
that the report be


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the select standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, the report is in
my office and I will be very glad to table it at an early opportunity.
FARM RELIEF On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker,
I have in my hand a copy of the form of application for relief which the farmers in the west are required to make to the Saskatchewan Relief Commission before any relief is granted. Upon that form appears a blank note which every farmer is required to sign promising to pay for all relief which he may receive either immediately or at any future time, such payment to be made on November 1, 1933. Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) advise if it is the intention of the government to collect interest on these notes either before or after they are due?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the form to which the hon. gentleman refers. This was prepared by a relief commission appointed by the government of Saskatchewan and I was not aware that the note thereon was made payable to the federal government. I do not think it is but if I am mistaken this is the first intimation I have received to that effect. If the hon. gentleman will allow his question to remain on Hansard I shall endeavour to ascertain these facts and answer him as soon as possible.
AUSTRALIAN TREATY RATES On the orders of the day:


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) asked me a question regarding the differential rates to apply on canned salmon and crustaceans being imported into Australia. The general tariff on both is four pence per pound. The British preferential tariff on canned salmon is one penny per pound, and there is

Imperial Economic Conference
a preference on this commodity of three pence. The British preferential rate on crustaceans is two and one-half pence per pound, and the preference thereon is one and one-half pence per pound.
I might say that subsequent to the ratification of the treaty there was a general election held in Australia and this made difficult any discussion on this matter. There are a number of points still under consideration of which this is one. I want to make it clear that all the discussions with the government of Australia have been carried on most amicably. At the present moment I cannot give my hon. friend any information as to what the final result will be.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
would the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) advise the house, if he is in position so to do, as to the agenda of the Imperial economic conference. We would like to know when we may expect to have the agenda, either in part or in whole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, no agenda has as yet
been prepared. The matter is under consideration but I cannot promise at what time the information sought may be available.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I say
to my right hon. friend that we are most anxious to do all we can to expedite the work of the session and to cooperate with him in so far as it is possible in the work of the Imperial conference. If we could have the agenda at as early a date as possible it would I believe further both ends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know that the agenda will be available at all before the conference meets. Such an agenda has never been brought down by any government in Great Britain except in a most general way. It is obvious that should this session conclude within a reasonable time, having regard to the business to be submitted, the agenda will not be completed before the close. We are constantly in communication with the governments in all parts of the empire and it is practically impossible to make more than the general statement that matters will be considered.
I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my appreciation of the sentiments which have been uttered by the right hon. gentleman. I can only hope that the

attitude of mind which he has expressed will continue to the conclusion of the conference. Thus far any cooperation has consisted of speeches attacking the government in connection with the conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that is most uncalled for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is in a position to judge that; we know that it is so.


Mr. EULER:: The right hon. gentleman is inviting it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has been the cooperation up to the present time, and that being so I am glad to have my right hon. friend's assurance that he will do what is possible to promote the success of the conference which we believe will be very important to this country as well as to other parts of the empire.



GRIEVANCES OF VETERANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):: I understand the Dominion president and officers of each of the following ex-service men's associations quite recently made representations to the government in connection with certain grievances:
The Army and Navy Veterans in Canada.
The Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League.
The Amputations' Association of the Great War.
Canadian Pensioners' Association of the Great War, and
The Sir Arthur Pearson's Club of Blind Sailors and Soldiers.
May I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Pensions whether it is the intention of the government during the present session to appoint a special committee of this house to investigate the grievances contained in this memorandum and to bring down ameliorative legislation in connection therewith?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The intention of the government will be made known in connection with the matter when the appropriate action is taken.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not a very constructive answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question does not
demand it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There are two sides to
that.

Boards oj Trade Act



NORTH BATTLEFORD RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: The hon. member for North
Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) had an order for return passed yesterday and while I have no objection to the order for return, I am informed by the Board of Railway Commissioners it will take three or four weeks of a clerk's time to copy all the correspondence. The return was brought into my office this morning and it is a very large one. The hon. member has had access to the file. While I understand he is insisting on the whole of it, I do not think unless there is very good reason, we should ask the board to pay a stenographer for two or three or four weeks to copy this return. If the hon. member would look it over and suggest certain portions that he would wish, I shall endeavour to have it brought down as soon as possible.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I shall endeavour to meet the request of the
Minister of Railways as far as possible.



BOARDS OF TRADE ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 3, to amend the Boards of Trade Act-Mr. Cahan- Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1-Use of names restricted.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: When the bill was before the committee last evening I undertook to make certain inquiries so that I might be in a better position to inform the house. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) wished to know whether the chamber of commerce of Montreal was a provincial or a federal incorporation. I told him I was advised it was a federal incorporation, but to-day I have ascertained definitely that it is organized and carries on its business under federal incorporation.
The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) also raised a question with regard to certain boards of trade in the west which are carrying on operations and suggested, as did the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), that this amendment should not interfere with their business and operations. I find, upon examination that the present Boards of Trade Act, chapter 19 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, contains, first, part I under which one class of boards of trade operate. Those incorporated under part I by
a certificate issued by the Secretary of State or his officials may perform certain duties in connection with forming an arbitration board for commercial purposes. They have power to appoint boards of examiners as inspectors, weighers, examiners and so on. But in 1920 the late Hon. Senator Lougheed in the Senate introduced an amendment now appearing as part II of the act by virtue of which I am instructed by the officials of the State departs ment, those boards of trade which exist in the west are not interfered with. Section 45 of the act provides:
Any number of persons, not less than thirty, who are directly or indirectly interested in trade, commerce or the economic and social welfare of any district, whether residents of such a district or not, may associate themselves-
I am told that the boards of trade outside the cities of the west are formed under part II and incorporated by a certificate usually issued by the Department of the Secretary of State, and the legal advisers and officials of the State department assure me that those existing boards of trade are not interfered with by this bill. This legislation would mean that in certain districts where boards are already organized, any new board of trade that sought to organize and obtain incorporation could not do so until the others had been so informed and made their representations in that regard. I may say that the incorporation of boards of trade is a very simple operation and the uniform fee of only five dollars is exacted, so that these smaller boards of trade in the west, in view of the advantages which they obtain by being registered under this act, usually pay the sum of five dollars for that purpose, which fee is simply a nominal one. The hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth suggested that it might be an onerous fee that was being charged, but it is simply a registration fee.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) made a suggestion in regard to which I think it is expedient that we should have an amendment to make the text perfectly clear. The hon. member suggested that the words "duly constituted board" which appear in subsection 2 of section 1 of the bill, might not be sufficiently definite. The bill was drawn not by me but by the officials of the department and the law officers of this house. I am going to ask my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue to move to strike out the words "duly constituted board" and to substitute therefor "board of trade which is registered under the provisions of this act," which I think will meet the objection
Boards oj Trade Act

raised by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, and also in the same section, in order to obviate all possibility of doubt, to insert after the word "special" in the next to the last line, the words "or general" so that that line will read:
Under a special or general act of the parliament of Canada.
This is because it has been represented to me that certain boards of trade in times past have secured incorporation under the Companies Act, which is a general act and which permits of the incorporation of such companies.


Mr. RYCKMAN moved:: That the words "duly constituted hoard" in the second line of subsection (2) of section 1 of the bill be struck out and the words "board of trade which is registered under the provisions of this aot" be inserted in lieu thereof.
Also:
That the words "or general" be inserted in the thirteenth line of the bill between the words "special" and "act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am advised by my law
officers that by these amendments we have obviated the objections which were raised last night.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Objections to other boards being formed where there are existing boards.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In order to conform with
the suggestions made last evening the word "act" in the third line of this section should be struck out and the words "or general act of the parliament of Canada" be substituted in lieu thereof.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Patent Act.
He said: I did not have an opportunity to explain this bill on the first reading. A year ago, Mr. Speaker, in view of certain complaints which I received relating to the patent office from those holding Canadian patents and those applying for Canadian patents I hoped

that we might have a thorough revision of the Patent Act prepared ready for this session, but I found amongst the lawyers and those interested in patents such great differences of opinion as to whether in consolidating and amending that act we should follow the British practice or the American practice, between which there are very material divergencies, that it has seemed to be impossible to secure the general assent of those interested to an entire revision of the Patent Act. The bill in its present form has been approved by the leading patent lawyers throughout Canada and by many others who are interested in the matter of patents. I also took the liberty of having the bill considered by the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada, who has had a very considerable experience in administering the Patent Act, and I understand that he approves the bill to this extent, that these are amendments which should receive the very serious consideration of parliament and of those interested in patents.
This bill proposes to confer jurisdiction upon the Exchequer Court of Canada when any conflict arises before such court to determine at the instance of any party to the proceedings whether the invention which each of them claims that he was the first to make is one for which any of them is entitled to obtain a patent under this act. The object is to avoid multiplicity of actions and to save the heavy costs which arise out of such multiplicity of actions as are now in vogue. It is a question of procedure largely, and this amendment enables the court to deal with all questions arising in the suit without relegating any part of the suit for a new action before the court.
Another provision of the bill is drafted with a similar object in view. It provides that where the claimant for a patent prefers two or more claims with respect to the same invention in one action or proceeding, the exchequer court, if it holds that one or more of such claims is valid and another or other claims are invalid, may give effect to the patent in respect of the claim or claims held by the court to be valid. At present the court has and exercises this jurisdiction in an action for infringement of the patent, but it is denied this jurisdiction if the action is one which seeks to impeach the validity of the patent. It is now proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the court and to abolish the existing distinction between the two forms of action, namely, an action for infringement of the patent and an action to impeach the validity of the patent.

Patent Act
The bill also provides that a patent or any claim in a patent may be declared invalid or void by the exchequer court at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada or of any interested person, and that if any person has a reasonable cause to believe that any article made or sold by him might be alleged to be an infringement of an existing patent he may bring an action in the exchequer court for a declaration that such process or article does not constitute an infringement. The fact is that in our patent office here at Ottawa we have not been able to provide the means whereby a claimant for a patent may ascertain by a search of our office whether any other patent exists in other countries for that same invention. The result has been that many patents have been granted in Canada on applications made by private parties which are alleged to cover processes which have been in use throughout Canada for many years, and with respect to which a patent should not have been granted and would not have been granted if all the means of information were available at the patent office. In such matters it seems advisable, as a matter of public interest, that in certain oases where the question arises as to whether or not an existing patent is valid it should be tested in the courts, and the private individual should not be bound to come forward and contest such a patent. Therefore it is suggested and, in fact, provided in this bill, that a patent or claim in a patent may be declared by the exchequer court to be invalid or void at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada, and also at the instance of any interested person. Then, further, if any person has any reasonable cause to believe that any article made, used or sold by him does not constitute an infringement of an existing patent, he will not be bound under the provisions of this bill, to wait for an action by the patentee.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is it not
true that under regulation 28 of the Patent Act the examiners of patents are prevented from doing anything but investigating as to whether the article in question has been previously patented, and does not that regulation nullify section 15 of the Patent Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Wait for the committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall discuss it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.
41761-n


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I admit that at the present time provision for proper search is not made by the statute, by the regulations thereunder, or by the equipment of the patent office. Therefore I now make provision for an amendment of the law which undoubtedly will be carried into effect by amending the regulations to be made under the Patent Act. This bill, as I say, provides that if any person in Canada has reasonable cause to believe that any article made, used or sold by him is not an infringement of an existing patent he may come before the exchequer court and, after due notice to all persons interested, obtain a declaration to that effect, rather than have his business suffer while waiting for an action by the holder of the alleged patent.
Then, there is another provision which I think will meet with the general approval of the house. Under the present state of the patent law of Canada any inventor domiciled in Canada or in a foreign country may not disclose his invention in such a manner as to have it become known or available to the public. And yet, nevertheless, he may subsequently take proceedings in the Exchequer Court of Canada, and that court may be obliged to set aside a patent which has been granted and used in Canada for many years without the Canadian patentee having knowledge or means of knowledge that any other person in any other part of the world had made a similar invention. This condition of the Canadian law enables an inventor at home or abroad deliberately to conceal and to refrain from exploiting his patent until some other person, probably many years after, has made the same invention, secured patent rights therefor and made use of his invention throughout Canada. This policy of the existing law, as defined by the recent decisions of the courts, appears to be in direct contradiction of the basic principles of patent legislation prevailing in any other country from which it has been possible to obtain exact information. Such a condition of the law works a grave injustice to those in Canada using certain inventions and processes which were patented in Canada before the inventor, foreign or domestic, disclosed the fact that he claimed an invention with respect to that subject matter.
Those are the amendments which I am proposing in this bill. As I suggested when the bill was introduced I think it should be referred to a select special committee in order that those who are interested in patents may be given an opportunity to appear, state their

Industrial Property

objections and make any relevant criticisms of the proposed changes. If the bill receives its second reading I shall be pleased to make a motion to that effect.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That Bill No. 4, intituled an act to amend the Patent Act, be referred to a special committee of seven members, consisting of Messrs. Anderson (High Park), Bury, Cahan, Chevrier, Ilsley, Irvine and MacDonald (Cape Breton), with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5 Respecting Unfair Competition in Trade and Commerce.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion for the second reading of Bill No. 5 entitled an Act Respecting Unfair Competition in Trade and Commerce and providing means for the enforcement of the convention to which I called attention the other day, and also means for the enforcement of the eo-called Geneva convention which was laid upon the table at a recent date entitled, an international convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick armies in the field and which prohibits the use of the Geneva cross for certain commercial purposes. This bill I believe has been very carefully prepared and has been reviewed by a number of lawyers thoroughly versed in the Trades Mark Act. I should like to have it referred to the same special committee to which the previous bill was sent. The only objection is that the bill is very technical and is expressed in English and the full French translation will not be available for at least a fortnight. I would ask therefore, with the consent of the house, that the bill receive its second reading and be referred to the special committee with the clear understanding that when it again comes before a committee of this house the bill, together with any amendments which have been suggested by the special committee, will be presented to this house in both the English and French languages.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That Bill No. 5, intituled an act respecting unfair competition in trade and commerce, be referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Anderson (High Park), Bury, Cahan, Chevrier, Ilsley, Irvine and MacDonald (Cape Breton), with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time.


William Daum Euler: Are the provisions of the bill the result of some conference between various bodies; and if so, what were the matters discussed?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On introducing the bill I
called attention to the fact that it is the result of a convention which was signed on Canada's behalf at the Hague on November 6, 1925, making very considerable amendments to an existing convention. By some inadvertence that convention was not laid upon the table of the house until this session. The omission was called to my attention by the fact that others were stating that we had not amended our law to enforce the convention. This bill is to carry out that purpose and also to enforce certain provisions of the Geneva convention to which I have just referred.


William Daum Euler: If the bill is the result of an international agreement, is there any particular purpose to be served in sending it to a committee; in other words, can they make any changes without violating the international agreement already arrived at?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is obvious that we will
not endeavour to make any changes which may conflict with the convention, but under it we are entitled to preserve certain common law rights. I recall the late hon. Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, and I had some controversy in the house with regard to this point. He thought there were certain common law rights in the province of Quebec under the code which should be preserved. In addition to carrying into effect the provisions of this international convention, which I think the draft bill does very completely and very fully, we preserve certain common law rights that may have been enjoyed since before confederation.


William Daum Euler: Are the two very distinct in the bill?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are dealt with on distinct grounds, and those common law rights are preserved. The object of the bill is to

Fish Inspection Act
enforce the terms of the international convention while preserving, as we have the right to preserve, existing common law rights. Therefore I think the bill should go before the special committee that I have named.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6 to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Mr. Speaker, the Fish Inspection Act, chapter 72 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, requires that barrels or other containers of such fish as come under the provisions of the act, be made in accordance with defined standards, that the fish be cured, graded and packed as prescribed in the regulations, and that the marks placed on the containers by the packer correctly represent the kind, grade and weight of the contents. Inspectors appointed under the act are not at present required to inspect and mark every barrel or container of fish packed within their respective districts. They are authorized, however, to inspect as many of such as they find it possible to do. This necessarily leaves much room for a great number of barrels of fish of poor quality to slip through to market without inspection. The purpose of this bill, is to make it obligatory for inspectors to inspect all fish and barrels which come under the provisions of the act, by prohibiting their sale or shipment until they have been inspected and officially marked.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the
minister referring this bill to a special committee?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, we are
very much interested in the explanation of the purpose of this bill which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has given us. I have read very carefully the proposed amendments and also the clauses in the 1927 act. While of course I do not pretend to have any particular knowledge of legal phraseology, I can see very little difference between this bill and the old act. I may say that this is a hardy annual; the very same bill has been before the house several times. The minister last session, and his predecessor the previous session, saw there was nothing in the bill and they did not go on with it. Why 41761-Hi
the minister's officials asked him to bring down the bill this session I cannot understand, because if he will read the present act and compare it with the notes on the bill itself he will see that there is very little difference between the two.
The minister said the purpose of these amendments was to ensure that all fish should be inspected; he did not, however, tell the house how he was going to have the inspection done. I say to him without the slightest hesitation that the inspection he has in mind cannot be carried out. If his officials tell him that it can be done, then they do not know anything about the matter. It would require 300 inspectors in Nova Scotia alone to inspect herring, alewives, mackerel and other pickled fish. Under present conditions I think the minister is not going to appoint 300 officials for that purpose. What have the department done so far with regard to the inspection of pickled fish? Several years ago-and I am not taking the late government's part at all, because God knows, they made enough blunders so far as the Fisheries department was concerned-several years ago the late government did appoint special inspectors for pickled fish, but within the last two years every one of those inspectors has been discharged. Of course, neither the late minister nor his successor is to be blamed for it, but the department officials carried out the recommendations of the deputy minister in order to give increased salaries to the overseers. As I say, they dismissed all the pickled fish inspectors and appointed the overseers of fisheries inspectors of pickled fish. If the minister will consult those overseers in the province of Nova Scotia he will find that nine out of ten of them will tell him that they do not know the first thing about inspecting pickled fish. Yet the deputy minister has appointed men of this class to inspect pickled fish in the maritimes. Now, in the first place it is impossible for these overseers to inspect pickled fish. For instance, for the last three years I have had to inspect all the pickled fish that I have bought. The overseer of fisheries told me he did not know anything about the inspection of pickled fish, and there was no regular inspector anywhere near. As I say, I had to inspect the pickled fish myself -and the government did not pay me for it.


An hon. MEMBER:: The inspector was
not qualified to inspect anyway.


William Duff: The fishery overseers admit
that they are not qualified, but the department, on the advice of the deputy minister, dismissed the few pickled fish inspectors who
Fish Inspection Act

were doing their work satisfactorily and appointed the fishery overseers to attend to the inspection. But what does this bill say? Let me refer the minister to the section with regard to packages:
Such containers shall not be used, sold, bought or shipped . . .
I ask the minister, is that good English? How can they be used until they are sold or bought? That should read: "Such containers shall not be sold or bought, used or shipped." I do not know who drafted the amendment but I submit that the minister would be wise if he did not proceed with the bill any further. Let him send it back to the proper officials to be correctly drafted. Further, the bill provides:
Containers used for marketing such fish oils as may hereafter come under the provisions of this act shall be as defined in the regulations and be inspected and marked in accordance therewith.
Is it the policy of the department that fish oils shall have to be put into containers made specially for that purpose? I admit that he must take the advice of his officials but I submit that the officials are not competent to give him advice. The fishermen, in the maritime provinces particularly, use certain containers for cod oil. What are those containers? They are gasoline or kerosene oil casks or any other kind of casks used on their vessels for other purposes. How can they be expected to go to an inspector to have such casks marked particularly for the purpose stated in this bill? I submit again that the officials are not giving the minister good advice and consequently the bill should not be referred to the committee. I suggest that it remain on the order paper or else be deleted. The same applies with equal force to the inspection of fish. It is impossible, unless the government is going to appoint three or four hundred inspectors, to have fish inspected. Where will they be inspected? Are you going to inspect them where they are caught or where they are shipped or where the fishermen will sell them to the merchants? I really do think that the minister should give us a little more information before proceeding any further with this matter,


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Duff: I would ask that the bill be
allowed to stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The minister, on the
second reading, has the right to reply.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Before the minister replies may I ask whether this bill will be applicable to the province of Quebec? We have a peculiar situation in that province. WTth certain exceptions the fisheries are under the control of the province.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must direct the attention of the house to the fact that when the minister speaks on this occasion he will close the debate.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I join with the hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) in requesting that the bill be allowed to stand and that we do not now proceed with the second reading.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: I shall not take up very much time. I have listened to what the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has had to say with reference to containers. I believe that this provision as drafted arose out of a legal situation which occurred some time ago. A man might make bad pickled-fish barrels and ship them to the packer, and under the act as formerly drafted he could not be convicted on any charge of turning out an inferior article unless it could be proved that he intended such barrels to be used for pickled fish. That is the difficulty with which we are faced. This section may not be perfect; I have not studied it; but it is one which I submit should be referred to the committee. The objection which has been raised is so purely technical and trivial that I am really amazed that my hon. friend should have brought it forward. With reference to fish oil I agree with what the hon. gentleman says. The fishermen all along the coast use any container they happen to have-the half end of a molasses puncheon or a barrel-and they allow the fish to stand in the sun until the oil is dried out of the cod liver. But this refers to marketing. It does not mean the sale of the fisherman's product to, let us say, Lunenburg Sea Products, Lunenburg; it has reference to the sale by such a concern of the article which they put on the market. The object is to have it sold in a stamped and marked container.


William Duff: They ship it in the containers they receive from the fishermen. My hon. friend does not know more about it than the minister.


William Gordon Ernst: In this instance I happen
to know more about the subject than my hon. friend does. My hon. friend has shipped a good deal of salt cod but he has never been in the fish oil business.

Fish Inspection Act


William Duff: Yes, I have; that shows how little you know.


William Gordon Ernst: I cannot see one single objection in principle to this bill, and after all the second reading has to do with the principle of the measure. I repeat, there is not a single objection to it on principle. Why not send the bill to the committee and have them go into the subject thoroughly? There hon. gentlemen will have the fullest opportunity to state their views and to raise any objections which suggest themselves. Before the committee the matter could be dealt with more fully and to greater advantage than it can be in this debate.


William Duff: My hon. friend wants some work, evidently.


William Gordon Ernst: I would not object.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I am without the advantage of having heard the previous portion of this debate, but had I been in charge of the bill it was my intention to have taken the ground that the bill was for the purpose of improving inspection and therefore quality and, it follows, the price of fish commodities. I think the object of the bill is sound. It may be that it will not accomplish the purpose for which it was designed, but we are all in agreement that it is highly desirable that we should have proper inspection with a view to securing the very finest quality, because, more and more, quality counts in all commodities, and in no instance does it count to a greater extent than in the case of fish products, which are highly perishable. I would therefore suggest that the proper place to discuss the details of the bill, and more particularly the technical details, as well as the object which is aimed at, is in the committee. The technical officers of the department would be available to give all information that might be desired with respect to what is contemplated. I submit that our best course would be to give the bill its second reading and have the discussion as to its merits take place in committee. That, I believe, would be agreeable even to hon. members who may not be in favour of the principle of the bill.


William Duff: May I point out that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) had the bill placed on the order paper last year and did not proceed with it. It was exactly the same bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is true. But we have had a year's experience and there are other phases of the subject which were not apparent at that time. I submit however that, even
if my hon. friend does not agree with the principle of the bill, there can be no objection to having it pas the second reading, with the reservation that he does not endorse the principle. Let us have it sent to the committee on fisheries where it can be quite fully gone into.


William Duff: It is only a waste of time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If we are to waste any time at all I submit that it would be better to do so in the committee on fisheries. That would 'be preferable to detaining the whole house at this stage.


James Layton Ralston: When the minister speaks of the committee I presume he refers to the standing committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe):: I
should be glad if the minister would inform the house just how this bill will affect the province of Quebec. Apart from the Magdalen islands, the fisheries in Quebec are under the control of the province. We have our own inspectors there and I am anxious to know how they will be affected.


Alfred Duranleau: AH sections of the act which were considered ultra vires in the light of the 1929 decision of the privy council giving jurisdiction to the provinces in the matter of civil rights were deleted from the legislation on this subject. As regards the principle of the amendments with reference to inspection which we are asking the house to adopt now, I cannot say that that principle will not interfere with inspection in Quebec. If inspection in the province of Quebec is carried on under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities this bill will not interfere with that jurisdiction. I thank my hon. friends from the maritimes for having come to my rescue on this occasion. I quite agree with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff) when he states that I am not an expert on this matter-I am not a fisherman. I am told that this amendment has been requested by interested parties in the maritimes, even from those in my hon. friend's constituency.


William Duff: Who are they?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the names before me.


William Duff: I would like to have them.


Alfred Duranleau: the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), no change is being made in the principle of the bill. The details and phraseology of the different sections will be placed before the committee and if they are not suitable they can be altered.


William Duff: The principle was accepted
years ago; there is practically no change.


Alfred Duranleau: I am informed there is a change. Up to the present time inspection was not made of every barrel or container and the result was that second class fish from the maritimes has appeared on the market with a harmful effect to the trade. Every one will be permitted to make their objections before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. DURANLEAU moved that the bill be referred to the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would ask the minister not to hurry this matter along as some of us may desire to have representatives from our province appear before the committee.


Alfred Duranleau: I will not do that. Motion agreed to.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public W orks) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of His Majesty, to enter into an agreement with the corporation of the city of Ottawa to extend the period of the existing agreement with the corporation for one year from 1st July, 1931.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (South Cape Breton) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Leeds) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10 to amend the Fisheries Act.
Mr. NEILL:: Explain.


Alfred Duranleau: There is not much to be added to what was stated on the first reading. I intend to move that this bill be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries at which time full explanation can be given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. DURANLEAU moved that Bill No. 10 be referred to the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.
James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, while the
object of the bill is stated as being to bring the legislation into line with the recent decisions of the privy council, it seems to me that there are a great many substantive amendments, many of which cover a serious change in the principle of the act. I desire to reserve my right to object to these amendments should they bring about a fundamental change in the law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

William Duff: What amount did or will the government of Canada pay to Messrs. Cockfield, Brown & Company, of Montreal, for investigating certain phases of the fishery question, including (1) remuneration and (2) expenses?	'


Alfred Duranleau: Twelve thousand dollars to cover the investigation and report.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Reid:
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think it was agreed that the six resolutions standing in the name of the hon. member should stand until the return is made to the house by the Department of Labour in accordance with the act. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When will that return be made?
We are very anxious to obtain this information with regard to the general unemployment situation in British Columbia. If the return could be expedited, we would appreciate it very much.

Unemployment Relief


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact the statute provides that the return must be furnished to the house by March 15, but I may say an endeavour is being made to secure a large part of the information now sought for, so that it may be presented for the use of the members at as early a date as possible; that is particularly the projects and programs of unemployment relief and the orders in council authorizing the various projects and the expenditures of the sums that were applied to those particular projects. I fancy that is what the hon. gentlemen most desire. That information has been prepared and, I think, if it might be taken as a part of the report, we might present it before the report in its details would be presented.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is not in his place, but some of these motions for returns are for specific information regarding certain conditions and communications that have passed between the two governments. I was just afraid that in the papers that might come down to the house these specific questions would not be answered.
I should be glad to have the assurance that these questions will be answered as they are asked. If I might explain to the Prime Minister, the city of New Westminster submitted a program of $200,000 which was cut to SIOO.OOO and they were told it was on account of some Grits turning out there that the program was cut. The information was that the dominion did that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is of course recognized by the government as a fundamental principle that any assistance given to provincial governments must be given through the governments of the respective provinces; otherwise the dominion would be interfering in what is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the several provinces or municipalities. The arrangement was that the various projects should be determined between the municipalities and the provincial government and that the federal administration would give assistance to the various projects that were thus approved, the federal administration of course exercising its discretion in the granting of approval. I think the orders in council to which I refer and copies of which I shall endeavour-I cannot say positively-to have for Monday, will indicate the various projects that were from time to time approved, agreements being made between the province of British Columbia and the dominion, there being of course no agreement between the municipalities and the Dominion government, the municipalities and the federal government having no contact, the contact being of course through the provincial administration and not otherwise. The only exception to that is with regard to the direct relief given to the drought-stricken areas in Saskatchewan in which a relief commission was set up to which the federal government made a contribution of the funds necessary for the purpose of enabling it to carry on. I think I can say that that commission has functioned extremely well and that the men who have given their time and attention to it without reward have done a particularly good piece of public service; at least I am so informed by many people who have taken the trouble to examine it carefully, and my own observations and investigations lead me to support that view very strongly. The orders in council with respect to British Columbia, I shall endeavour, if it is at all possible, to have available for the house on Monday.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the indulgence of the house, may I submit to the right hon. gentleman that he has not answered the point raised by the hon. member from New Westminster, namely: will the return include the detailed inquiries made in these notices of motions for returns?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they do not, supplementary questions can easily be asked. But there is a general standard first of all, the agreement between the federal and provincial authorities, the approval of the provincial authorities being antecedently given to the completion of this agreement, then an order in council by which the Dominion government assumes responsibility for a particular share of the expenditure. Of course we cannot deprive the provinces of their autonomous rights. All we can do as a dominion is to do as we have suggested and as we have done. If there are any questions not answered and they are proper questions, supplementary inquiries can be made and they will be answered.


Thomas Reid: I am satisfied with that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Notices of motion Nos.
1 to 6 inclusive will stand on the understanding set forth.
British Potato Embargo



BRITISH POTATO EMBARGO

Mr. B. F. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house it is expedient that the government of Canada take all possible means and continue to use every effort to have the embargo, presently existing in Great Britain, against the entry of Canadian potatoes, removed by the British Department of Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in submitting this resolution for the consideration of the house, I desire to make a few observations in reference to the situation that exists in the province of New Brunswick and, I might say, throughout the whole of Canada.
The embargo placed by Great Britain against the entry into that country of Canadian potatoes became effective in the year 1925 and has continued ever since. During the last few months the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce have made representations to the British government and the British Department of Agriculture for the removal of the embargo, but so far have been unsuccessful. The federal Department of Agriculture has sent a Dominion employee to Great Britain and he has conferred with the authorities there. The New Brunswick government sent its Minister of Agriculture as well; the government of Prince Edward Island sent its Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and they are now in Great Britain attempting to have the embargo removed.
This embargo was placed against us by reason, I understand, of what is known as the Colorado beetle, an insect which plays upon the vine of the potato while the potato is growing, but never follows the potato after it has matured and during the time it is being shipped. It is prevalent only during the months of June and July, the hot summer months. It is difficult, however, for us to understand why the British Department of Agriculture should take such a decided and firm stand with regard to this matter when at the same time they are importing potatoes from foreign countries which are infested with this insect the same as Canada is.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that this embargo on our potatoes is an injustice, and it is hard for us to understand why we should be discriminated against, especially when we are suffering so very much for a market for one of the most important products of the maritime provinces. It is the only product, you might say, upon which the farmers of New Brunswick might be able
r.Mr. Speaker.]
to realize money. When I tell this house that during the last four or five months, in fact ever since the crop of 1931 was harvested, the farmers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have been receiving an average of only eight cents a bushel for their potatoes, while it costs them forty cents a bushel to produce, the house will readily understand how vitally interested we are in this question and how important a matter it is to the farmers down by the sea. I could enlarge upon that statement and say that the same serious condition exists not only in New Brunswick but in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, in the province of Quebec and clear through to the Pacific coast. There is not a province in Canada to-day where the farmers are receiving more than one-quarter of the cost of production of potatoes. If this same condition were true of many other products, I am quite sure the matter would be deemed serious and important enough to engage the attention of this house in such a way that every possible means of remedying the situation would be taken.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) for their efforts, as well as the Prime Minister for the efforts he made about this embargo during his recent visit to England. Apparently every effort that could be made has been made. Nevertheless we feel that the unanimous voice of this House of Commons, as I believe it will be unanimous, reaching the ears of the mother country will have the effect at least of making it realize the seriousness of this question.
As I said a moment ago, it is really difficult to understand the situation. Let me give the house a few figures to show the quantities of potatoes that Great Britain has been importing from non-empire countries in the last six years. Here are the figures:
Non-Empire Potato Importations
Barrels
1925		 5,542,981
1926		 3,418,375
1927		 2,980,557
1928		 5,135,030
1929		 2,868,460
1930		 3,091,200
The average for the six years is 4,935,466 barrels, or 7,271,000 hundredweight.
If we had that market in Great Britain open to us; if Great Britain were not importing from foreign countries and were willing to take our potatoes, in two months, I would say the surplus potatoes which we have in this country would be cleaned up.

British Potato Embargo


Charles Marcil: Does Great Britain import
any potatoes from the United States?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: No, for
the very same reason that they are not taking our potatoes.


Mr. BROWN:: From what countries does
she import potatoes?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Great
Britain has been taking her potatoes from the Irish Free State, the Channel Islands, Malta and Gozo. In 1925 she imported from Canada only 105,000 hundredweight, and none since. The other countries from which Great Britain has been importing potatoes are Esthonia, Norway, Poland, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Algeria, Spain, Canary Islands, Italy and other countries. If the embargo against our potatoes were raised, it would do a great deal towards alleviating the very distressed conditions in which we find ourselves in Canada so far as this important product is concerned.
I came to Ottawa in the month of October last and personally interviewed the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. As I said before, they have been putting forth every effort to have the embargo removed, but for some reason the British government and the Department of Agriculture there have decided against raising the embargo. I am sure we all want to encourage inter-empire trade as much as we can at this particular time. It is a matter of importance not only to Canada but to Great Britain as well. We should like to see a last effort made to have the embargo removed in order to help relieve the distressed condition which exists to-day in the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada. In that connection let me remind the house that our potatoes from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island compete with those of Quebec and Ontario in the cities of those two provinces, because our potatoes go into those provinces. We make the price in New Brunswick to-day for potatoes in the markets of Montreal and Toronto and other cities in Quebec and Ontario. But if we were able to ship our potatoes to the old country, that competition would be at once removed from the two provinces I have mentioned, and the situation throughout the whole of Canada would be alleviated. I want to emphasize just as strongly as I can the necessity of doing everything possible along this line. Our farmers in New Brunswick will not be able to plant another crop. They find themselves confronted with bills for fertilizer for which they contracted last year. These bills they cannot possibly pay; for as I
told the house a moment ago they are receiving only eight cents a bushel on the average for their potatoes, and they have never received more than that average price since the potatoes were placed on the market last fall. The price is so ridiculous that it is almost impossible for this house to comprehend it.


Mr. VALLANCE:: What was the price in
the British market during the time the farmers of New Brunswick were receiving eight cents a bushel?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: The price which has been obtained in the old country has ranged from $12 to $14 a ton, which would net our farmers a return of not less than five times what we have been receiving in New Brunswick.


Charles Marcil: How long has the embargo been in force against our potatoes?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Since
1925.


John Vallance: Did I understand the member to say that these foreign countries exporting potatoes into Great Britain are subjected to the activities of the same beetle as you are in the province of New Brunswick?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have no bugs down there.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: In answer to that may I say that France, a large exporter of potatoes into the British market, is infested with the Colorado beetle. Hon. members may have noticed a press despatch wherein the statement was made that France claimed she had lost $90,000,000 because of the Colorado beetle. Peculiarly, France is the home of paris green, the very product we use to combat the beetle. For the information of hon. members may I say that so far as the farmers of New Brunswick are concerned, and those farmers in Canada who have been troubled by this insect, it has been learned that a cure may toe effected by spraying. When we spray our potatoes in an effort to clear the plants from the early and late blights we simply use a certain amount of poison, either paris green or some other type, and a couple of applications will take care of the Colorado beetle. To the farmers of New Brunswick this is not a serious obstacle. My friends from that province and from the province of Prince Edward Island will readily realize that we do not consider the Colorado beetle a serious obstacle to the growth of our crop. Strange to say this particular beetle hibernates during the winter months; one of them could not be found to-day in New

British Potato Embargo
Brunswick or any other portion of Canada more quickly than it could be found along the streets of old London. In the winter time they go out of sight and we do not see them again until the month of June when the warm summer weather sets in. For .these reasons it is difficult for us to understand why the embargo should still remain against our potatoes when we are in such sad need of a market.
I have submitted this resolution to the house and trust that it will receive the hearty approval of all hon. members. I am sure those hon. members coining from the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the west will heartily agree that to-day we are in a very serious condition, so far as this particular product is concerned.
I have sometimes thought that there is no portion of Canada whose loyalty has been more severely tested than that portion known as the maritime provinces. We are close beside the New England markets with their millions of people, and from time .to itime they have sent alluring offers to us which might have diverted our attention from the spirit of confederation. But the maritime provinces have stood nolbly by the mother country, and we have always been pleased to refer to her as such. In this moment of dire distress we cannot quite appreciate the stand taken in reference to this important product, and our feelings have sometimes run along the lines of those divine biblical words, "Can a mother forget her sucking child?" I shall not say more because other hon. members undoubtedly would like to address themselves to the resolution.


Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):: In rising,
Mr. Speaker, to second the resolution now before the house I feel that I cannot add much to wha.t has already been said by the mover of the resolution (Mr. Smith, Victoria-Carleton). I might however explain to a certain extent the condition in which the farmers of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick find themselves.
Prior to the last eight or nine years we did not have a very great potato problem in Prince Edward Island because until then we were known as mixed farmers and nobody had specialized in 'the growing of seed potatoes. Since the year 1921, however, we have profited from the services of a gentleman who was sent from the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. Mr. Murpihy-not a bad name came to our part of the country as an expert on potatoes and proceeded to educate the farmers of Prince Edward Island in respect to the growing, selection of seed, 
and grading of certified seed potatoes. Since that time may I say that wonderful strides have been made in the growing and care of the crop throughout the growing season, the digging, marketing and grading of our certified seed potatoes. However while we were receiving those instructions and making advances in connection with our potato crop, other provinces and countries were doing likewise, so that at the present time we find there is keen competition from the provinces of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, and especially from the state of Maine. Farmers in those places are beginning to grow potatoes in quantities as large as they can, but I do not think they will ever reach us in quality.
This yeiar .there has been an immense crop of potatoes throughout the dominion. Reading a report only a short time ago published by the Bureau of Statistics I learned that the increase in this year's potato crop over that of last year amounted to 12,000,000 bushels. We had plenty of potatoes in Canada last year and there was no necessity to import any for our own consumption. Undoubtedly however small quantities came in on some occasions. But if one adds 12,000,000 bushels to a normal crop of potatoes he can readily see the .position in which the farmers find themselves. The market for our certified seed potatoes has always been in the southern states, along the Atlantic seaboard, and for the information of hon. members may I say that the Potato Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island has upwards of half a million bushels of .potatoes stored in warehouses at New York harbour. We have no guarantee whatever that these potatoes will find a market, because the state of Maine, which is able to ship her potatoes to the southern states without the addition of the duty to which we are subjected, has been able to compete successfully for our market. As a result they are shipping immense quantities. Another factor is that the farmers in the southern states are so badly in need of funds that they are not in a position to buy first class, certified seed for their next year's crop.
Our table stock market was usually in Cuba and the West Indies, but we have been practically shut out of the Cuban market because the tariff against our potatoes entering that country is almost prohibitive. We used to ship vast quantities of potatoes to the cities of Montreal, Quebec, Toronto and other central Canadian cities, but we cannot reach those cities this year because they have more potatoes than they can use. Since coming here for the session I have been told that the farmers of central Canada are selling their

British Potato Embargo
potatoes in the cities at prices away below the cost of production. Down in Prince Edward Island this is a very serious matter, especially for those farmers who have gone into the potato growing business on an extensive scale. They had to buy expensive machinery and their annual fertilizer bills are very heavy. I am sorry to say that a great many of last year's bills are not yet paid, and with potatoes selling at 8, 10 or 12 cents a bushel, hon. members will appreciate that those farmers are in a very bad way financially.
As has been pointed out by the mover of the resolution, England imports millions of barrels of potatoes every year. Under normal conditions when potato prices in Canada and the United States are satisfactory the English market is not very attractive to us by reason of the very long ocean transportation. But under present conditions when there is an actual shortage of potatoes in England with resultant very high prices, and when we have an immense surplus of potatoes and our prices are extremely low, we should like, for a time at least, to get into the British market. Hon. gentlemen from central and western Canada can have no conception whatever of just what it would mean to our farmers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island if the British market were open to them for the next two months at a price of 30, 40 or 50 cents a bushel, which is a low price.
There is one peculiar thing about potatoes. If the price of wheat is low our western farmers can hold it over for another year, but, sir, our potatoes will have to be marketed in one way or another before the first day of June; if we do not find a market our only recourse is to cart them out to our fields. Our wheat farmers never have to sacrifice their crop in that way. That is why we are so extremely anxious for the next two or three months to get into the British market.
As has been explained by the mover of the resolution, the reason the British authorities assign for maintaining the embargo against Canadian potatoes is to guard against the introduction of the Colorado beetle into Great Britain. I notice that some hon. members from western Canada do not appear to be very well acquainted with this gentleman known as the Colorado beetle.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Potato bug.


John Howard Myers: That is his ordinary name.
The appearance of the potato bug in my province is a very interesting story. The first potato bug I ever saw was some twenty-five years ago. It was brought ashore one day
from the lobster fishing grounds by a fisherman who found it floating seven or eight miles out at sea. It was such a curiosity that he kept it for several weeks in a bottle and showed it to people. That was the beginning of our trouble. After that when the farmers went to the shore for a load of seaweed, they would find hundreds of thousands of these bugs in the seaweed strewn along the shore.
I do not know what brought the potato bug to our shores, but certainly he was a navigator.
Now, we cannot blame the English authorities for trying to keep clear of this pest, but apparently they misunderstand the real situation. I have been growing potatoes practically all my life. We dig our potatoes in the fall and store them in potato houses and potato cellars, and never in my experience have I seen a potato bug in any of those storage places. The Colorado beetle simply does not follow the potato crop. Even before we dig our potatoes those lads are very wise, for at the very first appearance of a white frost they burrow into the ground or conceal themselves in the grass and leaves along the fences, and we see nothing more of them until next summer when our crop is three or four inches above ground; then they come out of their hiding places. I repeat, I do not blame the people of Great Britain for trying to keep clear of such a pest. But to fear that potato bugs would be transported to England in sacks or barrels of potatoes is simply to fear something that will never happen. I am positive, sir, that there is not a man in this house who ever saw a potato bug :n a barrel or a bag of potatoes. It simply does not happen. This has been very clearly pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and his officials who for the last six weeks have been endeavouring to get the embargo removed. But for some reason or another the British authorities appear to have decided to maintain the embargo. Let me explain to the house that we in our turn have an embargo against potatoes imported from England.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I had suspected as much.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have an embargo on many English commodities besides potatoes.


John Howard Myers: We have an embargo against English potatoes, and rightly so. You could not get a farmer throughout the whole length and breadth of Canada to consent to its removal. The reason for the embargo is that
British Potato Embargo

British potatoes are infected with a disease known as potato canker-the very worst disease that can affect a potato crop. Our potatoes are free from that disease.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Howard Myers: We are practically clear of
that disease, especially in eastern Canada; it is not known there, and we do not wish to run the risk of importing the disease. This is what would happen if we admitted potatoes from the old country:	The United States
would immediately put an embargo against our potatoes because they do not wish to run the risk of potato canker affecting their potatoes, and rightly so. But it is one thing to maintain an embargo for a cause that exists, it is entirely another thing to maintain an embargo for a cause that does not exist. My understanding of the case is that in those European countries from which England imports her potatoes the potato beetle does not exist; but they have the potato beetle in France, and I understand that no French potatoes are imported into England at the present time.
For the last six weeks efforts have been made by the Minister of Agriculture and his department to have the question brought to a head. Experts from the department are over in England at the present time trying to secure the removal of the embargo, and New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have sent delegates to London to support those departmental officials. The object of this resolution, sir, is to have the House of Commons go on record as requesting that the embargo be removed, or at least suspended for the time being. We from the maritimes have always backed up our hon. friends from western Canada in their efforts to secure better conditions in their section of the dominion, and as a special favour we now ask those hon. members on both sides of the house to support this resolution and so help to bring about the removal of the British embargo against our potatoes.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: It is
with grgat pleasure that I rise to support the resolution of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith). It is not often that we agree, but on this point we are heartily in accord. The hon. member who spoke a moment ago (Mr. Myers) referred to the embargo placed by Canada on potatoes imported from the other side; I am not quite clear whether he said from the British Isles or from Europe as a whole. However, I think 
the embargo is directed against the British Isles. Now the reason for the Canadian embargo on potatoes imported from the British Isles is the disease known as blackwart. If that is one of the reasons why Great Britain is holding out against us in the request we have made to raise the embargo on Canadian potatoes is there not some way of meeting that objection? Could we not, by the issuance of a certificate from the board of health or other health authority, or from the Department of Agriculture of Great Britain, to the effect that potatoes exported from Great Britain to Canada are clear of this disease, meet the present situation? Could we not by that means meet the opposition that we now find in the British Isles to the importation of Canadian potatoes? I can understand why the embargo was placed, and rightly so, against the importation of potatoes from the British Isles; but having to look at both sides of the question, have we not perhaps taken rather an extreme view? The embargo was placed direct. If perhaps a regulation had been adopted whereby any potatoes from the British Isles could be imported into Canada if accompanied by a certificate showing that they were clear of the disease of blackwart, I do not think we should be up against the present situation, whereby we are prevented from exporting Canadian potatoes to the British Isles. I merely throw this out as a suggestion. I am wholeheartedly in favour of this resolution as it has been presented.
May I call the attention of the house to the fact that some seven or eight days ago I submitted a question with reference to this matter. It stands on the order paper to-day as question No. 2. I desired to ascertain, by the submission of that question, whether the Dominion government had been officially notified that the British government would not raise the embargo. I asked further in that question whether, if the British government had officially notified the Canadian government to that effect, this government would make it a subject of discussion at the forthcoming economic conference. Up to the present time that question has not been answered. There is nothing before the house now to show that the British government has officially refused to raise the embargo against Canadian potatoes.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps they have; that
may be quite true. But jf so why have we not an official notice to that effect? Why have not these questions of mine been

British Potato Embargo
answered? They have been on the order paper seven or eight days now. If the government felt that, as regards the third question, it was imprudent at the present time to express an opinion as to what their policy might be, I should be perfectly satisfied to have No. 3 stand. But surely we should have an answer to Nos. 1 and 2. If those questions were answered we should be in a better position to-day, knowing officially that the British government had refused to raise the embargo, to fight the battle which we should fight and are going to fight in our endeavour to have the embargo removed.
I understand that a large delegation from New Brunswick is coming to interview the government. They will be here, I am told, Sunday or Monday. That delegation will most likely have a great deal more data and more details to lay before the government than any of us can at this moment submit to the house. For that reason it is not my intention to discuss the matter at greater length. I merely express the hope that this resolution will be adopted by the house. If it is, it certainly will be a strong arm in support of the agitation which is going on to-day to raise the embargo against Canadian potatoes going into England.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I represent a constituency which produces a substantial quantity of high grade seed and table potatoes I take this opportunity to support this resolution. For ten years I have sat in this house and listened to a good many hard stories from our friends from the west. Except in an odd case I have never questioned the truth of some of the allegations that have been made by hon. gentlemen representing wheat growing constituencies. Now I should like to match with some of those stories something in regard to the condition at the present time of the potato farmers of New Brunswick. With three successive crops out of which they realized little or nothing in the shape of ready money, and with potatoes to-day, when they can be sold at all, selling at a carload rate of ten cents a bushel, which does not represent twenty-five per cent of the cost of production, you can imagine the plight of the potato farmers in New Brunswick. If therefore anything can be done by this government or by this house in the way of united action, such as this resolution affords, or by any other governmental action that might be taken, then I would implore the house and the members of the government to take that action; because I am afraid the potato farmer in New Brunswick is just
in as bad a condition financially as any wheat farmer in the west, save possibly that man who has had no crop at all.
I am not going into the details of the embargo or the history of the potato bug, interesting as it may be, but I have always had the impression that the embargo against the importation of our potatoes into Great Britain is merely another form of protection, and very similar in its reason to the embargo which prevailed for so many years against our cattle going into the old country. I recall, as I am sure every hon. member recalls, the battle that had to be fought by Canada and Canadians to get that embargo removed. While this is not so important- and I grant you that-nevertheless at the moment it is of very great importance to the farmers of the maritime provinces who are engaged in the raising of potatoes. At this moment when other markets are more or less closed to them or more or less useless -because to-day, I may tell the house, the United States market, even if it were open, would not yield to the farmers of New Brunswick the cost of production, although it is lower there than it is in the neighbouring state of Maine-I congratulate the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) upon his support of this resolution. I thought he was a little bit peeved at the conclusion of his remarks by the fact that the resolution had been moved while his question was still on the order paper. I wonder what good it would do the farmers of New Brunswick to have their case considered a<t the next Imperial conference in July when immediate action is required. Under ordinary circumstances we never think of exporting potatoes to England, but there is a shortage in that country, the first for a number of years, and with other outlets being closed this is the first time in my recollection that it becomes important that this question be decided with the least possible delay.


Peter John Veniot: This is not the first time
England has had a shortage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said it
was the first time in my recollection which is, of course, very limited. No doubt the hon. gentleman's information is much superior to mine and his recollection much better. At all events this is the first time in my recollection that there has been a market in Great Britain for our potatoes. Ordinarily that country is supplied by Ireland and the continent, but to-day that is not possible. The price is still low, but it would afford an out-
British Potato Embargo

let to our potato farmers; and I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and even the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to renew their efforts to have this embargo removed.
I realize that the question is not without difficulty. I believe that the underlying reason for the embargo is not so much a matter of protection as it is an effort to keep out the Colorado beetle. Potato men have discussed this matter with me, both before coming here and after, and they tell me that the movement of the beetle does not occur in the bag or the barrel. It is just possible that some system of inspection could be arranged whereby a certificate could be issued that the potatoes were free from the beetle.
I have much pleasure in supporting this resolution and I hope that such action will be taken as will bring about the removal of the embargo, but I would hate to have that action delayed until the next Imperial conference.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to thank the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith) for having brought this matter before the house. As the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has just said, this is an important matter to the people of the maritimes. We have had a large crop of potatoes but there is no market available. The farmers have been compelled to sell potatoes at as low as ten cents per bushel, and everyone will realize the difficulties under which our farmers are operating.
As has been pointed out, a delegation from the maritime provinces, supplemented by a man from the Department of Agriculture, was sent to Great Britain in an endeavour to have this embargo removed. Our information up to the present time is that they have not been successful in their mission; It is very hard for the people of the maritimes and of Canada as a whole to understand why our friends in Great Britain have not seen their way clear to lift this embargo. It is too bad that something has not been done, even of a temporary character, because it would have relieved the situation. This relief must come quickly in order to be beneficial, because the distance being so great it is impossible to ship our potatoes to Great Britain in the summer time and have them arrive in good condition. No doubt the delegation has done everything possible, but I agree with the hon. member who moved the resolution that this house should take strong and definite action on this matter. I understand that the delegation is about to return, and if a cablegram could be

sent, possibly this evening, to the ministry in Great Britain asking them to reconsider their stand, I think it would be money well spent.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury has stated that we were not in the habit of shipping potatoes to England. I cannot agree with that statement, because in the past when there has been a shortage in Great Britain and a surplus here, shipments have been made. Last year Great Britain was short some 360 tons and large quantities were brought in from other countries.
The suggestion that the potato beetle is the reason for the embargo can hardly be supported. I have received information from large potato dealers in Great Britain to the effect that they import every year large quantities of Spanish potatoes. Spain is one of the countries infested with the beetle, even more so than Canada. If potatoes can be imported from Spain there is no reason why our potatoes should not be allowed into the British market.
Early in the session of last year I put a question on the order paper asking that the Department of Agriculture take up with Great Britain the matter of this embargo. I have no doubt that all hon. members from the maritimes who were interested in this matter noticed that question. I felt that we were being shut out of every market and that the time had arrived when we had to find some other outlet for our products. As our good friends the Englishmen were not any too quick to respond to any request made, I thought it well to endeavour to get the government to take up this question at an early date. However, I did not make much progress with my question nor with the correspondence exchanged between myself and the department. I have before me a letter which I received last year from a firm in Liverpool, J. Johnson & Son, Limited. At that time they stated they were very anxious to import Canadian potatoes as there was a shortage and there would be a good market for our product. The letter reads as follows:
We are pleased to have your letter of the 16th March, and we have already taken this matter up with the British government, and we are endeavouring to get them to allow us to import a certain quantity of potatoes during the next two months, as we think we will need them in this country if the price is reasonable, as our crops in this country are now getting cleared up, and it looks as if another month would see us depending on the German or Dutch suppliers, and we maintain if we are to import any potatoes at all, why not give the opportunity to Canada.	-

British Potato Embargo
That is the attitude adopted by this firm. The letter continues:
As there is no embargo on the Spanish potatoes which are imported into this country and which are grown on land which is affected by the Colorado beetle, we suggest that you take this up with some responsible officers of your government that they put the argument forward to this side.
They then asked for quotations on Canadian potatoes. That letter was written to me last March while the house was in session. Upon its receipt I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) enclosing a copy. In his reply he pointed out that this matter had been brought to the attention of the British government at different times, and that Doctor Grisdale had gone to Great Britain in 1927 at which time he had used every effort to have the embargo lifted, but without success. The minister thought that possibly it might not be an opportune time to take this matter up again, but I cannot agree with that view. I feel that if we had started this agitation twelve months ago, Canada to-day would be in a great deal better position than she is regarding the question.
I have under my hand a number of letters from different firms who are all of ithe same opinion, namely, that we should press strongly from this side and that we should have asked the consumers in Great Britain to use their influence with the British Minister of Agriculture in an endeavour ,to have ithe embargo lifted. If we are going to get any relief this year, as I said in my opening remarks, we must act very quickly, definitely and strongly.
The excuse of the Colorado beetle can no longer be advanced by the British authorities because they are importing from other countries whidh are infested !by that insect. I have in proof of that letters which I have read from large importers there. I am afraid there is another reason and I almost hesitate to advance it; but if I understand the matter correctly, it is this, that the embargo was placed against United States potatoes and that we were allowed to export our potatoes to the British market. Then the United States, seeing that we were given this privilege, and knowing that Canada had the Colorado beetle the same as they had, got busy with the Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain, and succeeded in persuading Great Britain to have the embargo apply to Canada as well as to the United States. I do not know whether there is any difficulty on that account, whether Great Britain feels it cannot lift that embargo and allow our potatoes in without giving the United States the same privilege,
or whether there is some other reason, but I am strongly convinced that there is some stronger reason than the potato beetle and I should like to know whether the government can find out what that reason is. Apparently the United States were not satisfied with shutting us out of their own market by a prohibitive tariff, but they tried to use their influence with the British government in an endeavour to have this embargo placed. I think in all fairness now, when we are looking to closer relations within the empire, to bigger trade within the different dominions, Great Britain should be approached very strongly and definitely on this question and asked for immediate action. I wish to compliment the hon. member on bringing this matter before the house and I can assure him of my most hearty support.


John Livingstone Brown: As a representative of western Canada I may be permitted to assure the house and our friends from the maritime provinces that we are heartily behind them on a matter such as this. I agreed with the hon. member for York-Sunfoury (Mr. Hanson) when he said that this situation was somewhat analogous to that in regard to our beef cattle. Our beef cattle were excluded from the British market for many years under the pretext that .they were subject to a certain disease. We from the west knew that was not the case, but yet, in order that the British cattle raiser might be protected, our cattle were excluded from the British market. So in regard to the embargo on potatoes there is not the slightest doubt in my .mind the Colorado beetle is only a pretext. I have been acquainted with the beetle since I was a boy. I suppose it is not less than at least sixty years since the Colorado beetle made its appearance in Ontario, and twenty or twenty-five years ago we had it in Manitoba, where we have it to-day. Any person who has the slightest acquaintance with the potato .beetle knows it is simply absurd to say that there is any danger through shipping the mature crop to Great Britain. The habits of the beetle have already been well and accurately described. The beetle does not follow the mature potato at all; it simply feeds on the vine. Almost before the potato crop is harvested, the beetle goes down into the ground.
I think this parliament should assert itself very strongly upon that point so that the British people will not have the slightest pretext for excluding our potatoes on that ground. We wish to assure the members
British Potato Embargo

from the maritime provinces that we are heartily with them in this matter. We realize, as everyone does, that when they are compelled to sell potatoes at eight or ten cents a bushel, that is only a fraction of the cost of production.


Mr. A. E. THOMPSON (East Simcoe):: I should like to say a word in favour of this resolution. This is a matter in which the whole of Canada is concerned. The maritimes may be more directly concerned, but it affects the welfare of the whole dominion. We grow a large quantity of potatoes in Ontario and if this export trade can be regained for the maritime provinces, it must follow that the producers of potatoes in Ontario will receive a better price for their product. I am particularly interested in this matter because I have in my riding of East Simcoe the farmer who won the first prize at the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto for the best sample of potatoes there from the whole of Canada. Notwithstanding, however, the splendid type of potatoes we are producing in the county of Simcoe, last week the farmers were loading on the trains not a bushel but a bag of potatoes weighing 90 pounds and they were receiving only sixteen cents per bag.


John Vallance: Might I also hasten to assure the members from the maritime provinces of the hearty cooperation that will be extended to them by the western members in regard to this resolution. But coming as I do from the British Isles, I feel quite confident, with the knowledge that those people have of agriculture, that they are not so much concerned with the activities of the Colorado beetle, and, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) this is a mere excuse to keep out Canadian potatoes. Let us look a little further back. I was very much astounded to hear the statement made by the seconder of the resolution that because of the blackwart or canker as he called it he hoped the time would never come when British potatoes would be allowed to enter Canada. I should like to ask the mover or the seconder of the resolution just when it was that the embargo was placed on Canadian potatoes going into the British Isles. Was it subsequently to the embargo placed upon British potatoes coming into Canada? I believe that has. more to do with the matter than the Colorado beetle. It may not sound nice to say this, but it may be a retaliation. If it is, after listening to the statements made by the seconder of the motion, all I have to say is that you cannot expect much better 
treatment from the British people regarding the importation of Canadian potatoes into Great Britain if the attitude is adopted which has been taken by the hon. member. I have no doubt he was quite frank and he means what he said.
I agree with the hon. member for Lisgar that the Colorado beetle is not the reason why Canadian potatoes are not permitted to enter the British Isles. I rise, however, merely to associate myself, as one coming from Saskatchewan, with the hon. member for Lisgar in saying that we are prepared to give them, and, indeed, the government, our hearty cooperation in making it easier and, in fact, possible not only for the maritime provinces, but for all the provinces in Canada, to deliver not only their potatoes, but anything into the British markets.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: As we have heard from western Canada as well as the maritime provinces, and as conditions that apply in the lower St. Lawrence valley and in Rimouski are similar to those that apply in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, as one coming from the lower pant of the province of Quebec, I desire to associate myself with those who have spoken in support of this resolution and to thank the mover for bringing this matter before the house. In the county of Rimouski our main crop is potatoes. We have tried to follow the example of New Brunswick of raising only the best kinds of potatoes, and great strides have been made within the last few years in the quality of the crop that we have been able to raise. I am also not unmindful of the kindly help that the members from the maritime provinces gave to the representatives from the province of Quebec when a deputation from that province waited upon the Board of Railway Commissioners with a view to securing a reduction in the freight rate on potatoes in order that we might obtain a- market in western Canada. We succeeded at that time in obtaining a special rate for the transportation of potatoes. A special zone was created from a point east of Riviere du Loup embracing the whole of the lower St. Lawrence as well as the whole of New Brunswick and the maritime provinces, and it was due to the help that we received from the members from the maritime provinces that we succeeded in obtaining a freight rate which has been of great benefit to our population. Therefore in the name of the province of Quebec and on behalf of my constituents I am delighted to associate myself with the mover and the seconder of the resolution and to give it my hearty support.

British Potato Embargo


Mr. G. M. McDADE (Northumberland):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) for his kind words, and to express also my appreciation of the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and my hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Yallance). It is a pleasure on this important question that is now before the house to be associated in support of the resolution also with my good friend the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot).
This is not in any sense a political question, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter far above politics. An embargo was placed against our potatoes by the British government through its Department of Agriculture in 1925. In answer to my hon. friend from South Battle-ford my understanding is that the embargo against British potatoes existed prior to that date. At the present time there is in the province of New Brunswick a surplus of
100,000	tons of potatoes, while I am advised that in the old country there is a shortage of some 400,000 tons.
I also wish to take advantage of the opportunity now afforded me of acknowledging publicly my appreciation of the efforts of my colleague the hon. member for Viotoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith), for his activity in connection with this important matter. He has been active in it for several months, almost since the prorogation of parliament. He has taken up the matter in the old country through Canadian influences there, and likewise has brought it up at Ottawa, urging on my good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) the distress that obtains and the need for every effort being made to remove the embargo. As the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) has said, we have on the north shore a large potato-growing section, particularly in the counties of Restigouche and Gloucester, and to a smaller extent in the county of Northumberland in the parish of Rogersville. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this step and I thank hon. gentlemen from other parts of Canada for expressing their approval of this resolution.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I wish to assure hon. gentlemen
that we have not been lacking in a full appreciation of the importance of making every possible effort to secure the removal of the British embargo on our potatoes.


Mr. POULIOT:: I am sorry that I cannot
near the hon. gentleman because of the noise that is being made by the Clerk, who speaks so loudly.


Robert Weir: I turn first to the
suggestion of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot), that by obtaining a certificate that our potatoes were free from disease it might be possible to make some reciprocal agreement with the British authorities under which our embargo against their potatoes would be removed if they would remove their embargo against Canadian potatoes. I am advised by the officers of my department that even if potatoes are free from the disease of blackwart, the disease can still be carried by soil or other material attached to or conveyed with the potato. It is a virile germ and can live in the ground under severe conditions for at least twenty-five years. The officers of the department are of the opinion, therefore, that on account of the disease of blackwart we could not afford to remove the embargo against British potatoes. I also understood that Great Britain does not import potatoes from any country in which the Colorado beetle infests the soil to any extent whatever.
Now for a short review of the steps that have been taken previous to my taking this portfolio and since. The officers of the department have made very close observations over a period of years to determine whether potatoes shipped in barrels and other containers carried the beetle. There has been no evidence of that up to the present time. One of the arguments made by our Dominion entomologist in presenting his case before the British ministry was this:	These
Colorado beetles hibernate for quite a while before the potatoes are harvested, and our officers have found no evidence of the presence of the Colorado beetle after the potatoes have been handled and shipped. That argument was advanced very strongly by our Dominion entomologist in presenting his case to the British ministry. And we went further. Even granting that there might be a slight possibility of some of these beetles being transported with the potatoes, we carried out spraying experiments upon potatoes with which the Colorado beetle had come in contact, and so that there would be no objection from the authorities on the other side that there was a danger from the use of this chemical spray, the potatoes themselves were carefully tested after spraying and it was found that the spray could be used with per- . feet safety. In addition to that, other experiments were made; taking large quantities of potatoes and making sure that the Colorado beetles were in contact with them, the potatoes were passed over the grading machine and the beetles became separated and dropped


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.

British Potato Embargo

through the grids. So that there was no danger in that respect, even if there were beetles with the potatoes when they left the farm. We felt that as far as the danger from the Colorado beetle was concerned, our case was fully proved, but the British authorities felt there is still a slight danger-very slight, they admit, but nevertheless a danger that the beetles might be carried into the old country if they imported our potatoes.
Our entomologists are not all of one mind regarding the danger from the Colorado beetle. One of our best entomologists would not make a definite statement that there is absolutely no danger of infestation by the Colorado beetle in the shipment of potatoes. He said he felt there was very slight danger of it, but he would not go so far as to say there was absolutely no danger.
We are still in touch with the British ministry, and I do not know that we have left out any arguments. Up to the present time we have had no full report as to the reason why the British ministry has refused the importation of our potatoes, but we have had a cablegram from the High Commissioner to the effect that they still feel there is a reason. I am anxiously awaiting the return of the dominion entomologist who sails tomorrow so that I may learn if there are any further steps we can take, and whether they feel that the danger of infestation is still a good reason for keeping on the embargo.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT moved the adjournment of the house.
He said:	As I explained, some of the
opposition members desired to be present when bills were read the second time, and they have stood. We expect to submit the estimates on Monday, and are prepared to go forward with private members' day on Monday, and take up the business of the house after that.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Earlier in the day I mentioned the opposition would like to expedite the business of the house and to cooperate to as great a degree as possible. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister replied in, what seemed to me, to use a very mild expression, a very petulant manner, to the effect that most of the cooperation up to the present time had been in the nature of talk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in connection
with the Imperial conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my
right hon. friend realizes that the reason for the early adjournment to-day is that there is nothing left to talk about even by the Prime Minister himself. If we adjourn at this hour it is because we have no further business to go on with.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish
to express my displeasure at the government's lack of readiness, having come a matter of 3,000 miles to attend this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those who are acquainted with my hon. friend's record know that he usually runs.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.40 p.m.
Monday, February 15, 1932