1933-02-13

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I received a communication from two members notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, viz:
Of Milton Neil Campbell, member for the electoral district of Mackenzie, consequent upon the acceptance of an appointment to the tariff board.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 23, respecting the Saint Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association and to change its name to "Ukrainian Mutual Benefit Association of St. Nicholas of Canada."-Mr. Luch-kovich.

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) that the following motion having been called twice and not proceeded with, be restored to the order paper:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States of America with a view of bringing about a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States whereby the natural products of Canada, that is the products of the sea, the farm, the mines, and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States in exchange for the admission of certain goods from the United States of America, which in the interests of both countries may be admitted into Canada, free from customs tariffs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. B. F. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Mims'ei of Agriculture whether any information has been given to the government with respect to the embargo against Canadian potatoes?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Victoria-Carleton gave notice of this question, and in reply I believe I could not do better than to read a communication I received from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of the United Kingdom. It is as follows:
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,
10 Whitehall Place, S.W. 1.
January 27, 1933.
Dear Mr. Weir,-
You will, of course, remember that in accordance with a promise made to you by my predecessor, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. J. C. F Fryer, director of the ministry's plant pathological Laboratory, visited Canada last October, in connection with the Colorado beetle question.
Before I come to the subject of his investigations I should like to express to you, and through you to all those with whom he came in contact during his tour, my sineerest thanks for the cordial reception accorded to him, and the ungrudging assistance in every direction which he received throughout his visit.
I have now gone into the matter with hirn with the greatest interest and care. I was greatly impressed by his account of the keenness and efficiency of the staff of your department, and of the precautions which they are prepared to take against the risk of the transmission of the Colorado beetle with potatoes consigned from the dominion. I do not doubt that the measures proposed or contemplated would be likely to reduce that danger very materially, but nevertheless I am forced to the conclusion that we cannot take the risk involved by accepting potatoes from any region where the Colorado
Deportations

beetle is known to exist. I can only ask you to believe that it is with very real regret and after the most anxious thought that I have arrived at the decision that the prohibition cannot be removed and I hope that you will appreciate that it is the only policy that I can pursue consistently with my responsibilities in connection with plant pests and diseases. It is a generally recognized policy that has been consistently followed by my predecessors in regard to all countries where the beetle exists and, much as I should like to, I cannot see my way to make an exception even in your case. '
Mr. Fryer has also reported to me the measures which you contemplate in order to prevent the export to this country of apples infested with the apple fruit fly. Much to our pleasure, it has not so far been necessary for us to place any restrictions on apples imported from the dominion. The discovery of an infested consignment last October, was, we hope, only an isolated case; and after considering Mr. Fryer's account of the steps you are taking, I have decided that it will not be necessary to impose any restrictions during the 1933 season unless the sampling of consignments on arrival in this country reveals the presence of the pest.
Yours very truly,
Walter Elliot.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Is that the answer to an order for a return?


Robert Weir: It is my understanding that papers are being prepared for the return.
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yarmouth) :: May I call the attention of the government to the fact that for many months a vacancy has existed on the supreme court bench of Nova Scotia. I understand there is considerable congestion in the court, due to the shortage of judges and to illness, and that the public service is being impaired. I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when we may expect announcement of an appointment to fill this vacancy.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: I think I can assure my hon. friend that an appointment will be made to fill this vacancy in the very near future.
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR CANADA On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: 1 desire to direct a question to the acting leader of the government in the absence of the Prime Minister. For the last two weeks, in the press of the United Kingdom and also in Canada, especially the Toronto Globe, is featured an apparent conflict between the High Commissioner and the Prime Minister.
I would like to ask the acting leader of the

government whether, if the High Commissioner has disobeyed orders from his chief, he will be recalled?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is frivolous and should not be answered.


Frederick George Sanderson: On a point of order-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I ask the hon. member to keep order; we are not going to argue about it; I have ruled that his remarks are out of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: On a point of order -


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no point of order involved.


Frederick George Sanderson: But, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is a question of privilege.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no question of privilege involved at all.


Frederick George Sanderson: If Your Honour will
permit me, the acting leader of the government was on his feet to answer my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That mjakes no difference whatever.



DEPORTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government a question with respect to some rumoured deportation cases. The Minister of Justice kindly said he would draw it to the attention of the immigration department. Inasmuch as it is rumoured that these deportations are to take place in a few days, I think we ought to have some information.


Hugh Guthrie: I regret that owing to the illness of the acting Minister of Imtaigration (Mr. Gordon) I have not been able to communicate with him, but I will try to do so before the next sitting of the house and let my hon. friend know.


Peter Heenan: In view of the illness of the minister, will the Minister of Justice undertake on behalf of the government that these deportations will not be effected?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I will not give any such undertaking.


Peter Heenan: If the acting Minister of Immigration remains ill-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay



AIRPLANE LANDING FIELDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Temis-ka.ming):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). During the preliminary session the government made a statement to the effect that landing fields for airplanes would be constructed throughout Canada. We received that announcement with great joy in northern Ontario, but so far I am notified that no work has been done. May I ask what is the intention of the government in this matter?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member is in error in saying that nothing has been accomplished. There are certain camps of the nature he mentioned under way in northern Ontario. The full plan has not yet been put into effect. I will be glad to get a complete statement of the present situation and send it to my hon. friend.



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: May I ask the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) when he intends to introduce legislation implementing any or all of the recommendations of the Gibb report?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: A bill is under consideration at the present time.



DEPUTY MINISTER OF MARINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: May I ask the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) when the position of deputy minister is going to be filled?


Alfred Duranleau: The appointment of deputy ministers comes under the Prime Minister himself.


Pierre-François Casgrain: So you have nothing to do with it in your department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.



CHARTERED BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I wonder if I might draw the attention of the government to the fact that an order for return was passed on the 17th of November last, and ask whether it might not be brought down.



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Railways and Canals
Salaries, $177,534; contingencies, $27,800.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Chairman, there was an understanding that no item involving salaries would be taken up by the government until disposal of the bill in relation to the Salary Deduction Act, 1932.
Mr. MANIO'N: I am sorry, I did not know that.
Hudson bay railway and terminals-construction and betterments (including E. B dost at $2,250), $967,500.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister be good enough to give the committee a general statement of the progress of the Hudson Bay Railway and terminal?
Hon. R. J. MANIO'N (Minister of Railways and Canals): This vote is for the continuation of the work that has been going on for some years at Churchill and on the Hudson Bay railway. The work that has already been done consists of the railway itself which is in very excellent shape; I did not visit it last year, but I did the previous two years, and the roadbed was in splended shape though every spring, because of the heavily frozen section of the country through which the railway runs, there are a number of sink holes and that sort of thing. Consequently it still requires a good deal of money to be spent upon it. So that half of this vote is for the rehabilitation of the Hudson Bay railway itself from The Pas to Churchill as well as for maintenance and operation during construction. It is hoped that after this year or next year the railway will have been so well ballasted that these sink holes will no longer develop. At any rate, it is in good shape.
The other work that has been done is at Churchill itself. At that port we have an elevator of two and a half million bushels capacity; we have a dock eighteen hundred feet long; we have a freight shed that was more than adequate to handle the freight last year, we have coal-handling facilities, and the harbour is well dredged, except for one item that is included in this vote for dredging this year, and which it is expected will complete the dredging required at Churchill. The general work there is in excellent condition. The traffic that went through the port last year was well handled
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay

in every way. A large portion of this item is for the completion of the water supply, the engineers having found that they had to go four or five miles from the townsite of Churchill to get fresh water. They had to connect up a number of sloughs into a fairly large lake of fresh water, which acts as a reservoir, and from which they bring water by a pipe line just above the ground. It is surrounded or is being surrounded gradually by moss to protect it from freezing. That, briefly, is a sketch of what has taken place there. I shall be glad to give any further information that is needed.


Mi. EULER:: What has been the total
cost of the Hudson Bay railway, including terminals, and how much loss was incurred last year, including interest on capital expenditure?


Mr. MANION:: The total investment on
the Hudson Bay railway and the port of Churchill terminals, and in respect of the deserted Nelson terminals, is, in round figures, between $53,000,000 and $54,000 000.


William Daum Euler: Including interest?


Robert James Manion: No, that represents actual expenditures that have been made. I doubt whether I can give anything like an exact estimate of the cost of traffic last year. There was not very much traffic. Two and a hall million bushels of grain was handled and a small amount of other merchandise went through. The two and a half million bushels went out in ten steamers, including the one which was sunk in Hudson straits, and a small amount, about three hundred and some odd tons, of general merchandise came in. In addition to the traffic which went out of and came into the port, there is a good deal of traffic up and down the line in between and to the port itself, and of course, in a sense, it is really at the expense of the government. The revenue and expenditures of the railway itself last year, if one leaves out maintenance, were pretty well balanced. There was an actual loss of three or four thousand on operation and it is expected that there will be about the same loss this year. Of course, there was no manienance charge, which amounted last year to about $64,000, and which snould be charged up to the operation of the road. There is interest on investment, which is not included.


William Daum Euler: It will cost the treasury
each year, a? a net loss to the railway, something between two and three million dollars. Would that be approximately correct?
I Mr. Manion.]


Robert James Manion: Yes. Of course, the
interest alone on $50,000,000 would be two and a half million dollars, roughly, so that that was a direct charge upon the exchequer or Canada. In regard to the operation of the port, there is, naturally, a loss, because so far we have not charged either elevator or port charges on any of the traffic going through. I may say frankly however-I might as well say it now as later, because I have had a number of letters from the west with regard to the matter-that the question is still under consideration as to what we shall do in that regard in the coming year. The elevator handled last year two and a half million bushels, and there were no elevator charges imposed upon that grain, no port charges by the port. It is probably only just that charges should be applied to freight going through that port, as to freight going through other ports in Canada. However, the government ;s considering the whole matter. No definite decision has been reached yet as to these charges, but I believe there will probably be some charges on a low scale this year with respect to the elevator, if not on the whole port. The government wishes as did the late government, to give every encouragement to the utilization of the facilities at that port. We believe that since we have spent so much money there it would not be wise, for the sake of a small amount, to do anything that might cripple the port. And of course the west- is fairlj' strong in its demands along these lines. Some of the eastern and probably some of the western ports are not so -enthusiastic over the rates being so low.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister anticipate any substantial improvement in the immediate years to come?


Robert James Manion: In traffic?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Well, my hon. friend can
guess at that as well as I can.


William Daum Euler: Not quite. Is there any
traffic coming in?


Robert James Manion: Two years ago we handled two ships and last year ten. That is an increase of 500 per cent. It illustrates very well the futility of using percentages. At any rate, we did handle ten ships and I myself believe quite frankly that there will be an increase. But the whole trade of the world is in such a deplorable condition to-day that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Robert James Manion: I do not know why my
hon. friends should cheer; I am not glad that it is so. I do not know why they should be pleased that world trade is down.


An hon. MEMBER:: We blame you.


Robert James Manion: Anyone who does not
admit that world trade is in a deplorable condition must be more dense than some of my friends of the cooperative organization to the right.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: You are
not so dense as you used to be.


Robert James Manion: I am glad that I too am
improving. I think there will be an increase in traffic; at least I hope so for the sake of the expenditures that have been made. Before elections one can prophesy, but it is not well to do so afterwards.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Can the minister
give the committee any information at all regarding the prospect of insurance rates being lowered on the route, or has the sinking of the Bright Fan knocked all this on the head?


Robert James Manion: My expectation is that
insurance rates will certainly not be higher than they were last year, even taking into consideration the sinking of the Bright Fan. I believe that the report of the commission that investigated that matter will offset any harm it might have done the route. Whether there will be much of a decrease, however, I doubt. I made inquiries and I am informed that the loss of the Bright Fan will about wipe out the premiums which the insurance companies have so far received on traffic. Naturally, the imperial shipping committee will not be enthusiastic about lowering rates. At the same time, the government, through the Marine department, which handles that branch of the work, has been impressing upon the Canadian High Commisisoner in London, and, through him, upon the imperial shipping committee, the importance of lowering insurance rates, and I can assure my hon. friend that the government will do everything it can to have the rates brought down. I do not think, even though the insurance rates are high, that they are sufficiently high to interfere with reasonable profits to such ships as go into Hudson bay, especially if they get cargoes each wray. I am informed that the ships that have already gone in have done much better in the same length of time than they would have done if plying to other ports. I should, not like to give that as absolutely authentic, but the shipping men so inform me.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister is
aware of the attitude of the hon. member representing The Pas and of other persons who have been up in that country, with respect to the causes of the sinking of the Bright Fan. It is generally conceded that it looked around a few days and then banged into that iceberg for some purpose or other. I do not think the idea was to do damage to the route; I think it was to collect insurance upon an old boat which had been insured very heavily. These rumours should be settled and I was wondering if the government had taken any steps, either when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was over in England or otherwise, to get at the bottom of these statements. I have no doubt the minister will tell us all he knows about it.


Robert James Manion: This government did every thing which I think a government was required to do; it investigated the whole matter. The result of the investigation was that the ship had not been handled very well, that the only lookout was a boy of eighteen years of age. To anyone like myself, or my hon. friend, who is not a sea-dog, that fact would seem to condemn the handling of the ship. As to looking around for an iceberg, as the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) so picturesquely expresses it, we must realize that the ship is at the bottom of the sea, and it would be rather difficult to find out if it did really look around for an iceberg. I am afraid that is one question that will have to be left to later ministers to explain. We did everything we possibly could. We made a thorough investigation by a commission. The work of the commission, which was well done by the commissioner and the counsel appointed by the government to assist him, has, I 'think, undone any harm from an insurance standpoint which the sinking of the Bright Fan may have inflicted upon this route.


William Richard Motherwell: Does the minister know whether this boat was heavily insured, and if the insurance was paid? Did Lloyd's or whoever insured the boat pay this insurance?


Robert James Manion: I am sorry, but I cannot give my hon. friend that information. I did hear that the ship, although not an old one, was not in the best of condition. However, that is only hearsay, and I should not like to be quoted authoritatively in that regard. The ship was not particularly valuable, but no ship is valuable at the present time. Unfortunately this government has had to sell ships much below the cost price, and other steamship companies and governments have had to do the same thing. I imagine that if

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
I had a ship full of grain and it was well insured, as long as no lives were lost I would not weep very much if the ship hit an iceberg. Beyond that I should not like to go.


William Duff: I cannot allow the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to make the insinuations he did with regard to the sinking of the Bright Fan. The fact that a ship is old and is well insured is no reason why an hon. member should get up and say that the vessel was cast away and that the captain had committed barratry. Everyone knows there are icebergs in Hudson bay; everyone knows there are dangers in Hudson strait, and this accident should not be used as capital either in favour of or against the Hudson bay route. The statement should not be made that this ship deliberately ran into an iceberg. The minister has apologized because he did not think there was sufficient lookout upon this steamer, but I would refer him to his own youth. He could see better when he was eighteen years of age than he can to-day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Much better politically.
Mr. MANION; I am afraid I missed that one; as it seems to be good I should like to hear it.


William Duff: In order to satisfy the curiosity of the former Minister of Agriculture, the minister said that perhaps there was not sufficient lookout upon the Bright Fan when it struck the iceberg because only a boy of eighteen years of age was acting as lookout. I want to say to the minister that that boy had as good eyesight as the minister himself bad when he was eighteen years of age, before he turned Tory.


Robert James Manion: I was very young.


The CHAIRMAN:: I hope no reflection is being cast upon the chair.


William Duff: Not at all. With my slight
knowledge of marine matters I would rather trust a boy of eighteen as lookout than either the minister or myself at our ages. I would rather trust him than the former Minister of Agriculture, who, although he can see, is a little deaf in one ear; he would not be able to hear the iceberg blow its fog-horn. We should not stress the fact that because one vessel has been lost there may be danger in Hudson strait or Hudson bay. I hope that this route can be proved to be a satisfactory one, and no apologies are necessary from western members or anyone else, whether Liberal or Conservative. The Liberal government helped to build this route, it spent con-

siderable money both in Port Nelson and Churchill; the Conservative party continued that work and are trying now to complete it. There is nothing to apologize for; the fact remains that we have spent -the money and we must find out whether or not this route is a proper route.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Has the hon.
member lost any of his boats?


William Duff: No. Because this boat was
lost coming out of Hudson bay, it should not be said that the captain- or his officers were to blame for the accident. I wonder if the minister could tell us the insurance rate on grain from Churchill to Liverpool, and also if the government pays any proportion of the premium either to the insurance company or to the shippers?


Robert James Manion: Although I think I could
give the approximate insurance rate, I would be only guessing. I will get the information for the hon. member before we have completed this item. I should like to quote from the report of the commission that investigated the loss of the Bright Fan. It reads?
The court thinks that a proper lookout was not kept on -the Bright Fan. There was no expressly appointed lookout and for some minutes before the collision with the iceberg apparently the only person on the ship who had any opportunity of seeing the approach of danger was the helmsman, an apprentice of eighteen years of age.
The ship was proceeding at full speed but having regard to the visibility, as to which the evidence is not very satisfactory, the court is not prepared to find that the speed was exeesr sive.
The court cannot too strongly intimate that a lookout should be maintained under all circumstances by some person or persons whose sole duty for the time being is to keep a lookout. It appears that such was not the practice o-n this ship. Under the circumstances disclosed in this case the court regrets that it is unable to exonerate the master -and first officer of the Bright Fan from default contributing to the loss of the ship in failing to see that such a lookout was maintained.


Mr. IRVINE:: What court was that?


Robert James Manion: That was the commission
appointed to investigate -the sinking of the Bright Fan, Mr. Justice Mellish being in charge. Like my hon. friend who has just spoken, he is from Nova Scotia and knows the shipping business, having had much experience in admiralty matters. He was assisted by other officers, but unless it is necessary I would not like to give their names.


William Duff: I do not wish to criticize the report of the commissioner, who is one of the outstanding judges in the maritime provinces, but I would state that in the case of a tramp steamer like the Bright Fan there

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
is no necessity to have two men as lookouts. The man at the helm can see through the window, whether or not it is up, practically as far as a man on the bridge. In addition to that, the first officer was on deck. I was very anxious to attend the meetings of the committee; I heard all the evidence and I was very much impressed by the captain. I have no hesitation in saying that he was a good seaman and did everything he could to get the propter directions from the N. B. McLean, so that he could avoid icebergs. There was a sufficient lookout when there was a man at the helm who could see ahead. This apprentice, this eighteen year old young man, was on the bridge and the first officer was on deck, but just at the moment the accident occurred, the latter was on deck attending to his duties, so I do not think it fair to say that the Bright Fan was lost because there was not a sufficient lookout. It is just an accident such as happens every day in the marine world. Neither the Hudson Bay railway, nor the Minister of Marine nor the Minister of Railways should be blamed for the accident.


Robert James Manion: In justice to the owners
of the ship, since I read the other clause, I should like to read a couple of remaining clauses that in fairness to them are worthy of being put on record. They say at the end of their report:
Although no specific question has been submitted in respect thereto, the evidence raised some points as to which it is perhaps proper an opinion should be expressed.
In the first place the court is of opinion that there is no evidence on which to conclude that the loss of the ship can in any degree be attributed to the improper use of intoxicating liquors-indeed the evidence would lead to a distinctly contrary conclusion.
In the next place, it cannot on the evidence be said that the loss was in any way contributed to by any defect in the equipment furnished for the safety of shipping in the locality. Indeed-such equipment has in the court's opinion, been shown to be distinctly helpful and useful.
And the other question, number five, states:
Was the vessel in all respects in ia good and seaworthy condition -when she left Churchill on the 25th September?
I may say that the answer to the question is in the affirmative. I do not wish to do any injustice to anybody in the matter. The full investigation and the report upon it are at the disposal of the committee and the members of the house. I do not think it is my duty to give my opinion on the finding of the commission.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Was not a further investigation held at London? If so, what 53719-126^
about the conclusion there? Can the minister amplify it?


Robert James Manion: I know of no investigation at London. If one had been held, I imagine the Maritime department or I would have been advised, but I do not know about it.


William Duff: The British Board of Trade
held one.


Robert James Manion: I have no record and
therefore can give no information.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Could the minister get
the record of that investigation, or will he try to get it?


Robert James Manion: I shall endeavour to do
so.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	Has the government
paid any insurance on the cargoes?


Robert James Manion: No, the government had
nothing to do with the insurance. So far as the payment of it is concerned, the insurance was paid by the owners of the goods and the owners of the ship.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	I mean, since the port
opened? I do not mean on that particular cargo.


Robert James Manion: I do not understand my
hon. friend's question.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Since the opening of the port of Churchill, has the government paid insurance on grain or any other goods?


Robert James Manion: No.


Mr. SPENCER:: Was the Bright Fan sunk in broad daylight?


Robert James Manion: No; if my recollection is correct, it was four o'clock in the morning, a fairly good day, with good visibility, although the judge says that the evidence as to visibility is inconclusive.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In which direction was the boat going?


Robert James Manion: It was sailing toward
England. It was going out of the port.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There came to my notice last fall the fact that the Manitoba, government is going to supervise the new townsite of Churchill. I believe this is a step in the right direction, because in northern Ontario we had an example of a great deal of speculation in the opening of new town-sites. I see the government is trying to do away with that. The question I wanted to ask is the following: Are government buildings in Churchill, including terminal elevators
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay

and all buildings pertaining to the Canadian. National Railways as well as their terminals, to be exempt from municipal taxes?


Robert James Manion: All government buildings and property are exempt from taxation throughout Canada. I assume the situation will be the same in Churchill as elsewhere.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe the question is not rightly answered. In my section the Canadian National Railways constructed private houses in competition with private individuals. The question came before the board of railway commissioners, and the result was that these houses were to be taxed municipally in so far as the schools were concerned. I hope a similar condition will not exist at Churchill. I am alluding more particularly to private houses and boarding houses. In our section we carried on for at least fifteen years without receiving school taxes. This is a matter that should be taken up now so that no anomaly will exist.


Robert James Manion: I assume the hon. member is stating that houses which were built by the National Transcontinental in that section pay no taxes. That is what he stated.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I suppose this is on the same ground that the National Transcontinental is a government railway, although, of course, it is being operated by the Canadian National, but the Canadian National Railway itself pays taxes in various places throughout Canada, the total amounting to between four and five million dollars. They are government railways in my hon. friend's section and for that reason they probably would not pay taxes, although I cannot state so definitely, but I presume my hon. friend is well informed on the matter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In our own section, for a number of years dwelling houses for railroad officials and employees were built in competition with private owners-I might instance Cochrane-and it took us quite a long time before we received, not so much the municipal taxes as the school taxes. This anomaly was remedied a few years ago. I hope this administration and the Manitoba government will see that no such injustice occurs at Churchill.


Robert James Manion: The government has no intention of building private houses or boarding houses. Any buildings we have at Churchill will be of the kind we have at present, such as elevators, docks, sheds or buildings of that sort.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I notice in this estimate an item of $2,250 for E. B. Jost. What did he do to entitle him to this amount of money?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Jost is assistant engineer of the department, but in addition to that he is senior hydraulic engineer. This $2,250 has been paid to him now for nearly ten years, and paid in exactly the same way. If my hon. friend will look up the estimate of last year, he will find the same item. It was begun, as a matter of fact, under the late government. I am not saying that in any critical sense. Mr. Jost is our authority on the many water power leases on the canals throughout Canada, so that he is paid in two separate ways, although it is put into this item as it has to be put somewhere. Personally I imagine this $2,250 should be inserted in one of the cana.1 items, but this is of no importance as it has to be passed by the Auditor General.


John Vallance: What other salary, if any, has he?


Robert James Manion: He receives $4,920 in
addition to this. Of course, there would be ten per oent deducted from both amounts.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Does he reside at
Churchill?


Robert James Manion: No. he resides here.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I should like to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), that two or three men were on deck when the Bright Fan collided with this iceberg. That is not the fact. The only man on deck or on any part of the deck where it could be seen was the boy at the wheel. The second officer was in the chart room. In connection with any remarks I have made in respect to the Bright Fan I have no apology to make and do not intend to make any. My considered opinion was that the boat was deliberately scuttled. I am still of that opinion and I shall go to the grave with it. As far as the fairy picture painted by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is concerned, I cannot say as much for Captain Oliver. In my opinion he is one of the biggest reprobates that ever came into my constituency, and I think any hon. member who reads the evidence carefully would come to the same conclusion about him. I know quite a lot about the actions of the crew of the Bright Fan at Churchill, and I could bring affidavits here as high as this desk to prove my statements. I am sure that some of my friends in the corner to my right will be interested in this point. One of the commissioners asked Captain Oliver if

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
he had a standard steel watertight bulkhead between holds Nos. 1 and 2, and he replied, "Yes." Then he was asked "Should that not have kept your ship afloat until the salvage steamer arrived?" Captain Oliver replied that the wheat had swelled in bulk and forced the steel bulkhead. Imagine wheat swelling in ice cold salt water in two hours and forty minutes sufficient to break down a steel bulkhead! Anyone who has had anything to do with wheat will know how absurd such a statement is. I have had no reason whatever to change my mind about the sinking of the Bright Fan, and as far as the Bright Fan looking for an iceberg is concerned, if hon. gentlemen will read the evidence they will see that previous to striking the iceberg the Bright Fan sailed only sixteen miles in six and a half hours, although she was a seven knot boat.
As regards the insurance, I do not know the exact figure paid on the hull or on the wheat, but I do know that there was an extra premium of $7,000 charged on each one of the ten boats that went in there, or $70,000, and the insurance carried on the Bright Fan was somewhere around that figure. So there was no loss to the insurance companies even if they had to pay the insurance on the hull, and whether they have done so or not I do not know. The whole evidence in the inquiry has been tabled, and I would ask any hon. members who still have doubts about the matter to read it very carefully before making any more funny statements. If they knew as much as I do about the matter they would have equally as strong an opinion as mine.


William Duff: I do not think there is much necessity for continuing this discussion as far as the Bright Fan is concerned. I have tried to speak a good word for the Hudson bay route in spite of the fact that I was never in favour of it, but when anybody comes here and says that Captain Oliver deliberately cast his ship away, I think I have a perfect right to get up and defend Captain Oliver and his crew. My hon. friend from Nelson seemed to complain because one of the steel bulkheads in the ship did not close properly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Duff: He said that the wheat swelled, the bulkhead opened, and the ship sank.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Do you believe that? Do you believe that wheat would swell in two hours and forty minutes in ice cold salt water?


William Duff: Whether the wheat swelled or not, or whether the bulkhead closed or not, I would remind my hon. friend of the sinking
of the Titanic when none of the bulkheads closed. It is quite possible that in stowing the cargo, the bulkhead was not closed. Perhaps the machinery would not close it. But it is not fair to say that Captain Oliver- my hon. friend did not say this in so many words-deliberately either opened the bulkhead or left it open so that the Bright Fan would sink when she struck the iceberg, which Captain Oliver, according to my hon. friend, was evidently looking for all that night. The Bright Fan, my hon. friend says, went sixteen miles in six and a half hours.


Mr. ERNST:: The rate of an ox team.


William Duff: My hon. friend comes from
Lunenburg where they use oxen. Instead of blaming Captain Oliver for going only sixteen miles in six hours, crawling along like an ox team, as my hon. friend from Lunenburg suggests, coming from a county which has the best sailors in the world, my hon. friend ought rather to get up and compliment Captain Oliver for going at such a rate because it shows that he was a good sailor. I have read the evidence, and I heard Captain Oliver give his testimony, and the evidence shows conclusively that the visibility was not good, and after he got word from the McLean that the iceberg was in a certain position, he proceeded very slowly because he did not think it was safe to make speed. He should be commended for his caution. I say that nobody has a right to get up in this house as my hon. friend from Nelson has done and make such charges. He would not dare to make the statement outside of this house that Captain Oliver cast his ship away, because of certain things that he says he knows happened in Churchill. It is all right for my hon. friend to make these statements on the floor of this house, but I say it is not fair to Captain Oliver or any other seaman to say that he deliberately cast his ship away and went looking for an iceberg just to get the insurance.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I have said outside of this house what I have said here. Nobody has ever accused me of lacking courage in any of the statements I made. I repeat that Captain Oliver was the biggest reprobate that ever came to Churchill. I am informed he was drunk when he came in there, he was drunk all the time he was there, and he was drunk when he left there.


William Duff: How do you know?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I can get affidavits to prove it. And furthermore, he sold whisky or permitted it to be sold all the time he was there. Captain Oliver knew nothing about what speed the boat was making that night because he was in bed.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


William Duff: Where else should he have
been?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: My hon. friend said that he was taking extra precautions and all that kind of thing. It just shows that he does not know anything about it. As far as the bulkhead is concerned, Captain Oliver swore that it was closed before the cargo was put in, and the port warden also examined the boat and passed it as seaworthy. He swore it was watertight. But the fact that Captain Oliver swore that the wheat swelled and burst the steel bulkhead I think should convince anybody as to the character of his evidence.


Edward Joseph Garland: If all this
is true, why was the insurance paid on the boat?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Who knows that
insurance has been paid on the boat? I do not know. As a matter of fact I understand that the board of trade in the old country is holding a further inquiry. Whether it has yet been held I do not know. Nobody has told me that the insurance has been paid.


William Gordon Ernst: Insurance is often paid because of other risks carried in the same company:


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from
Antigonish-Guysborough asked about the rates. The freight rates are 3s. 9d. per quarter on grain going out of Churchill. The insurance rates are four per cent on the cargo if the ship has a gyro compass, and five per cent where there is no gyro compass, and the rate on the ships themselves is 2s. per gross ton. That is the best information I have, and I think it is correct.


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur):: A few
moments ago the minister in reply to the hon. member for North Waterloo referred to the indebtedness incurred at Churchill. What I wish to know is whether the indebtedness is included in the general indebtedness against the Canadian National Railways.


Robert James Manion: No. While in the report
of the Department of Railways and Canals it is included in the general indebtedness, it is not part of the Canadian National railway indebtedness. The Canadian National railway handles the road for the government as our agents, and we pay the losses, but the indebtedness is not included directly in the Canadian National railway accounts.


Donald James Cowan: Just one
further question. What advantage has the port of Churchill over other grain shipping ports such as Saint John or Victoria?
IWr. B. M. Stitt.]


Mr. HANBURY:: Or Vancouver?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Or Quebec?


Robert James Manion: Up to the present Churchill has had an advantage over these other ports in not having any port or elevator charges. But of course that is a temporary arrangement which obviously will have to be corrected in the very near future. It is my personal opinion that it is only fair that all Canadian ports should ultimately be on an equal basis. It was thought by the government however that in view of the fact that there were only a couple of ships coming in, and that they were test shipments, there should not be any charges imposed. Therefore up to the present there have not been any charges, even on the two and a half million bushels of grain which passed through the port last year. But in the near future it will be but fair to have the same type of charges imposed upon the port of Churchill as are imposed on other ports, but the charges should be at a rate equal to the lowest existing in any port of Canada. I think that would only be fair, in view of the large investment of the government in the development of this port, and in view of the fact that the western provinces are anxious to give it a fair trial. I believe those rates, comparable with rates obtaining in other ports, should be the lowest possible. There is no doubt that in the near future rates will have to be charged.


Wilfred Hanbury: Assistance has been given to other ports in Canada, and I can see no reason why Churchill should not get a fair share of it. I should like to ask the minister to refer again to the loss in operation, which I think he said amounted to approximately $3,000. I do not think that gives a fair picture of the situation.


Robert James Manion: That applies to the railway.


Wilfred Hanbury: But it does not give a
fair picture. We should have the figures showing the gross revenue and expenses.


Robert James Manion: I believe I have the
figures before me. The following are the estimated expenses and revenues for this year, based on the operations of last year:
Estimated expenses	
Estimated revenue	
Estimated operation deficit..$	3,650

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
The items of expenses are:
Train operations	$112,900
Train operations for wheat	haul..	101,600
Mechanical staff	 37,000
Agents and operators	 13,700
Heating shops, and so on	 16,100
Pumpmen	 10,700
Auxiliary rental	 12,700
Water stations, fuel, and	so	on..	7,000
Miscellaneous	 4,500
Staffs, supervision and engineering.	22,450
Total estimated operating expenses $338,650
The estimated revenues for this year are:
Freight wheat	haul	$210,000
Other freight	 69,000
Passengers	 40,000
Express		4,000
Mail and telegraph	 5,500
Miscellaneous	 6,500
Total estimated revenues	$335,000
_ These figures indicate an estimated operating deficit of $3,650. I do not wish my remarks to be misconstrued, but I should like to explain that a good deal of that traffic is freight which has been handled for the ports by the government. It is natural that the railway company should receive credit for any freight handled in that way. I point out further that these rates do not include maintenance charges which are ordinarily included in the operating expenses of a railroad. Therefore I may say it is a set-up figure. So that those are the estimated expenditures and revenues for the Hudson Bay railway.


Wilfred Hanbury: I was interested in learning, if the minister has the information before him, what portion of the revenue is from Churchill to prairie points, or other parts of Canada?


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I do not
understand the question.


Wilfred Hanbury: I was wondering if the
minister had information to show what portion of the revenue was derived from merchandise coming into Canada through the port?


Robert James Manion: Practically nothing. The
whole revenue, so far as that is concerned, was derived from the two and a half million bushels of wheat shipped out, plus some small quantities of flour and other lines of merchandise. The wheat was the big item, amounting in all to about two and a half million bushels.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: How long was the
port open during the 1932 season?


Robert James Manion: It is open from about the middle of July until about the middle of October.


Archibald M. Carmichael: If possible, I should like to have the exact dates.


Robert James Manion: I shall endeavour to get
them, but hon. members will realize I cannot have all information before me for which hon. members are asking. I shall endeavour to get it before my estimates are closed.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Some business men appear to be anxious to get lots in the townsite for business purposes. To whom should they apply?


Robert James Manion: The Manitoba government, by whom the townsite is handled.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is there any directing
effort on the part of the Department of Railways and Canals towards the opening up of the townsite?


Robert James Manion: We have nothing whatever to do with the townsite. We handle the port, but so far as the townsite is concerned, it has been handed over to the province of Manitoba, and they will have complete control of it. In consultation with them, however, we did offer a number of suggestions.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are making all necessary efforts to build up a trade into and out of the port. Has the minister any information to give the committee concerning the success of those operations up to the moment?


Robert James Manion: The province of Saskatchewan has appointed two men, Mr. Ireland and Mr. Smith, to solicit traffic for the port of Churchill. I will be quite frank and say that some of the citizens of Saskatchewan took the stand that the Dominion government or the Canadian National Railways should appoint traffic solicitors for the port of Churchill. I took the responsibility of stating that it was no more the duty of the Canadian government to solicit traffic for the port of Churchill than to solicit for the ports of Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal or Quebec, and the further stand that since in the last few years the Dominion government had spent about $54,000,000 on the port, and since the province of Saskatchewan would be the chief contributor of any freight going into or out of the port, they might very well spend 810,000 on the appointment of traffic solicitors, thereby avoiding any criticism which would be levelled at a Dominion government for appointing such officials for one port and not

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
for others. In the end they adopted the same view, and as a result have appointed the two gentlemen whose names I have mentioned. Their chief duties are to solicit freight and traffic for that port.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: One question more-I thank the minister for his information. I think the attitude taken by some people in wastem Canada is that the government of which the hon. minister is a member quite often has the belief and acts upon it that it is right to support infant industries by protection. As this is an infant port, perhaps a little protection would not do it any harm.


Robert James Manion: I think the government has been giving it very generous protection. I do not believe that if the government which my hon. friend followed were now in power it would think of giving it greater protection than it has had. Both in construction, maintenance and operation the Dominion government has given exceedingly generous treatment to the whole road.


Mr. BOWMAN:: May I suggest to the minister that he continue that generous support for a little while longer, until the seaport has been given a fair trial? The very fact that the loss of the Bright Fan did not injure the insurance companies to any greater extent than the premiums paid would indicate that future business should prove profitable to the extent of about one hundred per cent. Possibly after the road has been used another year or two the insurance rates will be lowered. Until that time comes I suggest that the port be given the generous assistance that the government has given in the past. May I ask the minister whether or not there will be an official opening this coming season?


Robert James Manion: I am sure the government will continue to give fair and reasonable and just treatment to the port. No government, whether of this stripe or some other, would feel that $54,000,000 should be invested and then the result of that investment be unfairly treated. I am sure that this government will see that fair treatment is given to the port in every possible way. As to an official opening, it was hoped that there would be an official opening in 1932, but there was the imperial conference, and the opening of the Welland canal which had been already delayed a year; as my hon. friend knows, there was much to be done, consequently it was put off. But the government will give every consideration, and I think favourable consideration, to the question of an official opening of the port of Churchill this coming summer.


Mr. MacMILLAN:: Is it the intention of the government to transfer the Hudson Bay Railway to the Canadian National Railway so that it may become an integral part of that system?


Robert James Manion: That has not been considered by the government as yet. I think if I were one of the managers of the Canadian National Railways, until the Hudson Bay railway showed that it was going to pay its way I would object to taking it over as part of the Canadian National lines, because their deficit now would appear to be sufficient from their standpoint, without addmg to it. However, that is a matter which will ultimately have to be considered. I suppose in the course of years the Hudson Bay railway will ultimately become part of the Canadian National system.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is it not a fact that a lot of dead horse railways in eastern Canada have been taken over as part of the Canadian National?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I certainly think there were a lot of railways of that type taken over by the Canadian National in the years that are past, roads that the Canadian National would be very much better without. That is all the more reason why they do not want to take over any more non-paying railways until they show a prospect of carrying themselves.


Frank Roland MacMillan: If one part of the country is going to benefit by the taking over of deadhead railways by the Canadian National, then to build the Hudson Bay railway and attribute its losses directly to that railway is doing it an injustice.


William Daum Euler: I had not intended to say anything in regard to the Hudson Bay railway being incorporated into the Canadian National system, but I quite agree with the minister that if I had control of the Canadian National I would not care to have the Hudson Bay railway saddled upon the Canadian National system. I will also agree that some railways have been taken into the Canadian National system that perhaps should not have been. I fear that some people might be glad to see a losing proposition like the Hudson Bay railway incorporated into the Canadian National system for the mere purpose of enabling them to point the finger of scorn at the principle of public ownership. Something has been said in regard to the desirability of giving a fair trial to the Hudson Bay road. If that means that it is desired to try out the Hudson strait route, whether ships can navigate it safely and for a

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
substantial part of the year, well and good. Otherwise I would say that it was not giving it a fair trial, a trial that means much, if you do not conduct that trial under the same conditions under which it will ultimately have to operate. If the government is going to pay port charges and so on, I say that is not giving it a trial upon which one can rest a fair judgment.


Frank Roland MacMillan: Do you object to it?


William Daum Euler: I am not objecting to giving it a fair trial.


Frank Roland MacMillan: Do you object to the assistance they have given?


William Daum Euler: I do not even understand what my hon. friend is driving at. Usually I do.


Robert James Manion: He asks if you object to paying the port charges.


William Daum Euler: There is one other question that I desire to ask. The minister stated that some two and a half million bushels of wheat went out during the past summer. Was that the product of the year 1932? That is, is it possible to ship grain out by this route in the same year in which it is produced?


Robert James Manion: I do not know what year's grain that was, but generally speaking I would say that it is not practicable-I do not say not possible

to ship grain out in the year in which it is grown, because the navigation season as so far determined is a little on the short side. And this will answer the question of my hon. friend the member for Kindersley; the hon. gentleman asked me about the opening and closing of the port last year. I have obtained the figures for him. The steamship Sierentz came in on August 14, 1932. That does not say that a boat could not have come in sooner, but the first arrival last year was August 14, and the last out was the Pennsilvia, which left on October 10, 1932. That would be a period of just under two months. The previous year the port was certainly open a good deal longer than that, and I think also this past year. But those are the dates of first arrival and last departure. They are all we can go by.
My hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) asked a question at an earlier time in regard to past years. Unfortunately I could not lay my hand on the figures at the time, but I have obtained them since. The actual revenue in 1931 amounted to S387,870.76 and the expenses to 8389,077.19, the loss being 81,206.43. That was less than the estimate for the coming year. In 1932 the revenue- in round figures-was $577,000 and operating
expenses $612,000, so that the loss was $35,000. But they estimate a little more grain this year, I think about three million bushels, and they figure that this year it will be the amount I put on Hansard a few minutes ago.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: I am afraid an entirely wrong impression is being left on the eastern mind in regard to the payment for the construction of this Hudson Bay railway, and that it is being used very much to the detriment of the railway. The impression is that it has cost Canada, eastern Canada chiefly, the sum of $54,000,000. That is absolutely incorrect. What happened was that some years ago Hon. Frank Oliver, then Liberal Minister of the Interior, brought in a bill which became law setting apart certain lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta which were sold for the purpose of building the Hudson Bay railway. I have here a report from the assistant deputy minister of the Railways department, and I am going to put it on Hansard for the information of my hon. friends from the east:
During the ten years the provisions as to preemption and purchase were in force, the Department of the Interior disposed of preemptions approximating 12,763,040 acres, including entries since cancelled, and, as purchased homesteads, 1,322,840 acres approximately, including entries since cancelled.
The lands were sold at $3 per acre. The total sum for which these lands were sold was: preemptions, $38,289,120, approximately; purchased homesteads, $3,968,520, approximately.
Amounts actually received up to February 28, 1930 (the last date upon which I received information from the Department of the Interior) on account of these purchases have been:
Preemptions	$18,697,346 35
Purchased homesteads.. ..	3,294,840 42
Total	$21,992,186 77
Balance owing by purchasers:
Approximately
Preemptions	 $3,000,000
Purchased homesteads.. ..	150,000
From this it will be seen that instead of the government of Canada being called upon to foot a bill of $54,000,000, we in the west have built the road and have been mighty little of a burden to the rest of Canada. When hon. gentlemen tell us that we are away behind, needing relief and wanting this, that and the other, while they themselves are getting millions of dollars every year for ports and marine services, although we do not get a cent, I want to tell them that they are away out. We are paying our own way and are drumming up cattle to ship over this road. I said to the people of Regina, "Get busy yourselves and secure traffic for that railway. To hang with the east; we will build

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
up that road ourselves anyhow." I am as good an easterner as I am a westerner, and I can tell my hon. friends that we in western Canada are prepared to assume the responsibility that is ours. We are going to do our duty. Make no mistake: that Hudson Bay railway will be a mighty big success in a short time. It is successful now, and we are going to keep it going regardless of what others say or do.
With regard to the Bright Fan, I have had conversations with people who know something about these matters, and they are very much amused at the statement that has been made that the grain swelled and broke the bulkhead. People who are conversant with these things tell me that this is absolutely silly. The grain was dumped into compartments between the bulkheads but it was all open at the top. The only thing that was on top of the grain was a lot of bags, so that if the grain did swell it would move in the direction of least resistance, which would be upwards; but the darned thing did not go up at all. A statement of that kind is absolutely absurd. The fact is that a ship went down that should not have gone down. I was not there but, from what I have heard, I am sure the ship should not have gone down. That disaster must not therefore be held against insurance rates, and if anyone tries to keep up the rates on that account, we are going to be heard from.


Archibald M. Carmichael: If I heard the question and answer correctly, there was a wrong impression in regard to the shipment of the current season's crop out of Churchill. I understood the ex-Minister of National Revenue to ask whether the crop of the current year could be shipped that year, and I understood the minister to say that it could not. That is far from being correct. It may be that a large part of the shipment via Churchill may not be the current year's crop.
I am located 126 miles west of Saskatoon, which is in the middle of the province and about 40 miles from the Alberta border. I had my grain threshed on August 30 and 31 last year. It was in the elevator and was shipped immediately afterwards, and I was not the first to have my grain threshed; they were threshing their grain ten days before that. So that grain threshed in the latter part of August, according to the minister's statement, has all of September until some time in October-October 10 last year-to get there and be loaded, and he said that the previous year the port was open much later than October 10. Generally speaking, the time until which the port is open may be 
placed between about the middle and the end of October, and that being so, with grain threshed the latter part of August or early September, I do not see why a large part of the current crop cannot move out of the port during the same year.


Robert James Manion: I do not want to be misunderstood. What I meant was this. Generally speaking, I think I am right in the answer I gave my hon. friend (Mr. Euler). I do not question the statement made by the hon. member that if the grain is harvested by the end of August some of it could be shipped out. Some would be shipped in normal times through Churchill-[DOT]


Wilfred Hanbury: Theoretically.


Robert James Manion: No, even in practice. But even so, if one waited for the crop of that year to go out of Churchill, one would waste two months of a short season. The port opens about the middle of July and closes about the middle of October, so that a crop harvested at the end of August would probably not be shipped out of Churchill until the middle of September, two weeks after harvesting, which would be quite expeditious, and if we attempted to wait for that there would be two months from the middle of July until the middle of September which would be lost. Therefore, a large proportion of the grain that has gone or that will go through Churchill will certainly be the previous year's grain. That is not a serious matter at the present time with hangovers of 100,000,000 bushels. Some difficulty was experienced last year by people who tried to get grain shipped through that port, though fortunately for the port, the Continental Grain Company made the proposal to us of putting in at least 2,000,000 bushels and shipping out at least 1,000,000. They put in well over 2,000,000 bushels and shipped most of it, and one or two other companies shipped a small quantity.
My hon. friend from Muskoka asked a question with regard to future costs added to those I have already given. When I mentioned that figure of $54,000,000, that included this year's estimate of expenditures, and that will represent to a large extent the completion of the port so far as traffic of the present type is concerned. If the traffic became heavier, we should require more freight sheds and coaling facilities, greater elevator facilities, more docks, and so forth. I am referring to it as an up-to-date port, capable of handling fifty per cent more shipping than was handled last year. The port is in pretty good shape considered from that

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
angle. The elevator will handle many times the amount of wheat handled last year. In reply to the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) I would say that I have no quarrel to make with the statement he made;
I am quite familiar with it. I am not endeavouring in any way to differ from him or to argue that the port has been treated too generously. It must not be forgotten that the land set aside for the purpose of the Hudson Bay railway belonged to the Dominion government at the time it was set aside. I cannot even remember what government was in power at that time, but this land was set aside before the natural resources were turned over to the provinces.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: In connection with the figure of S54,000,000 given as the expenditure in connection with this port, could the minister tell the committee how much of that was expended at Port Nelson?


Robert James Manion: That amount includes the expenditure at Port Nelson, which was something between six and seven million dollars. I think this amount is a legitimate inclusion because it was all spent in connection with the building of the road.


Charles Edward Bothwell: What proportion of
that was for the elevator?


Robert James Manion: About $1,500,000. Replying to the question asked by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) I may say that I have been informed by one of the officers of the department that the last two cargoes which went out last year were composed of that year's crop. This would seem to indicate that a particular year's crop can be handled through the port in the same year.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Could the minister
put on record the exact figures in connection with the expenditure at Port Nelson?


Frank Roland MacMillan: There was great difficulty last year in obtaining cargoes to be shipped through this port. We in western Canada asked to have this railway built and port facilities provided, but, strange to say, the grain interests have paid little heed to the request that cargoes be shipped through Churchill. If my memory serves me aright, the minister had to go out and dig up some cargoes to be shipped through this port. I think it is just about time the western cities and their boards of trade woke up and did a little digging themselves for cargoes.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) asked the capacity
of the grain elevator. While I cannot give him the exact figures, it is something in the neighbourhood of one million bushels per day. This is a two and a half million bushel elevator with four loading belts, and it can run the grain through pretty rapidly. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-well) asked the exact expenditure at Port Nelson; it was $6,274,217.88.


William Daum Euler: No salvage at all?


Robert James Manion: That is the net cost;
there was a certain amount of salvage, but not very much.


James Langstaff Bowman: Replying to the hon.
member for Kindersley, the minister gave October 10 as the date upon which the last boat left the port. Was the port open for navigation longer than that date?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


James Langstaff Bowman: Has the minister any idea how long the port was open for navigation?


Robert James Manion: We obtain information from time to time from the officials of the Department of Marine as well as of the Department of Railways and Canals. This information may be that the strait is open upon a certain day, but navigation from Churchill does not depend only upon the strait being open. Churchill bay is fed by fresh water streams and freezes up more quickly in the fall than does the salt water out in the bay and in the strait. Consequently the closing of navigation depends upon the harbour of Churchill itself. If the traffic warrants it later on, it is possible that ice breakers may be used to keep the port open for a longer period, but that has not been found necessary as yet. In the spring the reverse applies; the port is open before the strait because the ice comes down from Fox channel and interferes with the ships coming in. It is all a rather complicated picture, but the officials of both the Department of Marine and the Department of Railways and Canals, are continually making records in an endeavour to obtain accurate information over a period of years as to just how long the port can be kept open. I think at the moment it can be stated definitely that there is at least three months of safe navigation, although less than two months were used last year, and it is quite probable that the period of navigation will be lengthened in the years to come.


James Langstaff Bowman: It is quite evident that with the elevator capacity this port can handle probably 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 bushels of grain safely in a season.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Robert James Manion: That is right.


William Richard Motherwell: I have been waiting for an opportunity to have another say in this matter. The hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has left the chamber, but I would like to say to him that I would be quite willing to sit at his feet to learn about the wonders and dangers of shipping. I do not pretend to know much about these matters, but one does not need to know very much to know that a "lookout" is no good on a ship unless there is an occupant in it. There was no occupant in the lookout of this ship when it struck the berg. The statement was made by Captain Oliver of the Bright Fan that the bulkhead of this boat was shoved over because the wheat swelled up after being two and a half hours in cold salt water. Whoever made that statement either did not know very much about wheat or he must have been as full as a goat himself. The captain was comfortably asleep downstairs somewhere-I know you do not call it that in a boat-and there was a boy of eighteen at the wheel. The one who should have been at the wheel was down having a cup of coffee. That seems to be a lackadaisical way to run a boat supposed to be in dangerous waters, especially when they had been told by radio that there was a roaming iceberg nearby which had not been properly parked. I think the whole thing is a disgraceful incident, and instead of protecting these men they should be exposed all over the world. This ship should not have been sent out without a gyro compass. Unless the minister does a little more to find out about these things, I am going to have something further to say later. In former years I had something to do with this port of Churchill being finally chosen and I am not going to allow this thing to stand. I congratulate the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) for sticking to his guns and puncturing some of these cock and bull stories about the bulkhead bursting because the wheat was wet for two hours and a half. That is absolute nonsense. If the government want to protect their own hides in this matter, I would recommend that they get busy with London. I wonder if they have sent over a copy of this tabled report of the commission with regard to the Canadian investigation. It should have gone overseas. The insurance companies should know the result of the investigation. We would not have received it if it had not been for some members who were curious to know what was in it. Indeed, I do not think

we would have had it at all had it not been for the hon. member for Nelson.


Robert James Manion: That is not quite correct. The report was tabled last year.


William Richard Motherwell: We would not
have had the evidence had not some hon. member prodded the government a bit.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member can get off more mistaken statements than anyone else, but when he said that the government had to be prodded, the government did not have to be prodded by either the hon. member for Nelson or my hon. friend himself. If a wreck occurs and there is any question about it, the Marine department of whichever government happens to be in power investigates it. An investigation in this case followed in the usual course; the government required no prodding at all. The government does not require to "protect its hide," as the hon. gentleman so elegantly expressed it, so far as the port of Churchill and navigation through Hudson strait are concerned. The government has done everything to support the route. I have no doubt the Marine department have long ago sent the report to England.
So far as anything further to be done by this government regarding the sinking of the Bright Fan is concerned, the government has done everything a government would ordinarily be expected to do. It has made a thorough investigation. The report has been against the Bright Fan, against the operation of the vessel, as I have put enough on record to show. Certainly the British shipping people, who are the best in that line in the world, do not require any special prodding to check up insurance rates, taking into account the Bright Fan and the navigation of that ship. I just wish to correct the implication that the government has been in any way remiss in its duty in handling this matter. The government is just as anxious as any could be for the port to be a success. No government would want to see $54,000,000 spent upon any project without any return from it. I can assure my hon. friend that the government is doing everything it can to have the insurance rates lowered-I pointed that out very much earlier in the afternoon-and it will continue to do everything possible to have insurance rates lowered and to have the Churchill route given a fair and just trial.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad the minister assures us that the government took the initiative on something. The information we

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
have is that it was the hon. member for Nelson who initiated the investigation, but whoever initiated it, I want to give him the credit.
With regard to sending the report and the evidence to London, what use was the investigation otherwise? The minister was not going to table the evidence until the hon. member for North Battleford got after it, and he had to get after it at least half a dozen times before it was tabled. I read the evidence, hurriedly, I admit, but I read enough to get a grasp of what bunk was put up by the captain in regard to the bulkhead. I was curious to know why he was talking in that way if he had a really valid excuse for the water getting into the rest of the boat. He must have known that could not be accepted as a reason for the bulkhead going over. I say again to the minister that we shall expect him to get busy and find out, first, whether that insurance was paid by the insurance companies; further, if there was another investigation on the other side of the water with respect to the matter, and if so, what was the result of it? Or was it a case of this crew being turned loose on the public to victimize them again in the next boat that wants to take a nosedive in the waters of Hudson bay; if they know they can make away with their boat by getting on a drunk at Churchill and having a little investigation at Ottawa, the cost of them is not very much if they are going to get the insurance for their vessel. Shipping, especially old junk, is quite plentiful now, and it is the duty of the government- and I shall impress it upon them-to see this matter to a finish and satisfy us as to just what happened and why, and if this boat was sunk purposely. The hon. member for Nelson stated in the house that he believed the evidence would demonstrate that the boat was sunk deliberately. The government has this from one of its own supporters, not from me; I am just making my contribution as to what I think the government should do, because I intend to hold them responsible if they do not take further action in regard to this matter. We want our insurance rates lowered and we cannot get them lowered by sinking vessels either by accident or design along the route. It was well known that an iceberg was in the vicinity. The N. B. McLean had notified that ship by radio and yet we find the captain drowsing away in his bed, the man that should have been at the helm drinking a cup of coffee and an eighteen year old boy, who might well have been on the lookout, being at the wheel. That was the situation. I am not a mariner, but I have been on salt water long enough to know when a boat is in danger, the captain never leaves the bridge. He sleeps there without undressing.


James Layton Ralston: No, he does not sleep.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, he rests in
the chart room, or whatever you call it. I do not care who denies it, because I have seen a captain do so. I was on a boat coming from Jamaica and for two or three days in succession the captain never left those quarters nearby and had his meals brought there. There are coral reefs around there and a heavy sea was on. All I know about the matter is that men who have charge of ships, whether freight or passenger, do not loaf in bed or sip coffee away from the helm under those berg conditions of which they were warned. I do not think the crew could have been sobered up after the spree they had at Churchill.
There is another matter that should be investigated. Why should boats be permitted to leave the other side without a proper compass? I do not know what the port regulations are along this line. I know it costs a good deal to buy these gyro compasses, but if there is a proper compass, why are regulations not made to compel these boats to carry it? If the N. B. McLean had not been near the spot, these men might all have gone down or they might have got to the Labrador shore. But perhaps that is another story. Possibly they cannot be made to buy these gyro compasses; but what is the use of them if the boats do not use them? The captain gave evidence that .the compass he had was of no use to him, so that it was no better than the lookout. Just imagine going through there without a compass as well as without a lookout! The matter requires much fuller investigation. These men have to get certificates; well, they should be stripped of their certificates, demobilized and sent elsewhere, not on stormy waters or even calm waters.
Another matter. When insurance is quoted, it seems always to be quoted on a quarter basis, eight bushels, and in English money. I used to be able to reduce English money .to dollars and cents, but I have not seen enough of it lately to do any mental arithmetic in that respect. Could it not be quoted on the same basis as on our side, so much in dollars and cents per 1,000 or 100 bushels or .per bushel, whatever is required? That would be a great convenience.
Supply-Railioays-Hudson Bay

My deskmate and the minister had a little dialogue on a matter that has not been made quite clear, as to sending out wheat the same year it is grown. Possibly there will be at least two months of that in an ordinary year. In a year like last year, our wheat would have been at Churchill harbour by the first of September and could be shipped from then to the first of November at least. We are not worrying about that at all. It will help to take the peak load at a time when the other ports are busy. Besides, right now there must be between fifty and sixty million bushels of wheat at the head of the lakes.


Robert James Manion: Probably more than that.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is sixty million bushels, and nobody is perspiring blood over that. So why should there be so much agitation and anxiety about two or three million bushels being held over at Churchill? There are some two hundred and fifty million bushels of wheat in Canada right now awaiting export, and some of that two hundred and fifty million bushels is in porta open all the year round. So we should not get into a state of agitation because two or three million bushels are held up at Churchill in the same way. There has been no difficulty on that score, I can assure any doubting Thomases. It has not been demonstrated yet just how good the Churchill route is going to turn out, but we do not want any more Bright Fan incidents making it more difficult to get reasonable insurance rates. I consider that the insurance rates have everything to do with the success of that route. The minister told us last year that the insurance rates on the Hudson Bay route were five or six timies greater than on the St. Lawrence route. I think they have been lowered slightly since, judging by a press statement the minister made last summer, but I believe the rates on the Churchill route are still four times greater than on the St. Lawrence. The minister will correct me if I am wrong. That is a tremendous handicap. There is a great advantage in distance for the Hudson bay route, and we want to make the most of that. I would point out that the government of which I had the honour to be a member did its best to develop the Pacific route. It was not until after we came into power that the Pacific route did very much wheat business. After the Panama canal was opened it was quite a number of years before our wheat or anything else went out of Vancouver or Westminster or any otheT Pacific port in any quantity. But we had elevators built

there, established commissions in control of elevators, and had Crowsnest freight rates established, so that Alberta wheat sought out that nearest outlet to the sea, and it was not long before Vancouver was humming with wheat shipping. Sometimes there was so much .wheat going there that shipments had to be diverted elsewhere. I am not appealing for the Hudson bay route any more than I appealed for the Pacific coast route, and I hope the minister will not take umbrage at anything I have said. I think he is doing fairly well, considering the mighty little encouragement he must be getting round about him, especially in his own constituency of Fort William, when he attempts to help along a rival port. I quite appreciate that. While it is not his place to do it, I think that either the Minister of Marine or the Prime Minister should lose no time in placing this whole matter before the insurance authorities in London and getting all the information available on the subject. That is what I would suggest at this stage, and I shall expect something to be done, otherwise I shall be constrained to have another word to say later.


Robert James Manion: At this late hour I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the committee, but I can assure hon. gentlemen that this government is leaving nothing undone. What the hon. member for Melville has just suggested I am quite sure lias already been done by the Department of Marine. It was their duty, and I have no doubt whatever that the whole report has been forwarded to England long ago.
I wish to take exception to the suggestion that there was any difficulty in getting the report tabled. We had no reason in the world for keeping it back. We were in no way responsible for the sinking of the Bright Fan and in no way interested in protecting Captain Oliver or anyone else. It is our business to do everything we can to get the insurance rates down, and we have done and will do everything we can in that direction. I am sure that next year when the estimates come up again we shall have reports of any investigations that have been held in connection with this matter in Great Britain. Personally I have had no intimation of any investigation being held over there, but the hon. member for Nelson has stated that he understands that an investigation is being held, and I have no reason to doubt that his information is correct. May I say on his behalf that no constituency has a more loyal member, and

Supply-Canals-Welland
there has been no more loyal supporter of the Hudson bay route, and no harder worker for it than the hon. member for Nelson.


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: He has been very enthusiastic about the route at all times, as naturally he would be, because the success or otherwise of the route will probably mean the making or breaking of his section of the country. He is a hard working member and deserves the commendation not only of my hon. friend but of the whole house because of the work he has done for that route.


Mr. LUCHKOVTCH:: I was quite interested in a remark made by the hon. member for Nelson about the sinking of the Bright Fan. He said that the ship started out from Churchill looking for an iceberg to bump into, and that finally it found one, and sank in consequence. He also stated that the captain was a reprobate and a drunkard. In view of that fact possibly a lot of bootleggers may be handling grain from that port, and the bulkhead may have given way through an explosion when moonshine was being manufactured on the boat.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I understood from the minister's figures as to the cost of operation that maintenance of way was not taken into account. May I ask him if anything was taken into account for rolling stock and equipment, rentals, and whether the Hudson Bay railway, or the government on behalf of the Hudson Bay railway, owns the rolling stock and equipment or rents it from the Canadian National Railways.


Robert James Manion: The equipment is rented from the Canadian National Railways, and the cost of that equipment is taken into account. My hon. friend is quite right in saying that the maintenance charges are not taken into account. Nor have we been charging up interest to the road.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-Welland ship canal-construction and betterments, $1,992,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the minister the total cost of the Welland canal to date, and the total interest charges on our entire canal system every year?


Robert James Manion: The total cost of the Welland ship canal, in round figures, is $128,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the minister the interest charges on the entire canal system of Canada?


Robert James Manion: The cost of the entire canal system, including the Welland canal, is in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a billion dollars, about $250,000,000. So far as interest is concerned, it is not charged up to the canals, but is incorporated in the general consolidated revenue accounts of the country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My impression from some figures I received was that the total cost was somewhere around $236,000,000, and I think that last year the interest charges to the Canadian taxpayers were $12,000,000. Has the government ever considered the advisability of installing a toll system on our Canadian canals? Shipments of our grain from Vancouver to the old country pay $1.20 a bushel passing through the Panama canal, and 72 cents a ton in ballast, or a net average of nearly $1 a bushel. Last year a profit of $7,000,000 was made by the American government on the Panama canal system, of which the port of Vancouver contributed roughly $3,750,000. Of course, I know about the old treaties, but if American shipping is to use our Canadian canal system to the extent of 1,750.000 tons out of a total of 17,500,000 tons, which were the figures last year, without paying a single cent in tolls, I would suggest that the question of installing a toll system be seriously considered by the government. Here is the wheat of western Canada shipped out of the port of Vancouver paying on the average $8,000 per cargo passing through the Panama canal, including freight both ways, and I am suggesting to the minister and the administration that we might give very careful thought to the adoption of some toll system on our Canadian canals, so that we would not be losing the revenue we are losing to-day. Also there should be a policy of equalization between west and east. At the present time the western grain shippers are paying a large amount in tolls to the American government.


Robert James Manion: The matter of tolls has
not been considered by the government, because in 1903 all canal tolls were abolished by agreement between the governments of the United States and Canada. Up to that time tolls had been charged. It is true that tolls are charged on the Panama canal. Any change in the present arrangement however would have to be by arrangement between the United States and Canada and it is possible that the United States would not agree to a change.
Then, too, if tolls were charged on the Canadian canals there would be the danger of
Supply-Canals-W elland,

sending through the United States ports a much larger proportion of Canadian grain than now goes through them. Up until recently from a quarter to a third of Canadian grain had been shipped via American ports. If shipping tolls were charged on Canadian canals the shipments through American ports would certainly be increased. Then there is this further point to remember, that the best canal at the Soo is the American canal, and is used by Canadian boats. In ordinary times the Soo canal carries more traffic than any other canal in the world. It carries two or three times as much as the Panama or Suez. By far the greater proportion of the traffic goes through the American locks. I am prepared to admit that canals present a complicated question, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I notice that a financial paper of Canada has been waging an extensive campaign on behalf of tolls, and there is another argument from the standpoint of the railways. I should not like to commit myself however, because it is not a question which has come before the government in a definite manner, and as I said before, any arrangement which could be made there would have to be an international agreement.


Mr. CANTLEY:: The free use of our canals undoubtedly will have to be reviewed, and some other arrangement made between the United States and Canada. What are some of the facts? American coal is being transported without charge through canals which cost this country great sums of money. The eastern provinces are not in a position to send coal westward. Canada is thus practically subsidizing every ton of American coal which comes into Ontario or Quebec, by offering free passage through canals which cost us about $300,000,000.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and including free
dockage.


Thomas Cantley: Yes, including free dockage. I submit that condition of affairs should not be allowed to continue indefinitely. Then, there are other factors to which I might refer, but on this occasion I will not do so. Consider this for a moment:	Outside of the
province of Ontario the canal expenditures in the Dominion of Canada are very small. For instance, in the province of Nova Scotia we have only half a mile of canal, costing originally about $600,000. If we are to allay unrest in the different provinces these matters should be considered and conditions rectified. When, on previous occasions, the vote for canals was before us, I thought of making a statement, but refrained from doing so. For years I
[Mr. Msnion.}
have been amused at the arguments made in this house by some western members about the Hudson Bay route. I made the _ statement half a dozen years ago-perhaps I am out of order, but I shall repeat it now-" that when the year came that our western friends could bring ten ships into Hudson bay and get them safely out again I would admit that the navigation of Hudson bay was feasible." As yet that has not been done. We will have to wait twenty years before it will be done. The past two seasons were exceptional. Wait and see.


William Daum Euler: I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, concerning tolls on canals. Ten or twelve years ago I asked in this house what logical reason could be given why a canal system should be constructed at the expense of the Canadian people, at a cost of over S300,000,000, and should be used by private interests entirely free of charge. I could see no reason for it. The only reply I received at that time came from the Minister of Finance, and was to the effect that it had always been done. That did not strike me as a very good reason. Particularly in these days, when the government is in need of revenue, unless the treaty with the United States entirely forbids, I do not see why at least there should not be a charge made for the use of canals which would pay for their maintenance. That is done in connection with the Panama canal, and in other parts of the world. I believe the average charge of sending a vessel through the Panama canal is about $4,000 or about 88,000 on a return trip. They are receiving a return of about two per cent on their investment. I would not ask for a greater return, but would suggest that surely we ought to charge sufficient to pay for maintenance.
The minister has stated that a treaty was made with the United States in 1904 providing for equality of treatment. I do not know whether the treaty goes so far as to say that there shall be equality of treatment only so far as United States vessels are concerned. I would say: Yes, let us have equality of treatment. I would say that the Canadian ship owners who use Canadian canals should pay a fair charge or toll for such use. The canals are used by private interests and for private purposes. I suppose I may expect criticism from my western friends for my attitude in this direction, and there is no doubt they will be disposed to criticize me for what I said about the Hudson Bay railway. That is quite all right; I accept their criticism. A short time ago it was hinted

Supply-Railways and Canals
to me because of my criticism of the Hudson Bay railway I might expect criticism from them concerning the Welland canal. They may criticize the Welland canal as much as they like; for my part I think it was a foolish expenditure. It will never be of any great use until it becomes a link in a complete St. Lawrence waterway system. Although I may be out of order, I must say that I hope the government will not go on with the St. Lawrence waterway scheme for a good many years to come or until we are in a better position financially than we are to-day. I suggest that the government approach the United States with a view to providing for the payment both by Canadian and United States owners of a fair sum for the use of the canals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-improvements, $433,600.
Mr. MALCOLM:: What was the cost of
the official opening of the Welland canal?


Robert James Manion: The work wras done mostly by the employees who took part in construction and, as has been suggested to me by the Minister of Justice, much was done more or less as an act of charity and mercy. At any rate, nearly everyone who contributed to the opening ceremony gave his services free. For example, there was some radio broadcasting, and the companies interested charged nothing but their bare expenses. The ship which came through the canal was supplied by the Canada Steamship lines. They loaded the boat and brought it down without any cost, although they did not require it at that time. There was a little bit of decoration, because the Governor General was there, and naturally the show had to be put on in reasonably dignified form, but the cost altogether, I think-I am speaking from memory-was about a couple of thousand dollars, a small amount in consideration of the fact that the total cost of the canal was about $128,000,000.


James Malcolm: Can the minister give
the house the percentage of Canadian tonnage that used the new Welland canal in comparison with American tonnage?


Robert James Manion: It has not been divided
that way, but there was a good deal more tonnage through the canal last year, and I think a good deal more Canadian than in previous years. I happen to know that there was a lot of tonnage to Toronto and Hamilton that previously had gone by rail: I remember the railways were protesting against it. Last year there went through the Welland canal 8,500,000 tons of freight.


James Malcolm: Can the minister tell
how much of the 8,500,000 tons was Canadian? Could he secure the information?


Robert James Manion: I will be glad to supply
the information later, but I doubt if I will be able to supply it on this item. I do not know when I shall be able to have it.


James Malcolm: I asked the question, in view of the remarks of my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). There is a strong feeling in the minds of business people of this country that the cost of the Welland canal, a rather substantial investment for this country, will bear much heavier on the Canadian taxpayer than on the American, whereas the advantages will be in the aggregate very much more to the American shipper than the Canadian shipper. I would not like to say I would advocate the Institution of tolls on our canal system, but the fact must be borne in mind that if the whole St. Lawrence waterway system, of which the Welland canal is a part, is to be made free it is altogether probable that nine-tenths of the use of it will be by vessels of American registry and about one tenth by vessels of Canadian registry. I think before one can intelligently discuss the question whether or not we should impose tolls on tonnage going through the Welland canal we would have to have some information as to what the proportion of tonnage is between the two countries and an estimate of what it may be in future.
The other argument which the minister referred to, namely the loss to our national railways by virtue of the Welland canal diverting tonnage, is an argument probably strongly in favour of tolls on the canal system. Iron ore consigned to Hamilton and lake Ontario ports used to provide a very considerable tonnage for the national railways from the Point Edward docks near Sarnia. I think those familiar with the movement of iron ore know that there are many thousand specially built ore cars lying idle on sidings since the Welland canal was opened last year, the ore now comes through the canal without paying any toll, with a distinct saving to the shippers of the ore from the upper lakes. I think the minister would be well advised to secure all the data he can as to just what the loss is to the national railways by the diversion of tonnage through the free canals; and also what the tonnage through the canal system has been, divided between Canadian and American ships. With that information before us we will be in a much better position to deal with the question of tolls.



Supply-Railways and Canals
Mr. MoGIBBON: Do you not think you would also have to take into consideration the Canadian tonnage that goes through the Panama canal?


James Malcolm: My hon. friend knows that the Panama canal charges tolls.
Mr. MoGIBBON: Not more on Canadian than on United States ships.


James Malcolm: We pay the same.


Robert James Manion: I will gladly endeavour to get the information asked for.
Mr. RAiLSTON: I wonder if the minister is absolutely convinced of the urgency of this particular item. It looks this way to me; we are supposed to have completed a canal costing $128,000,000; we opened it a little while ago. We now propose to vote nearly $2,000,,000 more, I presume to pay for what has already been done. Then we propose to add to that nearly half a million for improvements. Is it not possible to defer these improvements in view of the financial stringency that exists? Half a million dollars is not large in comparison with the total cost of the canal, but it is when you consider the interest on the capital sum.


Robert James Manion: This item is not for work on the Welland canal alone. There is a certain amount of it to be spent on improvements, for instance, docks, such as are built on the Welland canal, and from these there is a very good return. We find that docks for handling oil and package freight pay a good charge, in fact some of them it is estimated pay for themselves in a very few years. The Department of Railways and Canals has an income from various things of this kind, including small water powers on the different canals, amounting to about $1,000,000 a year.
This item that my hon. friend speaks of is .made up of improvements on many of the canals; for example, the Murray canal, a small canal near Trenton, a small item, $1,700 for reinforced concrete two-path bridge over a little creek. These canals were built over the last seventy years or more at a cost of a quarter of a billion dollars, and of course unless we wish to let them close up altogether we have to keep their walls properly in repair, there are bridges over them that we must keep in repair, there are docks to be built on most of them, but from them we get an income. Things of that sort we cannot get away from. This year it is a little higher than last year, but generally speaking it has been cut down materially. In addition to that Murray canal there is

on the Carillon and Grenville canal a pair of lock gates to be replaced, another pair of a different height; reconstruction in concrete of the end of a guide pier at the upper entrance of this same canal, altogether amounting to about $16,000. On the Lachine canal, there is the renewal of the lower entrance of the south lock. I think that is the part hit by a steamship last year and badly smashed. We got damages from the steamship company by suit. Then a scow is required costing $4,000. On the Ste. Anne's lock there is the complete refacing in concrete of an old crib on the north side, costing $4,400 and the rebuilding of the upper lock gate, $4,850. Many of these structures that are being rebuilt or repaired are twenty, thirty or forty years old and simply have to be repaired unless we let the canals go into disrepair. Then there are the Soulanges and Trent canals. On the Welland canal there is an item of $85,000 which really, I think, may justly be charged to capital account; it is the filling of the old Welland canal through the city of St. Catharines. We have unwatere.d that, the new canal is now being utilized, the old course makes an ugly scar right through the riding of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). The people of St. Catharines claim it cut their city in two, which it does, and I think, in spite of the hilarity of my hon. friends opposite-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I think, in spite of the hilarity of my hon. friends opposite, it is a very just claim, and I might say we had quite an argument. But when it is pointed out that right through the centre of the city of St. Catharines there is that ugly gap that fills in with stagnant water from the old locks, I think it can be justly said that it is the duty of the government to put in some ordinary filling. There will be some salvage from it because this land through the centre of St. Catharines will in consequence belong to the government.


James Layton Ralston: Any sale for it?


Robert James Manion: I imagine it will bring in a fair return because St. Catharines, as someone beside me says is no mean city. As regards the Welland ship canal, there is an item of $118,000 in connection with the completion of a wharf at Welland South. That is one of the items I mentioned as bringing in a very good traffic return. The ships passing through all these towns all pay for dockage facilities. Tonnage is charged on every one of them, and my engineers inform

Supply-Railways and Canals
me that in this particular instance the work will pay for itself within a comparatively short period. These items are all necessary, or I can assure my hon. friend that they would not have been in the estimates. The estimates have been pared down considerably but these are necessary expenditures in various sections of the canal system of the country.


Peter McGibbon: What is being spent on the Trent Valley canal, and what is the revenue?


Robert James Manion: The amlount is $89,000, but it is scattered from Murray canal at one end right up to nearly Georgian bay at the other. It is a long canal. As to income, I grant that there is not much except what we get from the veiy small power sale on the canal. Most of these canals, like the Rideau canal going up to Kingston, for instance, are used largely for tourist traffic, and the people in the neighbourhood claim that motor boats from across the line provide fairly heavy traffic, which gives a direct revenue to the people and an indirect revenue to the government. In these times, it might be argued, we might let the canals go to ruin, but it would hardly be a popular move. The people are of the opinion that since they have been built and they have their advantages, even if only from the standpoint of tourist traffic, they are worth keeping up.


James Layton Ralston: The item is unintentionally deceptive in the heading, which suggests maintenance. I do think the minister miight well have hesitated a little longer before putting in $85,000 for filling up the old canal, and calling that improvements. I do not think this is the year to spend money for such purposes. In Montreal there is a considerable gash across the face of the landscape and I have not heard anyone suggest that it should be filled up.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is better left open.


James Layton Ralston: Someone might say the same about this canal. The $118,000 is a revenue-producing item but there are a number of other items to which the minister has not referred. We are sitting here blithely voting away money although we do not know where it is coming from. I think every effort should be made to cut down the estimates as far as possible.


Robert James Manion: I agree with much of what the hon. gentleman has said, but it does not follow that because these items are in the estimates the money will necessarily be spent. Last year we were down hundreds of thou-53719-127 J
sands in our expenditures, and that is true of nearly all departments. The Public Works department was down markedly. We estimate that a good deal of the money now in the estimates will probably not be spent; it is-there in case of emergent need. There is also the argument that if the government shuts down entirely on all these works it will encourage private corporations to follow suit,, and John Maynard Keynes argues that instead of shutting down on public works governments should spend generously. It is a debatable point. Personally I do not think that the government should absolutely close the doors on all public works, though I agree with my hon. friend that we have to be careful in times like these, and I think the government is being exceedingly careful.


Donald James Cowan: The minister referred to an agreement with the United States whereby no tolls were to be charged on canals. In that agreement is there any provision for its termination or is it for a fixed length of time?


Robert James Manion: The agreement provides
that the ships of the two countries shall be treated in the same manner but by mutual consent the arrangement can be terminated at any time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada -maintenance and operation, $250,080.
James Layton Ralston: I wish to renew the
representations I made last year with regard to an appeal which was taken from the Board of Railway Commissioners to the Privy Council of Canada, and which is still before council. That appeal relates to the equalization of grain freight rates as between Quebec and Halifax and Saint John. The case was appealed considerably over a year ago. It was taken to the Board of Railway Commissioners and then to the Privy Council of Canada, and at ithat time I understood that a general assurance was given that the matter would be disposed of. It is still held up. At the present time, although the old differential was one cent as between Quebec and Saint John and Halifax, by a decision of the board the rate is 18 cents and the maritime ports are asking that the differential be made the same as it was before the new rate was given to the port of Quebec. I would urge upon the government the disposition of this matter. If it is really intended not to deal with it or to give a decision, then the maritime ports are entitled to a declaration to that effect.


Robert James Manion: The matter for one reason or another has not been disposed of. but I

Supply-Railways and Canals
may say that I was informed, though quite unofficially, that the present arrangements were altogether satisfactory to those who were asking for the appeal to be disposed of. That information may be entirely wrong but at any rate the matter will be dealt with in the near future. Did I understand my hon. friend to refer to American ports?


James Layton Ralston: I said maritime ports.


Robert James Manion: Because I was going to say that the rates as they stand to-day are really on an equal basis from the head of the lakes in Canada to the maritimes, and from Duluth and Chicago to American ports. The rate my hon. friend speaks of, the Quebec rate plus one cent, is the only one that is out of line. I may point out that the Canadian railways have taken the attitude that even if that rate were put on the same basis as the Montreal rate, the one cent differential would not increase the amount of grain going through the Canadian ports. We hope however that the amount of grain going through the Canadian ports will be increased materially as a result of the agreements entered into. As regards the decision, the question has not been brought to my attention recently but I shall look into it. I agree with my hon. friend that appeals of that sort should be disposed of. However, he must remember that the governor general in council of the government is not a rate making body, and it is a very difficult thing to handle a subject of that kind. So far as I know, no government in the past has ever made a rate after an appeal from the railway commission to the privy council; in practically all cases the matter is referred back to the commission. It is true that in the case of the Crowsnest pass rate this was done, but otherwise parliament has not been in the habit of considering itself a rate making body. There is perhaps no question in the whole Canadian domain more complicated, more technical and more difficult to deal with than that of freight rates.


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate the assurance of the minister that the matter will be disposed of. The situation was that the grain rate to Quebec was substantially reduced. Previous to that reduction there had been a one cent differential between the rate to Quebec and the rate to Saint John and Halifax, and after the reduction was made the maritime ports asked that the same differential be put into effect. This would have made a substantial reduction in the rate to those ports. So important was it regarded that the board of trade and the harbour com-

mission of Halifax united in an application to the board of railway commissioners. There was also considerable newspaper agitation about this matter. The decision was adverse and the matter went to the privy council. I have not heard it suggested that this matter be abandoned or that it is not of interest. The same situation exists to-day as existed at the time the application was launched. If the minister has any intimation of this kind, it seems to me, in justice to the government and to the country, that it ought to be made known. There should be a disposition of the matter one way or the other.


Robert James Manion: The information I have
is quite informal, but it may be entirely correct. I happen to have in my pocket a map which I have found very useful showing the rates between ports. It is worth remembering that recently a reduction was made in rates from the Canadian head of the lakes to maritime ports. This rate is now five cents lower per hundred pounds than the rate from Duluth and Minneapolis to New York, and five cents lower per hundred pounds than the rate from the Canadian head of the lakes to New York. There is certainly a differential favourable to the maritimes. The special rate given to Quebec by the board of railway commissioners was 18-34 cents per hundred pounds, and it is argued that this rate, plus a differential of one cent, should be carried through to Saint John and Halifax. This would make a 19-34 rate as against the present rate of 30 cents. It might be interesting to note that since the lower rate went into effect to Quebec the amount of grain handled through that port has not increased, and it is quite possible that if this rate plus the differential were continued to the maritimes it might not prove to be any better for those ports.


James Layton Ralston: All I ask is that it be
tried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services-including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, $50,900.
Frederick George Sanderson: What is the explanation of the increase of nearly $9,000 in this item?


Robert James Manion: The increase represents
the difference between an item of $14,000 required this year for surveys and inspections, Beauharnois, and a decrease of $5,010 in the

Supply-Railways and Canals
amount provided in last year's vote and not now required. The vote is made up as follows:
Administration of department, $3,822.
This includes such things as communication services, personal services, supplies and materials and small travelling expenses. Then there is:
Government officials' cars, operation and maintenance, $26,078.
Governor General's cars, repairs, $7,000.
Surveys and investigations, Beauharnois, $14,000.
I can give further details if my hon. friend so desires.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does that item as to
official cars include the private cars of the ministers?


Robert James Manion: There is exactly the same number of private cars for the use of ministers. The same service is maintained but occasionally the cost of repairs would be more one year than for another.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is there an increase
in that item?


Robert James Manion: There may be, but my
deputy apparently cannot give the details. I can promise my hon. friend that these details will be furnished before the estimates are completed.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the minister allow this item to stand?


Robert James Manion: Gladly.
Item stands.
Surveys and inspections, canals-including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, $9,300.


Mr. POWER:: What does this vote cover?


Robert James Manion: It is to cover any surveys or special or extraordinary investigations which may be made. It is an annual vote and has been voted for many years. If there is a special investigation in connection with a canal or other special work, 'this vote is used for the purpose. The details of the expenditures to November 30th last year are as follows:
Communication services	$1,376	19Miscellaneous current expenditures	39	50Personal services	
42	48Supplies and materials	
618	37Transportation	
48	13Travelling expenses	
12	25Contracts and agreements	
306	95
The total expended last year to November 30 amounted to $2,443. As a matter of fact, the item has been put in for a number of years and is left there, but rarely spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway employees' provident	fund-to
supplement pension allowances payable under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payments during the period January 1, 1933 to March 31, 1934, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $29,000.
Alfred Edgar MacLean: Will the minister give a full explanation regarding this money that is voted each year to supplement pension allowances? It seems to be hard for our railway
men in the maritimes to understand it, and it is a great deal of trouble trying to explain it to them. I cannot understand it.


Robert James Manion: In a word, it is because the minimum pension was formerly $20 and, because of the cost of living, it was raised to $30. Consequently, the cost to the government is greater than it used to be. If the hon. member so desires, I can read the statement which will explain the matter a little more fully.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Do I understand that all men who receive pensions get $30?


Robert James Manion: Yes, under the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act, they receive a minimum of $30. They may receive more. The minimum pension, as I say, used to be $20 and it was increased to $30. It was because of the difference between the $20 and $30 that the item had to be inserted. It is an item which costs the railway a good deal more than that. I do not know that I can give the exact figure. At the present time this amount of $29,000 is for the difference in the amount of pension.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Quite a number do not receive $30. Would that be because they did not have the length of service, or would it be for some other reason? Some receive $22, $24, $25 and so on. They want to know why they do not receive the $30.


Robert James Manion: My deputy, who is a railway man, says that none of them receive less than $30. If my hon. friend will give me a specific case, I shall gladly look into it. My information is that the lowest pension received by anyone who has a right to a pension, is, $30.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I shall be glad to write? my hon. friend and give him the information, I do not know whether I would be in order in referring to this matter now, but last year there was a very serious railway accident in my locality and claims for compensation are still pending. I do not know whether the

Supply-Railways and Canals
minister has any information about the matter, but I hope, if it is brought to his attention, he will give it his sympathetic consideration, because it was a very serious accident where many lives were lost. The men were called out and the blame apparently rests on the railway for carelessness in some form for the loss of those lives. I think every consideration should be given to the claims.


Robert James Manion: I may point out to my hon. friend that of course the government or the minister has nothing whatever to do with a case of that kind; it is one which is in the hands of the railway company. Anyone in an accident on the Canadian National has of course the same redress as he has were the accident on the Canadian Pacific. Generally speaking, I think both railways endeavour to be fair and just to people who have suffered in an accident. I shall gladly draw my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the railway company, but that is all I can do, because, no matter how sympathetic I may be to the unfortunate people who were in the accident, I have no control in the matter.


Frederick George Sanderson: Before we pass to the next item, I should like to ask the minister whether the salaries of the board of railway commissioners, as authorized by statute, are subject under the income tax, to the ten per cent reduction?


Robert James Manion: They are treated just the same as other government employees.


Mr. REID:: With reference to the board
of railway commissioners, in the session of 1931 I brought to the attention of the house the question of who was to enforce decisions given by the board. It was pointed out that in British Columbia a decision had been given and the Canadian Pacific for two years had refused to pay any atttention to it. I believe some teeth should be put into the act so that when appeals are made before the board and a decision is given, there should be some power or authority to see that the judgment is carried out.
I understand another case arose last year when an appeal was made by interests in Quebec and a decision was given whereby the rate from Quebec to Saint John was lowered. The Canadian National has complied with that, but the Canadian Pacific has not. My understanding was that the board of railway commissioners was set up to conduct matters equitably between the people of Canada and the railways, so that if an injustice arose 
either way, an appeal could be made. If an appeal is made for an increase in rates and a decision is given by the board granting the appeal, the increase simply goes into effect and the only redrees we have is an appeal to the governor general in council. But where the decision is against the railway company, the latter can simply ignore the decision. If we are to have a board of railway commissioners to act equitably between the people and the railways, teeth should be put into the act so that when a decision is made, there will be some authority to compel the railway to comply with that decision.


Robert James Manion: There is in the board of railway commissioners exactly the same authority as there is in any other court in Canada. Once they give a decision, that is a judgment of the court, and an order is given that it shall be carried out. It is true that the railways may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a question of law, and that appeal might delay the carrying out of the order. If my hon. friend would visit the board, as he has a perfect right to do, and ask the secretary to explain why such an order was not carried out, I am sure he would be given the correct information. I cannot give it because I know nothing about the ctfSe. I have no more control over the board than I have over any other court in Canada. I have heard no complaints that orders of the board are not being carried out. If the hon. member will take the matter up with the board, I am sure the secretary will explain the matter as I am not in a position to do.


Thomas Reid: I took the matter up in connection with freight rates, and the information was given me that the Canadian National had carried out the order making the rate eighteen cents a bushel. The Canadian Pacific simply disobeyed the order, and their rate is thirty-five cents, with the result that twice the quantity of grain has been shipped at the cheaper rate. The point I want to bring up is that on many occasions when the board has made a ruling, the Canadian Pacific has simply ignored it. If we are to have a costly court such as the board of railway commissioner's, there should be somle authority behind it. The only recourse we have is to the governor general in council.


Robert James Manion: The governor general in council has no authority over an order of

Supply-Railways and Canals
that kind. I can hardly believe the Canadian. Pacific wouild maintain a rate double that of the Canadian National, because in that case the Canadian Pacific would get no business; the Canadian National would get it all.


Thomas Reid: There was a case in British Columbia two years ago.


Robert James Manion: If the hon. member will write me about it, I shall be glad to make inquiries, but neither the government nor I as minister have any power over the board of railway commissioners. It is a court and carries on of its own authority. Of course it is true there are appeals from that court to us after a judgment is given, but once their judgment is given, I think there are methods whereby the board can easily insist on the judgments being carried out. If my hon. friend will draw the matter to their attention,
I am sure they will see to it.


Thomas Reid: I shall endeavour to find out.


James Malcolm: Can the minister advise us whether, in the case of an appeal against a lower rate, the board has a right to allow the existing rate to stand until the appeal is settled? Where by a decision of the board a higher rate is granted, that rate automatically goes into effect and those complaining have a right to appeal. The case pointed out by my hon. friend is that the ruling of the board was for a lower rate and the railway appealed against the rate and did not apply the lower rate to the tonnage offered pending decision on the appeal. I am asking the minister has the board of railway commissioners the right to allow the existing rate to stand while the railway companies are appealing against a lower rate order.


Robert James Manion: I presume the board has
thait right, but I should not like to express a legal opinion upon a matter of that kind. But suppose the board had ordered a lower rate, and that lower rate was sustained, I presume that the people who had paid the higher rate would be entitled to compensation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, including D. W. McLachlan at $1,350 and G. W. Yates at $1,080, $38,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are the gentlemen whose names are mentioned in the item members of the civil service?


Robert James Manion: Yes, both Mr. McLachlan and Mr. Yates are members of the civil service, but for many years, even under the regime of my right hon. friend, they were given this special allowance, and in order to legalize the payment it has to go through the estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point was that I think the item should include the words "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act." Otherwise I imagine the Auditor General would not have the right to pay these amounts because under the Civil Service Act the members of the service are precluded from getting any additional compensation for anything unless parliament specifically states otherwise.


Robert James Manion: Without arguing that those words should be included in the item, I take it that once the item is passed by parliament the Auditor General will be justified in permitting these allowances to be paid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have always understood that it was necessary to include the words "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act."


Robert James Manion: If that is the case, they
will probably be without the allowance for the coming year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any
possibility of the treaty with respeat to the St. Lawrence waterway coming before parliament this session?


Robert James Manion: I should not think it is
likely because it is generally understood that until the treaty has been adopted by the United States it will not be dealt with by this parliament, and it is hardly likely that the treaty will be adopted by the United States congress at its present session, although I understand that it was reported from committee to (the United States Senate within the last couple of days.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Have not representations
been made to the minister to have the operations of the car ferry steamer not charged to the Prince Edward Island division? I understand that representations have been made from year to year by boards of trade throughout the maritimes that these operations be charged to capital account.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is wrong
in saying that they are charged to the Prince Edward Island division. They are charged to
2016	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
the Intercolonial as a part of the operating expenses of the Canadian National railway, and they would appear in the deficit of the railways. I have had such representations made to me as the hon. gentleman mentions, but quite frankly I am of the opinion that the Prince Edward island people are not particularly wise in taking that attitude. But they do take it, and it will have to be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie, the house adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
Monday, February 13, 1933
The house jnet at three o'clock.

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table
several orders in council passed in pursuance of the relief legislation which I was unable to table on Friday last.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to amend the criminal code (unlawful associations).
He said: This is the bill which I sought to introduce last year. It seeks to repeal the section of the criminal code dealing with unlawful associations. Legislation along this line was introduced as far back as 1922 and 1923. A somewhat similar bill was introduced by Mr. McMaster, then member for Brome, in 1925, and a bill for the repeal of this section was introduced by the government in 1926, 1928, 1929 and 1930, and on all occasions passed this house. In 1929 it failed to pass the Senate by only three votes.
When we first introduced this bill some years ago it was said that the matter was a dead letter and would never be used. However, at the present time there are some eight men in Kingston penitentiary, serving sentences because of the violation of this legislation. I may say that so startling is the extent, so radical the character of this legislation that these men, guilty of no overt act whatever-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: At this stage it is not
permissible to argue the bill, but merely to

explain its provisions briefly. Discussion of the merits may take place upon the motion for the second reading.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I took occasion to read carefully the rules, and I think there is no prohibition whatever of an explanation of this bill at this stage.
_ Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):	The
Speaker has ruled that there is.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All the hon. member is
permitted to do at this time is to explain the provisions of the bill. I think that has been done. The merits can be discussed on the second reading. If the hon. member is ready, I will put the motion for the first reading.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit there is
nothing whatever in the rules to prevent me speaking at this time on the bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have already ruled on
the question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I must appeal against your ruling. I submit Your Honour is under obligation to point out the rule that prevents me speaking at this time. I did so last year. After careful consultation


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In rule 38 will be found
the motions that are debatable. The motion which the hon. member now introduces is not included among those, and is therefore not debatable.
Also I refer to rule 71:
When any bill is presented by a member, in pursuance of an order of the house, or is brought from the Senate, the question "that this bill now be read a first time," shall be decided 'without amendment or debate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit it is not debate if I explain my bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member was talking about people who are now in the penitentiary because of the provisions of the criminal code, which has nothing to do with explanation of the bill he seeks to introduce. I must ask the hon. member to conform to the rules and usages of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to do so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member knows quite well he is not trying to do so and is not doing so. He has explained what the bill now before the house is about, and I am prepared to put the first reading of the bill, not to listen to a debate.

Deportations


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, you said that I know I am not conforming to the rules of the house. I say that is not true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call the hon. member to order. I have no desire to impede his legislation or cut off debate, but unless the standing orders of the house are conformed to, no business can be transacted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For the moment I am on a point of order. You said, Mr. Speaker, that I knew I was not conforming to the rules of debate. That is not true.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is quite apparent, the Speaker having read the rule to the hon. member and he having a complete understanding of English, must know he is out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is merely the Speaker's opinion.


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


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am trying to explain-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member wish the motion put for first reading?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to explain
the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have had a sufficient
explanation. Is the house ready for the question?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25 to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Thomas Reid: The object of this bill is to
limit the hours of duty of guards in penitentiaries to eight hours a day, and to fix the same limit for hours of labour by the convicts.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilfred Hanbury: Before the orders of the day are
proceeded with I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) as to whether the government contemplates introducing legislation at this session further to restrict the possession of firearms.


Hugh Guthrie: The question of such an amendment
to the criminal code is under consideration. That is all I can say to the hon. member.



DEPORTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter Heenan: I am sure we are all glad to see
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) back in his place looking so well. I was wondering if his attention had been directed to the question I brought forward with respect to some proposed deportations and, if so, if the hon. gentleman is in a position to give any statement to the house at this time.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the question
directed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) was drawn to my attention, and I have had an opportunity to go into the records in connection with the cases referred to. I may say that I doubt the wisdom of spreading upon the public records the details of (these deportation cases. One reason, among others, for this feeling, is that these unfortunate people have relatives, and I do not think it is desirable to advertise their misfortunes. Nevertheless I am going to answer the question of the hon. member.
The first case, that of a man known as Tom Kirbride, whose correct name I think is Joseph Kirbride, falls within section 40 of the Immigration Act, which reads:
Whenever any person, other than a Canadian citizen or person having Canadian domicile, shall be found an inmate of or connected with the management of a house of prostitution or practising prostitution, or who shall receive, share in, or derive benefit from any part of the earnings of any prostitute or who manages or is employed by, in, or in connection with any house of prostitution or music or dance halt or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather, or who in any "way assists any prostitute or protects or promises to protect from arrest any prostitute or who shall import or attempt to import any person for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, or Who has been convicted of a criminal offence in Canada or who admits the commission prior to landing or entry to Canada, of a crime involving moral turpitude, or has become a professional beggar or a public charge or practises polygamy, or has become an inmate of a penitentiary, gaol, reformatory, prison, asylum or hospital for the

Executives in Branch Plants
insane or the mentally deficient, or an inmate of a public charitable institution, or enters or remains in Canada contrary to any provision of this aot, it shall be the duty . . .
and so on. As I have said, this case falls within this section; the Man was tried in our courts and convicted of one of the offences set out in this section. A court of inquiry sat on the case under the Immigration Act; an appeal was entered and I ordered his return-I think properly-to the country of origin.
The next case is that of a man by the name of J. Waldon. A careful search of the records of the department has not disclosed that any such person is under observation.
The next case is that of John Harris and family, who were ordered deported by a board of inquiry after having become public charges. I reviewed this case. The board of inquiry was quite within its rights in ordering the return of these people to their country of origin. But after carefully going into the question, on January 13 last I decided that in this case it would be proper not to invoke the order of deportation. I think probably the family will become established here.
The other case is that of Fred Booth. This case is still under investigation by the officials of the department, and as yet I have not been called upon to pass on the question of whether or not this alien should be returned to his country of origin.



EXECUTIVES IN BRANCH PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Malcolm: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), who is also the acting Minister of Immigration, whether it is the intention of the government to allow United States industrial concerns having branches in Canada to dismiss Canadian executives and replace them with American executives brought from their plants in the United States.
I am asking this question because I have received information, which I have reason to believe is true, that General Motors of Canada and some other United States concerns have dismissed practically all their division heads who were Canadian citizens, and have replaced these men with executives from United States plants. Some time ago I spoke to the minister privately with regard to this matter, and I trust that he is in a position to answer this question to-day.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can assure the hon. member that nothing is further from the mind of this

government than to permit such a practice as has been suggested. There are occasions when it becomes necessary in the ordinary course of business practice to permit the entry of persons skilled in particular trades or activities. Since I have been acting as Minister of Immigration I have endeavoured at all times to seek the best possible sources of information when applications come to the department with regard to the entry of persons who are said to be necessary to the carrying on of a business. On many occasions, as hon. members opposite know, I have referred to members of this house, and under my hand I have a list of persons whose entry into Canada has been recommended by members on both sides of the house. I do not know that it would serve any useful purpose to read these names, but I would be very glad to show the list to any hon. member who might desire to see it. I think I have a right to rely, as I do with confidence, on any recommendations that may be made by any member of this house with respect to matters of this kind. I have rarely found that any member has been careless in his advocacy of the admission of a very necessary skilled man in the carrying on of the industrial life of this country, and I hope it will continue so. But I can assure the hon. member that at no time would the government countenance the dismissal of the Canadian heads of industry, even in a minor capacity, to be replaced by someone from a foreign country. The subject is an intricate one. It is most difficult for one completely to encompass the complexities of all industries in this country, but I can assure the house that my officials and myself will take every possible action towards preserving to the Canadian workman and to the Canadian heads of departments in industry the position which is rightfully theirs.



WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
Oa the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government will submit to this house the agenda of the World Economic conference, which I think has been released outside Canada.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I have not yet received any official
agenda that has been agreed upon. When it is received it will be laid before the house if the house is in session.

Questions



SHIPMENTS OF GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Joseph Garland: Has
the government received yet any definite information from the government of Great Britain as to what rules, regulations, orders and so forth must be complied with by shippers of Canadian grain to take advantage of the British preference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government has received no
further regulations than those which were placed upon Hansard during the discussions upon the agreements. There has been no change in the statute law of Great Britain. The Imports Act still is as it was when the agreements were signed, and the statute provides-and the agreement follows the statute -that grain must originate in Canada and be consigned from Canada to the United Kingdom, to receive the benefit of the preference. As regards the shipments that have gone forward from New York, the first one was not satisfactory from the standpoint of the identity of the grain. The second one, while satisfying the authorities as to identity, was not consigned direct from Canada but was consigned from Canada to another country, and some weeks later was reconsigned from that country to Great Britain, and therefore did not come within the provisions of the Imports Act.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about later shipments?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the one I have just mentioned.



WHEAT MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) :	On Friday, February 3, I
directed a question to the Prime Minister in regard to the establishment of a national wheat marketing board. The Prime Minister replied that there had been no consideration given in an international way to any domestic policy of this nature. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether his government has given any national consideration to this question. If so, will he make a statement to parliament and the country.
Richard Bedford Bennett: No consideration has been given to
the matter at this particular time nor at any other time. It will be within the memory of
hon. members that in 1930, and I think in the previous year or years, efforts were made to induce the government to establish a national wheat board. Those efforts did not succeed; they have not yet succeeded.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
*Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Has the government of Canada had any correspondence with the government of Newfoundland with respect to the return of Labrador to the province of Quebec?
2.	Tf so. is the government in a position to reveal such correspondence and the result of such negotiations?
Richard Bedford Bennett: This question I should
like to answer orally because there is another matter in connection with it which was referred to on a previous occasion, and to which I desire to make passing reference. I can only say that the government received a photostat copy of a letter purporting to be addressed by the Secretary of State, the Hon. J. C. Pud-dester, of the government of Newfoundland, to Joseph deChamplain, Esq., Newfoundland Hotel, St. John's Newfoundland, under date October 13, 1932, and a letter dated November 16, 1932, signed by F. C. Alderdice, premier, addressed to Mr. deChamplain. The first letter reads:
Dear Sir:	.
Your letter of the 12th instant, concerning sale of Newfoundland-Labrador to the Dominion of Canada, was brought to the notice of the executive government at the meeting last evening, and in reply I am to say that the government will consider any concrete proposal that you may bring to them during the next sixty days.
Yours sincerely,
J. C. Puddester,
Secretary of State.
The second letter, dated November 16, is as follows:
Dear Sir:
Answering your letter of the 15th instant.
If the government of the Dominion of Canada is prepared to open negotiations for the purchase of Labrador, I shall be pleased to place any proposition in this connection before my colleagues.
Yours sincerely,
F. C. Alderdice
In that regard it will be recalled that on January 30 the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) asked me a question as to whether or not any proposals had been made looking towards the political union of
Questions

Newfoundland with Canada. The question was asked without notice and I answered:
... no correspondence of any kind. Last fall, after a conference took place here, I think a personal letter was written to me by the Prime Minister of Newfoundland stating that if the matter were to be considered, ample opportunity would be afforded for discussion, something of that sort.
I think the words I used were, not "a conference" but "the conference," referring to the Imperial conference, because there was no other conference between us. I have looked carefully into the subject and I find that my memory was correct when I said that there was no communication of any kind, official or unofficial, between the premier of Newfoundland and myself, or any member of the government, with reference to the union of that dominion and Canada. The only communications were those touching Labrador, in the form of photostat copies of letters addressed by Newfoundland ministers to Mr. deCham-plain.


TOTAL BONDED DEBT OF CANADA
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What is the total bonded debt burden of the Dominion of Canada including federal, provincial and municipal authorities and corporations?
2.	Of the above amount, how much is due
during the present year:	(a) in the United
States; (b) in Canada; (c) in England?
3.	Of the federal government's direct obligations, how much is payable (totals and percentages) :	(a) in Canadian funds; (b) in
U.S.A. funds; (c) in sterling?
4.	Of the federal government's guaranteed obligations how much is payable (totals and percentages): (a) in Canadian funds; (b) in U.S.A. funds; (c) in sterling?
5. Of the provincial government's direct obligations how much is payable (totals and percentages): (a) in Canadian funds; (b) in U.S.A. funds; (c) in sterling?
6. Of the provincial government's (guaranteed) funds, how much is payable (totals and percentages): (a) in Canadian funds; (b) in_U.S.A. funds; (c) in sterling?
7.	What is the total interest payable on
Canadian bonds in 1933:	(a) in Canadian
funds; (b) in U.S.A. funds; (c) in sterling?
8.	Of the total federal government's direct and guaranteed obligations for 1933, how much is for principal and how much for interest?


Mr. RHODES:: 1,	2, 5, 6 and 7. Not of official record.
3.	(a) $2,013,201,570 ; 74-13 per cent; (b) $391,040,900; 14-40 per cent; (c) $311,668,137; 11-47 per cent.
4.	(a) $63,492,000 ; 6-36 per cent; (b) $620,035,000 ; 62-18 per cent; (c) $313,788,000 ; 31-46 per cent.
8. Dominion debt: principal, $279,971,850; interest, $132,804,100.
Dominion Guaranteed debt: principal, $2,376,552.86; interest, $45,125,064.12.
[Mr. Bennett.!


Richard Bedford Bennett: As regards this question, the government cannot assume responsibility for the correctness of figures except with respect to the Dominion of Canada, because provincial, municipal and corporate borrowings are not registered with the dominion in any sense, and the government can but rely on information that is equally available to the hon. gentleman who asks the question.


GOLD PURCHASES
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How much gold did the Dominion government buy from the province of Ontario during the last fiscal year?
2.	How much did they pay per ounce for this gold?
3.	How much gold did they buy from the other provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will observe that this question is duly answered in the form in which it appears by saying, "none." What the hon. member probably means is the gold produced in the province of Ontario because no gold was purchased from that province, it not being a seller of gold.
Question stands.


ADVANCES TO SOLDIER SETTLERS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What is the total sum of money to date for all advances made to soldier settlers including land purchase, removal of incumbrance, permanent improvements, purchase of stock and equipment, seed and feed, breaking, food and other supplies?
2.	What is the total amount of principal, and the total amount of interest (separate items) repaid by soldier settlers to date?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	$117,670,711.02.
2.	Principal, $33,305,517.61; interest, $15,859,400.17.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many officers are there at present in the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	How many of these officers are above the age limit as set forth by regulations?
3.	How many officers were released from the Royal Canadian Air Force on April 1, 1932?
4.	How many of the non-permanent officers released have been reengaged and granted permanent commission ?
5.	How	many	of	the	above officers	thus
reengaged are returned men?
6.	How	many	of	the	above officers	thus
reengaged are married men?
7.	How many hours' flying have been carried out at Camp Borden from April 1, 1932, to January 1, 1933?

Questions


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	103.
2.	The age limit prescribed for the Royal Canadian Air Force is subject to certain exceptions. Six (6) officers are above the nominal age limit, but- on this account are not ineligible for continued employment.
3.	78.
4.	5.
5.	None.
6.	None.
7.	1,399 hours 40 minutes.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Peter Heenan: What is the total amount paid out since the beginning of the unemployment relief measures in 1930 to date for:	(1) public works; (2)
direct relief, in the following places: city of Toronto, Ontario; city of Winnipeg, Manitoba; city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; city of Port Arthur, Ontario; city of Fort William, Ontario; town of Kenora, Ontario; town of Fort Frances, Ontario; town of Sioux Lookout, Ontario; town of Dryden, Ontario?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1	2
Department of Labour:	Public works	Direct reliefCity of Toronto	.. $ 876,517 42	$1,144,027 83. City of Sault Ste. Marie	.. 31,693 12	44,386 83City of Port Arthur	.. 50,000 00	56,768 -77City of Fort William	.. 107,450 00	55,868 52Town of Kenora	.. 18,956 86	3,328 21Town of Fort Frances	.. 33,771 60	6,058 95Town of Sioux Lookout	.. 4,874 50	21,972 65Town of Dryden	.. 877 20	187 81City of Winnipeg	.. 1,215,745 65	1,802,389 58The above are Dominion contributions	to supplement expenditures of the provinces and	municipalities.	Department of Public Works:	1	2Toronto	.. $ 28,428 74	NilSault Ste. Marie	.. 3,018 28	NilPort Arthur	.. 101.024 05	NilKenora	.. 2,030 83	Nil2.	What was the total amount paid by the government to producers by way of premium in 1932?3.	What is the total amount of the monetary gold stocks in Canada at present and how distributed?4.	What is the total amount in value of goldexported to the United States since the passing of the order in council, October 19,	1931
(giving dates)?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	$63,155,925 (preliminary figure).
2.	$7,705,600.36.
3.
Monetary gold in hands of government, December 31, 1932..	$73,044,414
Monetary gold in hands of banks,
December 31,	1932:	current
gold and subsidiary coin,
$37,975,585; deposit in central
gold reserves, $11,081,732; total. $49,057,317


GOLD PRODUCTION
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How much gold was produced in Canada during the years 1930-31-32?
2.	What amount of money did the government pay in premiums to gold producers during the same years?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Oz. $
1930.. 		2,102,068 43,453,601
1931		2,693,892 55,687,688
1932* 		3,055,168 63,155,925
* Preliminary	figures.
2.	$
1930		.... Nil
1931			 2,005,424 70
1932			 7,705,660 36


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1. Whait was the total gold production of Canada during 1932?
Questions

4.
Canada's exports of gold to the United States since passing of order in council of October 19, 1931
Months	Gold bearing quartz, dust, nuggets and bullion obtained direct from mining operations	Gold bullion, n.o.p.	Gold coin	Canadian produce	Foreign produce	Canadian produce	Foreign produce	Canadian produce	Foreign produce1931 November	$ 245,078 398,608 313,829 194,356 260,443 149,301 255,245 301,713 384,582 440,879 447,186 449,007 285,353 443,835 192,166	$	$ 1,997,771 6,521,648 2.017.647 5,216,820 5,037,591 4,013,947 5,019,857 5,599,556 3,763,703 4.019.647 5,369,199	$	$	$ 2,740,443 112,162 1,900,000 2,000,000 2,017,401 2,001,600.December	1932 Januarv	February	March	April	5C0	May	June	4,520	23July	August	September	October	November	3,522,244 7,028,822 5,255,945	705,667December	1933 January	Total	4,761,581	64,384,397	4,520	500	11,477,296
Recapitulation
Exports of gold from Canada to the United States, Nov. 1, 1931, to Jan. 31, 1933
Canadian produce	 sag 14a 47a
Foreign produce	 Ill48li816
Total exports	 80,628,294
Figures not available for part month from October 19, 1931 to October 31, 1931.


CAMPBELLTON POST OFFICE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who were the applicants for the position of postmaster of Campbellton post office, New Brunswick?
2.	What were the ratings given by the Civil Sendee Commission to these various candidates ?
3.	Has an appointment been made, and if not, why?
4.	Who is presently in charge of that post office:


Mr. CAHAN:: 1 and 2. It is not considered in the interest of the candidates to give publicity to the ratings given to the candidates. All information asked by these queries will be tabled shortly as an order of the house passed on 6th instant asking for similar information in regard to the position of postmaster at Campbellton, N. B..
3.	Yes, by the Civil Service Commission.
4.	Alphonse C. Belleisle.


TWELVE MILE LIMIT
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the twelve mile limit in the St. Lawrence river been changed since August 1, 1932?
2.	If so, when, at -whose request, why and on what authority was that change made?
3.	What is at present the twelve mile limit in the St. Lawrence river?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	There is no twelve mile limit in the St. Lawrence river.
2.	Answered by No. 1
3.	Answered by No. 1.


MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY AT WASHINGTON
Mr. DENIS:: 1.	On what date was W. D. Herridge appointed Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington?

Questions
2.	When did he assume the duties of his office?
3.	What period of time has he spent in Washington and what period in Ottawa since assuming such duties?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Mr. Herridge's appointment as Canadian minister at Washington was approved by His Majesty on the 15th April, 1931.
2. He assumed office on the 1st June, 1931.
3. No statistical record is kept of Mr. Herridge's movements between Ottawa and Washington but his presence in Ottawa, save when on vacation leave, has been on business arising out of the duties of his office.


LUMBER AND SALMON EXPORTS TO GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How much lumber, B.M. feet, was shipped from Canada to Great Britain in 1930-31-32?
2.	What was the value in dollars and cents of the same for these years?
3.	How much salmon was shipped from British Columbia to Great Britain in 193031-32?
4.	What was the value in dollars and cents of the same for these years?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	and 2. Canada's domestic exports of planks and boards and square timber to the United Kingdom for the calendar years 1930, 1931 and 1932, were:-
Classification	Calendar years.
Planks and boards-
1930	1931	1932Birch..	..Mft.	33,882	25,717	39,500$	1,143,108	773,982	1,021,565Cedar..	..Mft.	226	89	137$	12,484	5,183	4,967Douglas	fir..	. .Mlft.	521,926	48,533	76,410$	1,116,628	830.517	1,116,755Hemlock	. Mft.	2,251	277	470$	46,554	7,430	8,022Maple..	..Mft.	3,481	2,490	2,901$	271,366	178,998	169,439Pine. ..	..Mft	21,224	17,442	10,130S	1,291,213	1,032,126	470,938Spruce..	.Mft.	63.150	16.178	41,997S	1,667,522	368,087	712,443Other..	. .Mft.	156	1,312	917$	9,848	28,578	26,510Total	Planks	and..	..Mft.	177.296	112,038	172.462boards.	.. .$	5,558,723	3,224,901	3,530,639Timber,	Square-	Douglas	fir.. .	. .Mft.	14,170	18,219	20,832$	303,969	284,359	310,273Hardwood Mft.	1,514	1,210	1.285$	120,813	63,521	85,970White	pine.. ..Mft.	1.071	692	592S.	93,007	76,561	59,860Other timber	square ..Mft.	4	....	....S	225	....Total Timber	square ..Mft.	16,759	20,121	22,709$	518,014	424,441	456,103
3 and 4. Canada's domestic exports of salmon via British Columbia to the United Kingdom for the years ended March 31, 1930, 1931 and 1932, were:-
Classification Salmon, fresh- Years ended March	31	Cwt.	$1930	8,655	122,0371931	12,495	161,5921932	
Salmon, pickled- Years ended March	31	10,427	111,2671930	736	20,5021931	283	6,1861932	
Salmon, canned- Years ended March	31	566	9,8261930	90,797	1,856,9591931	144,603	3,115,9221932	
Total SalmonYears ended March	31	204,338	3,642,2501930	100,188	1,999,4981931	157,381	3,283,7001932	215,331	3,763,343


BEAUHARNOIS, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Who is the present postmaster of the town of Beauharnois, county of Beauharnois?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Is he appointed in a temporary or permanent capacity?
4.	Whom did he replace?
5.	Was the person whom he replaced dismissed ?
6.	If so: (a) upon what grounds; (b) upon whose request; (c) when was the dismissal requested?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Miss Laurence Laberge (Acting).
2.	21st December, 1932.
3.	Temporary.
4.	J. N. Laberge.
5.	No, he resigned.
6.	See answer to No. 5.
Questions


ST-LOUIS DE GONZAGUE, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at St-Louis de Gonzague, county of Beauharnods ?
2.	How long has the present incumbent been in office?
3.	Who appointed him?
4.	Who recommended him?
5.	Where was he residing at the time of his appointment, and for how long did he reside in such locality?
6.	Whom did he replace?
7.	Had other persons applied for the position?
8.	Why was the present incumbent appointed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Roch Montpetit.
2.	Since 5th October, 1932.
3.	Postmaster General.
4.	Petition received bearing 12 signatures.
5.	No information.
6.	D. Guerin.
7.	M.me. Amanda Guerin, Mme. Louisa Primeau and Avila Leger.
8.	To fill vacancy caused by the death of the former postmaster.


ONION PPODUCTION
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many acres of onions were grown in Canada during the year 1932?
2.	What was the total production in 1932?
3.	What amount of onions was imported into Canada in calendar years 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932?
4.	From what countries?
5.	How many onions were exported from Canada in 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932?
0.	To what countries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 1 and 2. No statistics available as to the number of acres of onions grown in Canada or the quantity of onions produced for the year 1932. According to the 1931 census the number of acres of onions grown in 1930 and 1931, a,nd the production of onions in 1930 were as under:
Number of Production
Years	acres	Bushels	$1930	
5,055	1,432,000	1,041,0001931	
6,419 (Not available)
3 and 4. Canada's imports of onions by countries entered for consumption, for the calendar years 1928 to 1932, inclusive, were:
Calendar years
Imports from	1928	1929	1930United Kingdom.S	74,543	S 76,205	S 25,725United States.. ..	294.641	306,120	207,470Australia	18,477	22,881	_Belgium	-	-	419Bermuda	7,947	6,543	14,334British West In-	dies, Other.. ..	7,584	2,391	-Chile	-	1,100	-Egypt	. 151,772	104,141	56,942France	. 71	-	-Hong Kong.. .	. -	-	-Italy	. 2,670	331	275Japan	. 11,925	8,187	5,006Netherlands. .. .	. 40,899	24,269	11,111Newfoundland. .	. -	13	4New Zealand.. .	. 25,274	33,480	5,353Spain	. 120,363	78,943	117,997Total	. 756,166	664,604	444,636Calendar years	Imports from	1931	1932	S	Lbs.	$United Kingdom.	20,670	796,161	18,808United States...	236,790	3,249,973	85,318Australia	736	212,212	4,447Belgium	-	-	-Bermuda	
British West In-	4,088	1,565,978	34,075dies, Other. .	1,049	10,833	478Chile	-	820,813	17,632Egypt	54,959	5,635,824	127,938France	-	-	-Hong Kong....	-	500	17Italy	-	174,090	3,717Japan	6,918	474,200	7,306Netherlands. . . .	3,490	-	-Newfoundland. .	-	-	-New Zealand...	-	620,794	15,710Spain	85,096	3,730,424	60,414Total	413,796 :	17,291,802	375,860
Note.-Imports of onions into Canada were entered at value only prior to 1932.
5 and 6. Canada's domestic exports of onions by countries for the calendar years 1928 to
1932, inclusive,	were:	Calendar years	Exports to-	1928	1929	1930United States.	. .Bush.	40	3,899	676$	110	7,176	940Alaska	-	-	-S	-	-	-Bermuda.. ..	. .Bush.	1,178	1,900	2,652S	2,014	3,795	3,717Br. Guiana. ..	. .Bush.	-	-	-$	-	-	-Br. Honduras.	. .Bush.	-	85	460$ Br. West Indies-	-	115	418Barbados. ..	. .Bush.	-	-	-$	-	-	-Jamaica	120	-	3,295Trinidad and	S	210	-	1,997Tobago.. ..	. .Bush.	90	33	10S	150	34	7
Questions
		Calendar years		
Exports to-	1928	1929	1930Other	79	49	121S	149	105	225China	.Bush.	-	-	-$	-	-	-Cuba	-	-	-$	-	-	-French East	Indies	-	52	-$	-	67	-Hong Kong.. .	.Bush.	395	114	-S	390	150	-Mexico	.Bush.	-	-	-$	-	-	-Newfoundland .	. Bush.	1,226	1,845	2,621S	2,623	3,425	3,477Oceania-	Fiji	717	1,790	960$	1,457	1,930	1,169New Zealand.	.Bush.	10,533	18,141	17,480$	13,366	23,680	17,321Other	.Bush.	-	-	28$	-	-	25Philippines. . . .	-	-	-$	-	-	-St. Pierre and	Miquelon... .	.Bush.	534	837	1,362$	950	1,648	1,860Total	.Bush.	14,912	28,745	29,665$	21,419	42,125	31,156Calendar years	Exports to-	1931	1932United States..	.. . .Bush.	352	137,655$	449	127,124Alaska	.. ..Bush.	2	-S	13	-Bermuda	.. . .Bush.	3,404	4,060$	3,273	4,450British Guiana..	.. ..Bush.	150	4,950$	134	2,857British Honduras.. ..Bush.	506	1,611$	188	810British West Indies-	Barbados.. ..	.. . .Bush.	5,130	12,702$	2,336	5,632Jamaica.. ..	.. ..Bush.	6,160	6,504$	3,169	5,588Trinidad and	Tobago.. ..	2,845	8,979$	1,078	3,492Other	382	1,703$	667	2,056China	1,600	-$	1,340	-Cuba	.. . .Bush.	5,900	500$	1,528	200French East Indies.	.Bush.	-	-$	-	-Hong Kong	3,650	240S	1,704	70Mexico	.Bush.	-	480$	-	384Newfoundland	.Bush.	6,654	9,304Ooeania-[DOT]	$	4,749	6,907Fiji	.Bush.	580	206$	567	174New Zealand.. ..	. Bush.	7,620	70,791S	7,730	60.812Other	-	-$	-	-Philippines	.Bush.	200	1,250St. Pierre and	$	143	1,265Miquelon	.Bush.	1,165	828$	1,307	975Total	46,300	261,763$	30,375	222,796


TOBACCO PRODUCTION
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What amount of tobacco, raw leaf, was imported into Canada from the United States for the calendar year 1932?
2.	How much tobacco was grown in Canada in 1932?
3.	What was the consumption of tobacco in Canada in 1932?
4.	What amount of tobacco, raw leaf, was exported from Canada for the calendar year 1932?
5.	What amount of tobacco was exported from Canada for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Canada's imports of raw leaf tobacco from the United States entered for consumption for the calendar year 1932 were: quantity-9,708.304 pounds, valued at $2,525,262.
2.	Canada's production of raw leaf tobacco for the year 1932 was 52,450,000 pounds.
3.	Canada's consumption of raw leaf tobacco for the calendar year 1932 was approximately
as under:
1932	Pounds
Production in Canada	 52,450,000
Imports into Canada	 10,262,000
Total raw leaf tobacco available
for consumption	 62,712,000
Exports from Canada (domestic and foreign)	 11,198,000
Total approximate consumption of raw leaf tobacco in Canada. 51,514,000


IIEVI5ED EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
4.	Canada's domestic exports of raw leaf tobacco for the calendar year 1932 were:
Classification	Pounds	S
Raw leaf tobacco-
Burley	
2,511,016	409,742Bright, flue-cured.	..	7,922,129	2,604,727Dark, air and firecured	728,163	153,851Other raw leaf tobacco	34,137	9,444
amendments thereto. Also agreements for public works and undertakings carried out under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, provided that "fair and reasonable rates of wages shall be paid by the province and municipalities but such rates shall not be in excess of the rates required to be paid by the federal government for the character or class of work in the district."
Total exports.. .. 11,195,445	3,177,764
5. Canada's total domestic exports of tobacco of all kinds for the years ended March 31, 1927 to 1932, inclusive, were:
Fiscal	Unmanufactured	Manufactured	Years	Pounds	$	Pounds	$1927. ..	6,330,972	2,569,300	765,659	157,0471928. .	6,079,606	2,215,916	673,711	86,6851929. ..	6,583,676	1,954,482	543,915	53,4661930. ..	6,811,391	1,504,264	562,231	39,7111931. ..	6,051,319	1,505,594	841,186	67,5111932. ..	8,222,922	2,536,998	935,519	84,242

Mr. LAURIN:: 1.	Under the terms of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, was farm relief intended only for the western provinces?
2.	Have provinces other than the western provinces applied for farm relief under the terms of the said act?
3.	If so, what provinces?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to 2.


MINIMUM WAGE SCALE
Mr. LAURIN:: 1.	Did the federal government enact regulations under the terms of the unemployment relief acts of 1930 and 1931 with respect to a minimum wage scale?
2.	Were the federal government and the provincial governments parties to any agreements in that regard?
3.	If so, what was the minimum wage agreed upon in each province?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 1,	2 and 3. All agreements made with provincial or municipal authorities under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, involving expenditures for public works or undertakings, contain provisions for the payment of fair wages and regulating hours of work in accordance with the intent of The Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act, 1930, and the fair wages policy of the government of Canada as set forth in order in council P.C. 1206, dated June 7, 1922, and


BACK TO LAND MOVEMENT-PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. LAURIN:: At December 31. 1932, what amount was paid out of the dominion treasury in each province, respecting the return to the land
movement ?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Prince Edward Island.. ..	Nil
Nova Scotia	 Nil
New Brunswick	 Nil
Quebec	 Nil
Ontario	 Nil
Manitoba	$15,334 18
Saskatchewan	 12,750 19
Alberta	 Nil
British Columbia	 Nil


ST-MICHEL DE LAVAL QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	Has post office No. 76, St-Miohel de Laval, been abolished?
2.	If so, when and on what grounds?
3.	What employee was in charge of said post
office?
4.	What salary did he receive?
5.	Were any complaints made against him?
6.	If so, by whom?
7.	Was an inquiry held in this case?
8.	If so. upon whose request, and who conducted such inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	7th December, 1932, following financial irregularities and on account of limited revenue.
3.	Arthur Archambault.
4.	$60 per annum.
5.	6, 7 and 8. A petition for change in postmastership bearing 97 signatures was received in July, 1931. Departmental action was taken in connection with periodical inspections by officials of the Montreal post office, which disclosed financial shortages and unsatisfactory management.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BOND INTEREST
George Gibson Coote: What was the total amount of interest paid on Canadian National Railway bonds during each of the years 1920 to 1932 inclusive?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Robert James Manion: 1920		$ 31,055,318
1921		 34,476,014
1922		 34,652,324
1923		 35,041,380
1924		 38,361,704
1925		 40,438.235
1926		 39,197,233
1927		 40.526,096
1928		 41,810,880
1929		 45,503,980
1930		 51,316,121
1931		 55,587,145
1932		 *57,061,000

* (Estimated)


REDUCED EXCISE ON CIGARETTES
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	On what date did the reduced excise on cigarettes become effective?
2.	What was the consumption of cigarettes in Canada for the calendar year 1932-each month ?
3.	How much was collected in excise on cigarettes for the calendar year 1932-each month?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Note:-Sales tax and special excise tax not available as statistics are not maintained for each commodity.


RADIO COMMISSION-STATEMENTS
Pierre-François Casgrain: Are the statements issued by the Radio Commission at Ottawa published in French?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question cannot be answered because of its indefiniteness. If the hon. gentleman will amend his question to particularize just what information is asked for, it will be answered.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	Has the government sold any ships formerly used by the Canadian merchant marine?
2.	It so:	(a) what ships have been sold;
(b) what was the sale price agreed upon for the various vessels sold?
3.	Has Japan purchased any of these ships?
4.	Have any negotiations taken place in regards to the disposal of vessels belonging to the Canadian National Railways?
5.	If so, is it the intention of the government to dispose of any of the said boats?



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-APPOINTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	How many appointments did the Civil Service Commission make, in the province of Quebec, since July 2S, 1930?
2.	To what positions were these appointments made?
3.	What are the names of the appointees?


George Gibson Coote: For a return showing: (a) the total amount of gold exported from Canada since September 21, 1931; lb) the names of the various persons, corporations or banks by whom the export was made; (c) the amount and date of export in each case; (d) the different amounts of gold purchased by the government since September 21, 1931; (e) the names of the parties from whom purchase was made; (f) the date of purchase and the rate of premium paid in each case; (g) the names of various persons, corporations or banks to whom gold was sold, the date of sale, and tile price or premium received by the government in each case.
Motions lor Papers



LOUISDALE, N.S., WHARF

William Duff: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence accounts, vouchers, payrolls, and other documents, showing all expenditures, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act or otherwise, for a new wharf at Louisdale, Nova Scotia.



PORT MALCOLM, N.S., WHARF

William Duff: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence accounts, vouchers, payrolls, and other documents, showing all expenditures, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act or otherwise. for a new wharf at Port Malcolm, Nova Scotia.



LOWER ARDOISE, N.S., BREAKWATER WHARF

William Duff: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence accounts, vouchers, payrolls, and other documents, showing all expenditures, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act or otherwise, for a breakwater wharf at Lower Ardoise, Nova Scotia.



ROCKDALE, N.S., BREAKWATER EXTENSION

William Duff: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence accounts, vouchers, payrolls, and other documents, showing all expenditures, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act or otherwise, for a breakwater extension at Rockdale, Nova Scotia?



GREEN ISLAND LIGHTKEEPER

William Duff: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, and other documents, regarding the appointment of one Amede Boudreau to the keepership of the light station at Green island, Nova Scotia, with all papers in connection with the said appointment, including advertisement, application forms, reports, etc., from the Civil Service Commission.
For a copy of all correspondence, including telegrams, letters and other	documents,
exchanged between -the Minister of Marine or any member of the government and any person or persons in Nova Scotia regarding the dismissal of Harry T. Boudreau, a returned soldier, from the position of lightkeeper at Green Island, Nova Scotia;
Also any documents on file regarding an investigation into the conduct of the said Harry T. Boudreau by William Noblett, a commissioner appointed for that purpose.



DOMINION NOTES-NON-PAYMENT OF GOLD

George Gibson Coote: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other orders issued to the assistant receivers general since September 21, 1931, instructing them no-t to pay out gold for Dominion notes on presentation.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSLV

John Vallance: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between any members or officials of the federal government and G. G. Serkau or any other person or persons in connection with the proposed exchange of Canadian cattle for Russian goods.



LAC VERT, SASK., POSTMASTER

Mr. TOTZKE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Lae Vert, Saskatchewan.



PETITE RIVIERE, N.S., BREAKWATER

William Duff: For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams, and other documents, as well as payrolls and other accounts, showing the expenditure on the breakwater at Petite Riviere, Nova Scotia, during the years 19311932.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA-EXCHANGE OF CATTLE AND OTHER COMMODITIES FOR PETROLEUM AND OIL

Henry Elvins Spencer: For a copy of all correspondence between any member of the government and any other member of the government, and between any member of the government and Mr. G. G. Serkau or any of his associates in connection with the proposal to exchange Canadian cattle and hides for Russian commodities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, so far as
its relevant portion is concerned, this motion is covered by No. 13, moved for by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). Communications between members of the government are considered as privileged.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, I submit that this motion is not covered by No. 13 except to a degree only. No. 13 goes much farther than does this motion, it asks for all correspondence, telegrams, letters and so on, which would include innumerable resolutions and expressions of personal opinion which are not asked for under this motion. Hon. members in this comer of the chamber are anxious to secure this information as early as possible, and with that end in view this motion has been limited to government documents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We do not pass -two
resolutions dealing with the same subject matter in the same sitting of the house. As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) points out, if No. 13 is taken literally it will mean the copying of every telegram and letter which anyone felt like sending

Fruit Act-Mr. Deslauriers
from any part of Canada. However, as I have pointed out, this resolution cannot be complied with because it asks for privileged communications. Correspondence between any member of the government and any other member of the government cannot be obtained by an order of the house.
Mr.	SPENCER:	May	I ask that this
motion be amended according to the suggestion of the Prime Minister?
Mr.	SPEAKER:	The	two resolutions
could be combined as it would appear that No. 13 will give the information required.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think-
Mr.	SPEAKER:	This	resolution is notdebatable and the	hon.	member neither moved nor seconded it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the government is willing to accept the amended motion.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I want to get this return as early as possible. This motion asks for less than does No. 13, and that is the reason I included it upon the order paper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion will stand
Motion stands.



THE FRUIT ACT


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's) (Translation) moved:: Whereas progress and science compel fruit and vegetable growers to use poisonous substances called "insecticides" in order to protect their products;
And whereas these chemical agents are not wholly affected by weather conditions and remain on these products, especially on fruit, and this fruit is largely consumed in its natural state;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this ho-use, legislation designed to protect the consumers should be enacted.
Mr. iSpeaker, the terms of one of the clauses of the Imperial economic conference agreements suggested to me the moving of this resolution. May I, however, state that I do not intend, in the course of this debate, to discuss the merit of this treaty from all angles, but simply from the standpoint of hygiene and trade.
At the outset of the session, parliament ratified a trade convention with Great Britain by which the latter grants us a preference of $1 per barrel of apples exported to her markets. To our producers and to many among us this treaty seemed advantageous. However, owing to tariff changes on chemical
fertilizers and various agents used by fruit and vegetable growers to protect their trees and plants, and because these same fruit and vegetable growers are now at the mercy of the notorious trust of chemical fertilizers, known as the Imperial Chemical Corporation, of London, whose ramifications extend throughout the world, to Holland, Baltimore and the U.S. under the name of Dupont de Nemours Ltd.; in Canada, to Hamilton,. Beloeil and Halifax, under the name Canadian Industries, I must consign to the future the care of determining whether it will be to our advantage or not; these considerations, however, are outside of my subject.
From a sanitary viewpoint, Great Britain will not permit Canadian fruit to reach its markets, unless Canada exports a strictly graded and sound fruit, in keeping with the regulations of the country, and, moreover, conforms to the international margin allowed; that is, the proportion of insecticide spray on the peels of apples should not be more than 0-01 grain per pound of fruit, therefore, the fruit should be treated, which requires further outlay for machinery, neutralizing equipment, labour and additional hands.
Being a member of the medical profession and representing a population entirely composed of consumers; moreover having some knowledge of the physiological action of toxic substances used, such as insecticides, a poison which partly adheres to fruit, notwithstanding atmospheric agencies, I am bound to recognize the soundness of England's legislation against the possible dangerous effects which the trade of untreated fruit, consumed in its natural state would give rise. I therefore, deem it my duty, wholly in the public interest, to submit, to-day, this question to Parliament.
All are aware that in the course of a season fruit growers must often spray their trees and fruit to guard against the ravages wrought by insects. The standard preparation which is universally used is a solution of lead arsenic. Sometimes a solution of copper cyanide is resorted to but only occasionally. These poisons adhere to the leaves of the trees and fruit but gradually or partially disappear under the action of wind and rain. Further spraying is resorted to and science even advises the spraying of trees and fruit sometimes previous to the picking.
We find in the 1903 reports of the Bureau of Researches, at Washington, at its Agricultural Experimental Station, that a commission of experts was appointed to investigate the quantity of poison remaining from the spraying of orchards by arsenical lead. The
Fruit Act-Mr. Deslauriers

result gave 1 gramme, 420 milligrammes of A203-of arsenical trioxyde-per kilogram after the fruit was picked. Later, in. 1914, following numerous trials, these experts stated in their reports that the quantity of toxic substance found in the residue of the fruit sprayed varied and is entirely controlled by the weather.
In 1925, under Great Britain's threat of placing an embargo on United States fruit the Department of Foods and Drugs, at Washington and the State of Indiana, amended their legislation to facilitate the fruit trade, and agreed to conform with the requirements of the international margin allowance, which restricts the deposit of arsenical trioxyde to not more than 0-01 grain per pound of fruit exported. In their reports, for the same year, these experts state that the deposit resulting from spraying is far more dangerous, if precipitation is slight, and spraying has been more frequent.
Those interested in this question will find in the Agricultural Journal, of Victoria, Australia, December number of 1931, that Great Britain made representation to the Australian government because their apples showed visible traces of arsenical lead, and owing to this, the Australian apple growers sustained considerable losses, as a result of a too imperfect cleansing of their fruit.
In the same report, the United States experts advise the producers not to use oil in their insecticide solution, because the cleansing of fruit is too difficult with this ingredient; they deny the contentions of those who state that the quantity of poison found in the spraying deposits is too small to be a danger to health, and categorically assert that arsenic is small doses, absorbed during a certain period, and especially in combination with a lead salt, is very deleterious.
The physiological action of arsenic in small doses produces no violent effect; its action on the organism is imperceptibly slow and insidious; its accumulation is easy and elimination difficult. It is with .much precaution that this drug is used' in therapeutics against certain diseases, owing to its dangerous action, because, when the symptoms of poisoning appear, the life of the patient is in danger.
The formula of this world wide insecticide, consists in 2 pounds of arsenical lead per 100 gals, of water. In the course of a season the fruit grower performs a number of sprayings and each one leaves a deposit which keeps on accumulating. The quantity of toxic substance deposited on the fruit cannot possibly be uniform because during a dry season the quantity will be greater. In the

Maritime Provinces, where rain is more frequent, the quantity would be less, while in British Columbia where rain is less frequent, the quantity would be greater. Fruit on the lower limbs of trees, subject to more spray, and less exposed to rain and wind than the upper limbs will retain more of these toxic substances, and when analysed, will be more open to criticism. There is no doubt that the public consuming fruit uncleansed and in its natural state, such as grapes from the Niagara district, runs serious dangers. Legislation enacted by those countries, which I mentioned, and their continuous researches, analyses, reports and the opinions of experts on the toxical deposits from the spraying of fruit trees, make it a question of the utmost importance.
Notwithstanding the restrictions of other countries, under our present system, each year, in summer and especially in the autumn season, millions of tons of fruit are shipped to our large centres and delivered to our homes; each day, we see on our streets, honest vendors unwittingly selling fruit bearing traces of poison; we witness children, so fond of fruit, innocently playing about with poison in their hands. When the medical profession tells us new diseases are spreading, the origin of which is unknown, such, for instance, as infantile paralysis; when they admit the greater frequency of sudden deaths, irrespective of age; when certain cases of illness develop under new forms, I state that it be1-hooves the authorities to seriously look into everything affecting human life.
There is no legislation covering our domestic trade of fruit. One wonders to what door must we knock to obtain the required reforms so as to keep pace with science. Must we address ourselves to the Department of Agriculture or that of Health? The question is unsettled. We have no research bureau as other countries have, in this respect. It is time to follow the lead of Great Britain, the United States and other countries and enact up-to-date legislation, bearing in mind that human capital is the most precious asset we possess.
From the viewpoint of trade, the cleansing of fruit, especially of our apples, is a condition, a strict regulation which must be adhered' to in our exports to Great Britain, if we wish to take advantage of the preference of $1.00 per barrel of apples.
There exists in England an act governing the trade on fruit with a view to protect the consumer; the act prohibits-subject to prosecution-the sale on British soil of fruit which by analysis indicates the presence of

Fruit Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
more than 0-01 grain of arsenic or toxic substance; that is what is known as the international margin allowance. Australia and Nova Scotia have had a bitter experience, in the past, of this legislation.
Apart from this, there are regulations governing the grading of apples as to uniformity and quality, this requires more labour and hands. However, the process necessitated in cleaning the fruit gives rise to a serious problem. Indeed, this process, the only one recommended, consists in washing the apples in a solution of i, 1, 2 per cent of hydrochloric acid during a few minutes, with the addition of sodium chloride either heated or not. These various operations require the use of special machinery, receptacles and neutralizing agents, this means so much more outlay, not mentioning the time and further hands required, before ever benefiting from the SI preference per barrel of apples. Moreover, the Canadian apple grower must compete with the world prices on the English market.
There exists no substitute to arsenical lead as an insecticide approved by experts. Sometimes a certain quantity of oil is added to this solution; however this is not advised as the cleansing is more difficult. The dry cleansing, although making the fruit more attractive, requires much time, is little effective, as it removes but 30 per cent of toxic substance, leaving a deposit greater than allowed by the international margin, and can only be applied to certain fruits, and, therefore, not practical owing to its limited effectiveness. The only practical method is that of washing the fruit, which is a more economic process as to time and results, and has been adopted in all countries where fruit is grown on a large scale such as in the United States, but especially, in Australia.
The outlay mentioned will naturally increase the cost of production considerably. I, therefore, cannot see how our fruit growers can compete with the world prices, when they have to face this further outlay, unless our governments cooperate generously by grants, thus helping them to hold the British market and benefit by it.
I had the opportunity of visiting many districts where fruit is grown, and nowhere did I notice the necessary installations in connection with the cleansing of fruit to meet export requirements.
It is quite clear that an extensive campaign of education among the people must be undertaken, so as to profitably carry out this system of cleansing by washing, which varies according to the peel being more or
less thick, and, so as to also teach them the proper time to pick the fruit and do their cleansing immediately before the storing of the fruit, in order to avoid the formation of wax which decreases the permeability of the deposit resulting from spraying, and, therefore, makes the cleansing more difficult.
The fruit growers absolutely require encouragement, otherwise they may be tempted to curtail their spraying, especially just previous to the picking of the fruit, as a means of economizing, saving time and dispensing with the cleansing; they will thus expose their fruit to the ravages of maggots and, in the end, they will nevertheless be forced to clean the fruit, after having sustained losses.
It is quite evident that Canadian fruit will only be sought on the English markets on condition it is uniform, of superior quality and well cleansed. Such a condition can only be realized by utilizing the process mentioned which naturally increases the cost of production, and, by a campaign of education which may be successful if the interested provinces lend their hearty cooperation by exhibitions, lectures, and publications.
At all events, I think that the question deserves the attention of parliament, and I trust that the government will find it possible to introduce the necessary legislation both in the interest of public health and Canadian trade.


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, legislation dealing with the subject matter of this resolution already exists in the Agricultural Pests Control Act, 1927, under the provisions of which insecticides must be registered with the Department of Agriculture in order that these poisons may be checked for compliance with the guarantees and standards of quality, samples being taken and analyzed. The insecticides are analyzed chemically and tried out in the entomological branch for effectiveness. Doctor Macoun, Dominion horticulturist, states that there has never come to his knowledge any case of poisoning in connection with the use of these sprays and that horticulturists feel these sprays are essential if our fruit is to be harvested in the best possible form for market. In conclusion he says:
It would seem, from all past experience, that further legislation in Canada designed to protect the consumers of fruit is quite unnecessary.
In addition a great deal of investigation ha3 been done with reference to the content of arsenical poison used in sprays in British Columbia where irrigation is used. It is felt that in eastern Canada and outside the
Fruit Act-Mr. Bennett

irrigation area the precipitation itself is sufficient to remove any danger from this use of arsenic sprays. The result of the investigation carried on by Doctor Shutt, Dominion chemist, is set out in the English Analyst, volume 51, 1926. This is his summary:
Summarizing the tabulated data, it will be seen that approximately one-half the samples were entirely free from arsenic, that roughly one-sixth showed traces of arsenic in amounts less than one ten-thousandth of a grain per pound, a negligible quantity, and that one-third contained arsenic in quantities ranging from one ten-thousandth to one one-hundred and ninetieth of a grain per pound. With the heaviest amount of arsenic found, namely one one-hundred and ninetieth of a grain per pound, it would require three pounds, or one dozen apples of average size, to supply the minimum medicinal dose of arsenic, and twelve pounds, or four dozen apples of average size, to supply the maximum medicinal dose.
The results of this inquiry furnish satisfactory evidence to the effect that a very large proportion of Canadian sprayed apples is entirely free from arsenic and that in those cases in which the presence of arsenic has been detected, the quantities are negligible.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The mover of the resolution (Mr. Deslauriers) has drawn attention to the importance of close supervision of insecticides or the various substances which are used to destroy insects on vegetables and fruit, and he asks that the consuming public be protected by legislative action from the danger of poisoning or injury from such substances.
I quite agree that it is important that there should be safeguarding legislation, but I would point out that safeguarding legislation exists at the present time. If members will turn to the Food and Drugs Act, they will find that paragraph (f) of section four provides:
Any fruit or vegetable dangerously contaminated with any poisonous substance, whether added with intent or not, must be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act.
Under this legislation there is in the Department of National Health a staff of chemists working, analyzing and investigating such specimens as come before them. There are something like twenty-seven health inspectors throughout the dominion, and when any such case of poisoning or even rumours of poisoning is brought to their attention the case is referred for investigation to the laboratories, existing not only in Ottawa but at four or five other points throughout the dominion. I have made inquiries in the department and I am informed that certainly within recent years no case, no report of a case, of poisoning has come within their observation. Repeated examinations have been

made during the past few years regarding celery, not so much the Canadian product, as the large amount of celery imported from the United States, and regarding which there were complaints some time ago. That has been under the observation of our chemists and the celery has been analyzed.
The same is true of apples. In the years 1925 and 1926 numerous observations were made regarding the presence of poisons on apples. At the present time, grapes and wine are being analyzed by the departmental chemists. So far as we can leam in the department, no reports have been made of poisoning within recent years or ill effects arising from these insecticides being used on vegetables and fruits. But should the occasion arise we have at present the legislative machinery and inspectors and chemists whose duty it is to analyze these products for the presence of injurious substances.
I do not gather what further protection the mover of this resolution would advocate, beyond perhaps a certain washing of fruits and vegetables, but as I understand from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), and indeed as we all know, many of these substances are, while not completely, at all events I think sufficiently removed by rain and weather conditions. I do not think that with our present knowledge there is any further step in a legislative way that can be taken for the protection of the public against these insecticides, and after hearing this explanation and what the procedure is, perhaps the mover may consent to withdraw his resolution, particularly in view of the fact that very little complaint is made regarding ill consequences from the use of these insecticides.


Thomas Reid: The proposal to protect the consumer is very commendable, but another point of view that has not been touched upon is the effect of poisonous sprays on the honey industry. Many of our citizens have gone in for keeping bees, and the honey industry has reached considerable proportions. Fruit blossoms open very early in the spring and the bee keepers are desirous that the bees should have full advantage of nectar from the blossoms. When the blossom is sprayed for protection against insects the bees, trying to obtain the nectar, are poisoned. Apiarists have had considerable losses through the apple sections of the country. This mortality in the hives should be given consideration, research should be made to find a way to obviate this loss to our bee keepers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is obvious that this motion asks,

Western Freight Rates-Mr. Perley
the house to declare for a principle already established by legislation. That being so, the government cannot accept it. Under the existing legislation effect can be given to the principle for which the hon. gentleman very properly contends. That being the case, I think the house will realize that the purpose will be served by the hon. gentleman withdrawing his motion, and if it is necessary to make any amendment to existing legislation to meet the condition he has outlined it would be the duty of the government to do so, and, as I think the minister has clearly indicated, that is what the government would do.


Hermas Deslauriers: Drop the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By consent, the hon.
member .withdraws his resolution.
Motion withdrawn.



WESTERN FREIGHT RATES


Ernest Edward Perley: That, in the opinion of this house, the domestic freight rate on grain, and grain products, moving from any point in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, to a point in any of the said provinces, or from any point, to another point, in any of the said provinces be adjusted, or reduced, by at least fifty per cent (50%) of the differential, as now exists, between domestic and export rates.
He said:	Speaking to a similar resolution
last year, I endeavoured to point out to the house the necessity of giving some consideration to the farmers of western Canada by way of reduction in domestic rates on grain. I will not go into the whole question to the extent we did last year, but I would suggest that there is an argument that has not yet been presented with respect to interprovincial shipments. I believe the debate last session proved beyond doubt that we have reached a time when this question should be given consideration. The house was informed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) on February first, and again on Thursday last, that he would within a few days make a statement or explanation with respect to a proposed reduction in rates that might amount to say, fifty per cent of the differential; it may be his proposal will effect the purpose of my resolution. Therefore I do not consider it necessary at this time to cover all the ground. However, I would like to refer to the appeal that was taken from the decision of the board of railway commissioners handed down in 1927,
which appeal has not yet been heard. Following the debate last year I think the western members were all of the opinion that that appeal stood in the way of any action being taken. They decided that they would, during the recess, make representations to their respective provincial governments to see that this appeal was heard. I myself interviewed the government of Saskatchewan and tried to impress upon them the importance of having such action taken. The fact that we did make representations to the provincial governments and that the argument last year was so conclusive, I think, caused this question to be brought before the interprovincial conference here last month and also the statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals last Thursday. How far they agreed on that occasion, or how far the minister will go in his statement to the house, I do not know; he may give effect to my whole resolution. That would be a splendid thing.
The second part of my resolution, which deals particularly with the shipment of grain from one point to another within a province, I think is very important. There is no doubt that in the very near future there will be a vast change in the system of agriculture in western Canada. We have from year to year a considerable carry over of grain. This has always been a problem, in its effect upon price especially during the last four or five years. Many suggestions have been put forward for the solution of the problem of how we should eliminate or decrease that surplus. One suggestion has been that the acreage sown to wheat in western Canada should be reduced. I do not favour a reduction of the gross acreage seeded to grain; rather I favour a switching from wheat to coarse grains. If in the near future the exchange difficulty, which at present somewhat hinders our trade with Great Britain, is corrected-and this may be done sooner than any of us think-then the farmers of western Canada will be only too anxious to change to a system of more diversified farming in order to develop that trade with Great Britain.
I would suggest that we advocate a reduction in wheat acreage, together with a change to the coarse grains. There are some
280.000	farmers in western Canada growing wheat. If each farmer would seed thirty acres less to wheat and put in coarse grains or fodder crops instead it is easy to see that there would be a reduction in wheat acreage of some
5.400.000	acres which, at fourteen bushels to the acre, in a normal year would mean about 76,000,000 bushels of wheat. I think this would materially assist in reducing the sur-
2034	COMMONS
Western Freight Rates-Mr. Perley
plus. This land would be seeded mainly to barley and oats, and if diversified farming were practised the farmers would require more pasture and more fodder crops for their cattle. If the farmers of the west intend to take advantage of the agreements passed by this house last November they will have to change their system of farming, and if they do that they will need these coarse grains to feed their cattle, their hogs, their dairy herds and their poultry. I should think, in addition, that the increasing demand will be found in the province of British Columbia; the farmers in the Fraser valley and other parts of that province will be only too anxious to take advantage of the trade agreements we recently adopted. So of necessity a great deal of grain will be shipped between different points in the prairie provinces in order to feed the stock, as I have outlined.
There is another point which might be developed in favour of interprovincial shipping. In the near future we may have a provincial milling industry, so to speak. I think the Department of Trade and Commerce would be well advised to endeavour to develop more trade with the orient in regard to flour. I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is doing everything possible to develop trade with foreign countries, but I think the flour milled in western Canada- which is the highest grade flour in the world -should be marketed in the Orient as a product of western Canada. At present the flour milled from our wheat is distributed through the orient by the millers of Japan, who do not produce the best grade of flour, so the people in the orient have not become accustomed to the kind of flour we produce in Canada. There are great possibilities in regard to trade in flour, and I think a milling industry should be built up within the provinces. If this were to happen it would be necessary to have a lower interprovincial rate covering the shipment of the by-products, the bran and shorts, in order to make them available to farmers feeding stock.
I think it is generally agreed that interprovincial rates are too high, but I do not wish to develop that point just now. We all know the difficulties our railways find in carrying on at the present time; we know how they view any proposal with regard to the reduction of freight rates, but at the same time we must remember the difficulty with which the farmers of the west have been faced and the losses they have sustained in the last few years. They have put up a gallant fight against the greatest odds with which an agricultural people were ever faced, and they have carried on with courage and confidence. 
I believe that to-day the morale of the western farmer is just as good as, if not better than, it was a year ago, and he is prepared to go forward, showing the same initiative and feeling the same hope, confidence and courage with which the pioneers of the west laid the foundation for the agriculture of the present day. It is up to us to do everything we can to encourage our western farmers, and I think a reduction in the domestic rates would be extremely well received.
I do not wish to carry the argument further at this time, as I will have an opportunity to speak again before the debate is closed, but I do wish to suggest, that half a loaf is better than no bread. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Railways and Canals the other day I hope he may find it possible to support this resolution, so I will leave the argument at this point.


Mr. W. A. BEYNON (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) has made a statement with regard to this resolution, and in view of that fact I desire to move the adjournment of the debate.


Robert James Manion: I thought the hon. gentleman was going to speak to the resolution. Before the motion is put I should like to make just a short statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member pressing his motion for the adjournment of the debate?


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like a statement from the minister if possible.


William Addison Beynon: If the minister wishes to speak I will withdraw my motion.


Robert James Manion: In view of the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley)
I will have only a few words to say at this time, and those few words will be practically a repetition of what I said a few days ago with reference to a bill introduced by an hon. gentleman opposite.
At that time I pointed out that at the interprovincial conference there had been some discussion regarding this matter, and I said we had come to a compromise agreement which I thought at the time and still think, will be satisfactory to the western provinces. When I made the statement the proposal as outlined by the railways had not gone forward to the western provinces. The proposal was to have been put in writing and submitted to myself and I was to forward it to the four western provinces which were represented at the meeting held in my office

Western Freight Rates-Mr. Manion
dealing with the matter during the interprovincial conference, at which meeting there were the Minister of Agriculture for this government and the representatives of the provinces in question. Since that time the proposal of the railways has come to hand and about a week ago I sent it on to the provinces, and only on Saturday I received from the premier of one of them his acceptance on behalf of the province which perhaps is most concerned in the matter, although I do not know that one can specify any particular province as being more concerned than another.
The compromise arrangement was something along this line. The export rate was a little less than half of the domestic rate on grain going west to Vancouver. Take for example the rates from Edmonton and Calgary to Vancouver. The domestic rate was 41^ cents and the export rate only 20 cents, and it was an actual fact that grain could be sent to China more cheaply than it could be transported to Vancouver. It was an obvious ground for complaint from the standpoint of the west that such a condition of affairs should exist. A year or so ago, when the appeal against the decision of the board of railway commissioners first came before me and the other members of the government, I discussed the matter with the railways and suggested that they make a compromise proposal. At that time I did not succeed in getting them to make such a proposal. The matter remained in abeyance until this later meeting at the interprovincial conference, and the railways finally agreed to a proposal which every representative of the west agreed would be acceptable. That proposal was that the rate from Edmonton and Calgary, instead of being 20 cents for export and 41i cents for domestic, should be reduced on feed grains, that is, grain used for poultry and, I believe, cattle feed, to about 50 per cent, or a little more than 50 per cent in fact, of the differential, and that all other rates throughout the west on feed grain going west should be reduced in about the same ratio. That was the proposal they finally put forward to me and which I sent on to the west.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The new rate is 31 cents?


Robert James Manion: The proposal was that the rate on grain from Edmonton and Calgary instead of being 41i cents should be 30 cents per hundred pounds, which seemed a reasonable compromise.
The railways have pointed out continuously, and with truth, that the rates on grain in Canada are the lowest in the world for the
distance. They admit that the export rate westward is a good deal lower than the domestic rate, but that is the general attitude they took. They actually claim that the export rate does not give them an opportunity to make any money on grain exported.


Wilfred Hanbury: The eastern movement
is cheaper than the western.


Robert James Manion: I do not think that is
correct. The export rate from Vancouver is very low, and they claim that if there should be a change, instead of the domestic rate being lowered the export rate should be raised. Further, they pointed out that if one interferes with the general rate throughout the western provinces and applies their proposal throughout the whole of the western provinces to interprovincial movements of grain, it will so confuse the whole rate structure, which is already confused enough, that it will call for a complete rearrangement of that structure for the western section of Canada.
I do not know that I have anything further to say except that, as I have observed, one of the provinces has already wired me accepting the proposal and taking the attitude that it will be entirely satisfactory to that province. I have every reason to believe, from the opinions expressed by representatives of the other three provinces who were present, that these provinces will take exactly the same attitude as the one which has already replied to my communication. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman who has moved the resolution that, pending receipt of replies from the western provinces to the communication which I forwarded to them, he might withdraw his resolution after adequate discussion. I invite hon. members on both sides to continue the discussion ad libitum, but after the mover has taken advantage of his right to reply, I suggest that he might withdraw the motion, because both he and his seconder will have accomplished what they set out to do, namely, to bring before the house and the country the need of some change in the rates as they now exist. I entirely agree with their suggestions, as proven by the compromise arrangement to which I refer.
I will not take up more time but I trust that hon. members, while desiring to put on record their views in regard to the rate structure in the west, will bear in mind that the provinces of western Canada will in all likelihood accept the arrangement proposed by the railways.


Thomas Reid: It was not my intention to say very much at this stage because, as the house knows, I

Bank Act-Mr. Bennett
have a bill on freight rates which has received first reading; but there is another matter to be dealt with now, and it would clear the atmosphere so far as we in British Columbia are concerned. We have been seeking for the past few years for some reduction, and we should like to have the appeal disposed of which has been before the governor in council since the fall of 1930. I refer to the appeal with regard to rates on wheat, which was heard before the board of railway commissioners and, following their decision, taken to the governor in council. So long as that appeal remains undecided, no further appeal can be taken or heard by the board of railway commissioners.
The appeal which was taken to the board of railway commissioners had reference to rates on grain. British Columbia, in 1931, appeared before the board with an amended appeal, asking that a reduction in freight rates be given on coarse grains or cheaper grains, and they were told that no appeal respecting grain, either No. 1 wheat or coarse grain or grain of any kind for that matter, could be heard so long as that appeal was before the governor in council.
This matter is quite important and I should like to hear from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways what is likely to become of it. Personally I should be glad to see it disposed of. If the 50 per cent reduction materializes, it will no doubt be accepted. Indeed, anything is acceptable; half a loaf is better than no bread. While we are all glad to have the 50 per cent, it does not mean that we are satisfied, but every one of us will be pleased with the reduction if it goes into effect. I have been allowing my bill to stand waiting for a full statement from the Minister of Railways, and I think that something should be said regarding the disposition of the appeal which has been before the governor in council since the fall of 1930. As long as this appeal is not disposed of it precludes us in British Columbia from going before the board of railway commissioners with an amended appeal asking for a reduction in the rates on coarse grains.


Robert James Manion: I think I can answer the hon. member's question with one sentence. The other day he asked a question about this matter and I replied that as soon as we knew the reply of the western provinces, the appeal would be disposed of.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move the adjournment of the debate, provided that no other hon. member wishes to speak.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BANK ACT


William Irvine: That, in the opinion of this house, the banking and commerce committee should be instructed to study the Bank Act preparatory to its decennial revision and that the committee be instructed to consider the Bank Act in relation to the monetary requirements of the dominion, and in particular to report to this house on (a) the advisability of final departure from the gold basis; (b) the issuing dominion notes sufficient to depreciate our dollar to the level of the pound sterling; and (e) on ways and means of reducing the internal debt so greatly increased by deflation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, part of this motion has
been considered already by this house. 0n a point of order, sir, I think it will be within your memory that when the motion was made to consider the Imperial trade agreements a similar point was taken up and upon an analysis of the record I think it will be found that the proposals then put forward were similar to the subject matter of this motion. The house has voted upon the advisability of final departure from the gold basis, the issuing of dominion notes sufficient to depreciate our dollar to the level of the pound sterling and on ways and means of reducing the internal debt so greatly increased by deflation. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) will remember that he voted for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) which provided that there should be a deflation of the dollar to the level of the pound. The records of the house will show that the discussion upon these last three points was very general and very extensive indeed. The speeches were interesting even although in many instances they were entirely beside the point. I submit that this motion must necessarily involve a very limited discussion.
I have no desire to limit the hon. member in making a motion, which we are not prepared to accept, that a committee of the house be instructed to do certain work, but I think his motion should be recast in order that the will of the house should be expressed with respect to the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order;
I suggest that the resolution is entirely (Efferent from the subject matter of the discussion which was held previously in this house. I recall the amendment moved by the hon.

Bank Act-Mr. Mackenzie
member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and I agree with the Prime Minister that it embraced, in principle, certain matters contained in the resolution now moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. The hon. member now asks the house that the banking and commerce committee should be instructed to study the Bank Act preparatory to its revision next year, this study to be made along the lines of certain economic proposals given in the resolution. I suggest that the discussion held in this house upon the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod was an entirely different matter from asking this house to refer the whole question to the banking and commerce committee for discussion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I shall take this matter under advisement. I shall have to compare the amendment with the resolution now before the house. In the meantime, I suggest that the debate might proceed.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, every ten years this parliament is given the opportunity to revise and improve the Bank Act and to decide whether or not the charters of the banks shall be continued for another decade. It is safe to say that since the present Bank Act was originally drafted there never has been so much public interest centered in its revision as at the present time. During the last decade in particular the importance of credit in its relation to the economic life of the state has advanced to the very forefront of world thought. The war turned the spotlight upon the financial institutions of the world, not only because of the vast increases in debt which followed but because the nations which were financially improverished in 1914 suddenly found sufficient money to carry on the most expensive undertaking of all history. It was found that the masses of the people were much better off, economically speaking, during the four years of war despite the wholesale destruction of life and wealth than they were during the peace which followed and had preceded the war. It was noted that when the war was over and men returned to peaceful avocations even though the production of the various nations was vastly increased the economic position of the masses of the people was worse than it was during the great conflict. The inquisitive mind naturally began to ask how it was that the nations which could not find money with which to provide food and clothing for their people in January of 1914 found the money with which to engage in war in the fall of that year and to pursue that war upon a scale
more gigantic, more destructive and more costly than any war in preceding history.
May I digress for a moment at this point to emphasize the fact that some hon. members still argue that the destructive character of the great war is responsible in a large part for the present depression, and may I refer in particular to the statement of the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury). The hon. member claimed that the war was the cause of the present depression. Those who listened to the hon. member and those who have read his speech will recall that he mentioned three causes for the present depression. The first was the great war, the second, over-production, and the third tariffs. The hon. member absolves the economic system from any culpability with regard to the present situation but he unwittingly placed a burden of the blame upon his own party. The point I wish to draw to the attention of the house is that while the hon. member tried to make out that the war was the cause of the present depression, in the same breath he stated that we were suffering from over-production. Surely, if the war had been the cause we would have had under-production, people would have been in want because goods were not being produced. But how, then, could he argue, since over-production had resulted, that the war was in any way responsible? The war did not destroy money; it destroyed goods which were made and paid for by the use of national credit during the war and therefore could not be a cause of the present depression. The interest of Canadians in financial questions was aroused by the inquiry instituted in 1923 by this parliament. The resolution which at that time marked the extent of the reference to the committee of inquiry was not taken seriously by the house; indeed, it was regarded as a joke by some, but even at that time it was not so regarded by the people of Canada.
May I summarize just as briefly as possible my argument on that occasion. It will be found on Hansard of February 22, 1923, at page 626. I argued at that time that there was insufficient financial credit to effect the distribution of goods produced in Canada; that such insufficiency of financial credit was inevitable under the financial policy so unquestionably followed by the banks and also because we were producing under a profit system; that these combined agents brought about a condition under which sufficient purchasing power was not distributed during the process of production to buy the output within a given time; that it was folly and madness to limit the issuance of financial credit to the amount of gold which we had
Bank Act-Mr. Irvine

or might obtain, since gold discovered or undiscovered bears no sensible relationship to either the producing or the consuming capacity of the nation; that the national credit, which is the nation's power to produce and deliver the goods as, when and where required, was, if properly used, adequate to distribute the national production; that the national credit was monopolized by a few individuals who operate for personal gain and who are not responsible to anyone but themselves for the financial policy which they put into effect; that the policy of private bankers is wrong because it is based on gold, because it treats money as a commodity and thus prevents money from functioning as a means of exchange and because the whole system is a debt creating one and therefore points to an inevitable collapse; that at leasrt the financial policy, if not the actual operation of banks, should be controlled by the government, instead of the government being controlled by the bankers' policy, and that the continuation of a bankers' policy would be disastrous.
All the arguments of that time, ten years ago, were ignored by the administration. Evidence of men like Major Douglas of London, England, Professor Irving Fisher of the United States, Mr. Neal East and Mr. Bevington of Alberta and others was quietly buried in the archives of parliament. The government of that day, like others since, decided to take the advice of the bankers. This, in my opinion, is like a judge, before pronouncing judgment, deciding to take the advice of the accused. What hardship, what unnecessary suffering and sacrifice the Canadian people would have been saved had the government taken the warnings and advice which were given to the committee that investigated this subject in 1923, and in particular the warning and advice of Major Douglas of England. May I refer to the evidence at page 443 and quote just one or two sentences which appear in the closing remarks of Major Douglas before the committee. This is taken from the journals of the House of Commons in 1923. He said:
My own object in coming here is to make clear that I personaly am convinced that if you go along the lines that you are following at present, and if you continue along these lines for any considerable period of time-I am not going to tie myself down to date-but for my own part, and I think my opinion is being shared bv an increasing number of people -I am perfectly certain you are heading for the most terrific disaster that the mind of man can conceive.
That was ten years ago and we are much nearer the predicted disaster than we were then. Indeed, as an hon. member has sug-

gested, we are in that position at the present moment. Major Douglas made that prophecy, if I might call it such, after he had presented to the committee elaborate data indicating the entire inadequacy of the financial system, followed by both this country and Great Britain, to meet the industrial and economic needs of the times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman read his evidence before ithe Macmillan committee?


William Irvine: I have read the evidence
before the Macmillan committee of the gentleman to whom reference has been made; I have read the Macmillan report, and I think it would be wise if parliament should decide to have a commission something like the Macmillan one investigate this subject and report to the house before the Bank Act is finally revised.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is that professor a minor
or a major prophet?


William Irvine: I shall not enter into the
whimsies of my hon. friend. May I refer to the illustration given by Major Douglas and the evidence which has been mentioned. I refer to this because it will, perhaps, present clearly and succinctly what is at least one of the financial difficulties in Canada to-day. On page 464 of his evidence he likens money and its function to a railroad with the ticket system limited to the passenger capacity of the railway. He goes on to point out that if one or more people were to secure a privilege to deal in railway tickets, that is to say, to try to get four or five railway tickets in exchange for two or three, there would likely come a time when you would find passengers waiting for an opportunity to go on the train, with empty seats in it, and yet no tickets to permit those would-be passengers to go aboard the train. That is an excellent analogy of the present economic situation in Canada where we have an abundance of goods and a great consuming capacity among the people and y&t we have not the ticket system, if you like, the money system to enable the people to acquire the goods that they desire so much to use.
I do not on this occasion desire to advocate the Douglas or any other system; I am not going to put forth the merits of any particular proposal of financial reform. The time to do that will be when parliament becomes convinced that the present financial system is wrong and when it deliberately sets itself to the task of devising and inaugurating a better one. My object to-day is to have a

Bank Act-Mr. Irvine
committee of the house investigate the whole use of credit in relation to present economic conditions and to report its findings prior to the extension for another ten years of bank charters.
What if the bankers' advice should after all be wrong?
Hon. gentlemen of this house who still are convinced that the bankers' advice is right, "I beseech them," in the language quoted by the hon. member for East Edmonton, "in the bowels of Christ to conceive it as possible that they may be deceived;" and if they are deceived and the bankers' advice is wrong, we are just about to place in the hands of the bankers for another ten years a charter to carry this country on a wrong course for that period of time. Who will take the responsibility for that? Surely we ought to be absolutely certain that the policies of the bankers of Canada are right and that there be no mistake in our judgment in this regard.
I submit, sir, that it is positively dangerous for any government to follow the advice of bankers. Emerson, writing of the secret conclaves in which the Dean and Prebends of the cathedral communed with the Holy Ghost as to whom to appoint to the vacant bishoprics, said that invariably the dictates of the Holy Ghost coincided with the recommendations of the queen. Similarly the policy of sound money coincides with the wishes of the bankers of this and other countries. But the advice of bankers throughout the world has been wrong so invariably that we can no longer have confidence in it. Internationally we have as examples of misinformation and bad advice by bankers the Dawes plan, followed by the Young plan. Again, bankers journeyed all the way from Great Britain to Australia to put that country on the wrong track. Australia, however, decided to follow the advice of the British bankers just a little way, and then discovered that it would be disastrous to follow their advice completely, and so they diverged from it slightly, and to the extent only of that divergence Australia profited from the advice of the British bankers.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?


William Irvine: No, I refuse to be questioned at the present moment.
We have also the statement of the Right Hon. David Lloyd George in the House of Commons in Great Britain on February 12, 1931, when he was warning the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that- right hon. gentleman who has since been called the Iron Chancellor, but who might more appropriately have been designated by some softer material, that he
should not be afraid of the bankers. Mr. Lloyd George concluded by saying of the bankers, "They have been wrong every time."
Then we come to the tragic acceptance by the present Prime Minister of Great Britain of the advice of the bankers in that country. I believe that history will show that that was the major mistake made by that right hon. gentleman. Even before the election precipitated to secure popular sanction for the bankers' policy was over, the policies of the bankers in Great Britain were proven to be in error.
This parliament, then, should be able to advise itself on questions of credit and to dictate policies to the bankers, rather than have the bankers dictate policies to us. The investigation which I request by the resolution now before the house will tend to increase our knowledge of the subject and remove us from the necessity of having to accept the erroneous information of interested parties who are desirous of maintaining the present banking system largely for personal reasons. The resolution specifies that we should investigate the whole monetary system with a view to seeing to it that the monetary requirements of the Dominion shall be safeguarded. I want to make just one comment on that, Mr. Speaker. Between September, 1928, and September, 1932, there was a great depletion of credit in circulation in Canada. Very often we hear hon. members of this house saying that there is just as much money in Canada to-day as there ever was, and that therefore for us to argue that we are short of money bespeaks great ignorance. But let me point out to the house that in the period mentioned, from September, 1928, to September, 1932, there was a reduction of 8584,000,000 in loans by our banks and a reduction in deposits of $362,000,000, which makes a total reduction for the period of $946,000,000 in circulation in the Dominion of Canada. There is no provision in the Bank Act, so far as I can recall, by which the bankers of this country can be compelled to maintain a definite relationship between the credit in circulation and the volume of goods on the market to be purchased by the people of this country, and those are the important factors for us to keep in mind in dealing with any monetary policy.
In the next place, the resolution suggests that we ought to investigate the advisability of departing from the gold basis. Now I know that we are not on the gold basis, but we seem to have an unfortunate hankering after it, and to wish to keep as close to a theoretical gold basis as possible. In doing so I believe that we are being misled. In this
Bank Act-Mr. Irvine

connection let me quote a resolution which came before the House of Lords on December 15 last. The resolution moved by Lord Mel-chett read as follows:
That, since under modern scientific conditions productive capacity is unlimited, and since the existence of indigence and unemployment throughout a large portion of the population demonstrates the fact that the present monetary system is obsolete and a hindrance to the efficient production and distribution of goods, in the opinion of this house the government should bring forward immediate proposals for the economic reforms necessary to enable the subjects of this realm to enjoy the benefits to which their present productive capacity entitles them.
In. discussing the resolution Lord Melchett argued that the gold standard had been abandoned and would never be returned to, and further he prophesied that there was no hope of finding any way out through the proposed World Economic conference. May I also note in passing that while the resolution discussed in the House of Lords demanded that the government should immediately inaugurate a financial policy that would be calculated to distribute to the British public the advantages of the productive system which they had achieved, the resolution which is now before this parliament merely asks that we should investigate with a view to finding out whether it would be advisable to have such a policy. The resolution which was presented to the House of Lords was defeated by only four votes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the vote?


William Irvine: I am sorry that I cannot
give the right hon. gentleman the actual figures, and I do not know that it matters. Even if there were only eight members present, the fact remains that the resolution was defeated by four votes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Lord Melchett wanted to
replace the gold standard by watered stock of Nickel.


William Irvine: If you cannot keep the hon. gentleman quiet otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to name him or get him out of the chamber. He is a bother to me.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member before interrupting should ask for permission to put a question.


Jean-François Pouliot: When I asked for permission he refused.


William Irvine: Surely any hon. gentleman has a right to refuse to answer a question. I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend, but I am trying to present a case which is not so easy to present as my hon.
(Mr. Irvine.]
friend may imagine, and when he interrupts in the middle of a sentence it is difficult to answer him.
The House of Lords defeated by only four votes a resolution more drastic than this. Might it not be expected, in this parliament, which no doubt imagines itself far in advance of the House of Lords in modern thought, that a resolution to investigate would be willingly accepted?
Thirty-two countries of the world, I believe, have already abandoned the gold standard. Although I am not going to argue it now, I believe that by adhering as closely as possible to the gold standard we have suffered disadvantage, at any rate the subject is a matter worthy of investigation. We are not all as convinced, as the government is, that it is wise to stay as close to the gold standard as we are. The government may be right, I am willing to admit the possibility that I may be wrong, but I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that the government give us the opportunity to investigate.
The resolution suggests also that we investigate the advisability of bringing our dollar to a par with the pound sterling. I am not blind to the tremendous difficulties which from, the beginning of its term the administration has had to face in dealing with our relationships and obligations to other countries. Again I say that I am not entirely sure that the government is right, and surely it is a question for investigation.
In this connection the Financial Times of December 30 last presents a table showing Canadian bonds falling due in 1933, federal, provincial and municipal, amounting to $603,406,000 and corporation bonds amounting to $79,994,000, making a grand total of $683,400,000. These are payable as follows: in United States funds, $266,649,000; in Canadian funds, $378,108,000, and in British funds, $38,643,000. It will be seen from these figures that an alteration in the value of our dollar would be rather to our advantage, since we would be at a disadvantage only in respect to the $266,649,000 payable in United States funds, and would be at an advantage in respect to those payable in Canadian and British funds, not to speak of other factors which would have to be taken into consideration and which might give us an advantage. For instance, I cannot see why a reduction in the value of the Canadian dollar would not give us an advantage in the British market, making possible the benefits which the government tried to secure in their trade agreement with Great Britain. Depreciation of the dollar to par with the pound would also have the effect of increasing our trade with the United States

Bank Act-Mr. Reid
or other countries which might have their currencies on or near the gold basis. It is possible, of course, that the United States would immediately raise their tariff to prevent that; they might even place an embargo against our goods. But if nothing so drastic were done, Canada would be at a great advantage in export trade and thus be in a better position to meet her obligations in the United States in United States funds without losing the exchange at all.
One other thing I desire to emphasize. It is proposed to postpone the revision of the Bank Act for a year, a course of action which I think would be very wise, provided the government afford us opportunity to study the problem in the meantime. Indeed, I had intended to include in my resolution a proposal to defer the revision if it had not been mooted by the government. The revision of the Bank Act is a tremendous task, and it would be to the advantage of this house and the country if during the remaining months of the present session we had a committee, perhaps the standing committee, investigate the whole financial system, with all possible facts and data brought before it to guide it in dealing with these debatable points, the gold basis and the reduction of our dollar to a level with the pound. Thus the government and parliament would be enabled to reach a safe conclusion for proceeding next session with the revision of the Bank Act.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: On the point of order
raised with regard to the regularity of the motion, it seems to me that the paragraph lettered (b), and reading as follows-
The issuing of dominion notes sufficient to depreciate our dollar to the level of the pound sterling-
-has been fully dealt with already by an amendment moved -by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and seconded by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) on November 2, 1932, in these words:
-and subject also to establishment of parity of the Canadian dollar with the British pound.
At that time the same matter was discussed that is sought to be brought up now under different wording.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
discuss that point of order?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I believe the hon. member has already discussed the point of order. I would suggest that the words contained in paragraph (b) be deleted from the resolution, otherwise I shall have to find the whole resolution out of order.


William Irvine: I am sorry to do so, but I would ask the unanimous consent of the house to the withdrawal of that section. If it is in order I should like to carry on with the remainder of the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to say that the hon. gentleman had been so moderate in his statements and had not traversed the ground previously covered so well, that so far as I was concerned I had made up my mind that if this paragraph were deleted the debate in connection with the resolution might continue. So far as the government is concerned it is satisfied to let the debate continue, with the deletion of those words in regard to which the judgment of the house already has been sought.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does that meet with the
approval of the house? If so, it will be so dealt with.


Thomas Reid: 

Bank Act-Mr. Reid
the 'level of the British pound, but I am firmly convinced that it would 'have been greatly to the advantage of our trade if our dollar had been so deipreciated. I believe this should have been brought about some time ago, and I think we would have obtained a great advantage if this had been the case at the time the conference met in Ottawa. To-day there are some twenty-five or thirty countries which have adopted this course of depreciated currencies while only some five or six of the prominent nations have maintained what is understood as the gold standard or basis.
Australia and New Zealand have certainly strong convictions in this regard. I do not know how it was done, but they have depreciated their currency on a line with that of the -pound sterling and, as a matter of fact, have endeavoured to keep below the level of sterling. The argument has been brought forward that Canada is in a somewhat different position from those two countries in that we have borrowed so -much money in the United States. That might be true, but the fact remains that most countries have depreciated their currencies, and instead of a world scramble for gold now we have a world scramble for depreciated currencies, which have enabled these countries to overcome almost all tariffs which have been raised against them.
Consider the case of Japan, which has learned how to get her goods over high tariff walls. That country has issued paper currency with a silver coverage, and1 it may interest the house to know that to-day Japan is shipping considerable goods to the United States, as well as to Canada. I am going to mention only four or five articles to show how this has worked out. I believe Japan is landing rubber boots in the United States at 34 cents a pair; rugs at 6 cents each; grass rugs six by twelve at 92 cents, and last year Japan exported to the United States some 54,500,000 light globes. As everyone knows, Japan has depreciated her yen; to-day the seller can get almost five yen for a dollar. That represents a premium of about 135 per cent on each dollar's worth of goods sold in the United States or Canada. In my opinion Canada is and has been at a distinct disadvantage because of the fact that her dollar has remained tied up to the gold standard, and it is generally recognized now, I believe, that the Ottawa conference agreements are of little value so long as we remain on the gold standard. Whether or not it is done deliberately I believe that ultimately our dollar will be forced much lower than it is at the present time. I believe this will be the case and the quicker the better perhaps for our trade.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the first paragraph of this resolution and the one with which I wish to deal particularly, has to do with the advisability of finally departing from the gold basis. I differ somewhat from the mover of the resolution, who believes that we do not need any metallic substance, such ,as go-id or any other precious metal, as a base for our currency. I take the view that we need gold and that we need something else as well. I realize also that one school of thought believes that neither gold nor any other precious metal is required for currency, or even as a base for currency, and I am not overlooking the fact that to-day currency is not based entirely on bullion. In my opinion, however, we must have some unit of value. The process of individual barter is too tedious and too complex. It is true that -many years ago, in the days of primitive civilization, the barter method was followed, but it was not long until that method was discarded; as civilization developed and the wants of mankind increased, it was found necessary to have some unit with which to measure not only goods but services as well, and I do not believe anyone would seriously consider going back to the days of barter. It is universally agreed, I maintain, that we must have some token- or unit of value, some standard whereby we can measure our every-day exchanges or services. I admit that we can and do use paper as money to-day, but the majority of the people have the utmost confidence that behind all that paper there is something much more tangible. It is true that the confidence of the people themselves enables us to use this paper and to conduct our business transactions with paper in the form either of dominion or of bank notes or cheques, because of the inherent and fundamental belief that the paper issued is a real unit of value and can be readily exchanged. Since the beginning of civilization the token of value has been the precious metals, either gold or silver, or both. And there can be no better tangible unit or yardstick, and certainly none in which the peoples of the world have greater faith. Silver and gold are both precious metals; they are not base metals. They have been in use for centuries not only as tokens, like cheques or dollar bills, but as tokens plus something else, as coins having a material value, a commodity, if you like.
The gold or single standard which we are on to-day, and which is the monetary basis of the remaining six prominent nations, did not come about by mere accident. Up to the year 1861 Great Britain and other countries had been using silver as the token of value.

Bank Act-Mr. Reid
In 1860 she was using gold also, but in that year she went off gold entirely and adopted silver as the unit or token of value. Although she had gone off the gold standard, she still used silver, and I believe that the word sterling itself comes from the use of silver.
In 1873 Great Britain forced the United States off the gold standard, although the United States was then using silver as its unit of value and as its currency. It is interesting to know that after the lapse of some sixty years the United States, which was forced off the gold standard in 1873, now practically controls the gold supply of the world, with the result that almost all countries with the exception of perhaps six have now abandoned gold and adopted something else, we are not sure what. It may be goods or credit; I am not quite sure. At any rate, the gold standard was not brought about by accident but in my opinion by design. The bankers and financial manipulators recognized that with a single standard such as gold they sould better manipulate and control the financial affairs of the world for their own advantage. They felt that it would be to their advantage to have a single standard such as gold, and that in my opinion was one of the main reasons why leading nations went off bimetalism. The reason, in my opinion, was that manipulation could be more easily practised. Silver was deliberately demonetized in 1925, and we heard no cry in those days about interfering with the sacred rights of the people, although sixty per cent of the people of the world were almost ruined overnight. In 1925 Great Britain forced India, with a population of 800,000,000, to accept the gold standard. I have here a report of a meeting that took place in the city of Vancouver at which this statement was made on reliable authority regarding Great Britain and India:
India, the great repository of silver, was placed upon a gold bullion standard in 1926. Adoption of the gold standard left an amount of silver rupees to be disposed of variously ' estimated from 400.000,000 to 600,000,000 ounces. The law provided that this stock be sold within a period of ten years. From then until now, India has disposed of some 80-100 million ounces.
Thus a large surplus still over-shadows the silver market. India, in daily practice, remains a silver-using country, and her people find their personal fortunes measured in terms of silver in its ratio to gold, reduced by about one-half, and this fact alone is regarded by many as a contributing factor to the prevalent unrest.
Mexico has reverted to the silver standard, the silver peso now being the only legal tender, and so we find about one-half the population of the world are silver users, and think and trade in terms of silver.
53719-129^
The surplus silver thrown into the world's market in 1925 and 1926 practically impoverished 1,200,000,000 human beings. China, with her 400,000,000, and India with 800,000,000, had their purchasing power suddenly taken from them. This surplus salver thrown suddenly into the world market brought the price of silver down from around SI .25 an ounce to something like 32 cents, and so we witnessed a world scramble for gold. The only medium of exchange, Mr. Speaker, which 1,200,000,000 people had was taken from them over night, and that by direct and deliberate manipulation of the financial and banking interests of the world.
We have reached an impasse in our trade relations to-day. Tariff barriers have been raised by almost every country and goods and produce are at a standstill, so that they cannot move from one country to another. This is due in large measure to tariffs. Only a few countries, practically speaking only two, have gold, although we are supposed to be on a gold standard. We can neither exchange our goods nor obtain this one precious metal to pay for any goods we do buy. We see to-day the spectacle of the United States and France with practically two thirds of the world's gold supply lying idle in their vaults, while tariff barriers have been raised against any goods coming from other countries. These countries which have not the gold are denied the right of purchasing goods because they have no gold to pay for them.
There is only, roughly speaking, $11,000,009,000 worth of gold bullion in the world, two-thirds of which, as I say, is held by France and the United States, and now we have the other spectacle of a wild scramble with depreciated currency. The question then arises: What shall we do? That is the question before the nation to-day. If countries will not agree to lower their high tariff walls so as to allow the free interchange of goods and if nations cannot pay with the recognized unit or yardstick, which to-day is gold, what shall we do? My answer, and the one which I put forward for the consideration of the House, is this. Stabilize silver and go back to a bimetal standard, using both silver and gold as the unit of value or measure. This is not a new formula; it is not something new but something that has been advocated by many men before. I do not know whether it has been advocated in this house but I do know that it is not a new theory. The use of silver is as old as the hills themselves and it has always worked well. Even to-day over sixty per cent of the peoples of the world use silver
Bank Act-Mr. Reid.

as the one unit of value or measure stick for services.
Others refer to a managed currency based upon paper alone. That might work all right domestically where and so long as we have confidence in one another, but paper alone would not be acceptable as between nations, the majority of which still believe in precious metals which have not only an intrinsic but a commodity value as well. The stability of prices is a very desirable thing at the present time, and I would point out to the house that over a period of years, taking the wholesale price of 550 articles, silver has varied only some fifteen per cent, while in that time gold has varied or increased one hundred per cent. There is a very close relationship between silver and commodity prices. In 1919 wheat was selling at $2.56 per bushel and silver at $1.25 per ounce. We have never had a standard to compare with the silver standard, and I ask the house to compare the stability of silver with what has happened in the case of gold. In 1928 one ounce of gold would purchase seven or eight bushels of wheat; to-day that one ounce of gold will purchase sixty or seventy bushels. In 1928 one ounce of gold would purchase one ton of potatoes, while today the same ounce will purchase five tons. In 1928 one ounce of gold would purchase one hundred gallons of milk in the Fraser valley; to-day it will purchase over two hundred and twenty gallons. Let us also consider the gold standard in relation to labour. In 1928 one ounce of gold would purchase five days of labour at $4 per day; to-day that same ounce will purchase fourteen or fifteen days of labour at $1.50 per day, which is the average price for labour being paid in British Columbia.
There is a fear in the minds of some that silver would flood the world, but I claim that this would not be the case. I have obtained the figures showing the production of silver, and they show that since 1492 the total world ' production has been only fifteen billion ounces. If silver were worth one dollar per ounce today, which it is not, we would have only fifteen or sixteen billion dollars worth of silver. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, the production of this metal has not varied, and the surplus to-day is only some 250,000,000 ounces.
Fifteen or sixteen to one was the basis or ratio used in bimetalism. This ratio was based upon the production of the two metals, and the ratio of production has not changed during the past four hundred years. The production of gold and silver for the last five years likewise shows that the ratio of fifteen or sixteen to one of gold still maintains. Again, bimetalism *s not capable of indefinite expansion; whilst the supply of silver is plentiful it is IMr. Reid.]
not unlimited. At the present time twenty-five or thirty countries are off the gold standard, while six very important ones still remain. Those countries still on the gold standard cannot trade with the countries which are not, unless they inflate or depreciate their currency. I realize unlimited paper inflation is fraught with some difficulty. Paper as money would not be accepted by other countries. It has no barter or intrinsic value; it is not a commodity like silver or gold. The precious metals are much sought after in the orient and in India with its population of 800,000000. If we had either silver coinage or paper money with silver as a coverage basis, we would have a sound money. It would not be a fiat money; it would have a real commodity value. As I said, over sixty per cent of the world's people would be very glad to have all the silver coinage or bullion we could give them. Silver has a value as a precious metal; and, what is very important, the people have confidence in it. Many of us would not be adverse to having our pockets filled with silver coins or even to having a supply of silver at home. It is the bankers and the creditors who object when we speak of any inflation, either by paper or by silver. They consider it no crime to take two dollars now for every dollar of debt created a few years ago, but their cry is of holy horror when inflation or depreciated currency is mentioned.
The stabilizing of silver upon a currency basis would add to the basic wealth of oveT half the world's population. It would help those countries which were ruined when they were forced on to the single standard of gold. Many countries are forced to sell their goods upon a silver standard and buy back in terms of gold. In other words, we refuse to use the unit of value or the yardstick of over half the world's population and then by means of tariffs we refuse to admit the goods or products of those countries.
In my opinion -the stabilizing of silver at fifteen or sixteen to one would accomplish two very important -things. First, it would check the rise in the value of gold and so stop prices from going still lower. A few moments ago I gave a comparison of what one ounce of gold would purchase in 1928 as compared with what it would purchase in 1932 or 1933; this stoppage of the lowering of prices would certainly be a very desirable thing. The stabilizing of silver would also raise the purchasing power of 1.200.000,000 people, everyone a potential buyer of our products, if we would only let them. Are we going to sit and wait until our standard of living is forced down to the level of those

Bank Act-Mr. Reid
people or are we going to do something which will raise their purchasing power so that they will be able to purchase the goods which we have to sell and which they would like to have but cannot?
It is true that bimetalism might not solve all the world's problems, but it would be a real step in the right direction. We would be giving the people sound money, we would be giving them the kind of money which has been used since the days of Christ. Silver money has always worked' well for the people but not for the manipulators and financiers.
I have no great faith in the statements of prime ministers or premiers who tell us that we cannot do this or we cannot do that in case something fearful might take place. In 1929 Ramsay MacDonald, Prime Minister of Great Britain, informed the British House of Commons that it would be disastrous for Great Britain to go off the gold standard. He said that calamity would befall the nation; that it was unthinkable Great Britain should go off the gold standard. Nevertheless she has done so; she has depreciated1 her currency 'thirty per cent and yet no calamity has resulted. As a matter of fact, Great Britain during the last year has purchased more food supplies than she did when she was on the gold standard in 1931-32, employment has increased to a considerable extent and her export trade has also increased. So when I hear prime ministers saying that we cannot do this or we cannot d'o that with our currency, I am always mindful of Ramsay MacDonald making that straight statement to the House of Commons in London.
We have plenty of silver and many silver mines, but while we have gold mines, we have not enough gold mines to supply the gold that even this country would require to pay her debts or interest outside. Japan, as I say, has issued coinage based on silver. Germany, France, China and India are all buying silver. Why not Canada? Why can we not be bold enough to take a step along those lines? Great Britain has now declared, that for many years to come she is not going to go back to the gold standard. Why cannot Canada, which has plenty of silver, use it as straight currency or as bullion to stabilize prices as was done before? Or are we going to drift and wait until our dollar is forced down as it ultimately will be? Why cannot we now take some steps that will enable us to trade with other nations, especially when one considers that less than half the world is endeavouring to do business on a small and inadequate amount of gold while the greater part of the peoples of the earth are still using silver as its basis or unit
of value? This is what the Canadian gold dollar has to fight to-day in the world's
markets:
Premium
Country-	percentage
Great Britain	 45
Japan	 135
Spain	 137
Norway	 55
Sweden	 47
Denmark	 55
Brazil	 64
Chile	 101
Argentina	 65
Peru	 47
Mexico	 52
India	 45
Mexico uses a silver coinage. This list does not include Australia and New Zealand, which are at present beating us in the markets, not only of Great Britain but of the orient and in all countries with depreciated currencies.
To-day other countries are finding a way into United States markets in spite of high tariffs. Are we going to hesitate about getting into the scramble of depreciated currency, or take a step towards a system that all through the ages has been one of the best so far as exchange of values is concerned, namely, silver and gold, or bimetalism? Japan, to my mind, is a more serious competitor than is Russia in world markets. She has brought that about by depreciating her yen to one-fifth of its previous value. One way to protect ourselves is by stabilizing the price of silver. This would immediately raise the price of silver all over the world and the purchasing power of 1,200,000,000 people would also be increased. This would automatically raise the cost of goods produced in those countries and would help to counteract the dumping of cheap goods into other countries. It would also help to stabilize prices. Bimetalism would do all 1 have stated and I should like to hear hon. members who may follow voice a contrary opinion, or tell the house of any better, safer and more practical scheme.
I have not gone into every detail, but I would urge the house seriously to consider broadening the basis of our unit of value and adding silver to that of gold. Something must be done and done speedily, and I am suggesting what I believe to be a way outr or at least a very important step in that direction. We have clung too long to the single standard. As I have stated, some twenty-nine countries have taken action of their own accord and we shall very soon be forced to take similar action, because it is almost impossible for us to trade or compete with those countries which are already and are still bent on using depreciated currency
204b
Bank Act-Mr. Carmichael

and do not forget that Great Britain has depreciated her currency by some thirty per cent.
In closing I should like to quote from a message issued by Pope Pius XI in 1931, as follows:
How poor, paltry, stupid and unpardonable the voices of certain great bankers of the old and the new world crying for lower wages and lower standards of living for the hand and brain workers of the white race to enable the shipyards, mills, factories, farms and mines of the Aryan world to compete with the semislave workers of Russia and the orient!
I ask in all seriousness that the committee on banking and commerce give earnest consideration to the suggestions which I am now putting forward and that we make a move in favour of bimetalism, using silver as well as gold.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Prior to the dinner hour, debate was following along the line of consideration being given to our Bank Act when it comes up for revision either this year or next. Not being a member of the banking and commerce committee, and not finding it possible to be there when the revision takes place, I am glad of the opportunity to take some part in the discussion on this resolution. I think it would iiave been most unfortunate had the debate been ruled out of order.
In the debate this afternoon one of the speakers dealt with the possible merits of bimetalism. I was much impressed by his arguments, and possibly there is considerable force in them.
I found when I got home during the Christmas recess and held meetings among my constituents that, particularly at this time, there seems to be a general feeling in favour of reforms of some sort in our monetary system. The agriculturists of western Canada are very wide-awake and well versed in governmental matters; they feel that something should be done to help them in their present situation, and perhaps one line of thought which their minds take more than any other is reform in banking and finance, or monetary reform.
A number of criticisms may be offered against our present financial system. I do not think it helps us at all to refuse to recognize these criticisms. On the contrary, I think it is good for us to hear them, and if IMr. Reid.]
there is a remedy for any of the defects in the present system, we should be open to receive suggestions and provide a remedy.
One of the criticisms that I heard when I was home during the recess was the cost of putting into circulation last November $35,000,000 of currency. I have often been asked, why was it that it cost the government so much to put that amount of money into circulation? I think we here are all aware that that money was put into circulation in perhaps the only legal way in which it could be done, namely, through our existing banking system; but for that small operation of circulating $35,000,000 of their own money the taxpayers of Canada have to pay to the banks one per cent for a period of two years, or a total of $700,000. People find it hard to understand why it should cost so much. They also ask this question: That amount of money is put into circulation for two years, and after that time has elapsed, what is going to happen? Will the loan be extended for another year, or for two years, carrying the same charge of one per cent? If so, it will mean a further charge of $350,000 if extended for one year, or $700,000 if for two years. Or will the loan be retired? If so, it will mean that we shall have to tax ourselves to raise another $35,000,000 to retire the original loan.
I find, too, a good deal of criticism from the struggling agriculturists in regard to the profits which our banks are making at the present time. Even though our primary industries find it extremely difficult to exist, let alone make any profit, we find by the last financial statement of our banks, dated December, 1932, that their dividend rates are very substantial, one bank declaring a dividend of eight per cent, seven of them ten per cent, and one, the Bank of Nova Scotia, declaring a rate of fourteen per cent. There was just one bank in -the dominion, Barclay's, which did not declare a dividend, and it operates in only a very small way.
Another criticism is the difficulty that governmental and other organizations, as well as private individuals, experience at times in raising money for any legitimate purpose. Perhaps some of us are not aware that some of our institutions have considerable difficulty in raising money, and when they do raise it, they have to pay a rather high rate of interest. When I was home in the Christmas recess, a municipal corporation close to my own home town was taking steps to raise money by way of scrip. This practice has not become very common in Canada, but at least one small urban centre in Alberta is now on its second

Bank Act-Mr. Carmichael
year of issuing scrip. That is, they issue their own paper for services performed, and the business men carry that paper over until the taxes come in and the paper is redeemed. This municipal corporation in my constituency, comprising ten townships, is now working along that line, interviewing merchants in two of the larger towns close to the organization with a view to having them carry that scrip over until the tax money is available in the fall. They are taking this course, not because the banks will not lend them any money, but in order to get away from the substantial interest charges which the banks would make for lending the money.
We know that our banks pay a very low rate of interest on deposits, a matter of three per cent, and there have been rumours recently that the rate is to be decreased to 2J or possibly 2 per cent; yet the interest rate charged to individuals or corporations in our own west runs from seven to nine per cent. In fact, a municipal corporation generally pays 7i per cent, and a private individual 9 per cent.
Another rumour I have heard is perhaps more serious. There may not be any foundation for it, but it is that our banks are making undue profits out of the present exchange situation between Canada and the United States. I would not say that that is a fact, because I do not know, but I do know that there are rumours to that effect. Possibly the pending litigation in reference to the city of Calgary will bring out whether or not they are well founded.
The most serious criticism that may be offered in regard to banking and finance is the decrease in our note circulation, both dominion and bank notes. I have taken the trouble to compare the amount of notes in circulation in the year 1921, when the second last decennial census was taken, with the amount in circulation in 1931, when the last census was taken. I also have the figures for December, 1932, the latest I can secure. It is alarming to note the decrease in circulation of bank notes particularly during the past ten or twelve years. Without giving the aggregates I will give the per capita circulation. In 1921 it was S30.58 of dominion notes. In 1918, 1919 and 1920 there was an even higher per capita circulation than that; in 1919 it was $35.47. In 1931 it had decreased to $14.01, and in December, 1932, it had further decreased to $13.01. Of bank notes, in 1921 the per capita circulation was $22.15. In 1931 it had decreased to $13.68, and in December, 1932, there was a further decrease to $12.25. Putting those figures together we find that the total per
capita circulation in 1921 of both dominion and bank notes was $52.73. In 1931 it was $27.69, and in December, 1932, $25.26-a gradual decrease during the last ten or twelve year period.
I might point out that a large part of the dominion note circulation was composed of notes of high denominations not in the hands of the general public but rather used as a circulating medium between banks. They were of $1,000, $5,000 and S50.000 denominations. In 1931 there were over $100,000,000 of these. Taking that away it leaves a little over $40,000,000 in 1931, or $3.90 per capita circulating among the people. Add that to the circulation of bank notes, $13.68, and you have a total per capita of $17.58.
Here is something I would like to point out in regard to dominion notes: The value in circulation remained fairly steady from 1919 to 1931. In 1919, excluding the larger notes from $50 to $50,000, the dominion note circulation was a little over $35,000,000. In 1921 it was almost S34,500,000; in 1931 a little over $35,000,000. You can see that the value of dominion notes actually in the hands of the public remained fairly uniform. Of bank notes, in 1919 there were nearly $219,000,000; in 1920 nearly $229,000,000; in 1921, $194,000,000; in
1931,	$142,000,000, and in December, 1932, a little over $127,000,000-an actual dropping off of bank notes. Putting it in another way, if we take 1920 as representing 100, in December,
1932,	the bank note circulation was only 55, a drop of 45 per cent. There was also a large dropping off in bank loans; I think that was mentioned by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). From 1929 to 1931 there was a drop of 25 per cent in bank loans, amounting to more than $550,000,000.
This to my mind constitutes a weakness in our banking system, or perhaps a number of weaknesses, that if possible some means should be found to correct. As one holds meetings among his constituents, he finds many ideas advanced. One is that we should nationalize our banking system, some will say socialize it. Various remedies are put forward for correcting the evils that the people know to exist. May I briefly put before the house what to my mind would be a means of correcting these evils, at least to some extent? I have in mind the system of banking which is in operation in Australia. I do not purpose going into it very much in detail, because in 1928 there was a debate in this house on a resolution proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and at that time I dealt in some detail with the Australian


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution which has been brought before the house by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). In doing so I should like first of all to direct attention to the fact that the largest single
item in the estimates now before the house is the sum of $137,500,000, representing interest on our national debt.
This resolution asks for a review of the monetary requirements of the dominion. We are not going to solve the problem of deficits, which unfortunately we have had with us in the past few years, by simply adding on taxation in an effort to make both ends meet the following year. Two years ago we were unfortunate enough, owing to various circumstances, to have a shortage of $94,500,000. We tried to meet that, deficit by extra taxation, with the result that the following year we were $119,000,000 short. We are not therefore going to solve the problem this year, if we find ourselves short again, by simply adding to taxation. It costs between $365,000,000, which is the figure for this year, and something like $400,000,000, to run the business of the country, and it has often seemed to me very strange that we should do this enormous amount of business through private institutions, as we have done through the private corporations known as banks. There are various purposes for which we have to obtain money-uncontrolled expenditures), administration and public works, and so on-and the only way we have of getting the money is by taxation,, by borrowing, or in other words mortgaging the future of the country, or by issuing money. Unfortunately, and I say this advisedly, we have issued far too little, with the result that we have steadily added to the debt through unnecessary borrowing.
This year we are going to pay in interest no less than $4,800,000 more than we did a year ago on the national debt alone. At the same time we find ourselves with an extraordinary unemployment problem, in round figures 700,000 to-day. I cannot help thinking that the views expressed by the London Chamber of Commerce would, with the slight change of one word, suit our situation exactly We should aim to restore and expand the purchasing power of the people of Canada, without which unemployment must remain and defaults, national and individual, must increase. I quote:
When once a fair price level has been restored, to eliminate, so far as may be practicable, fluctuations in price level due to monetary causes.
To remove the causes which are inducing nations to strangle world trade by tariffs, quotas, exchange restrictions, et cetera.
We have heard to-night a good deal with regard to the advisability of starting a central bank. This apparently is becoming a more popular topic as time passes, and I think that the public will eventually demand a central
Bank Act-Mr. Spencer

bank, just as it demanded the government inspection of banks. Needless to say, the banks will oppose it, even as they opposed government inspection. They finally accepted the government inspection of banks after we had the disastrous failure of the Home Bank a few years ago. Public opinion then was sufficiently organized to make the government realize the necessity for that legislation. Naturally a central bank is not wanted because at the present time, without one, the banks have enormous power and can also make considerable profits. With a central bank that power would be largely taken away from them and needless to say they would not make as big profits because the government would do its own banking. We can readily understand therefore why, as private institutions, they oppose a central bank of rediscount. When we get a central bank however we do not want to have it as a bankers' bank but as a real state bank to do government business. Looking back to 1930, I notice the amount of loans the banks made at that time according to the Canada Year Book, if you allow seven per cent on the total amount of loans made, they would have made a profit in interest equal to their paid-up capital.
I want to say a few words now with regard to the departure from the gold basis. The public are beginning to realize that, as has been pointed out by Mr. McGeer, K.C., of British Columbia, supported by Professor PI umpire, gold is a myth and has been for quite a long time, and has a value only for those people who do not understand it and therefore think that some value does attach to it. They do not appreciate the fact that if all the gold in the world sank to the bottom of the Atlantic the world would go on just the same. It would be simply a matter of a few cables the day after the ship had sunk, and we should not be much worse off.
In 1932 the gold held in Canada was $143,-
500,000,	and notes and legate amounted to $315,500,000, while the deposits were equal to nearly $2,000,000,000. These figures alone show the absurdity of the belief that people can get gold if they want it, in anything but a very minor quantity.
I have often felt that the .public were misled by the fact that so much stress is placed on the working of the Dominion Notes Act, because although under that act wre allow ourselves to issue $50,000,000 of notes with a 25 per cent backing of gold, holding dollar for dollar of gold behind further issue of notes. But we undermine that act entirely when we begin to use the Finance Act, because under the Finance Act the banks are allowed to take various securities to the treasury board

and by placing that security as collateral with the treasury board to get dominion notes on a safe margin, although no gold is necessary in this case.
During the last eighteen years the banks have obtained from the treasury board no less than a little over $4,000,000,000 in this way. The rate varies. It has been down to as low as three per cent, and therefore the more we use the Finance Act in this respect the less percentage of gold have we behind Dominion notes. I mention this not because I think it necessary to have gold behind dominion notes but simply to show how foolish it is to stress the Dominion Notes Act while at the same time we bring the Finance Act into operation.
Banking to-day-and if we have the investigation this should be kept in view-is a bookkeeping system. Altogether too much emphasis is laid on coin and notes that are issued. We are all aware that money is a bookkeeping system, that new money is written into existence through loans and the buying of securities, and>
written out of existence by cancellations and the selling of securities. I have often wondered What was the value of the central gold reserve. If we have an investigation this matter should be looked into. Anyone who watches what is in the central gold reserve from time to time will find that there is often far more paper money in the way of do-minion notes than there is gold. However, that was not the case upon November 16, for which date I have the figures, when there was a little over $11,000,000 in gold and $10,300,000 in dominion notes. One who has not followed this subject might ask how the dominion notes got in there. The explanation is that when the banks take various securities to the treasury board and obtain dominion notes under the provisions of the Finance Act, they can put those notes out to the public or they can take them to the central gold reserve, leave them there in lieu of gold and issue their own notes or promises to pay against the dominion notes. As long as the bankers have the free use of the Finance Act, apparently they are not worrying about using the central gold reserve in this manner. I remember having an interesting conversation in 1923 with Mr. McLeod one time president of the Bank of Nova Scotia. Apparently he had had a good deal to do with starting the central gold reserve and it was his intention that only gold should be placed there against which the banks could issue extra notes from time to time. He was quite worried and irritated at the way the reserve was being used and he said to me:

Bank Act-Mr. Mackenzie
"It is not a central gold reserve any longer; it is nothing more or less than a gilded reserve."
In looking at the present crisis we have to recognize the fact that our problem is distinctly a money one. It is not a matter, as has been stated so many times upon the floor of this house during the past two or three weeks, of making goods or giving services. Unfortunately we have more than we can distribute of both. There are two reasons why we cannot distribute. The first is the inequality of income-some have more than they can spend and many others have not enough to spend-and, second, there is not sufficient of the medium of exchange to enable business to carry on. Our railroads are in a very unfortunate position to-day, but rather than bonus them or increase freight rates we should provide traffic. Traffic will be provided just as soon as the people have a purchasing power wherewith they can trade with each other.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, very little use has been made of the third method of making money, that of direct issue. It was used in 1914 to the extent of $26,000,000, and when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) decided in 1930 to vote some $20,000,000 to help out the unemployment situation, it was suggested that a similar thing be done. Unfortunately it was not done. We took $20,000,000 out of the state purse; we taxed the people that amount on the one hand to give to the unemployed on the other. What we needed at that time, as we need to-day, was not a transfer of money but rather more money. A few months ago we borrowed some
S35,000,000 from the banks and issued dominion notes to them to an equal amount, losing $700,000 on the transaction in the course of two years. It is such things as these which should be looked into very carefully.
A suggestion was made behind me this afternoon with regard to bimetalism. Personally, I am not very much enamoured with bimetalism, but I am willing that the whole matter should be gone into by the banking and commerce committee. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words in support of this resolution. I think it is a good one and I believe considerable benefit would be derived from a complete investigation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations in connection with the resolution moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). This resolution is in four parts, the first asking that the banking and commerce committee be instructed to study the Bank Act preparatory to its decennial revision. It seems to me that that portion of the resolution is far too vague and nebulous; it really means going over every single clause in the Bank Act without any special instructions being given in any particular direction. The next three parts of the resolutions are definite in their terms; they ask that the committee report on the advisability of final departure from the gold basis- the matter under discussion this evening; the issuing of dominion notes sufficient to depreciate our dollar to the level of the pound sterling-which matter, I understand has been ruled out of order-and ways and means of reducing the internal debt so greatly increased by deflation.
At the outset let me say I regret that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) saw fit this afternoon to raise a point of order in regard to this resolution, referring to the amendment moved in the early part of this session by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I submit that that amendment was entirely different from the resolution we are now discussing, which refers to a specific matter, the issuing of dominion notes sufficient to depreciate our dollar to the level of the pound sterling. The hon. member's amendment was to the motion for approval of the trade agreement between Canada and Great Britain and sought to add the following words:
-and subject also to establishment of parity of the Canadian dollar with the British pound.
This afternoon the right hon. gentleman suggested that certain observations had been made by hon. members on this side of the house during the debate in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod. Upon looking up Hansard of November 2, 1932, I found that the only observation made specifically in connection with the amendment was made by a member of the government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). The minister went out of his way to commend not only the hon. member but the purport and nature of his amendment. I should like to quote from his remarks as follows:
On the other hand, I could cite a number of addresses that have been exceedingly helpful, exceedingly instructive, and I might say to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Coote) that in the main his own address was, in my opinion, a reasonable and valuable contribution to the study of the problem.
And again in the same debate:
I think we should first dispose of this motion,-
The motion to implement an Imperial conference agreement-
-which merely gives the house the opportunity to proceed with the study of the agreements in
Bank Act-Mr. Mackenzie

detail, and then the proposal of my hon. friend could very properly be considered as a major problem in itself.
With all due respect to the right hon. gentleman I suggest that all that part (b) of this resolution asks is that this house study the question as a major problem. The minister then continued:
Speaking for myself alone, I can assure him that 1 am prepared to give this matter the most careful consideration and study. I am anxious to cooperate with any hon. member in the study and possible achievement of a solution of this problem.
Nothing was said on this side of the house until the vote was taken later on the same day. We have a somewhat anomalous situation; on the second of November, a member of the government tells the hon. member for Macleod that he welcomes a study of this major problem of placing our dollar upon a parity with the pound sterling, yet to-day when an hon. member to my left seeks to have the banking and commerce committee do the same thing, he is met with a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman has misunderstood things. We have voted already upon the matter this session and I raised the point of order in order to prevent duplication. Otherwise there would be no end to the discussion in this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My point is that we have not. Unfortunately, this afternoon I was not allowed to give my views on the point of order. On November 2 the hon. member for Macleod moved an amendment to the motion of the Prime Minister that the Imperial conference agreements be implemented. The words, as I recall them, were ''subject to the establishment of a parity with the pound." This clause (b) of this resolution is something quite different.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not know whether the hon. member is quite in order in discussing the ruling of the Chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not quarrelling with the ruling. I am just explaining why I was not allowed to establish my point of order. Clause (b) reads:
The issuing dominion notes sufficient to depreciate our dollar to the level of the pound sterling.
In other words, clause (b) is specific. The other was only generic in the conclusion which the hon. member for Macleod sought to establish-parity with the pound. I maintain that clause (b) of the present resolution and the amendment of November 2 are entirely different.

Might I deal for just two or three minutes with the resolution before the house? It asks the banking and commerce committee practically to deal with the financial structure of the Dominion of Canada. As far as I have been able to analyze modem economic thought in this and other countries, there are at the present time two main schools-and we have them possibly in every party in the house- dealing with the fundamental causes of the present crisis. There is the school which was termed by Edie in his great book Banking and Prosperity, the school of the industrial equilibrists; that is the school which thinks tariffs are at the root of everything with regard to trade. There is, on the other hand, the monetary school of thought, which is very prevalent at the present time and gaining in strength, that believes the present economic crisis is primarily a monetary one. My opinion, for all it may be worth, is that these two schools are not irreconcilable; you can dovetail the economic thought of the school of industrial equilibrium into the economic thought of the school of monetary reform. It is an economic axiom that the value of your dollar must in the final analysis depend on trade, but when your trade is locked and stifled and is not allowed, on account of the economic policies and narrow nationalism pursued by the various nations, to ride free, you can do much by way of monetary solution to override the difficulty inherent in the trade policies at present being pursued.
In this evening's paper I saw an announcement made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, wherein he suggested the program for the pending conference in Washington between the government of the United States and the government of Great Britain, and dealt with six major problems. Four of the six, as I recall them, dealt with the monetary structure of the empire and of the United States, so that when the Prime Minister of Great Britain outlines the problems that are to be studied-and I think the agenda is the same as that which is to be studied at the world economic conference-we should have very soon a pronouncement of policy from the administration in regard to what submissions the Prime Minister is going to make on behalf of Canada before the world economic conference in May.
What happened at the imperial conference? We had great hope of what Canada might do and say but-and I do not think I am saying anything radically wrong in suggesting this-the monetary' policy of this dominion was made subservient to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the final report of the committee is practically

Bank Act-Mr. Mackenzie
an acceptance of the main submissions of the chancellor. Let me suggest this to my right hon. friend: Although the main economic doctrine of the mother country may, so far as the main economic principles are concerned, apply to Canada, the economy of Great Britain is in radical ways different from that of Canada, because Great Britain for years and years has been in control of the international market. What is the situation in this country? I am not blaming any government particularly for this, but we are to-day financially economic vassals of the great republic to the south of us. The tragedy of the situation, as I see it, is that various governments, according to their own well considered policies and doctrines, have been trying to orient the trade of Canada-and I am not criticizing them for that-to the empire and to Great Britain. Yet, when they try to tie our financial policy to that of England and the empire, our greatest critic is the Prime Minister who would like to be termed the foremost champion of imperial preference and trade. For one, I am convinced that you cannot separate financial policy from trade policy; that is, the policy in regard to our external trade from that in regard to our international obligations. Recently we have been considering the crushing debt which we owe to the republic to the south of us. The Prime Minister has throughout the country been making speeches-and I am not criticizing him for that; I am only stating facts-in which he has been saying to the people of Canada: "We have honoured all our maturing obligations in gold." Is that exactly true?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, in terms of the
contract.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In terms of the contract. That must be nearer the truth, because the terms of the contract actually call upon the nation which is to honour the contract to meet its payments in gold or pay them in services or go through a process of refunding, so that Canada has not and cannot meet her maturing obligations in gold. How could we do so with our gold production last year amounting to only
S73.000.000, and with our tremendous debts payable in gold by our federal government, our provincial governments, the Canadian National Railways and public corporations? I find that our gold coverage last Thursday was 39-3 per cent, or roughly $70,000,000 for a note issue of $180,000,000. Where is your sound money? This reminds me of the Latin phrase, Vox et praeterea nil, or "sound and nothing more." Where is the sound money when I produce my dollar bill for which I
am entitled to get payment in gold? Where was ouf sound money when Calgary, the right hon. gentleman's constituency, asked for gold for her good Canadian notes? Could Calgary obtain Canadian gold? We have no sound money according to the tenets of the right hon. gentleman.
Last year he made a very fine statement. He said that we have roughly S50,000,000 guaranteed by a partial coverage of 25 per cent in gold, $49,000,000 protected dollar for dollar in gold and the rest, $71,000,000, I think it was then-I am not sure of the exact figures now-covered, as he said, by the security, character and integrity, of what? Of the Canadian people. I refer my right hon. friend to the finest economic report ever made in any country, the famous Macmillan report of two years ago. The right hon. gentleman has the pleasure of being very well acquainted with the brilliant and distinguished chairman of that committee. Sir Josiah Stamp said in regard to it that a committee of such brilliance, ability and distinction never before functioned in any land. What was the finding of that committee in regard to this great question of gold coverage? One of the specific findings of the Macmillan committee, implementing the findings of the gold committee of the League of Nations, was that a gold basis was no longer required for internal currency. That is not the fly-bynight theory of my hon. friends to my left or the radical opinion of some of us who sit on this side; it is the well-founded opinion of my right hon. friend's own brilliant economic friends in Great Britain, that you must dissociate once and for all your domestic currency from your external obligations. What does that mean? If the right hon. gentleman told us here, as he did in April of last year, that outside that $99,000,000 the consideration was the security of the Canadian nation, and if the Macmillan committee said that you can have a safe note issue amounting to one-fifth of your total bank deposits, what does that mean? If your economic policy in Canada is sound, it means, according to the scientifically economic analysis at which that committee arrived, we could have on the same basis of the security and integrity of the Canadian people, a note issue in this country of one-fifth of our total bank deposits, or one-fifth of $2,000,000,000, as of last year, or $400,000,000. It would mean $200,000,000 more than the $180,000,000 which you had according to the return which I got from the Minister of Finance yesterday. That is not printing money. That is simply arriving at a careful policy of a managed currency, on a scientific basis, as promulgated
Bank Act-Mr. Mackenzie

by the ablest economic committee that ever sat in modern history. We cannot be blamed if we see some merits in a careful policy such as that.
I do not like the word inflation. I think it is a dangerous word, and inflation a dangerous policy. But what have we had in Canada during the last few years? Under the craziest financial structure in modern history, through the Finance Act, we have had inflation in this country under the Conservatives from 1914 onwards, and during the Liberal regime from 1921 to 1929. We have had a modified policy of inflation during the last three years, under the terms of the Finance Act, and at the same time, strange to say, we had the biggest deflation in the history of Canada, caused by what has been mentioned by some of the speakers here to-day-the contraction of credits by the banks of this dominion.
That brings me to the point I wish particularly to emphasize to-night. Any policy in regard to currency, any policy in regard to credit control, must be built around a new central organization which is going to regulate the whole policy of banking in this dominion.
1 do not think any party should go unduly to the left or be unduly Conservative in financial policy. I believe there is as much ianger in uncontrolled inflation as in adhering to this fictitious policy of sound money which the Prime Minister and his government consistently advocate. The safe and sound and sensible policy is to take the middle way, ;o establish a central organization of experts snjoying the confidence of the government and of the Canadian people; because the day has gone by in Canada when the people will tolerate a condition under which the ordinary mercantile functions of Canadian banks shall be associated with the policy of banking credit and financial control which the banks now possess. The control of credit must be taken away from the banking institutions of Canada. When I say that, although I have the greatest admiration for the record of our Canadian banks, I would ask, why should they not have a wonderful record and be marvellously secure? There are only nine or ten of them now where formerly there were twenty-five, and they enjoy the biggest financial monopoly in the history of modern civilization, with the entire- credit of the dominion treasury behind their every move. So why should they not have done well?
My right hon. friend, dealing in Toronto with this question of bringing the dollar on a parity with the pound, asked how it could be done? He knows quite well how it could

be done. It has not been difficult for other nations to do-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unless they were insolvent or short of currency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Prime Minister said that there was no need to go on a parity with the pound unless you were insolvent or short of currency. Neither one nor the other obtains in Canada, he said. I am not so sure. I fear much, and I hesitate to say this, that within -the next few months the right hon. gentleman will hear from some of the western provinces which may have to ask for very generous terms in order to meet their obligations, or else be faced with defaulting on their bonds. We cannot afford to pay, and we cannot pay, our present debt and our present interest charges in the Dominion of Canada, and the sooner we wake up to the facts of the situation the better for us. Our interest on the national debt was $12,000,000 before the war. It was $135,000,000 last year, and this year it is $137,500,000. There are two and a half billions of national loans, including funded debt, railways and other operations, $7,582,000,000 of, obligations, of bonds payable in gold, and the entire amount of gold in the different countries of the world amounts to between $11,000,000,000 and $12,000,000,000.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: We owe over eight, billion dollars in bonds.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I accept
the correction of my hon. friend. Perhaps the other figure included private corporations. The total gold supply in the world is between eleven and twelve billion dollars, and how can *we possibly meet our maturing obligations in gold? It cannot be done. The greatest necessity before parliament is to meet the situation of our public debt and our private debt with courage and vision. The Australian people met the situation last year, and we must do it. We must write down our debt.
I advocate a big conversion loan in this dominion. We must summon up the courage and the patriotism of the Canadian people, and I would also advocate that earnest consideration be given to modifying our financial policy by the issue of dominion currency. It was done during the war. Why not do it now in the war against poverty, misery and unemployment which we are waging to-day? The security of this dominion is as good as ever it was.
I also suggest that we commence a wholesale cut in interest rates, commencing with savings bank deposits, and have a cut right

Bank Act-Mr. Mackenzie
across in the interest rates charged by mortgage, trust and loan companies. Let us have a debt and interest readjustment upon the principle of equalization of sacrifice throughout the dominion. The farmers have already practically sacrificed their all. Almost all the lumber companies in my province are on the verge of bankruptcy. The producer has paid his price. Why not let the moneyholder now come under the principle of equalization of sacrifice in this great crisis?
So I appeal to my right hon. friend to be good enough some day in the near future to enunciate to this house the policy he intends to present to the world economic conference on behalf of Canada. I suggest to him that he give most careful consideration to the advisability of a great national conversion loan, a voluntary loan by preference, but compulsory, if that is necessary. It was compulsory in Australia to the extent of seventeen and a half million pounds. The remarkable thing about the situation in Australia was this. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) told us the other evening that the financial situation in Australia was much worse than in Canada, but here is the record of Australia. Out of a total of 556 million pounds, there was converted immediately by application 490 million pounds; by effluxion of time 48) mi'llioin pounds, leaving only 17i million pounds to be converted compulsorily. The compulsory element is to be regretted if it can be done voluntarily. The point I am trying to impress upon the house as forcibly as I can is that in my humble judgment we cannot meet our present indebtedness, federal, provincial and municipal, unless we summon up the entire strength and resources of the Canadian people. It is no use talking of a policy of sound money so long as I cannot get gold for my dollar when I present it to the bank. Suspend, if you like, the redemption of dominion notes in gold.
The question has been asked, how can we establish parity with the pound? It can be done in two ways. It can be done by giving up the policy of unnecessarily buttressing the Canadian dollar to keep it as close to the American dollar as possible, which has been followed by this administration for the last two and a half years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not done any
such thing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has
been done either deliberately or as a result of the financial policy of this government. That has been the result in any event. If that is not successful, follow out the scientific analysis of the Macmillan committee in England, and go in for a policy of a managed currency, which is the distinct and deliberate policy recommended by that committee to the British government. Have the British people suffered from abandoning the gold standard? They may be asked as the price of an international debt settlement to consider returning to the gold standard, but I venture to suggest that such a return will not be considered by the British nation for many, many years to come because, after all the juggling by international financiers, as is so well described by Einzig in his various books, and which continued from 1922 to 1931, Britain has on acute and painful knowledge of what happened in the realms of international finance. She has survived the shock and is to-day on the upgrade, and I believe she will be the first country to emerge from the present depression. Why? Because her economic advisers have told her that the present economic crisis is primarily a monetary crisis. I tell my friends who believe that tariffs are the only panacea for all the woes of the present economic upheaval, you must have the two factors working hand in hand; you must readjust your financial structure and recast the powers of the banks, give them full scope in ordinary mercantile pursuits to follow in security and integrity the banking practices they have so well developed, but take from them, once and for all, the control of credit and currency in the Dominion of Canada and the power over the note issue. We are living in changing times. I am sure if my right hon. friend would give up his attachment to the fallacy and fiction of "sound money" and deal immediately and fearlessly with the tremendous problem of meeting our debt and interest obligations, he would have the grateful regard of the Canadian people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not rise to proceed with the debate. The Minister of Finance is prepared to deal with this resolution, but he is indisposed. If when the motion is again called he is not in his seat I shall take his place and make a statement. In the meantime, in order to preserve that situation, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF



PROPOSED TJSE OF SURPLUS WHEAT FOR RELIEF- SALE ON LONG TERM CREDITS TO DISTRESSED COUNTRIES

William Richard Motherwell: Whereas unemployment, scanty clothing and hunger throughout the land continue to be all too prevalent; and

Farm Relief-Mr. Motherwell
Whereas, this persistent economic depression not only adds to the growing relief requirements in many centres, but also subtracts from the number of voluntary contributors, many of whom are now feeling these social efforts growing more and more beyond their capacity to carry;
Therefore, be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this parliament the government of Canada should place a sufficient quantity of our surplus wheat stocks, at the disposal of the Red Cross, welfare bureaus and other similar organizations, to supplement and more fully take care of the food requirements of the unemployed, the poor and the hungry throughout Canada.
And be it further resolved, that the government of Canada take such steps as are necessary and expedient to explore the possibility and practicability of selling on long term credits a substantial quantity of our embarassing wheat carry-over to China, or any other available country where poverty, hunger and misery prevail.
He said: I think this motion is quite capable of being understood, and there is nothing original about it. It has the advantage of having been tried in our neighbouring republic and found quite satisfactory, and no reason occurs to me why it may not prove equally satisfactory in Canada, with such variations as may be found necessary to suit our peculiar requirements. I suppose there is not an hon. member in this house who during the last two or three years has not been confronted with this question:	How do you
account for it that in this land of plenty people are in want and going to bed hungry? I used to be somewhat provoked at that question myself. Last summer when I was in the elevator in our town I found a farmer expatiating very vigorously on this situation, taking the ground that someone was to bLame for it, though he did not mention who that somebody was. He enunciated the doctrine we hear so frequently, that the difficulty is not in production but in distribution. I made a proposal to my brother farmer: How would it be if you and I should start out on this new method of distribution? The next load of wheat we bring to town suppose we start distributing it among the villagers, some of whom are bound to be hard up this coming winter. About twenty-five bushels would feed a family of five; one load of seventy-five bushels would take care of three families. You try that out with your next load, and I will do the same with mine, and see how it works. "Oh," he said, "I cannot afford to do that." "Well," I said, "that is about the way with me; the cheaper wheat is the more I have to sell to get a bit of money."
That is true of the individual, but it seems to me there are certain further duties that devolve upon the' national government. I know its burdens are heavy; our provinces 
and some of our municipalities are also near the end of their tether. The Dominion government has done remarkable work in the way of relief, first in one form, then another, and now in direct relief. So have the provinces and the municipalities.
In the United States they had accumulated a large surplus of wheat through the federal farm board and the stabilization committee. They carried that load openly, everyone knew about it, and finally it became such a tremendous burden that they gave a lot of it away to get rid of it, distributed a large quantity through the Red Cross and similar organizations and sold some on long term credits to Germany, China and other countries. I think it is practically all gone now, so one of the great burdens on the market has been removed, although without appreciable effect as yet upon the price. However, if we follow suit and some other country does the same, eventually we shall get this great burden of carry-over wheat removed, without which we cannot have a restoration of prices. What better purpose can we put it to than to help out people less fortunate than ourselves? The burden is weighing very heavily on the voluntary givers. In this city, in which surely you will not find a larger percentage of out-of-works than elsewhere, over $130,000 was contributed last fall to take care of the poor and himgry, and so all over the country. Wherever I have been I find there are getting to be more and more to feed and clothe and less and less people able to provide for them; therefore the burden is getting heavier on both individuals and governments. Well, it occurred to me, why could not we follow the example of the United States in the distribution of this surplus wheat?-seeing we have followed their example in acquiring it, in a laudable desire to hold up the market. Possibly that object was attained to some extent, but the fact is that wheat was grown in such volume that it has become an embarrassment to every country that carries it; it hangs like a millstone around our market's neck.
However, the amount distributed to organizations such as the Red Gross and welfare bureaus and relief organizations would be comparatively small. We have ten million people in Canada ; say there are one million on relief-there are not now, but possibly there will be in a year-it would only take about five million bushels to provide them with all the bread they require. It would relieve the local authorities, however, to that extent. That has been done in the United

Farm Relief-Mr. Motherwell
States and found satisfactory and I see no reason why it should not prove satisfactory in Canada.
Then a further proposition is to sell or barter to countries that are less fortunate than ourselves substantial quantities. That will appreciably reduce our cany-over and tend to bring the price back to normal. I mentioned China in the resolution, but it need not be confined to China; why not India-they sometimes have famines. I understand that in northeast China 25,000 people were flooded out over a year ago and are largely on relief.
The objection has been taken that farmers in other countries where we sell this wheat would complain that we are flooding them with cheap wheat. I think that should be avoided as much as possible; it might be sold in such parts of China as are on relief as a result of that great flood. The same applies to India. And what would be the objection to selling some to Russia? We have been selling some through the regular channels of trade. A year ago there were substantial shipments from the Pacific coast to Russia. No objection was made to that, and I do not think there would be to this. Russia is reported to be short of wheat not only for bread purposes but for seed. I do not think it would be good policy to sell wheat on long terms to Russia for seed to compete against ourselves; that might seem too much like turning the other cheek, nevertheless, if they are short of wheat for flour or flour itself to feed the people why should we not supply it either on barter or on long term credits? Do you not think we would be more likely to make a friend of Russia? I take the ground, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot solve this problem of wheat without the cooperation of that country. We cannot do very much in the way of reducing acreage or following any other systematic plan designed to reduce production to something like the consumption requirements of the world unless Russia is a party to the arrangement. Without raising that controversial question of putting an embargo on some of the products of that country, do you not think Russia would pull better with Canada if we in a friendly way cooperated with her for a change, instead of continuing our present policy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who broke the world
wheat market?


William Richard Motherwell: I never knew Russia to break it as much as we did ourselves or to sell wheat as cheaply as we did. Let me answer further my right hon. friend: Every country in the world making a sale of wheat to-day has to do a measure of dumping; it 53719-130
has to beat out the other fellow in regard to both price and quality. You have to make a market by selling quality at a price the buyer cannot resist; in other words it is a buyers' market to-day with all that that implies. Russia may have done that at one time; I do not doubt but what she did, but we have done it since. That is the unfortunate part of the whole situation.
Let me enumerate some of the advantages of compliance with this motion. At least it will be a humanitarian way of disposing of our surplus. We should not destroy our wheat, as some countries are said to have destroyed their overages; I would utterly oppose anything of that kind. If it is axiomatic that this surplus must be substantially reduced before there can be any restoration of prices to anything like normal, surely there must be some way by which we can get rid of our wheat. For the sake of argument, Mr. Speaker, I will admit that if present prospects materialize there is a chance that we may reduce this overage somewhat by next, fall. The United States crop seems to be very indifferent, and Russia is in the same position. The Argentine and Australia probably will get rid of their carryovers by next fall, or hope to, but I do not think that will apply to us. Probably we will have the largest surplus we have ever had, though some people estimate otherwise. Perhaps I am not sufficiently optimistic; competent men have stated during the last two or three years that soon we would see a better day with regard to wheat prices. Well, they have been getting better the wrong way; they have been getting no better fast. We have reached the point now where we are giving away five bushels of No. 1 wheat for a dollar, and it is time we thought- seriously about this huge carry-over. The whole trouble with our calculations in this regard is that just when we think Russia will cease to export wheat because of her home requirements, she stalls to export; she becomes an exporter of wheat when it is well known that later in the same year she will have to import wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: While the population dies of starvation.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is right, but she is forced to adopt that course. That puts all our figuring astray, and I have no doubt that some other unexpected contingencies would appear in other countries as well, as they so often do.
The first advantage of this method, then, is that this will be a humane way of disposing of our surplus, and incidentally we may make

Farm Relief-Mr. Motherwell

a friend of such country upon whom we may be glad to call some day for a market. These countries needing wheat ait intervals are the countries with immense populations and an immense capacity for consumption. When they get stable governments, a-s I hope they will some day soon, they will become great consumers of our products. In the meantime let us cast our bread upon the waiters, and in a few years it may return unto us in the form of valuable markets.
In the second place, this method will remove the reproach-which I feel quite as much as though I were a member of the government-that all the public men in the country cannot find some way to answer this everlasting question of why distribution is not more perfect when production is so wonderful. If this house will adopt this proposal we can remove in some measure at least that reproach. I am not wedded to this particular method; anything better will suit me, but let us do something that will reduce our carryover and at the same time help meet our increasing requirements with respect to relief all over this dominion This plan will create a market for several million bushels of wheat; it will lessen the embarrassing carry-over; it will supply the railways with additional business. That is perhaps a small item, but it is of importance. In addition, this will lessen the demand on voluntary contributions.
Those are the advantages I see in this method, Mr. Speaker. Now let us look at some of the disadvantages. In the first place, it will be abused, but unfortunately that is always the case; Every good thing like this is more or less abused. It does not matter whether it is relief or seed grain; I have never seen any government capable of carrying on anything of this kind so perfectly that some little abuse has not crept in. When you analyze those abuses, however, and compare them with the volume of business done, you see that they do not amount to very much after all. Recently we all have read in the press what has been going on in a certain town in this province. That sort of thing will happen, but are we to withhold help from the people in need because two or three localities may abuse that help? My experience, which covers many years, has been that you will always find abuses when anything is being given out by the government, and I suppose that always will be the case until we attain that high degree of civilization to which my friends to my left refer so often. We hope and believe that day will yet come, but it is not here yet.
Another objection is that whole wheat cannot be disposed of by some relief bureaus, nor

flour either, as many relief applicants insist on ready baked bread. We are not committed to the distribution of whole wheat; it may be distributed in the form of flour, but whole wheat has certain advantages not possessed by flour. It is a healthful food and can be converted into a larger variety of cooked foods. Again, I was met with the argument that in many districts the people buy their bread and do not know how to bake it, so that neither whole wheat nor ordinary flour would be of use to them. I am afraid that is true, but I think it is about time people learned how to bake bread and many other household requirements all over again. To-day I inquired at the old Knox church, which is now used as the administrative centre of the relief bureau in this city, and which was thronged with people applying for their orders for supplies. I found that the National Council of Women and other similar organizations have started instruction classes designed to help those who wanted to learn how to bake bread and do other kinds of cooking. The practice of buying bread and of purchasing other foods in small cartons and cans became general because people could afford to do so, and many of the old practices of home cooking have almost disappeared. 1 think this is a time to revive many home duties similar to what we did during the war. We should start as many of these old practices as possible, giving the people a new zest in life and affording them some employment as well. Let them make their own bread. If the women have so many children that they have no time to bake, then let the old man learn how to do it. He has so much time on his hands now that he can tell the government and everyone else how to run things. Well, let him get busy and learn how to make bread. Many of us in our bachelor days made bread out in the west, and what man has done man can do.
Another objection made is that people are not familiar with the uses to which whole wheat can be put. During the war the government distributed many leaflets and publications showing the various uses to which certain foodstuffs could be put; they pointed out a variety of dishes that could be made from rhubarb, for instance, and fish. The same could be done with respect to this commodity. You can make muffins or porridge or coffee and many other commodities that would be very healthful.
Another objection sometimes heard is that it would interfere with the volume of business done by local bakers. That is a real objection, because the bakers are doing this business now; but it seems to me that the interests

Farm Relief-Mr. Motherwell
of the many will have to be regarded as paramount and will have to take precedence over interests of the few. I do not think the bakers would object very much. They have a pretty good business, I fancy, and if they lost this business knowing that it was for the benefit of the many I do not think they would object strenuously. I am trying to discover all the objections that can be advanced and to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages.
A gentleman in the west who held the position of trade representative in China drew my attention to the fact that the Chinese papers within the last six months or year have been complaining on behalf of the farmers of China that that country was being made a dumping ground for American and Canadian wheat at such low prices that their own farmers were being injured.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And Australia principally.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. I suppose
there is something in it, but it is one of those things we seldom think about. We look on China as a far distant country in which half the people, as I am informed, scarcely know where the next meal is coming from. Nevertheless they have enough farmers to grow more wheat annually than Canada does, and they are wondering just how far the wheat growing world will go in its effort to make a dumping ground of China. As I have indicated, however, there is no reason why this wheat could not be directed into those areas which are flooded out, and if China does not want it perhaps India could take it, or Russia might want it. So that that difficulty could be got over. You can always find difficulties if you look for them, but we should consider the advantages that accrue to any proposal such as this. We cannot disabuse our minds entirely of some selfish ideas, and naturally we want to help our own people first. The whole movement as I see it is primarily to get rid of this ghastly carry-over and to bring about normal conditions and favourable opportunities in regard to price and at the same time help others. After you have done that it will not be long before the farmers will be making a little money and the banks will again feel like making loans, because the people will be able to pay them back. Certainly you cannot pay a loan to the bank with wheat at 20 cents, which is the figure that prevailed in western Saskatchewan. I believe it is about 25 cents now. As soon as you pay a loan to the bank it creates a feeling of confidence, so that the banks will begin lending and the mortgage companies will not worry you until at least you are more on your feet.

Business will start to move, credit will be restored and you will give the railways profitable business. Some of our wheat will not move under our present freight rates. We are not asking for any increased freight rate for export wheat but if it gets lower they will have to, because the wheat simply will not move into consumption.
As regards the destination of the wheat, I do not care where it goes to. I would not consign it to the place we speak of when in anger, but I object to its being wasted when there are hungry people at home or abroad.
A certain amount of propaganda has been indulged in, and properly so, on behalf of reduced acreage. Under the export quota basis, which will involve another system of oversight on the part of the three provinces that grow so much wheat, it will not be an easy matter to carry out. It depends on the cooperation of four or five other countries with ourselves. That always takes time, but this other matter of salesmanship is one between ourselves at home and the individual country with which we transact business. I hesitate at reducing acreage by deliberate arrangement until we first adopt the two methods I have mentioned, of feeding our own people bountifully, thus relieving the local people of some of their contributions, and also relieving the government of some of their embarrassing carryovers. That should be done first, I think, before there is any systematic attempt to reduce acreage. As a matter of fact acreage will be reduced to some extent anyway this spring under the ruthleas principle of the survival of the fittest. We have come to that stage where many farmers in the regional areas find that it just pays in a good year to grow grain but does not pay in a bad year. These areas are being closed to cultivation. They are left to grow grass and weeds and many farmers are unable under their own steam to put a crop in. Acreage reduction would have happened sooner had it not been for the large areas of newly settled land in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan and to a lesser extent in northern Manitoba, coming into development to take the place of the southern areas going out of cultivation.
The point I want to make is this, that until we do get rid of the overage by these or other means there will not be a very forceful argument for a systematic cooperative policy with other countries for reduction of acreage. I suppose we all have a little superstition in our make-up; I know I have. There is a superstition among farmers that if you go out and kill a litter of young pigs, on the ground that it does not pay to raise them, if you kill them
20G0

Farm Relief-Mr. Motherwell
at birth, you will not have 'luck with your next litter. I do not know whether there is anything in that, but certainly I should not like to try the experiment of destroying the wheat overage. I would rather sell it on generous terms to anyone who would enable us to get it out of here so that it might do some good instead of a lot of harm to ourselves where it is now.
I hope I have couched my remarks in such language that neither the Prime Minister nor any other member will be offended. I could not help referring to Russia because it is I think the key to the whole situation, and I referred to it as mildly as I knew how. I have no doubt the government realizes, as we all do, that we are facing a serious situation in Canada, as well as the world over, and if I can contribute the smallest quota to help matters in the way I propose or otherwise I am satisfied. But even if you blot this out and give me something that looks better, I will put up both my hands for it. We are continually being faced with the odium-we get it in the press, from the pulpits and on the streets-that as legislators we do not know how to get this abundance of goods to those who need it most.
If the house were in committee of the whole I should be very glad to answer any questions, but I invite a full discussion on this matter. This stigma should be removed. Notwithstanding a'll the assistance which has been given, this great pyramid of carry-over wheat has grown until it is at the point of drowning us. Did you ever see, Mr. Speaker, a bunch of cats thrown into a stream with stones around their necks? Those stones were meant to act as sinkers, and they generally succeeded in sinking the cats. We have a buyers' market millstone around our necks just as effective, and it is dragging us as sellers down to the very depths.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Motherwell) upon the very excellent address he has made, an address which reflects credit not only upon his humanity but upon his discernment. Nothing is more encouraging to those who at this time have to carry an unduly heavy load than to have those normally politically opposed offer suggestions as to how best the difficulties can be met. The fine spirit manifested by the hon. gentleman in his address is, I think, very satisfying and pleasing to all of us. He has had much experience; he has seen the growth and development of our country; he has seen a great territory which once produced an abundance of wealth become almost as desolate as the desert; he has
IMr. Motherwell.]
seen people who had excellent homes-notwithstanding the statements made, not many of them according to the census returns were covered by mortgages; things were not as the advocates of blue ruin would have us understand-find those homes rendered almost valueless.
Last year when the federal government found that a very large part of the population of the province of Saskatchewan, a population which had been well-to-do, had had three successive years without a crop, we treated the matter as a national disaster, just as in times gone by we had voted money to assist in caring for those who suffered from disasters in the islands of the sea and in far distant foreign parts. We regarded it as a national disaster; and it may strike some hon. members as amazing that there was less said about this than would have been expected. The government has been very sparing with propaganda in dealing with this matter. It has not advertised what it has been endeavouring to do; it has been doing it without advertising. Over 300,000 people in the province of Saskatchewan were being cared for by the federal government during a part of last year. We were not desirous of publishing that to the world, but we were desirous of having this house know that in conformity with its unanimous opinion, its view so strongly expressed that a national disaster should be treated as such, we had set in motion the machinery which gave, shall I say, at least comfort, clothing, food and fuel to that population. It was a great achievement which reflected credit upon those responsible for the administration, and I am glad to know that the hon, gentleman has seen what has been done.
Assistance has been given in other provinces. One of the forms of assistance suggested last year was that we should purchase a quantity of wheat which would be milled to ensure plenty of flour being available for those who were in want. The hon. gentleman knows better than I do that a diet of boiled wheat is not one upon which humanity long lives; it brings about physical diseases and disasters which are apparent very quickly. The small mills in the communities in Saskatchewan felt that they could take care of the situation by grinding the wheat in a manner which would be satisfactory to the population that lived nearby. A large quantity of flour was purchased and distributed under conditions which I think have not been subject to criticism. This was distributed to the needy population of the western provinces, of Saskatchewan in particular.
The answer, therefore, to the first portion of the hon. gentleman's resolution is this:

Farm Relief-Mr. Bennett
All the wheat that was necessary, nay, more than could be used by the needy population and others in western Canada, has been supplied by the Canadian producer.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the right
hon. gentleman is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It follows therefore that
it would not be possible to sell more wheat; the Red Cross or any other organization would not make a further distribution of wheat possible because wheat in the form of flour has been distributed so that every person has had plenty. It is quite true that in the United States the federal board did distribute, I think. 85,000,000 bushels of wheat through the Red Cross to be used for milling purposes and for distribution, but unfortunately, according to the last report, the farm board lost the huge sum of half a billion dollars. No person has received more than he could consume and no person here has received less. I submit that nothing that could be done in that direction would in any sense lessen the overages or the carry-over of wheat in this country at this time.
In so far as it is possible to give effect to the suggestions made by the hon. gentleman, I assure him that they had been given effect to before he made them; they had been acted upon by those charged with responsibility for relief. To a large extent the wheat has been milled at the local mills scattered throughout the province. My memory does not serve me as to the exact number of mills engaged in this work, but it is quite substantial. In the first place a contract was given to the large mills upon the ground that they would be able to discharge the obligation of distribution perhaps a little more readily than it otherwise could be done, but in other cases the local mills are taking care of the situation.
I fear that nothing that could be done in this direction would sell an additional bushel of wheat, would bring comfort where there is any lack of it, supply food where it is required; in other words, these things could not be done to a larger extent than is being done already. I say that because I desire again to pay tribute to the fine spirit which the hon. gentleman has manifested and the earnest effort which he has made to find some solution of what he regards as a pressing and difficult problem. But I assure him that the action which has been taken is such as to give effect to the very views which he has expressed.
Upon the second point I am bound to say that last year there came to me personally an offer-whether it was a bona fide offer or not,
I cannot say-that we should arrange for the purchase of large quantities of wheat to be shipped to China, and the price proposed was twenty-nine cents at Vancouver. We did not seriously entertain the proposal; for, if long credits are to be granted, obviously they would be better granted to those who are not engaged in war. That, at least, is the thought we had in our minds. In addition to that, if long credits are to be granted, they should not be granted on terms fixing the price of the commodity at the figure I have indicated. Therefore, so far as China is concerned, we did not make any sale, for the government of Canada has no wheat bo sell. It has no farm board that is the owner of wheat to be disposed of in any part of the world. All it could do would be to provide the means whereby the wheat could be purchased from the Canadian cooperative wheat fellers; for they and they only have any large quantities of wheat representing the carry-over to which the hon. gentleman referred.
Other communities made proposals to those who had wheat to sell. In some cases, at least so I am informed, they proposed to purchase wheat on long term credits and in some instances reasonable credits were given. But I w'as very glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that in the name of humanity it was not to be expected that we would supply seed grain to Russia on long term credits to enable her to destroy the price of wheat in the future as she had done in the past. That would probably be agreed upon by everyone. The hon. gentleman, who perhaps has followed this matter with much greater interest than any other hon. member, .said at once that necessity compelled the offering of wheat by Russia at a price which constituted dumping. I have already told the house of my own knowledge of what took place some years ago in connection with the price of wheat. Whatever else may be alleged by those who desire to support a position, this must be admitted, that the attitude taken by the .soviets in the disposition of wheat was responsible for the primary break in price. From that there can be no escape; it is a matter of common knowledge. It can be ascertained as accurately as one can ascertain anything the correctness of which he desires to demonstrate. It is true, as the hon. gentleman has said, that as a result of that action Canadian wheat prices .suffered, because Canadians offered wheat at similar or lower prices. Necessity, the law of supply and demand, fixed again the price, but when you have a commodity offered for sale without regard to
Farm Relief-Mr. Bennett

the cost of production and competitors endeavouring to sell the same article, they must accept the market price that is established by those who, as I have stated, tsell without regard to the cost of production. That, unfortunately, is true throughout.
Just let me mention three commodities in regard to which - that has happened in this country-wheat, timber, fish. When I heard the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) this evening in his admirable address, make reference to the bankrupt condition of the timber operators of British Columbia, my mind at once reverted to that contract which was offered a few weeks ago in Great Britain, whereby it was provided that, whatever fall in price may come about, Russia will go still further and thereby, regardless of competition as such, regardless of the cost of production as such, destroy the possibility of a market being made in Great Britain for British Columbia timber.
As regards fish, there are within sound of my voice hon. gentlemen who are thoroughly familiar with the -situation. When the hon. gentleman added a rider to his suggestion with respect to the sale of Russian wheat, I thought he was taking a correct course, if he would pardon me for saying so and not understand me as commending his remarks to the attention of the house. The position is this: There has been overproduction of wheat in the world. If I were inclined to do so I think I could explain to the house the reason for this. Wheat was a commodity that during the war was capable of being converted into now wealth on perhaps the easiest terms of any commodity in the world. The grower ploughed, harrowed, sowed, reaped and sold, and in one season new wealth was produced on a very large scale, because the prices paid for wheat during the war were, as the hon. gentleman said, very high. For some reason it was thought after the war that conditions that prevailed during the war would be continued and wheat would be supplied by Canada, Australia and the Argentine in increasing quantities to the former warring nations that were then at peace. But, alas, the fact is that in practically every country in Europe that had been engaged in the war, they began to devise methods, by the use of chemical fertilizers and otherwise, whereby they might increase their production of wheat, and at the same time they imposed high tariffs against importations of wheat from other producing countries. The result was that in one year France, as hon. gentlemen know, exported 15,000 tons of wheat to Great Britain, thus breaking the Canadian market there. The

Danubian provinces sold large quantities of wheat to nearby territory; Hungary was an exporting country and even Germany produced more than she required. The consequence was that markets that had heretofore been available for Canadian wheat were no longer available. Then came the situation to which I have just referred, so far as Russia was concerned. Regardless of the wants of her people, regardless of the necessity of the preservation of them from hunger and starvation, wheat which could be easily converted into money on the English market was rushed there and sold at a price that bore no relation to the cost of production, the result being that all the rest of the world suffered. As regards Australia, where wheat is sold in an entirely different manner from Canadian wheat, where it is all bagged, and is somewhat softer in quality than much of our wheat, a market was found in China and other parts of the orient. With the depreciation in currency, an increasing market is being found in Japan, because the wheat that has thus far gone to that country has been bagged wheat and not wheat in bulk such as we ship out of our elevators.
The problem that confronts the Canadian people is that propounded by the hon. gentleman, namely, the disposition of the surplus production of wheat in Canada. Last year, when the season ended, the producing countries had on hand, without any new crop, sufficient wheat to meet the entire requirements of the importing countries. It was in furtherance of the very thought which the hon. gentleman has expressed tonight that a wheat conference was held in London at which informally the Russian government was represented, and certain conclusions were reached. The hon. gentleman knows better than I that the same disposition on the part of the wheat producing countries has been expressed unofficially, as to the necessity for lessening the production and acreage. In this country the acreage could not be lessened by the action of this parliament except by resorting to export licences or methods of that kind, because it is solely a matter of property and civil rights within the purview of the provincial power. The matter has engaged the attention of the wheat producing countries of the world, the Argentine, Australia and European countries, and they have expressed the view that some action might be taken; but obviously that aotion, in which selfishness must play a very considerable part, is difficult to make effective because the extent to which there shall be curtailment of production is a question thni

Farm Relief-Mr. Bennett
is looked upon from a different angle by each, of the wheat producing countries. I suppose the house is familiar with the fact that a bill recently introduced in the congress of the United States contemplates the possibility of making curtailment of acreage the test or standard by which a certain bonus is to be paid to those who restrict production. The bill has no.t yet passed. I suppose it is difficult to say what its fate will be, in view of the fact that the present congress will end its labours at the end of this month.
I can assure the ihon. gentleman, first, that every step that can be taken to increase the consumption of Canada wheat by Canadians has been taken. It has been taken in various ways. The use of wheat in larger quantities has been impressed upon the Canadian, people, and in the matter of relief it may well be said that perhaps we have been over generous in so far as the distribution of flour and wheat and agricultural products is concerned. That complaint has been made, but I assure the hon. gentleman that one of the reasons why there has been a generous disposition of agricultural products, including wheat and flour-I should say flour rather than wheat-is that it lessened the quantity of wheat which was left in the country for sale and which found and oould find no market here.
Secondly, no action that could be taken through the Red Cross or any other voluntary organization could in any sense increase the quantity of wheat that could be consumed, or could in any sense lessen the quantity available for export. Lastly, every effort that could be made consistently with the maintenance of any price level at all for wheat has been made. I know of no case in which there has been the slightest hesitancy, shall I say, on the part of those who control the supplies of wheat to sell if the opportunity offered at the current market price. The only case of which I have any personal knowledge was when a suggestion was made for the sale of substantial quantities of wheat on a long credit basis but at a price several cents below the market price, and of course it would be impossible for the Canadian government to assist in the consummation of such a transaction.
I trust without going into the question of relief at this time, which I know the hon. gentleman does not expect me to do, and without amplifying the remarks I have ventured to make regarding the general principles which have governed us in the utilization of Canadian products, that the hon. gentleman will realize that no good purpose would be served by pressing the resolution beyond the purpose that has been served) already of having enabled him to make clear his desire to assist in every possible way, by suggestion or otherwise, in the solution of the difficult problem that confronts the Canadian people through their overproduction of a great world necessity. I think that every purpose that oan be served has been served by the address which the hon. gentleman has made. I thank him for affording the opportunity of bringing this matter to the attention of the house, and I trust that he will agree that the motion may now very properly be withdrawn.


John Vallance: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has mentioned the proposed sale of a certain volume of wheat to China has he any information that China or her representatives in making the offer which he admits they did, and which I know they did, to buy a certain volume at 29 cents a bushel, stipulated any certain grade?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly there was a
grade suggested. I have not the papers with me, but my memory is that was No. 4 or No. 5. I make that statement with a reservation, so I may be able to satisfy myself that it is correct.


John Vallance: Was I correct in the
statement I made to the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night when his estimates were up that the volume suggested at the time was 50 million bushels?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would not agree
with my memory at the moment, but I will see if I can satisfy myself on that point. I suggested that the proposed purchaser, whom I had never seen before, communicate with those who had wheat to sell, and I did not charge my mind very seriously with all the details of the proposal. I suggested that it be put in such shape that it could be dealt with by those who had wheat to sell. I shall be very glad to look the matter up and refresh my memory. At the moment I do not think it was 50 million bushels, but it may have been.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: I have been astonished, Mr. Speaker, by the statements of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). Before this house adjourned for Christmas some statements were made in the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with regard to certain relief camps in the west. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) also made reference to the same matter. Being interested in the camp in the
Farm Relief-Mr. Mullins

Riding Mountain national park I felt it my duty to go out and see what the actual conditions were. I found the men in that camp employed, well fed and well taken care of, and with not a complaint of any kind whatsoever. So the statement as made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre before the Christmas adjournment was not correct.
In my trip west I went through to Victoria, and accompanied by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett) I motored forty miles to look at the Outer Point camp. I sat down and ate a meal with the men, as good a meal as you could eat any place in Canada. Those men are well cared for, well fed with food of the very best quality. I looked at the supplies in camp and found that they were of the very best. I came to Victoria island and motored out some thirty or forty miles to Langley. I went into the camp there and I can say that the statement as made in this house by the hon. member for New Westminster, when he referred to the purchase of some wheelbarrows and to certain conditions said to exist in that camp, was entirely wrong. It was also unfair in view of the conditions as I found them. I also visited with Mr. Rogers of Jasper Park, who has a large number of men in a large camp there. These men are also well taken care of and well fed. I asked the men openly if they had any complaints to make, and they said, "No, none whatever." I felt satisfied that the men were being well fed and well taken care of.
I visited the city of Winnipeg and found conditions there the same. Then I went to Toronto and went into the little mission on Yonge street, where I saw four hundred men being fed food of the very best. I asked if they had any complaints of any kind to make and they said, " None whatever." They were being well taken care of. The only thing they wanted was work, but they realized the conditions.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say that this country is doing its very best for the unemployed. It is feeding them well and taking care of them, and surely there is no reason whatever for any such motion as is now before the house. I have stated the conditions as I found them in the various camps from Ottawa to Victoria. I am sure that Canada is doing her duty on behalf of these men, and if only hon. gentlemen would visit these camps I am sure they would not make the statements they do on the floor of this house. I heard the hon. member for New Westminster speak of a machine that was in use where these men

were on relief, and he said that you had to go seven or eight miles to turn it around. Mr. Speaker, you can turn that machine around on a quarter of an acre of land. I saw the machine myself, just to check up on the statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster. These rash statements that are being made are all erroneous. They must be made for some purpose, and I cannot understand what the purpose is unless it is to capitalize on the present day conditions. It must be that; it cannot be anything else. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Melville would put a resolution such as this on the order paper. If he would visit the different camps as I did, I am sure that he would change his views entirely.


Thomas Reid: I did not intend to take any part in this debate, but as the hon. member has seen fit to drag my name in, I am challenging the statements he has made. I was not aware that he was a self-appointed investigator for any government to go out and look over camps. I know this, that the man appointed by Senator Gideon Robertson in the first instance made several serious charges to the provincial government and to the lieutenant-governor at Victoria, asking that a full im-quiry be made into the misspending of funds and wasteful extravagances.
Regarding wheelbarrows, I might say that when the inquiry took place after a statement was made in this house by myself, the government at Victoria in their inquiry admitted that there might have been 450 steel wheelbarrows but that it was a distributing camp. I am, however, glad the hon. member visited there, because he did actually find the steel wheelbarrows there and they are still there.
When he says no complaints were made I would like to read one complaint that was published just after he was supposed to have visited this camp. This is from the Vancouver Province of January 29. It says that "in January two men drove up in a big car; one of them, very well dressed and with a big ring on his left hand, came into the shack to change his socks. He was covered with mud. After the man in the relief camp had helped to scrape the mud off the well dressed man, the latter handed him a big nickel." I can think of no one that could be but our hon. friend, and I am surprised that he would come back and make statements like that in the house. I would like further time to debate this, because I am not taking back any statement I made on the floor of this house regarding the misspending of money for relief purposes during that time. I have no com-

Farm Relief-Mr. Brown
plaints about the camps now; the men, I believe, are well looked after and, I believe, well fed. In my criticisms I never made any complaint regarding the treatment of the men in the camps.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I gave no one a nickel. I am not so small as that. The statement made by the hon. member is altogether wrong.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. gentleman has spoken already.
Mr. J, L. BROWN (Lisgar): I was not aware that this resolution was to come up tonight or I might have been provided with fuller details than I have with me at the moment. The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has discussed the measure chiefly from the standpoint of disposing of the accumulated surplus of wheat. It is not my purpose to discuss it from that standpoint but rather to indicate what might be done in view of the experience of relief committees in the United States in making use of a product we have in such abundance. It has been my good fortune and pleasure to come somewhat in contact with the system followed over there, True, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has pointed out, we in Canada are not in quite the same position as they were. The movement for the use of whole wheat was begun in a very small way in the town of Oberlin by one who had had some experience in its use in the early days in Manitoba. It began with wheat cracked in ordinary small hand mills. The movement grew larger and larger, and quantities of wheat were sent in from the surrounding country. Instead of using hand mills I saw them using two old cast off coffee mills and a farm grinder driven by electric power. This was in the town of Lorain, Ohio. At this time the movement had gained considerable momentum. The Prime Minister has said that boiled wheat will not keep people in good condition for very long. It may be that boiled wheat is not a very attractive diet, but it was clearly demonstrated that wheat ground in this primitive way could be used for the making of different products that were very attractive. I myself ate cookies and pancakes and muffins made from wheat ground in this manner. After the movement had been under way for some time application was made to congress to pass a bill granting, in the first place, forty million bushels, and I happened to be in Loraine when the first car of that wheat arrived from Chicago. I think the last word I got was that nine or ten cars had been used in that
one town alone. The movement spread all over the United States, until now I understand they have absorbed all the wheat that was held by the farm board.
I can agree pretty largely with the statement made by the Prime Minister that this particular movement would not relieve the farm surplus in any great degree, but I wish that relief committees in the various parts of Canada who are carrying on voluntary relief would investigate what has been done along this line in the United States. They would find that the sometimes meagre funds at their disposal could be used to very great advantage. I know the statement was made by the relief committee of the city of Cleveland that they had reached the end of their voluntary offerings, and then they received the wheat from the farm board. If my memory is correct they made the statement that this wheat would save them about $50,000 in that one year.
I believe this movement for the use of our wheat by relief committees already has begun in Canada. Shortly before I left home the announcement was made that if farmers would contribute quantities of wheat it would be ground and sent to the relief committee in Winnipeg. I do not advance this suggestion in the hope that it will take care of any great quantity of our surplus wheat, but I am quite satisfied that if the relief committees throughout Canada would investigate what has been done, see the various ways in which whole wheat flour may be used and the attractive dishes that can be made from it, they might find themselves able to carry on their relief work more satisfactorily than at present. I have not the slightest doubt, in spite of what the right hon. Prime Minister has said with regard to all cases of need being cared for adequately, that there are still many people in our cities who would be glad to get larger supples than they are receiving at present. While I was in the town of Lorain I saw the people come to the place where the wheat was being ground; they received supplies of the flour, and they expressed great satisfaction with what was given them. So it must not be supposed that this proposition simply involves giving wheat to people to be boiled, as might be taken from the words of the Prime Minister. That wheat was ground and the flour baked in such a way that no one, no matter what might be his tastes, need object to making use of what was furnished. If my words could be brought to the attention of relief committees in various cities of Canada I should be very glad to put them in communication with those who initiated the move-
20i56
Farm Relief-Mr. Stevens

ment in the United States, and who have followed its course during the last two or three years. I may say that from time to time I am in communication with those who began the movement, and I am quite satisfied that it has been eminently successful. As I said before, our government has not on hand a large store of wheat such as that held by the farm board in the United States; the circumstances are quite different, but I believe it is quite possible that relief committees in our cities might take advantage of what has been done in the United States in order to use their funds, which in many cases are all too inadequate, to greater advantage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think perhaps a few
words might be said, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this wheat surplus which is bearing so heavily on the market. Before I address myself to that phase of the resolution. however, I should like to make just one observation in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). In the first place I would say that no matter how complete might be the adaptation of his suggestion in Canada, it could not very seriously affect the quantity of wheat which we have for sale. At the same tame, I agree that it would be desirable to stimulate the consumption of wheat and wheat products in Canada, which is such a prolific producer of wheat.
May I make just this further suggestion to my hon. friend and to others who may be interested in bis suggestion: Would it not be very fair to suggest that the relief organizations right in the heart of the wheat producing area, such as Regina, Winnipeg or other western cities, might try the plan which has been put forward so admirably by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) and the hon. member for Lisgar? Perhaps it would interest the house to know that a large corporation in this city, about as far removed from interest in or the production of wheat as any organization could be-I refer to the Canadian Bank Note Company-issued a most admirable brochure on the very subject which my hon. friend has mentioned. They had a dietitian work out a number of very excellent recipes using wheat, and I am sure they would be glad to place that brochure at the disposal of any organization interested. I do suggest very earnestly, however, that this plan might be tried in one of the great centres of the wheat growing area, and then probably it would spread rapidly to other centres.
In his resolution the hon. member for Melville refers to two matters, to the first of which I have just made reference, and which

I think was very well covered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). The second suggestion is:
. . . selling on long term credits a substantial quantity of our embarrassing wheat carry-over to China. . . .
I wish to refer to this suggestion for a few moments. My hon. friend from Melville said:	"Let us sell the wheat on any terms;
get rid of it at any price". I submit to my hon. friend, though perhaps he was indulging in a superlative, really for the purpose of impressing the point-


William Richard Motherwell: May I point out
that I suggested this plan as an alternative to doing nothing? I said it would be better than just letting the wheat pile up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Seriously, Mr. Speaker,
I want to draw to the attention of my hon. friend the possible danger in such a suggestion. As a matter of fact I rather deplore any suggestion of the kind going forth from this house, because I am afraid it will have a depressing effect upon an altogether oversensitive world market. Canada ought not- and I hope to demonstrate this in a moment -do anything that will give the impression abroad that we are in the position of having to sell wheat at any price. If we did that in connection with only five million bushels, which would not help a great deal when we are handling three hundred mitlldon or four hundred million bushels, it would inevitably depress the price for another forty million, fifty million or perhaps seventy-five million bushels. This market is an exceedingly sensitive organism, and the one thing we have been trying to do in Canada is to hold the marketing of wheat on a stabilized and what we might call an orderly basis. I can say this, I think, with confidence: I am sure that those who have followed the market with care, as I do daily, will agree that the Canadian marketing system has not beared the market unreasonably during the past year, but they have never refused to sell wheat when at was asked for by any market in the world. It would be deplorable were we to adopt in any sense the suggestion that we should sell wheat and sell it at any price.
To bear out what I have said, I wish to give to the house some rather interesting data. The test of what we are doing with our products is to be found after all in the way in which we are getting them out to the markets of the world. I have here a tabulation which I will read to a sufficient extent to warrant my asking that it go on Hansard in detail, so that the house can get it in its

Farm Relief-Mr. Stevens
present form. For the moment I will indicate the facts disclosed in this document. It is a ten-year tabulation of the export of wheat and wheat flour. The two are combined; that is to say, the flour is treated as wheat. It covers the ten-year period from 1922-23 to 1932-33 and gives the months of August to January right down to January, 1933. Let us take the month of January by way of illustration. In January, 1933, we marketed, in round figures, 16,500,000 bu.shels of wheat, and the other years run as follows: 14,000,000;
17.000.	000; 10,000,000; 16,000,000; 16,000,000;
18.000.	000; 25,000,000 ; 7,000,000;	11,000,000;
10.000.	000.
If you take the average for ten years for this six months period you will find that Canada marketed 150,000.000 bushels in that period over a stretch of ten years. This' year we marketed 160,000,000 bushels, or 10,000,000 bushels more than the average for the ten years. Then take the last five-year period. The average for that period wa>s 144,000,000 bushels, whereas we marketed this year, as I have already said, in the six months indicated, 160,000,000 bushels, showing that at the present time we are pressing out wheat to the markets of the world at a more rapid ratio than the average for the ten years or the average for five years. My hon. friend therefore may take it for granted that Canada is not piling up a surplus from any lack of effort to market.
Following is the table:

Canadian exports of wheat and wheat flour-August to January 1922-23 to 1932-33
-	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28	1928-29	1929-30	1930-31	1931-32	1932-33bush.	bush.	bush.	bush.	bush.	bush.	bush.	bush.	bush.	bush.	bush.14,247,005	14,374,581	11,001,872	18,417,164	11,608,211	14,508,757	29,218,716	13,050,873	20,461,776	14,258,909	19,776,551
September		12,371,685	7,353,683	14,620,156	18,851,722	13,330,623	17,118,851	30,926,764	9,625,524	31,121,623	16,840,179	28,607,246
											
	41,441,618	34,269,281	19,439,632	46,496,013	34,905,314	23,474,245	48,956,623	23,215,028	33,445,885	21,438,369	42,571,988
											
	60,781,052	70,304,858	31,056,274	40,286,468	49.324,179	57,977,870	80,633,055	24,866,067	34,783,144	29,596,254	29,897,864
											
	47,251,047	63,633,769	33,573,409	61,697,530	48,861,083	49,114,129	53,242,306	18,683,198	24,938,920	24,386,870	29,950,147
											
	14,353,663	17,057,018	10,039,111	16,423,926	16,053,950	18,646,853	25,031,828	7,257,050	11,374,004	10,965,473	16,494,669
											
Total		190,446,070	206,993,190	119,730,454	202,172,823	174,383,360	180,840,705	268,009,294	96,697,740	156,125,352	117,486,054	167,298,465
											
	t26,779,986	36,852,224	16,931,110	22,487,024	11,044,965	27,977,546	21,966,665	15,372,440	15,618,112	14,135,691	6,514,429
											
	*163,666,084	170,140,966	102,799,344	179,685,799	163,338,395	152,863,159	246,043,629	81,325,300	140,507,240	103,350,363	160,784,036
tin each of the eleven crop years, the increases in stocks of Canadian wheat in United States positions between August and January, have been deducted. When Canadian wheat moves into store in the United States, it is counted as an export. In the present year a smaller amount of Canadian wheat is moving tnrough United States ports and consequently our export figures for 1932-33 are somewhat lower than they would be if normal quantities of Canadian wheat were in store in the United
*10 year average 1922-23 to 1931-32 5 year average 1927-28 to 1931-32.
150,372,027 bushels. 144,817,938 bushels.
Farm Reliej-Mr. Stevens

Farm Relief-Mr. Stevens
I agree with the observations that have been made with regard to the speech delivered by my hon>. friend from Melville. It was an admirable sipeeoh, delivered in splendid spirit, and whatever I say is said in the same spirit in which the hon. gentleman presented his resolution. He made the statement that this surplus is bearing us down, and I think he used a rather interesting simile when he said that it was drowning us just as you might drown a cat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A cat has nine lives.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As the Prime Minister says, a oat has nine lives.


John Vallance: We are on the last one now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. gentleman will follow me for the next ten minutes I will endeavour to disabuse his mind of that depth of pessimism into which he has floundered. We are not being borne down or overwhelmed with an unreasonable surplus of wheat at this time. I venture to say that even with the large crop we have garnered this year the carry-over will not be more than it was last year. It may vary a little up or down but I do not think it will be much over; in fact I think it will be a little under. But circumstances outside of Canada are entirely different this year from what they were a year ago, so that even if we do have such a surplus at the end of the crop year it will be under conditions distinctly advantageous to Canada and not as they were in the previous year.
Let us look for a moment at the world situation as it is to-day. I have given it a great deal of very careful study and I base these observations upon the fullest possible information available. The world situation is this. Europe is bare of wheat, and that does not apply merely to the large centres where wheat is normally gathered, such as Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Liverpool, and so on. I mean the country supplies of Europe. It has been the practice for centuries over there to carry in the stack considerable quantities of wheat on these small fawns. It has been a common practice for many years, but owing to two factors, first the bonuses in the way of high tariffs that have been given to the producers in Europe, and secondly to economic pressure, the farmers of Europe have sold off this supply.
Now it should be borne in mind that this supply hitherto held upon the farms in Europe has never entered into the statistics of the various countries When (figuring on wheat. This first came to my attention some months ago when I was making a careful anallytical
study of the figures of production and consumption of wheat, and I found the discrepancy. It was very difficult to understand it, but after we had given it a great deal of study we found that this invisible surplus in Europe, which has been -there normally for centuries and consists of a quantity estimated as between possibly 200,000,000 and 500,000,000 bushels-I think it is impossible to estimate it exactly-we found, I say, that this invisible unaccounted surplus -has been fed- on the market during the last three years particularly and accounts for the discrepancy in the figures we have had before us from time to time.
Bearing out my suggestion in that regard, there was a report issued -the other day by Broomha'lls, and although I am speaking from memory, not having it before me, I think I am safe in saying that in that report he pointed out that the stocks in Europe, visible and invisible, were largely exhausted; and he intimated, I think, that they were at their lowest point in the -history of buying countries. He -made the further observation that now was a good time to replenish these stocks because of the low price of wheat throughout the world. That is to say, in the buying countries the stocks of wheat normally visible and those that were invisible have been substantially if not almost wholly exhausted.
Turning to the other side of the question, we find that the winter Wheat area of Russia is below what it has been in recent years; that is, the acreage that has been sown and the condition of the wheat during the fall months of November -and December have fallen off. The land is not in good condition and the acreage is not as large as it has been, by a considerable number

I saw a figure the other day showing a diminution of 4,000,000 acres. Many of these figures one must not take too seriously, but it is a certainty that there has been a substantial diminution of acreage in Russia. Now the spring wheat area in Russia is known among agriculturists as in foul -condition, owing to new methods of farming and the rather disturbed conditions of the lasfc four or five years. There has been a growth of weeds which is familiar to many of our western farmers, who know how difficult it is to produce a good crop under such conditions. It can therefore be reasonably asserted that Russia will not be a serious competitor, certainly not if she feeds her own people in the next year or two.
We come next to the Balkan area, in part an exporting country although upon occasions it is an importing country. It is a heavy producer of wheat and the winter wheat area, although not seriously injured, is reported to be in a subnormal condition.
Farm Relief-Mr. Stevens

We turn from that to the Argentine. The present Argentine crop is a fair crop as far as quantity is concerned, but it is below normal in quality. Argentine wheat is one of the chief competitors of Canadian wheat, and I venture the assertion that it will not be on the markets in its higher grades to the degree expected a few months ago.


John Vallance: There is only one grade of Argentine wheat, F.A.Q.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is more than one grade.


John Vallance: That is their average wheat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The point is that that grade is not up to normal.
We come next to Australia. This year they have a crop of good quality, but it is their third or fourth successive good crop, which is an abnormal number of successive good crops for that country. There has been a substantial increase of acreage in Australia, the present crop having been taken off an acreage some 2,500,000 acres above what it was in previous years.
The United States has been one of the depressing factors in the world markets for the last three years because of their veTy large surplus. I neglected to point out that in 1928-29 all the producing countries of the world had phenomenally large crops, and in addition Russia entered the market in the manner referred to by the Prime Minister a moment ago. All the countries were left with large surpluses, the total amounting from 350,000,000 to 400,000,000 bushels above what they were able to get rid of in the world market. I think the United States have been quite reasonable in their methods of marketing during the last two or three years; they have certainly not been unreasonable. The present crop of winter wheat in the United States is in a subnormal condition. A reduction in acreage has been referred to, but in the case of the United States there has been a greater reduction by nature than could be achieved by any constituted authority.


William Richard Motherwell: What does the minister mean?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am referring to the winter kill. The effects of this blight have been tantamount to a very substantial reduction in acreage. It is unlikely that the United States, even with a good spring crop, will have any more wheat than is necessary to supply their own needs. At the most there will be only a small surplus.
Canada has had a very good average crop. In some sections it was poor, but on the whole

it was of good average. As I indicated a moment ago, if I had expected this matter to come up I would have had the precise figures before me. Our wheat has been got out to the markets of the world in an excellent manner. Prices have been 'low and depressed but there has been a fair demand and our wheat has moved out better than in recent years. I think we are justified in saying that the marketing or the disposal of Canada's crop has been very satisfactory, other than in price.
We come now to the situation which may be faced next year. I say without much hesitancy that there is no likelihood of a depressing surplus this coming crop year, that is, after the midsummer period. Undoubtedly there is enough wheat in visible supply to take care of the world's needs, but, taking it by and large, there is not a surplus beyond what has in the past been looked upon as a reasonably safe margin. With one exception all the factors are present for an advance in the price of wheat, and that exception is the depressed and dislocated economic position of the buying countries. The buying power of the people in the purchasing countries undoubtedly is dislocated and subnormal, again using that term. All this is keeping down the price of wheat. I think the price of wheat is held down more by the inability to buy or the fact that people do not wish to buy than by the actual surplus of wheat visible on the world market. The outlook is not too blue and our people should face the present situation with a degree of reasonable confidence. I do not think it would be a good thing to have a sudden rise in the price of wheat or other commodities, but certainly an accretion in the price of wheat and other commodities is desired by all.
If we launch upon a policy of definite curtailment of acreage, I think there is a danger of stimulating still further the production in the buying countries. It must be borne in mind that the buying countries such as France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and other small European countries have in recent years, by means of quotas and high tariffs against foreign wheat, tremendously stimulated the production of wheat within their own boundaries. I do not think it would be wise for the producing countries artificially to advance the price of wheat by a curtailment of acreage. If this matter is to be discussed, to my mind it ought to be discussed with the purchasing countries sitting in. We must bear in mind that wheat oan be grown anywhere between the Arctic and Antarctic circles; it can be grown quickly; it can be produced in such countries as Persia and

Farm Relief-Mr. Stevens
northern Africa. A very considerable quantity is produced now in northern Africa to supply France with a portion of its requirements. If the big producing countries were to adopt a policy of unduly and artificially advancing the price of wheat, there would be that reaction.
My hon. friend suggested the marketing of some of our wheat in China, but there are one or two things that ought to be said in regard to that. Some months ago a group of clergymen waited upon mie to advocate this very thing. Their views were based entirely upon humanitarian grounds; their suggestion was motivated, I think, purely by a desire to have some cheap food given to those whom they conceived to be starving in China. We went into this matter with considerable care; we did not lightly dismiss it. I took the trouble to have our officers who are on the ground give it close attention and study. But in China certain conditions now obtain which make it physically impossible to get the wheat to the desired objective. For instance, let us take last year's flood area of which we are aware. I was told by men of repute, whose word could not be questioned, that it would be impossible to get in there, because lying between the seaboard and those areas were numbers of substantial army organizations with ambitious generals who were exercising jurisdiction over large provinces and who would intercept anything passing through. So that really had we done this the wheat we sent into China ostensibly for the relief of private persons suffering in some interior point would have been sequestrated by ambitious war lords who would use it for the purpose of supporting their armies. Of that I do not think there can be any doubt.
Another point in regard to the placing of wheat in China is this:	It is not, I think,
generally understood in this country that most of the wheat and flour that enters China goes through the Shanghai area. That is perhaps one of the largest milling centres and also one of the best organized business centres in the world. They think of these things purely and simply from a business standpoint. They are at present buying large quantities of wheat. They are jealously guarding the trade within, shall I say, the ambit of the area in which they are able to trade, and there is little possibility of passing flour or wheat through that area and distributing it, in any satisfactory way known to us, in sections either served by them or beyond the circle of their influence.
So I want to assure the hon. member for Melville that we have not failed to study the
question, but we feel the suggestion is impracticable. At the same time I should like to point out that very substantial quantities are now being sold to China, although Australia is selling much larger quantities than we are, the reason being the use to which the Chinese desire to place wheat or wheat flour, namely, for what is known as noodles or for the pastry type. They do not use light yeast bread to the same degree as we do. What we are trying to do, through the influence of trade commissioners, and so forth, is to stimulate the use of bread wheat and bread flour there; but the chief purpose for which they use wheat is to make soft wheat products such as noodles and confections. The consequence is that they prefer Australian wheat to ours, but there is this comfort for us in the fact that the larger the quantity of Australian wheat that finds a market in the orient, the less the pressure upon the Liverpool and European markets, so that whether it is sold one place or the other makes comparatively little difference. Nevertheless we are sending very substantial quantities of wheat and flour to Japan and northern China. We have recently opened a new market in the Dutch East Indies, and in many other places we are extending the market for Canadian products and doing everything we can to enlarge their sale.
It has been suggested by the Prime Minister that possibly the hon. member, seeing that we have had this prolonged discussion on his resolution, might withdraw it.


William Richard Motherwell: I believe a number still want to speak.


John Vallance: Will you call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 14, 1933