1933-02-28

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Matthews.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand) presented the first report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister): I beg leave to lay on the table copies in English and French of the draft annotated agenda submitted by the committee of experts on the Economic and Monetary conference and to move that 700 copies in the English language an,d 300 copies in the French language of the draft annotated agenda of the Economic and Monetary conference laid on the table of the house this day be printed forthwith and that standing order 64 in relation thereto be suspended.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. GORDON:: I desire to lay on the
table of the house certain orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39 to amend the Railway Act (return tickets).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Speaker, this bill is
similar to one which I have introduced into the house five or six times since 1917 when I had the honour to become a member of this house. The conditions under which this bill is being presented are somewhat different from what they were in the past, and I have hopes that the higher intelligence of this

British Coal Importation
house may in its comprehensive wisdom enact the bill into legislation. It is all contained in one paragraph which reads as follows:
A return ticket issued by any railway company between any two points in Canada shall be accepted by any other railway company whose line runs between the same terminals.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the first reading of Bill No. 37 (from the Senate) respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system, and for other purposes.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Speaker, the bill will
require a very brief explanation. As has been stated, it is based on the report of the royal commission on transportation, commonly known as the Duff commission. It contains three parts: Part 1, A, the appointment of three trustees instead of the seventeen *directors; B, control by the trustees of the annual budget; C, the appointment of auditors; D, the making of the annual report. Part 2 provides for cooperative arrangements between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, and part 3 provides for arbitration before arbitral tribunals in the event of disputes arising between the two railways regarding cooperation.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Is that a government
bill?


Robert James Manion: I should think so. I am
still a member of the government.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LUMBER EXPORTS TO BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the house what progress is being made with the government of Great Britain in connection with the marketing of Canadian lumber in that country.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was
not in his place or he would have heard what was said on a previous occasion. The treaty arrangements covered by a protocol between Great Britain and Russia have been terminated by notice and expire in the month of
April next, and until such termination the British government can take no action in the premises; that is, should there be need for further consideration by reason of unfair competition, the means are not available for action until after the expiration of the six months' notice in April next. Until that time it is obvious that no action can be taken other than that taken by those who have the product to sell and endeavour to sell it. If they succeed, well and good; if they do not, they have not sold their product.



BRITISH COAL IMPORTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIberni):: Can
the Minister of Labour give us any information as to the steps that have been taken or the progress that has been made in checking the importation of British coal into British Columbia, where it is brought out by ballast to the detriment of our local mines?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe some British coal has
come into the city of Vancouver, but whether it is in ballast or not I do not know. The whole question is under review by my department, and at the moment I cannot express any view because the amount of the shipments, the conditions under which they come in, and the extent to which they come into competition, fairly or unfairly, with Canadian fuels is not yet apparent.



PENSION LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: May I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health if it is proposed in the near future to bring down legislation based on the report of the committee which was recently appointed to investigate pensions administration?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I gave the
information a few days ago, and the hon. member will find it in Hansard. However, to save him the trouble of looking it up, I might say that it is likely that legislation will be introduced.



TADOUSSAC-BAIE ST. CATHERINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-François Casgrain: May I ask the Minister of Trade and
Commerce if he is aware of the fact that the ferry service between Tadoussac and Baie St. Catherines is being operated only once a day

Salary Deduction Act
instead of twice a day as stipulated in the contract, and if there is any reason for such curtailment of the service?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall look into the matter.



SALARY DEDUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 38, to amend the Salary Deduction Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Act to continue in force until March 31, 1934.
Mr. RHODES:: When in committee on the resolution on February 24, the hon. member for Gloucester asked a question. I replied that when we reached committee stage on the bill I should be pleased to answer. Probably at this time the hon. member would be good enough to repeat Ills question.


Mr. VENIOT:: My question was this: If a civil servant retires in 1934 or 1935 will his pension be based on full salary, plus statutory allowances for 1932, 1933 and 1934, or will it be based on salary minus ten per cent, and minus statutory increases to which he would be entitled if this law had not been passed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member will recall that on the former occasion I answered part of his question. The superannuation of a man such as he has described would be based upon the authorized salary he had received at the time of his retirement. As a matter of fact. I find upon inquiry that in actual practice there are very few, if any, cases where civil servants retire before reaching the maximum of their classes1.


Peter John Veniot: Supposing a civil servant should retire through illness, but has not yet reached his maximum, how would the minister handle the case?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no doubt the hon. member is labouring under the misapprehension that under the law a civil servant is entitled to his statutory increase, as a matter of course, That is not the case. There must be a recommendation from the department, and approval by the Civil Service Commission. There have been cases where statutory in-

creases have been withheld not only from individuals but from the whole service. In the year 1896 the government of the day followed that practice. It passed a regulation to the effeet that there should be no statutory increases for the year.


Peter John Veniot: I am well aware of the fact that statutory increases cannot be granted except on recommendation. But in a case where there is a recommendation, and there is nothing against the individual, that individual is entitled to a statutory increase. In the present instance however statutory increases have ceased, and of course the minister is quite correct when he states there need be no recommendation to council to do away with them. However withholding the statutory increase is an arbitrary measure through which the man's salary is very much decreased. I should like to know this: Will the statutory increases which he did not receive for these years be considered when superannuation is under consideration?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer is no. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) submitted a question concerning the number of employees affected. While in committee on the resolution.1 I did not wish to give an offhand answer, but I can tell him now that the number is 60,000.


Mr. HEAPS:: Has the minister the classifications?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have before me the classifications submitted to the Beatty commission. They are as follows:
$1,200	or	less	
16,408From	$1,201	up	to	$2,000	
22,745From	$2,001	up	to	$3,000	
6,123From	$3,001	up	to	$4,000	
1,575From	$4,001	up	to	$5,000	
461Over	$5,000	
215Salary not stated	
34
To that total list must be added about
13,000	persons including revenue postmasters and casual employees.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The minister was to give
me some information about those employees who are paid partly in cash and partly in kind.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that I have any information to add to that which I gave the hon. member when we were in committee on the resolution. I find the answer I gave on that occasion is correct. Where a~ allowance is regarded as a portion of salary and is so treated for purposes of superannuation, then that allowance, whether it be in kind or in money, is subject to reduction.

Salary Deduction Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to repeat, as earnestly as I can, that that ruling by the treasury board violates, I submit, the most elementary principles of common justice. I do not know that I can add much to what I said the other day, but I must say that this is a matter affecting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of employees in Canada. It affects those employees who are getting paid partly in cash and partly by the furnishing of a house, by rations or something else other than cash.


Peter John Veniot: It affects every country postmaster.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Some hon. members
will realize how little justification there is for this ruling. One of the grounds urged in justification of the Salary Deduction Act is that during the last few years the cost of living has gone down by at least ten per cent. If we take the case of a civil servant who is being paid partly in cash and partly by furnishing living quarters, we must realize that the value of the living quarters is less than it was. It has gone down at least ten per cent. Yet by the action of the treasury board in making a deduction of ten per cent of the value of the living quarters from the part paid in cash, the government is keeping the charge for the quarters up to the amount it was before the reduction.
Let me put the case in a way which will be understandable by every hon. member. Let us consider the car allowances to ministers. The amount received by ministers for sessional indemnities and as ministerial salaries totals S14,000 each. They receive a car allowance of $2,000. As I understand the circumstances, the salary deduction legislation makes a deduction in both instances. The minister will correct me if I am wrong.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Instead' of $2,000 for car allowance, under the salary deduction legislation ministers receive only $1,800, and everyone knows that is enough if $2,000 was enough, because it is the common experience of every member of this house that the charges for taxicabs and the like have gone down at least that much during the last two or three years. Now suppose that a change were made in the system, and the government, instead of paying a car allowance to the ministers, supplied them with cars, does anyone pretend that the deduction from the $14,000 should be $1,600? The deduction from the $14,000 should be $1,400. That would be the only just ten per cent deduction that could be made. The other $200 has already come off.
The service that is supplied is worth $200 less than the service the government would have been supplying had they been supplying that service two or three years ago. The deduction has already been suffered on the part of the salary that is supplied in kind. Take for example a lighthouse keeper who gets paid $200 in cash and is supplied with quarters said to be worth $200. His deduction should be $20, it should not be $40, because the value of his quarters, on the very basis upon the act itself, has gone down $20. It is an absolute injustice to take 20 per cent from his salary.
Take the 'Case of certain employees who, I understand, get paid no money ait all, but get the whole of their remuneration in kind; do they owe 'the government something now? Certainly not. Yet that is the result of the ruling applied by the treasury board to this particular class of officials. Say a man gets no remuneration from the government except, for instance, the use of a 'house, which is supposed to be worth for superannuation purposes $1,000 a year. Under the Salary Deduction Act, according to the principle applied by the treasury board, he must pay back $100 a year, because he is being out down by 'ten per cent. But anyone who thinks about it will see that he is being out down ten per cent anyway by the change in conditions; his house is now worth only $900 a year. I submit that the minister should not answer this by saying: Well, that is the regulation of the treasury board, and let it go at 'that. The regulation of the treasury board should be changed, it is manifestly a violation of the ordinary prim-ciples of justice to out down these people by 20 or 25 per cent or more when the Salary Deduction Act only provides for a reduction of ten per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the instance given by the hon. member for Hanits-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) in respect of a man who receives as his pay the right to occupy a house is purely imaginary.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am told not. I have made inquiry and found that some civil servants receive their total remuneration in kind.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not had the point before, but I think it is imaginary. I would be glad to have an instance, and inquire into it. Let me say that I have not justified, or attempted' to justify, the method of the application of ithe Salary Deduction Act upon the mere ipse dixit of the treasury board. As a matter of fact, unless the question were submitted to me I do not recall that I have even referred to the treasury board. Whait I have
Salary Deduction Act

said is thait the method has been to apply the deduction in each of these eases where the compensation received in kind is treated as a portion of the salary, and is so treated by the desire of the civil servant himself for the purpose of superannuation, because it has the effect of increasing the amount he would receive for superannuation. If that principle is applied in one case it is only fair that it should be applied in the other.
Let me cite an instance given to me in a brief memorandum on this very point by the official of the department who is charged with the conduct of these oases, and who would be with me to-day but for the fact that he was suddenly stricken with illness this morning and is therefore unable to be here. He says:
A department has two employees, each classified at a salary of $150 per month, plus an allowance for house, fuel, light and rations of $50 per month.
Making $200 in all.
Only one house is available, and this is occupied by one employee, who is paid in cash $150 per month. The other employee is paid in cash at the rate of $200 per month. Both contribute to the superannuation fund on the larger amount. It would be quite unfair, the real compensation being the same, to apply the terms of the Salary Deduction Act to $150 in one case and $200 in the other.
I think that puts the case very succinctly. We are merely applying in this case the same principle os is applied to the same civil servant when we are considering his salary for the the purpose of superannuation.


Peter John Veniot: Take it the other way;
how is it where there is no superannuation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The principle is the same. It has been ruled and it has been the custom that the extra remuneration, in whatever form it may come, has been deemed a portion of the salary. There are many cases and classes of cases where allowances and payments are not subject to the deduction because they are not deemed to be a portion of the salary.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: When the resolution
preceding this 'bill was before the house the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) brought to the attention of the minister the case of the commission postmasters, that is those who derive their remuneration by a commission on the amount of business done. I think he pointed out that apparently at least some injustice has been done to that class of post office official. I have had complaints of the same nature. I have looked into the matter, and in my opinion those complaints are amply justified. The minister stated at the time that he

would look into it; I trust he will. The position is this. Instead of receiving a set salary the postmasters in these offices receive a certain commission, varying in percentage, upon the amount of business of various kinds done through the office. Under the terms of the Salary Deduction Act the commission will be reduced by approximately ten per cent. But the fact is apparently overlooked that the amount of business dome is greatly reduced as compared with former years, so that as a matter of fact, and in comparison with the remuneration they received two or three years ago, and in comparison with the salaries still paid to salaried postmasters, these officials are getting a reduction of anywhere from twenty to twenty-two or twenty-three per cent. This is somewhat involved of course, because they have rental allowances and various commissions. But as far as I can ascertain, and I have examined it as carefully as an outsider very well can, both through the department, and the complaints sent me by the officers themselves, the net result undoubtedly is, as stated by the hon. memiber for South Battleford, that they are getting a reduction, as compared with their former nemuueiraitian, of ait least twenty to twenty-two per cent instead of the ten per cent contemplated by the act. I hope the minister will fulfil his promise and examine into that situation very carefully, because it affects a great many men who are performing very onerous duties, doing them very faithfully, and for what is now a very inadequate remuneration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to my hon.
friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) that the matter in question has been very carefully considered, and it is difficult to see how one could avoid applying the general principle which I mentioned a moment ago in the case of a revenue postmaster. Now coming to the actual facts, it is true that in common with all who are doing business, the amount of business done by the individual has been lessened because of existing conditions. But there are certain compensating factors which also must be borne in mind. In the first place there is the circumstance that the cost of doing business is lessened owing to the reduced cost of living. There is the contributing factor that the cost of postage has increased and that, to a certain extent, the volume of business has been increased thereby. There is the further fact, which is very important in connection with many post offices, that the postmaster is permitted to sell postage stamps not only for use upon letters but for use upon cheques as well,

Salary Deduction Act
which also tends to give him a very material return, since he receives a very substantial percentage upon the first thousand dollars worth of stamps sold. So taking the balance, having regard to all those circumstances and assuming that the principle I mentioned a moment ago is sound, its application should have the effect in the case of the postmasters in question. No doubt in the cases of many of these post offices it is to be regretted that the compensation which is so meagre should be still further whittled down, but it would be difficult to have a law of general application which would not perhaps result in hardship in individual cases. Taking it by and large, however, I think the general soundness of the principle is apparent.


Mr. BREAK  MAN@: I will admit the various forms of compensation mentioned by the minister; I will admit the truth of the other points he mentioned, but. it is also true that the salaried postmasters have been reduced ten per cent as compared with their former incomes while commission postmasters have had an average actual and effective reduction of a little over twenty per cent. Every argument as to the lower cost of living and the lower cost of doing business which applies to the commission man applies to the salaried man also. It was estimated that the ten per cent reduction was fair in view of the lower cost of living and of doing business, so if that is a sound principle it must be admitted that a reduction of twenty per cent or twenty-two per cent is greater than is fair, and that is the net result in spite of the facts to which the minister referred.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I will detain the committee for only a few moments. I am absolutely opposed to the second reading of this bill for the reasons I mentioned last year, and which may be found in Hansard of April 4, 1932. I am absolutely opposed to the second reading of the bill, and experience has shown that my arguments last year were sound.
There is one further fact which I should like to place before the committee; it is this: By lowering salaries the government has affected one of the most essential factors in the reestablishment of economic conditions, that is, the purchasing power of the country. I find that in answer to a question put to him the Minister of Finance is reported at page 1897 of Hansard as having said that the saving thereby last year amounted to $8,-
300,000.	In other words, from the purchasing power of the salaried employees of the government the government has put aside the
sum of 88,300,000 which, instead of being used for productive purposes, has been turned into the sink hole. It was not used to pay off a part of the national debt but was used for some non-productive purpose. I understand that in banking and so on a dollar in trade is usually worth from $10 to $17 in returns. To suit the minister let us put it at a conservative estimate and say that a dollar in trade is actually worth $10 in returns. This would mean that the earning power of this country was reduced last year by $83,000,000. It would mean that in this city alone, which contributed S2,250,000 of the $8,300,000, there would be anywhere from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 less in trade. At this time everyone is trying to increase the purchasing power of the country, and everyone is trying to get at the root of our economic and finamoiail difficulties, I do not think that we should take this step which will only increase our difficulties.
I do not suppose that anything I may add will affect the passage of this bill, but I should like to point out once more that this is a most unfair and unjust piece of legislation, and that some grading should have been done. I believe those earning less than $1,200 should not have been touched at all. I do not say that simply because of the ten thousand or twelve thousand people ini Ottawa who aire immediately affected; I say it because of the effect it has had and will have on the whole community. I believe this legislation has been a most pernicious example to corporations and business houses throughout the country, who have followed the lead of the government and cut wages. They have not turned over to the government the money they have saved by reducing wages; instead, they have simply taken that money in order to pay dividends to stockholders and shareholders. I do think it is most impolitic-and I use the word in its proper sense-and a most arbitrary measure, and for these reasons I must oppose it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I should like to observe to my hon. friend from Ottawa that he has overlooked1 one simple fact. It is that the $8,300,000 which we saved last year would have had to be made up by taxes levied upon the people of the country. If there is any merit in his contention what he is saying now must mean that, if we want to bring about prosperity we must tax the people. In other words, my hon. friend is advocating that we should tax ourselves into prosperity.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then may I ask if the
members of the civil service will be exempted to the extent of ten per cent in the taxes they must pay?
Salary Deduction Act


Mr. POULIOT:: The senior member for
Ottawa seldom forgets anything but this time he has been kind enough to leave one point for me. I am very glad to see the Minister of National Revenue here with his colleague the Minister of Finance. If I remember rightly the Minister of National Revenue told us some time ago that the decrease in the duty on spirits and cigarettes would amount to $8,000,000 or approximately that sum, while on the other hand the out in salaries, we are told, will amount to about the same figure. So that civil servants in common with the rest of us have to suffer a reduction in order to give greater opportunity to other people to enjoy themselves as a result of the reduction in the prices of cigarettes and liquor. Am I right in my contention?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend, with his
fertile and ingenious mind, is always bringing up new and interesting aspects of the subject. In regard to the statement of the Minister of National Revenue, he had apparently in his mind the circumstance that the treasury would lose $8,000,000 as a result of the reduction in the duty on spirit?. That was not the interpretation which could properly be placed on the remarks of my colleague. As my hon. friend knows, there is a law of diminishing returns, and he will recall that the late Mr. Fielding, when Minister of Finance,-I mention this because it is a matter of record- imposed a special heavy duty on cigarettes. He was warned at the time he imposed that duty that he would receive less revenue under the increased duty than under the duty as it had stood, and he found it so to such an extent that he had to change his tax during the actual session of parliament in which he proposed it. I may be wrong in this detail, but the fact is that he ultimately had to reduce the tax because he was receiving less revenue. We believe that, having regard to the encouragement which is given to smuggling, as well as other breaches of the law which occur when the excise impost on spirits is too heavy, we shall receive under the lesser impost, if not as large then substantially as large a return to the treasury ultimately because to the extent that you reduce taxation to that extent you limit the temptation to breaches of the law. When my hon. friend mentioned the figure he did, he had in mind that, assuming the receipts from liquor were $40,000,000, on the basis of a reduction of one-fifth it would mean $8,000,000. That would be the mathematical computation, but it by no means follows that over a period of time the actual loss to the treasury would be anything like that amount.


Jean-François Pouliot: But the amount is the
same in each case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so; $8,000,000 is


Jean-François Pouliot: But there is no relation,
between the two, if my understanding is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Income War Tax Act (special tax).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bury in the chair.
On section 1-Special tax continued for one year.
Mr. COOTE:: Can the minister give the
committee an idea of the approximate amount collected under the tax last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am extremely sorry, but
I have not the computation before me. I can get it of course.


George Gibson Coote: I suggest to the minister
that before he brings down his budget he should seriously consider increasing the revenue of the country by a change in the Income War Tax Act so as to place a higher tax on the higher incomes in Canada. He might take as a model the bill introduced by his predecessor, the present Prime Minister, two years ago. That bill I believe was based on the principle of assessing income tax in relation to the income earned; that is to say, it was one per cent on the first thousand, two per cent on the second thousand, and so on, the rate being increased one per cent with each increase of one thousand in income, until it reached twenty-five per cent on the twenty-fifth thousand. During this emergency, which is the reason for the present bill, we might very well consider adopting that same principle but carrying it still further until we reach a levy of ninety-nine per cent on the ninety-ninth thousand. That would greatly increase the revenue of the country and I have no doubt the men in receipt of incomes of that amount would be glad to contribute more liberally than they are now doing, just as members of the Canadian Civil Service have been glad to contribute to the revenues. I trust the minister

Income War Tax Act
will take this into consideration before he brings down the budget. At this time, when it is so necessary to increase revenues, I suggest that this is the best possible way of securing an increase and I urge the minister to take the suggestion into consideration before he brings down the budget.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I assure the bon. member for Ma/cleod and the committee as well that I shall be happy to explore every possible avenue which might afford an increased' return to the 'treasury. I would deem it a favour if any hon. member would suggest any method which has not already been put forward either in the house or among the hundreds I am receiving every day by post. Not only will the suggestion he has made receive careful consideration, but I shall be glad to consider diverse and sundry others which may come to my attention.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I offer my humble contribution to the debate on this bill? First of all, may I be permitted to draw a distinction between judges who work and those who do nab, those who now enjoy a rest after a few years of service on 'the bench? For instance, in my province I know of two judges who sait 'On the bench of the Supreme court and who did very well while they were fulfilling their duties, but who are now superannuated. Will the minister be kind enough to tell us whether this legislation applies to judges who are on superannuation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; this would apply only to judges who are in receipt of salaries. Those who are in receipt of pensions are subject only to the ordinary income tax.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the same principle ought to apply in the case of pensions to judges as in the case of all other pensions. It would be very unjust to discriminate between a pension to a judge and the numerous other classes of pensions we have. The principle may be sound -or it may not be, but no matter which it is, if it is to be applied it should be done generally. It would be very invidious and unjust to attempt to single out for special consideration of this character judges who are on pension from all other pensioners in Canada.
In the case of the individual whom my bon. friend mentioned and who is in receipt of a pension as a retired judge, but who augments his salary by additional earnings from acting as counsel far some firm-


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister knows I
did not criticize the gentleman at all.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon; I thought he was pointing out there was an injustice there.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; if the minister permits me, I am not criticizing the former judge on account of the fact that he has now taken up legal practice. What seems unfair to me is that a judge who is on the bench and who has no other source of income has to pay to the state while another judge who is superannuated, has nothing to pay from his superannuation allowance.
Income War Tax Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think my hon.
friend and I misunderstand each other, 1 was going to point out that in the case he mentioned, to the extent that that individual had his salary augmented by additional earnings, to that extent he would move up in the bracket of income taxation and pay to the treasury an increasingly larger amount year by year. That would tend to indicate there is not that injustice which my hon. friend has in mind.


Jean-François Pouliot: Naturally, if he earns
more, he would have to pay more.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will recall
this: in the case of pensioners who have no outside earnings and who have only their pensions to subsist on, their pensions of course are less than they formerly received by way of salary. I do not know that I need elaborate on that point, but that is why the distinction is made between salary in one case and pension in the other.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Do they pay income tax on the pensions they receive?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Taxpayer may elect to be subject to Salary Deduction Act.
Jean-François Pouliot: When the act with regard to superannuation at the age of seventy-five of judges of the Supreme court was passed, it was understood that judges who were then on the bench and who would retire at seventy-five would have the same salary as they had before. So a gentleman who does not sit on the bench any mane and who receives the same amount of money as do his former colleagues who are still sitting, nevertheless pays nothing under this particular legislation. I shall not labour the point further, but I take this opportunity to submit this matter to the minister ats it is serious. I say again I have the highest regard, without exception, for anyone who has sat on the bench of the Supreme court. My point is merely that all discrimination should be removed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title.
George Gibson Coote: In regard to the proposal I
made to the minister a few minutes ago, I take this opportunity of saying that I should not like anyone to think that I was suggesting that we take ninety-nine per cent of any

man's income. I want to point out that the ninety-nine per cent would apply simply on the ninety-ninth thousand of his income. Under my proposal any man assessed for an income of the amount I suggested would still have an income left to him, after he had paid his tax, of at least $50,000 or thereabouts.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Alan Webster Neill: I
shall not detain the house more than ten or fifteen minutes at the outside, Mr. Speaker. I want to deal with a matter with which the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) dealt the other night when he was speaking in connection with the contract for the bridges on the trail between Pachena and Bamfield. He spoke at a time, as we all know, when it was impossible for me to make any reply, and I think the minister took full advantage of that fact. His remarks got considerable publicity in the press, and I hope that my reply will get the same degree of publicity.
The minister quoted figures which would suggest that I had very much exaggerated the profits which were made out of this contract, but I would point out that I was careful to-qualify my remarks in that regard. I said:
The best information I have-and I shall not be too definite on this point, but I believe it to be correct-
Then I went on to quote what I understood to be the wages paid.
However, I will check up on my information. I got mine as the minister got his, second-hand. I believed it to be correct, and I still believe it to be correct, and I shall check up on it before I shall admit that my statements were wrong. There are two reasons that animate me in taking that stand. One is that if the figures quoted by the minister had been taken from his departmental returns, from the office pay sheets, for example, I, of course, would have had to admit their correctness. But they were not. They were from statements furnished to him by the contractor in question, who, of course, was highly interested in making the best case he could.

Marine-Alleged, Maladministration
The other reason why I hesitate to accept the figures which the minister gave is that there are considerable discrepancies in the minister's statement itself. For instance, he gave certain dates when the work began and ended, but those dates do not agree with the figures suplied to me by the department. Then the total of wages cited by the minister does not agree with the figures given by him as having been the number of days worked.
Then there was this statement, that the material for these bridges, small wooden bridges,- cost $189.72, and that the labour cost $1,000. That is to say, from 84 to 85 per cent of the total cost went for labour. That is too much. Anybody with just the ordinary knowledge of that kind of work knows that the ratio for labour as compared with material on a work of that kind runs somewhere between 33 and 50 per cent, and when it runs to 85 per cent it certainly excites eur attention, if not our suspicion.
I should like also to quote what the minister said about the engineer. He said:
The works had been estimated by one official of my department to cost $1,300, and they were estimated by Colonel Wilby himself, who is an engineer, to cost $1,220.
Mr. Neill: Was he on the ground?
Mr. Duranleau: That is the information I received.
I do not think that the minister on consideration would support that statement. I think perhaps he spoke a little too quickly. He says that he had an estimate made by an official. Yes, and that official, as I admitted when I was first speaking, was a thoroughly estimable and competent man in his own line of work, which has nothing whatever to do with engineering work on bridges. The minister corroborates that and says, " one official of my department " made an estimate. Then he says that Colonel Wilby, who is the engineer in charge, the agent of the Department of Marine in Victoria, made an estimate. Does the minister suggest that it was necessary to have two estimates, and that they had two? That does not agree. If the engineer was there, there was no need to have this, other official make an estimate. If Colonel Wilby made an estimate, it was on paper in his office at Victoria. Colonel Wilby I doubt not has seen these bridges at some time in his career, but my statement was that he had not within a reasonably recent time gone over the trail and inspected these bridges in such a way as to be able to form an estimate of what was required. If he had done so, they would not have sent this other man, who had no knowledge of the subject, to make an estimate of that kind. However, if the minister says
that Colonel Wilby did, within a few weeks before the contract was let, go over the trail and make that estimate, I will accept his statement, but I shall be very much sur-[DOT] prised. I do not think the language used by the minister as reported in Hansard is really what he intended to say.
Then we find another extraordinary statement, not as extraordinary as made by the minister, but extraordinary in the sense that such a statement should be furnished to him. The minister says that the contractor furnished material to the extent of $42. Well, I have the contract.here, such as it is, drawn up by the contractor himself. It is just in the form of a bid, and he certainly specifies very distinctly that all of the material has to be supplied by the government. Are we really to believe that this contractor out of the fulness and the richness of his heart gave the government $42 worth of material on a contract which called for him to have the whole material delivered on the ground free by the government? That does not seem to make sense, and it certainly does not make sense to anyone who knows the contractor and his reputation.
I also find that there was a very liberal sum put in for the use of a launch, which I think would stand investigation.
I find another point, and I am only taking for my text the statement furnished by the minister which he got from Victoria. We find that the contractor paid wages of five and six dollars a day and board. Why, the man is a blooming philanthropist. He is an Andrew Carnegie; he is going around giving wages equal to $7 a day or $210 a month. That is not the reputation he possesses in his locality. His local reputation is that of a selfish job grabber. I shall check up these matters, and if I find my information is not correct I shall so inform the minister. However when I find these discrepancies in the statement I am, bound to say, before going any farther, I think it is a subject for investigation.
But the minister failed to explain the other matters with which I dealt. I did not make one charge; I made five, and here they are: I said there was no inspection beforehand by a competent engineer; I said there were no Specifications drawn up; I said there were no competitive bids called for; I said there was only one bid asked for, obtained and accepted, that the man who got the contract already had three jobs, and that in these days of unemployment he did not need this one very badly, and I said that the profit made had been excessive. The minister attempted to deal with the last point, but did not deal

Marine-Alleged, Maladministration
with any of the others. I hope when we go into committee he will do so.
But before going further into the matter I wish to apologize for the error I made as it is recorded at page 2092 of Hansard. I used this language: "I have been writing to the minister since October." I should have said, "I have been writing to the minister's department since October." The minister made the most of that statement.
Mr. DURAjNLEAU: Did you not receive a reply to each letter you sent? Did you not have a reply to all your letters?


Alan Webster Neill: No, I did not receive a reply from the minister at all.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: But from the department?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: Your letters were
answered by Mr. Hawken?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: And you received a
reply from him in connection with each letter, furnishing all details asked for?


Alan Webster Neill: I received a reply to every
letter I addressed to an officer of the department. I should have said I had 'been writing to the minister's department, not the minister. The minister made a great point of that, and I thought used it to cover up some other points he was not very sure about. I have no fault to find with that; he who liveth by the sword must expect occasionally to perish by it, and that was his opportunity. And so, with bowed head and averted countenance I apologize to the minister for the grievous error. But we all sin occasionally; to err is human, ito forgive is divine. Iin mitigation of my grievous offence may I make these observations: I was interrupted four times, one after the other, during the course of my remarks-three times by the minister and once by another minister. Each interruption was strictly out of order, because my permission was not asked. Having been interrupted so much and being of a nervous disposition perhaps I became a little rattled on the fourth occasion. I replied rather hurriedly and left out a word I should have put in.
Then, again, I would plead in due humility, Mr. Speaker, another circumstance in mitigation of my offence. It is this:	As we all
know, we have the privilege of revising our speeches, the privilege of checking over the

typewritten record before it is printed. We are allowed to put in a word or two, if by so doing we amplify or make the meaning clearer. As we all do, I checked over my remarks and observed the error I had made. I saw the possibility of attack in consequence of the error, and it would have been a very simple process and no one would have objected if I had inserted the word necessary to make my meaning correct. But I did not do that. I think that should be remembered in my favour when condemnation is being dealt out.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Forgiven.


Alan Webster Neill: I shall not forget it, not
while water runs and grass grows. Now, sir, having made this amende honorable, as the poet says, having bowed my haughty head and tamed my heart of fire, and having made this humble apology for the grievous error which, after all, was a very trivial slip of the tongue, I should like to ask the minister something: Has he any explanation to make or has he any apology to offer either to me or to the house the rules of which have been so grossly trampled in this connection. On the occasion to which I refer the minister spoke, as usual, from his seat. He spoke in clear tones, and could easily be heard. The reporter present was not more than ten feet from the minister. The reporter put his record on file in the usual way. But a whole paragraph of what appeared on the record is missing from the printed record of Hansard. Not a word or two but a whole sentence is missing-thirty-one words-thirty-one words. It was not a duplication which might reasonably have been cut out-nothing of that kind, but was a new statement containing a rather damaging admission and one which, to some extent, went to substantiate some of the charges I had *made. I want to ask this question: At whose instigation and at whose request or for whose benefit was that deletion made or why did that deletion take place? Perhaps the minister will tell us when he rises to his feet. I left out one word; I did not put it in. The minister said perhaps more than he intended -thirty-one words more-and they were cut out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the question of
order is raised, may I raise one? When the house was moved into supply on the last occasion the hon. member spoke concerning this subject, and on that occasion he made statements such as he is making now.


Alan Webster Neill: No.

Marine-Alleged Maladministration


Richard Bedford Bennett: On that occasion the debate closed on the subject when the Speaker left the chair and the chairman took his place. Secondly, the hon. member is transgressing the rules by twice discussing the same subject in the same session.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And, the opportunity
afforded in supply will be the third. I have mentioned at least two rules of the house, at any rate, which at this time are being transgressed.


Alan Webster Neill: On the point of order, it
seems to me the Prime Minister has raised only one point of order, because he states I am repeating an argument I used previously.
I have not repeated anything I have used before. This is all entirely new. I am referring to a matter of a deletion from the record of the house, and on the last occasion I did not speak in that connection. I could not have, because the incident to which I now refer occurred since that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a question of privilege.


Alan Webster Neill: And, speaking apart from
the point of order, I might as well get what I have to say off my chest now as in committee, but in that connection, I am in the hands of the house. I state, however, the matter to which I now refer has not been decided. The question on the former occasion was:	Shall we go into committee? The minister being allowed to make a definite statement, in all fairness I ought to be allowed to reply.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only reason I raised the question was that I happened to observe the hon. member's statement that the minister should offer an apology for a breach of the rules of the house.


Alan Webster Neill: That is certainly something
new.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree that is new.


Alan Webster Neill: I hope it will never occur
again. I should like to ask, however, what rule the Prime Minister is quoting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule which says-


Alan Webster Neill: Which one?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not carry the numbers in my head; I am not acccustomed to doing that. But the rule to which I referred states that a member cannot discuss the same matter twice in the same session. When, on the motion to go into supply, the matter 53719-162
was discussed, the discussion ended when the Speaker left the chair and the chairman took the chair. That is the rule to which I referred. I state, further, that the long explanation to which we have listened is only a repetition in other terms of that which has already taken place.


Alan Webster Neill: Am I not discussing something new?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No-not upon that phase
of the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: I am discussing the rules of
the house at the present time, because I claim they have been broken by a deletion of something from Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a question of
privilege of the house.


Alan Webster Neill: I shall call it a matter of
privilege, then; I shall raise a question of privilege.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I understand the hon.
member for Comox-Alberoi (Mr. Neill) on the former motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply brought up and discussed the matter of certain public works in his constituency. It was discussed then by him and by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), I think, and disposed of when the Speaker left the chair, and it would be a violation of the rules and customs of this house to discuss the matter again, which I understand the hon. member is now attempting to do.


Alan Webster Neill: Which rule, sir?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rules and practices
of debate in this parliament.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The rules and standing
orders. It is the practice and custom of this house and of the British house not to discuss again the same question during the same session. The hon. member, I understand, has undertaken specifically to discuss certain bridges in his constituency.


Alan Webster Neill: Not a bridge, sir, a breach.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member will
contain himself for a moment. When he is attempting to discuss these public works he is out of order, and I ask -him to desist.


Alan Webster Neill: Will I be allowed to rise to a question of privilege to discuss this question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the question of
privilege?


Alan Webster Neill: I will have to explain it of
course.

2548	COMMONS
Marine-Alleged Maladministration


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why any lion, member should impose upon this house. The hon. gentleman has a habit of doing certain things, and it passes for wit. If he desires to discuss a question of privilege let him state what the question of privilege is. That can be done very shortly.


Alan Webster Neill: I will if the honourable house will undertake not to interrupt me.
The question of privilege is that on February 14, in a debate ini this house a certain statement was made of pregnant importance to the matter under discussion, and that thirty-one words of it, in the language of the Minister of Marine were deleted, did not appear in Hansard. That is a substantial question, I would like to prove it for one thing, I would like to read the words and to show that they were pregnant to the subject. Am I in order in doing that? I was going to say, sir-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the question of privilege now. That is the end of it.


Alan Webster Neill: -that had the deletion only been a mere slip that the minister had made I would not have worried, but it goes far to establish one of the claims that I was making at the moment. I will quote the omitted words:
Comparative prices were not obtained and in this regard I have to advise that Mr. Graham asked that if this work were put in hand that local men should be employed.
Now who is this Mr. Graham who was consulted and gives advice, but whose name, it appears, it is undesirable to have appear in Hansard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the rules of the house are to be observed at all we might as well face this matter now. The hon. member is merely defying this house and the chair. He is talking now about who Mr. Graham is. He is interjecting observations of that character. The question of privilege has been stated, he has a right to amplify what he has said to make it clear that there has been a deletion from the record of what he deems to be important words. That is a question of fact that your predecessor, sir, on a certain occasion said would make necessary an inquiry to ascertain and report to the house; there is no doubt about that. But to interlard his reading with statements respecting Mr. Graham or someone else is merely to cast contempt on the chair and treat this house with disrespect.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order, might I suggest that the government avail itself of section 98 of the criminal code in this matter?


Alan Webster Neill: Will Mr. Speaker, give his
ruling on the question of privilege I have raised?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member having stated his question of privilege, we will proceed with the debate, if debate is necessary, on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair and the house resolve itself into committee of supply. Certainly the hon. member cannot revive a debate that took place on the former occasion when the question was before the house. I will quote from May for the information of the house the following comment on standing order 41:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
The hon. member without doubt has undertaken to discuss again what he discussed formerly on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.


Alan Webster Neill: I bow to your ruling. I will be allowed to discuss it when we are in committee, I take it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The chairman of the
committee will decide that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is open to any hon.
member to discuss a motion before the house, but not to revive a debate already concluded.


Alan Webster Neill: I submit to your ruling, sir, but I ask; Will I be allowed to discuss it when we are in committee on the estimates?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: On a proper occasion, but not in the manner in which the hon. member is seeking to do it now.


Alan Webster Neill: I beg pardon, sir?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It can be discussed on a proper occasion, but this is not one.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought you said the manner in which I was doing it. The manner is mine,
I have a right to do it in any manner I choose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the practice of parliament governs manner as well.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Manner or method, whichever word may be preferred.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: On division!

Supply-Marine



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Ross in the chair.
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to dominion steamers and icebreakers, $1,460,000.
Paul Mercier: How many icebreakers have we?


Alfred Duranleau: Out of twenty-five boats we
have five icebreakers.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, may I draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) to the fact that for some time past-I do not know whether this existed under the previous regime -some of the men employed on the icebreakers complain that they are obliged to work 12 and 14 hours per day. I am aware that the government wish to practice economy, however, on the other hand, I do not think that it is a sound policy to have men work 12 or 14 hours per day. I, therefore, wish to draw the attention of the minister of Marine to this matter and trust that he will find the means of remedying these complaints which come to us from the hands at work on the icebreakers.


Mr. GAGNON (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I entirely endorse the remarks made by my hon. friend from Quebec and Montmorency (Mr. Dorion). I do not think it fair to have the men work more than for what their wages call, namely 8 hours per day.
Mr. DLTRANiLEALT (Translation):	Mr. Chairman, may I inform my hon. friends that the men on icebreakers will start work in a few days and I can assure them that they will be fairly dealt with.


Mr. MERCIER (Saint Henri) (Translation):: How many gangs are there on these icebreakers?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, if the employees work shorter hours, will the hon. minister appoint more men on the recommendation of the hon. members for Dorchester and Quebec Montmorency; if so, how many?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping, $37,000.
Mr. HEENAN:: I would like to have some information from the minister with respect to the fair wage question in dispute in Halifax 53719-1625
over the building of an icebreaker. The minister will recall that there was a dispute with respect to wages. The Department of Labour gave a certain decision, but later the question was allowed to go before a court or board of arbitration. Will the minister tell us whether or not a decision has been rendered in that case?


Alfred Duranleau: The judge in charge of the inquiry rendered a decision in favour of the employees, and under that decision they are receiving full w'ages.


Peter Heenan: Could the minister lay on the table the decision of the judge?


Alfred Duranleau: I see no objection to that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. minister of Marine inform the house what item in the estimates has reference to the dredging of the St. Lawrence river?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That is not
included in the estimates of the department of marine but will be found in the estimates of the department of public works.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, the
department of marine has something to do with the dredging. I recall that last year we discussed this question when the hon. minister of marine submitted his estimates to the house.


Alfred Duranleau: No. 142.


Jean-François Pouliot: The question was discussed, last year, when the estimates of the hon. minister were before the house. I wonder if this item was transferred, in the meantime from the department of marine to that of public works.
I am very much interested. I am fond of Mr. Simard and Mr. Dufresne and I should like very much to find out what extraordinary work they are carrying out on the St. Lawrence.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: The hon.
member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) would also like to know?


Jean-François Pouliot: At present,
the question is what the minister is undertaking ; there is no reference to his predecessor. I am alluding to Mr. Simard and Mr. Dufresne. If the hon. Minister of Marine has nothing to do with these gentlemen, I shall deal with them on another occasion.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member will have full opportunity to discuss this question when item No. 142 is reached.
Supply-Marine


Jean-François Pouliot: Has the
hon. Minister of Marine nothing to do with item No. 142?


Alfred Duranleau: The
dredging of the St. Lawrence river is under the control of the Department of Marine, while all other dredging in the country comes under that of the Department of Public Works.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very
pleased to find that we now understand one another.


Alan Webster Neill: I think under this vote I might ask the minister a question. I understood him to state a few weeks ago that it was his intention to bring in a bill amending the Merchant Shipping Act, and I think he told me across the floor that it was his intention to send that bill to a committee of the house. I presume that would be the committee on marine and fisheries. Am I correct in that supposition?


Alfred Duranleau: The complete revision of the Shipping act is now in the hands of the printer, and I think half the bill has 'been printed. It may be that the act will be brought in first in the upper house, where full opportunity will be afforded to all interested parties to be heard before a committee. When the measure comes to this house, we will decide whether or not it should go to a committee here. I think it will go to such a committee, but if the bill is introduced in the upper house everyone will have an opportunity to appear before a committee and be heard.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the minister for the fullness of his explanation. I have been one of those agitating for the last ten years for the revision of this act; I would hesitate to do anything to delay it, but I do think the time would be well spent if the bill were not passed through this house for a year after it was printed. There are so many complex interests involved from the Atlantic to the Pacific and an the great lakes as well that it is impossible for those men who are not skilled in law and who have not strong organizations looking after their interests to be even apprised of how their interests are affected. I would suggest to the minister, as I suggested to his predecessor for several years, that he should introduce the bill in this house and even have it go to a committee, but 'then let it stand until another session in order that copies of the bill may be circulated to the people interested on the Atlantic, the Pacific and the great lakes, so that they may be able to get together and present such evidence to the committee as they 
may desire. Men out on the deep seas at this time may never know that the bill has been passed, and they will not have an opportunity to make such representations as they may desire. Of course the big shipping interests can be easily readied, but that does not apply to masters, mates and engineers and seamen or to a great many owners of small gasoline boats who are very much concerned with this measure. This is going to be a very difficult subject to deal with, and I suggest to the minister that he earnestly consider whether it would not be wise to delay it for another session. It has been delayed for so long now that another year will not matter very much, and then we will be able to get the reail opinions of the people interested.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I inquire from the minister what are the winter services which are connected with navigation, and what amount is expended on each one of them.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross):: The discussion now is really on item 133. Shall item 132 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping, $37,000.
Charles Napoléon Dorion: Mr. Chairman, for a number of years past, the shipping federation as well as the "Union des Pilotes" of Quebec have requested the erection of a semaphore at St. Jean, island of Orleans. It is stated that such a measure would be very useful to navigators and prevent a number of accidents.
May I inquire from the Minister of Marine if, in No. 133 of his estimates, there is an amount set aside for providing at St-Jean, island of Orleans, a signal service absolutely necessary to the navigation of the St. Lawrence river?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, the inquiry made by my hon. friend from Quebec Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) would come under item No. 148, Marine Signal Service. However, I am ready to answer his inquiry immediately. No amount in the estimates is specially affected to the erection of a semaphore at St-Jean, island of Orleans. There is a round sum which we request the house to vote and part of which might be used to erect a semaphore, if we find it possible. I must state that the question has already been submitted to the department and is, at present, under consideration.

Supply-Marine


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Since the construction of the island of Orleans' bridge, has there not also been a question of the Quebec province providing a semaphore to enlighten and satisfy the member for Quebec-Montmorency?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is evident that my hon. friend is ignorant of where the bridge of the island of Orleans is located. This bridge is located between the north shore and the island. The distance between these two localities is about 15 miles and navigation follows the south shore and not the north shore.


Jean-François Pouliot: In this case, I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Marine to first grant the request which my colleague, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, has just made, to erect a semaphore at St-Jean, island of Orleans, then, since the hon. member took such an interest in the building of the island of Orleans bridge, another semaphore should be erected on the bridge.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: Since we
are discussing this subject, may I inquire whether, the alignment lights for the service of signals which exists at Betchouan, below Havre St. Pierre, will be again maintained this year? I was informed by letter that the department intended to discontinue the maintenance of these signal-lights, and navigators around these parts inform me that it is most important for those who navigate in these waters to have lights to guide them.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot at present give a definite answer to my hon. friend. This question is under the supervision of the committee on lights of the Department of Marine. I shall make the necessary inquiries and inform the hon. member.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I	think
it is petty thrift to economize a few hundred dollars and imperil the lives of fishermen and navigators of that locality. Although we must practice thrift, I think it would be money well invested if the Department of Marine maintained these signal-lights.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: It is a burning question!


Alfred Duranleau: The
Department of Marine has no intention of placing the life of fishermen or navigators in jeopardy by removing the signal-lights where they are absolutely required. I have full confidence in the committee on lights, however,
if it is necessary to look into the matter, I shall do so personally.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are the duties of this committee on lights and who are the members of this committee?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: There
must also be dark spots.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Fortunately you are not included otherwise it would be total darkness.


Alfred Duranleau: The committee is composed of the heads of the various branches of the Marine department, including a representative of the Shipping Federation. The members of this committee hold meetings now and then and make recommendations after visiting the various localities to study the requirements of navigation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does this committee meet yearly? Has it meetings on fixed dates or do they meet when they please-


Alfred Duranleau: The
committee does not hold regular meetings. When a" sufficient number of requests have been addressed to the department, the committee meets, holds an inquiry and reports.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can the minister inform the house as to the last date this committee met?


Alfred Duranleau: According to my information, the last meeting took place in December.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will a meeting be held in the near future when he can submit such requests as I have just mentioned.


Alfred Duranleau: If there are important requests, as those mentioned by the hon. member, the committee will certainly meet before this spring.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before the spring? I suppose you cannot give the approximative date?


Alfred Duranleau: No, we shall fix a date when we have before us all requests relating to next year's navigation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is the
Deputy Minister of Marine included in this committee?


Alfred Duranleau: The
assistant deputy minister is.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The assistant?
Supply-Marine


Alfred Duranleau: We have no deputy minister, at present.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Will the
assistant deputy minister be appointed deputy minister?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was just going to put the same question. Can the minister inform the house when this appointment -will be made? I inquired the other day, but 'the minister was unable to give me the information.


Alfred Duranleau: I have already informed my hon. friend that the appointment of heads of departments is the prerogative of the right hon. Prime Minister and I cannot answer for him.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister has a word to say in the matter.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Item No. 133 is somewhat vague. Would the hon. minister furnish the house with some details and say how this amount of $37,000 is distributed, so that we may have some idea of what these various services in connection with the navigation include? What is the intention of the department in this respect?


Alfred Duranleau: It includes an amount of $15,000 for examinations navigators undergo; $5,799 for navigation schools; $2,000 for-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: For certificates, I suppose?


Alfred Duranleau: -to
assist navigators in poor circumstances. An amount of $6,296 is included for inquiries in connection with wrecks or accidents; $2,000 for the registration of ships in Canadian ports; $2,000 to remove obstacles in the navigable routes of Canada. There is also an amount of $4,000 for inspection of cattle ships going overseas.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are the first two items of $15,000 each?


Alfred Duranleau: No, the first item amounts to $15,004, and the second to $5,700.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Where is this navigation school located?


Alfred Duranleau: We have schools at Halifax, St. John, N .BYarmouth, Quebec, Kingston, Prince Rupert and at Collingwood.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There is
none in Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: I am
informed that there is a private school in Montreal.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: A school
under the supervision of Capt. Raymond?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes,
under the direction of Capt. Raymond.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who are
the professors at this private school? Has the minister any information in connection with this private school?


Alfred Duranleau: We
have no information.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is this
school subsidized by the Department of Marine?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The hon.
minister stated, a moment ago, that this item included an amount for inquiries in connection with wrecks or accidents to ships. Does this come under the Wreck Commissioner, Capt. Demers, or is there is a special item to that purpose?


Alfred Duranleau: I mentioned, a moment ago, the amount of $6,296 for inquiries in connection with wrecks or accidents. That is the item which concerns the department of Capt. Demers.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Out of this $15,000, what are the salaries paid, per year, in these navigation schools?


Alfred Duranleau: I have
not with me the list of salaries paid. I can, however, state that the salaries are proportionate to the services rendered by these professors.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How many professors are there? I shall be satisfied with this information.


Alfred Duranleau: We
have a professor in each school. I can give their names, if the house wishes for that information.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, give
us their names.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Also the date of their appointment.


Alfred Duranleau: 
Jean-François Pouliot: In connection with these professors, will the hon. minister permit me to point out a fact? At present, things are abnormal. If the country is so depressed, it is, perhaps, because there are too many doctors. There are doctors not only in medicine, but in various occupations. There are people eminent like the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition who have received a number of university degrees, yet the name of Dr. Bennett is no more heard of than that of Dr. King. I wonder whether all these professors are doctors. There are gentlemen who sometimes receive the degree of doctor in law from universities who hold no chairs, yet these gentlemen are all along called doctors. I wonder if these professors are doctors and whether their names appear in the public accounts with this degree attached like that of certain individuals inscribed with the degree of doctor and followed by very numerous letters, in the documents relating to the House of Commons-doctors in bluff!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Some time
ago I inquired from the minister about an accident which took place last year, in August, on the St. Lawrence river, when the Empress of Britain collided with another ship at the mouth of the Saguenay river. I wanted to know whether an inquiry had been held under the supervision of the Wreck Commissioner. The minister answered that there had not been one. I then asked why an inquiry had not been held and the minister answered that in the opinion of the Marine department an inquiry was not necessary. I put similar questions, about the same date, in connection with another accident which took place at " ile Rouge," when a ship belonging to the Clark Co. was dashed on the island, and the answer was the same, that in the opinion of the Marine department, an inquiry was not necessary. If I am not mistaken, there is a provision in the Marine Act that, when a rather serious accident takes place, an inquiry must be held. In the first instance, the accident was serious enough since two boats came into collision, the Empress of Britain and another ship. In the second case, the ship had been dashed on the island and remained there for a few days. Certainly there was, in both cases, a casualty at sea and the act provides that in all such cases an inquiry must be held.
I have, as counsel, defended a .pilot when it was a case of a khip which had slightly touched a rock, near Tadoussac, four or five years ago. When the inquiry started before Commissioner Demers, I contended that there was no necessity of proceeding with this case,
because there had not been a sea .casualty in the sense of the law, since there was no damage sustained, the ship having continued its course and arrived safely at Quebec, and Later, at Montreal. I note that in both cases to which I referred, no inquiry was 'held, although a collision took place, and, in the other case, the ship remained on the rocks, I think, for a day. The reply of the hon. Minister of Marine was, in both cases, that in the opinion of the Marine department an inquiry was not necessary. I wish .to inquire why the Minister of Marine, on his own initiative, decided, contrary to what the Act states in such cases, that no inquiry was necessary.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, in connection with inquiries, the rule which the Department of Marine has always followed, is that an unofficial inquiry is held by certain officers of the department. When, in the opinion of the department, there is not sufficient grounds to warrant an official -inquiry, that such an inquiry would throw discredit on the St. Lawrence or our navigable routes, when the matter has no -consequence, the department considers that it is better not to hold an inquiry first, on account of the outlay involved and then because no purpose would be served. In both cases quoted by my hon. friend, a moment ago, the officers of -the department came to that conclusion which, moreover, I approved. I think that neither the good name of -the St. Lawrence, nor the companies interested, nor the employees of these companies, nor the passengers and pilots suffered from the fact that an inquiry was not held. As to the Empress of Britain, it was but a bare contact, and after looking into the -matter the department decided that an official enquiry was unnecessary.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: W-ill the hon. minister state on what section of the Act he bases his decision?


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Mr. Chairman


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like an answer from the minister.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I happen to understand -the French language and consequently can appreciate the altercations proceeding between my hon. friend and the minister. I think, in fairness to those who do not understand the French language, these items should be discussed in English as well as in French.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like to have an answer from the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: In English or in
French?
Supply

M arine


Pierre-François Casgrain: In French or in English: either will satisfy me.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would advise my hon. friend in the meantime to learn French on the bilingual currency.


Alfred Duranleau: May I inform my hon. friend that there is no provision in the act which obliges the minister to hold an inquiry in case of an accident.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There is a provision which states that each time a maritime wreck or accident takes place, an inquiry must be held.


Alfred Duranleau: Section 762 of the act is as follows:
The minister may appoint any officer of the government of Canada, or any judge of any court of record, or any local judge in admiralty of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or any stipendiary or police magistrate, to be a commissioner to hold formal investigations, or any formal investigation, and a commissioner shall for that purpose be a court.
Therefore, it is not compulsory.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is it by virtue of this section that Captain Demers acts as commissioner of inquiry?


Alfred Duranleau: It is by virtue of this section that Captain Demers acts as Commissioner of Inquiry when the minister considers it necessary to hold such an inquiry.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He is
appointed each time, in each particular case, to hoild an inquiry?


Alfred Duranleau: No, he is officially appointed, but we instruct him to hold such and such an inquiry when we consider it necessary that an inquiry should be held.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I realize
that in the cases quoted by the minister, there might be special reasons for not holding an inquiry; however, in the case to which I referred, a few moments ago, it was unnecessary, to my mind, to hold an inquiry, and the fact that the department ordered an inquiry put this pilot, at the time, to heavy costs. He was afterwards absolved of all blame, but nevertheless had to pay the costs of a protracted inquiry when there was really no reason to order an inquiry. Perhaps there are two weights and two measures in special cases.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The crossing at St. Roch is known as one of the most dangerous spots to ships on the St. Lawrence

river. At that point a float was built some years ago, but it is on the eve of disappearing.. This place is known, in the language of navigators, under the name of "Rock Algernon." I wish to inquire from the Minister of Marine whether it would be possible to grant the request of pilots and the shipping federation and make considerable repairs to this float. It is a very dangerous spot. Last summer, I think that a few ships met with accidents there. I had occasion last year while travelling on a vessel, to view this float. Half of it has been washed away. The swiftness of the current at that point is 8 miles per hour. The material damages caused to ships within the last two years amounts to as much as it would have cost to repair that float. I think it would be more appropriate to make the necessary outlay to repair that float than to dredge the north channel of the St. Lawrence river. I am not opposed to the dredging of the north channel, however, with the present depression, when the government's financial situation is bad, I think that such works could be postponed, and that we could, as in the past, make use of the south channel.
I shall avail myself of this opportunity to request the hon. minister not to reduce this year the piloting rates. I think I read in some newspapers, these last days, that the shipping federation again insisted this year that the pilotage rates should be reduced. Pilots have certainly a right to our gratitude for the services they render, and by treating them rightly we could obtain from them a still better service.
Since I am on the subject of pilots may I refer to the apprentice pilots. At present, these young men who are obliged to do an apprenticeship of five or six years, cannot find work on the vessels of the Canadian merchant- marine. I think they should be given the preference over all others, especially over foreigners, so that they can complete their apprenticeship and later become captains of ocean going ships or excellent pilots. I have no reproach to make against the Minister of Marine in connection with the apprentice pilots, he has but followed the routine established fifteen or twenty years ago, however, I think that the request I have just made should be granted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was
unaware that the question of pilots could be discussed on this item of the estimates. I therefore seize the opportunity to put in a word. Pilots have certainly rights. I am aware that in the past, under all regimes, under this government as well as under previous governments, there has always been

Supply-Marine
requests made, each year, by the shipping federation and other marine companies, to reduce pilot dues.
This class of citizens are highly respectable and have a right to our consideration. I think that the services they render to navigation are of the highest order and should be appreciated to their real value. No notice should be taken, of the requests to reduce, this year, their pay and privileges. The hon. minister, who hails from the province of Quebec will, I hope, keeps his ears and heart open; he is aware of what is said and done, and, I trust that like all his predecessors, whether they were from Quebec or elsewhere, he will extend his protection to this deserving class of people, in Quebec. Will the hon. minister, now, inform the House whether it would be possible to have access to the reports he referred to in connection with the collisions I referred to a short while ago. These reports were submitted to the minister himself by the officials of his department and they advised him that enquiries were unnecessary as regards the Empress of Britain and the Northern Voya-geur? Would the hon. minister afford me an opportunity of examining these documents?


Alfred Duranleau: To the last question made by my bon. friend, I may state that if there is a written report, I have no objection to let him see it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: To whom shall I apply to see this document?


Alfred Duranleau: The
hon. member may write to me and I shall be pleased to furnish him with the information required.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are not
these documents under the care of certain officials of the department?


Alfred Duranleau: A minister may take the trouble of replying personally to a representative of the people.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I just as much like to deal with the minister, although I have no quarrel with his officers. I trust that the minister will take into serious consideration my remarks in connection with the pilots as well as those of my hon. friend from l'lslet and that he will extend his protection to this class of citizens.
Mr. POULIOT (Translation); Mr. Chairman, the minister is in a very pleasant mood to-day; he will allow me to point out certain things in connection with the pilot schools. There was, at one time, a great number of pilots in Quebec; a large number of people followed this calling. Unfortunately, for some
time past, the young men have drifted in other directions. To my mind they should be encouraged. In pilot schools, a list is kept of apprentice-pilots who have been found eligible, they are supposed to obtain a position as soon as a vacancy arrises. However, I am informed that for a number of years-I do not blame the minister or his predecessors in this respect -the minister has discriminated in making appointments among the eligible pilots instead of following the order of merit or the list already set up. I wonder if the minister would mind giving a chance to all the young men . whose names are on that list by showing no favour, and allowing those at the bottom of the list to rise gradually, so that they may receive fair treatment. This is a humble suggestion which I make to the hon. minister. It is the more sincere since I am very little acquainted with the apprentice-pilots whose names are on the list in his possession.
Would it be possible for the minister to find positions of apprentice-pilots or pilots for a number of young men who are at present without work? A large number of our young men after going through college are at a loss what to do. At that period of life young men have, to some extent, a craving for adventures. Among this class it seems to me that a number could follow this maritime career and become pilots. The occupation of pilot is sufficiently lucrative, but, at present, navigation is less active than in previous years. Let us hope for better days. I make a second suggestion to the hon. minister: that of finding an occupation for young men coming out of college, who are at a loss what to do, by allowing them to study pilotage on ships.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, replying to the remarks made by the hon. members for l'lslet, Temiscouata and Charlevoix-Saguenay, in connection with the pilots and their salaries, may I assure them that we shall, as much as it is in our power, do justice to all interested parties. I have much sympathy for pilots and apprentice-pilots and I always have given much consideration to their representations. May I inform the committee that, recently, the Quebec and Montreal pilots and apprentice-pilots, met at the Marine Department the heads of the Shipping Federation. I was pleased to pass half a day listening to the arguments of the interested pan-ties; the lather requested a reduction while the former insisted that last year's cut of 5 per cent be not continued this year. We are studying the question and I hope that the decision we arrive at will be satisfactory to all parties concerned.
S upply-M arine

As to the apprentice-pilots, we have also heard their claims and no complaint was ever made that favour was shown in the appointments made from the eligible list. I do not think that my hon. friend from Temiscouata can point out one case where the apprentices, at the bottom of the list, were given preference over those who headed the list. I do not assert it, however, I would be pleased if such a case was brought to my attention.


Jean-François Pouliot: This was done in 1926 by Mr. Patenaude. I am delighted to hear the statement of the hon. minister however, I was aware that the thing had been done. I do not wish to further insist. I neither doubted the good faith of the hon. Minister of Marine.


Alfred Duranleau: With
reference to the other question broached by my hon. friend from 1'Islet, I shall look into the question of the float to which he referred, and should we find it possible to carry out his suggestions, we shall do so at the beginning of the navigation season.


Jean-François Pouliot: I named Mr. Patenaude, I am not positive whether he was the minister, I was alluding to the Minister of Marine in the shadow government.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I wish to
thank the hon. minister for the way he listened to my request. I do not hide from him that this request will entail a considerable outlay. Some work has already been done and the government engineers are perfectly conversant with the outlay required. What I have in mind is the safety of the navigation on the St. Lawrence. Ships from all parts of the world travel on the St. Lawrence and the accidents which might occur would be disastrous not only from a material viewpoint but for the good name of the St. Lawrence waterway.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps when I was not in the house the item concerning lighthouses was considered. I should like to ask the minister however if under this item he could give me any information touching the dismissal of Beverly Stewart, lightkeeper at White's Cove, the reason for his dismissal, and the fact as to whether or not there was any investigation. If he has not the information now I shall be content to have it later.


Alfred Duranleau: I would be pleased
to answer the hon. member under item 145.


Peter John Veniot: It comes up later?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

To provide subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $40,000.
Charles Gavan Power: May I ask what amounts
are paid in subsidies under this item to Quebec and British Columbia?


Alfred Duranleau: There is S30.000 paid yearly to the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company Limited, and $10,000 to the Pacific Salvage Company under contracts.


Charles Gavan Power: It seems to me that the
amount paid in connection with Quebec is paid to an American concern?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe the firm is called Merritt and Chaplin. Formerly the payment was $25,000; when was it raised to $30,000?


Alfred Duranleau: When the present government took office the amount paid was $60,000 a year, under contract. I am sure about that; the estimates and public accounts show that I am correct. Since last year we reduced the amount by $30,000; it was cut in half.


Charles Gavan Power: To whom is it paid?


Alfred Duranleau: To the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company Limited; the Canadian Pacific Railway is the owner of more than one-half of the shares of the company.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it not a fact that an
American firm of Merritt and Chaplin do the work?


Alfred Duranleau: No. We have an
assurance from the Canadian Pacific Railway that they own over 51 per cent of the shares.


Charles Gavan Power: They may own fifty shares, and one extra to somebody else-but I doubt even that. I believe if the minister gets further information he will find the concern at Quebec is run almost exclusively from New York city. If they perform the service properly, I have no objection, but I believe the minister should make inquiries. I have not any definite information in my hand, but I do know that correspondence with respect to matters of policy must be referred to New York. Then, can the minister tell me how long the contract will be in existence, and when it was made?


Alfred Duranleau: Do you mean with
the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: For two years.


Charles Gavan Power: When was it made?

Supply-Marine


Alfred Duranleau: About the first of
April last, for a period of two years. The contract is to run this year and next year.


Charles Gavan Power: Without putting a question on the order paper, would the minister undertake to let me have a copy of the contract at some time in the near future?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, I shall do that.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: For what time is the contract with the Pacific Salvage Company?


Alfred Duranleau: The contract with the Pacific Salvage Company will expire in 1935;
I think it is a contract for ten years.


Mr. QUINN:: Mr. Chairman, I protest
again against this item in the estimates. The government is economizing in every branch of every department, and I consider this is an unnecessary expenditure. There are wrecking companies in the maritime provinces who, when they undertake to do any wrecking or salvaging, have to go out and take their chances. I do not see why wrecking companies in the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia should be subsidized when companies in the maritime provinces have to carry on without any government assistance. Every year when this item has been called I have protested, and I protest again to-day.


Alfred Duranleau: As I have already
told this committee, the subsidies paid to these two companies were cut by $30,000 last year. But we felt that we had to pay those subsidies in order to maintain on the Pacific coast and in the St. Lawrence a first class service. We had proof that the companies were operating at a loss, and could not give further service if they had not been paid that subsidy. I think my hon. friend will admit that the St. Lawrence, which is navigable for nearly one thousand miles from the gulf to Montreal, is a difficult river to navigate, and we had to secure the best service possible.


Alan Webster Neill: This vote ought to be supported by all British Columbia members. I do not know about the conditions on the Atlantic, but if we had not this vote on the Pacific we would have no wrecking plant at all. It is very necessary.


Paul Mercier: Do we understand that if we have a wrecking plant at Quebec it is because the accidents on the St. Lawrence river are so few that no private company could afford to operate there; and that in the maritimes accidents are so numerous that they justify the incorporation of private companies?


Mr. PLUNKETT:: There is only one efficient company on the Pacific coast. If this subsidy is eliminated it will certainly curtail the service, and anyone who lives by British Columbia waters knows of the many dangers and the numerous wrecks occurring there every year. I think it would be a great mistake if this item should ever be eliminated. I am sorry it is not much larger.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, $9,000.
An hon. MEMBER:: What are the unforeseen expenditures?


Alfred Duranleau: It is to provide for
miscellaneous items that cannot be anticipated or provided for elsewhere, such as criminal investigations, legal expenses, arbitration proceedings, advice and assistance of experts, damages, supplies for shipping masters, and other things of like nature. Take for instance the inquiry about the Cymbeline.


Pierre-François Casgrain: How much did that inquiry cost the government1'


Alfred Duranleau: We have not received the bills yet, except the stenographers' bills, if I remember correctly.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The solicitors' bills are
not in?


Alfred Duranleau: Not yet.


Pierre-François Casgrain: May I ask if there is
any counsellor at law specially attached to the Department of Marine?


Alfred Duranleau: Not at the present
time.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Hear, hear! Speak French!


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the hon. minister be kind enough to furnish the house with details of the divers and contingent expenditures made in connection with this item last year.


Alfred Duranleau: I can furnish the expenditure from 1920 to 1930, if required.


Jean-François Pouliot: That would be very interesting.


Alfred Duranleau: I have no objection, but it would be quite long.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like to have them.


Alfred Duranleau: It is a full page.
Supply-Marine


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be kind enough to give us the main items of this expenditure? There is no need of going into details for every 25 or 10 cents; we wish to have some details as to the large amounts, those above $10.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: All amounts
above $10 are considered large enough to-day.


Alfred Duranleau: Up to the 31st of
January, 1933, the sum of $4,440.19 had been expended.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: What is the largest item?


Alfred Duranleau: The largest item is $2,186.40 for travelling expenses, Ottawa and return, re investigation-


Jean-François Pouliot: That is Sir Alexander Gibb?


Alfred Duranleau: That is for professional services in connection with the investigation regarding the loss of the Bright Fan.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was Sir Alexander Gibb, the great expert, paid from that item?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there others as important, but less than $2,000 and on which we could be furnished with details.


Alfred Duranleau: There is a sum of
$951 for professional services in connection with the Halifax harbour inquiry, C. B. Smith, fees and expenses.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who is he, a barrister?
From where?


Alfred Duranleau: Halifax.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there other items beside this one?


Alfred Duranleau: I have a whole page.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Life-saving service, including rewards for saving life, $50,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be kind enough to state what amount of this $50,000 was awarded for saving life? While the hon. minister is looking up the information, I shall make a suggestion to him and I shall make the same suggestion to all members of the government


Alfred Duranleau: Answering my hon. friend from Temiscouata, I am told that the rewards paid under that item during last year do not amount to more than $250.


Jean-François Pouliot: To how many people were they paid?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that the largest amount was over $200 paid to the crew of the Montcalm when they rescued the Reindeer last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does this
amount of $250 include the medals awarded for saving lives?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told they did not get medals in the circumstances.


Charles Gavan Power: How many lives did you save with $250?


Alfred Duranleau: All the lives were saved.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many lives were saved, for $250?


Alfred Duranleau: I am
unable to furnish the house with this information.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I beg your pardon?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot state the number of people who were on the boat.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, before making the suggestion mentioned, a moment ago, will the hon. minister allow me to point out that we are examining an item of $50,000 for saving lives and those who did save lives were awarded but $250 of said amount. We have no knowledge of the number of lives saved, however, the hon. minister states that the crew of the Montcalm was awarded $250 for having saved the crew of the Reindeer. I made an inquiry as regards the medals awarded but received no answer. We must bear in mind that a person who, under similar circumstances saves the life of another human being, risks his own. Since this person risks his life, like the soldiers who-sacrifice their lives on the battlefields, he isas much deserving as them.
While on this topic, sir, may I point out how ridiculous it seems to have certain decorations distributed here and there, while those who save human lives are awarded but $250. The vote amounts to $50,000, yet only $250 is awarded to those who save human lives, while decorations are scattered profusely among a crowd of nonentities because they happen to have money. To my mind this is absurd. I am glad of this opportunity to state that the only persons entitled to official decorations and medals are those who risk their lives to save that of others, such as soldiers on the battlefields or people who dive into the water to rescue a fellow being or again those who go to the rescue of people

Supply-Marine
that are shipwrecked. It is not, at present, a question of titles but of medals offered for sacrifices made and which deserve the sincere gratitude of the nation.
May I make a suggestion to the hon. minister, this suggestion also applies to all his colleagues in the cabinet. I think that when a minister is appointed to a department he should interview all the officials of that department; his deputy minister-when the post is vacant, the assistant-the legal adviser, the secretary of the department, the heads of branches and clerks, and inquire from each of them what their occupation is. He should then visit all offices of the department and ascertain for himself how the work is being carried out. To my mind, this is simple common sense. The hon. minister evidenced common sense of that kind by visiting the lighthouses of Eastern Canada. May I congratulate him. A former Minister of National Revenue, the hon. Mr. Bureau acted likewise, he inspected all the customs houses of this country. That was the correct thing to do A minister should have full knowledge of the work being done in his department. For that reason, he should be continuously in touch with each of his head officials as well as those under them; he must know each one's duties and encourage them when it is necessary. I think the hon. minister has the right way of presenting his estimates, he is courteous and answers very satisfactorily the questions put to him.
However, for his personal guidance, he would feel better at ease if he was acquainted with all the officials of his department, and when information is required about Paul, Alfred or Louis, he could answer: So and so is performing such a task; such work is essential in such a branch or service of the department; I am acquainted with such a person who has rendered great services to the state. This is a suggestion to the hon. minister which I make to him through Hansard.
I notice the Prime Minister is not in his seat, I hope he is not indisposed. When he was absent from the house the other day, owing to illness, I was reproached for having mentioned his name. I trust that he is in excellent health this time. I would not mention the fact otherwise. I make the same suggestion to him which I also confide to Hansard; and if he is indisposed, I extend to him my sincere wishes for a prompt recovery.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the minister furnish the house with details in connection with this item of $50,000 for life saving service, and state where and how this
amount is to be spent, beside the $250 which have just been discussed.


Alfred Duranleau: This item is for the upkeep of life saving stations all over Canada. I can give the list if it is required.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where are they located?


Alfred Duranleau: There are some in British Columbia, others in Ontario and others in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any in the province of Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think there are any in the province of Quebec.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: How many are there in British Columbia, and where are they located?


Alfred Duranleau: There are two in
British Columbia, one at Bamfield and the other at Clayoquot.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is
the outlay for each of these stations?


Alfred Duranleau: The
amounts vary.


Jean-François Pouliot: That makes it interesting.


Alfred Duranleau: In
British Columbia, an outlay of $21,500 was made; there are small stations in Ontario where S3,500 was expended; in New Brunswick, $6,900; Nova Scotia approximately $20,000; in Prince Edward Island, $300; the other small items amount to $2,400, which brings the total amount to $50,000.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: There
are none in Quebec?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I
inquire from the minister whether he has received requests to establish some of these stations in Quebec? I know that in certain parts of the gulf of St. Lawrence, at various times during the year, especially in the autumn, a number of fishing vessels and others have been badly damaged, moreover, wrecks and accidents have occurred. I think that, while no requests have been made, the advisability of establishing such a station should be considered; for instance, at Anticosti or in the neighbourhood, so that in case of accident we might be given the same service as in other provinces.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: They would
have to be bilingual stations.
Supply-M arine


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That remark does not reflect credit upon the hon. member.


Alfred Duranleau: My information is
that there was no demand for the installation of any life saving stations in the province of Quebec, but I can look over the files and give the information to my hon. friend. I know that years ago there was a station at the Magdalen islands, but the station was doing nothing at all so it was dropped.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If my
memory serves me right an accident happened years ago when the boats which carried on the service to the island of Anticosti were obliged, at their own risk and peril, without being fitted out for salvage purposes, to go out at sea and rescue a ship in peril. If such iccidents sometimes occur during the stormy season, I think it would be good policy for the hon. minister to look into this matter, in consultation with the officers of the department. The question is worth looking into by the government.


Alfred Duranleau: Has the hon. member any locality in view?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I mentioned the island of Anticosti which is situated in the middle of the gulf of St. Lawrence. I am aware that accidents and wrecks have occurred near this island.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The hon.
minister stated that there existed a station at the Magdalen islands and that they were obliged to close it as there were no drowning accidents. If such are the conditions, I would not request a station, however, if it can be a safeguard to fishermen I would request the minister to establish one.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I am glad to hear that all these amounts will be spent in the maritime provinces. This is a proof that our St. Lawrence is a navigable and safe route which can be relied upon, it helps the good name Canada has abroad. I trust that we shall continue to maintain on the St. Lawrence, not life saving stations-if they are not required so much the better-but buoys and that the deepening of the channel will be continued that all modern installations will be resorted to and that care will be particularly taken to light up the channel, at night.
The hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Mac-dougall) complained, a moment ago, that we had a garage or a repair-dock, at Quebec, for vessels and that there were none in the

maritime provinces; his wishes, however, have been gratified.


Alfred Duranleau: I quite agree with my hon. friend that the St. Lawrence is the safest for navigation and I consider that the best thing we can do to save lives is to provide the most efficient aids to navigation such as lights, buoys, signals and so forth. I do not think that any country has better safeguards (than we have in the aids to navigation which we supply.


Jean-François Pouliot: As the minister says that the river St. Lawrence is the safest place for navigation, I think that would be the best place for the government to stay.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Has the life saving station at Alberton, Prince Edward Island, been discontinued?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, it is closed. There is only one station, which is at Charlottetown.


Mr. McLURE:: Is the Charlottetown station to be equipped and maintained this year by the Marine department?


Alfred Duranleau: The boat and equipment will be maintained during the season.


Alan Webster Neill: During the spring of 1932 was a shore patrol maintained on the west coast of Vancouver island?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes. We spent last year on that patrol 82,500.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes; but was it maintained during January, February and March?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, it was kept in operation.


Alan Webster Neill: What rate was paid the men? I think it was 890 per month.


Alfred Duranleau: The salary is S75 plus board allowance of $25, less the ten per cent cut.


Alan Webster Neill: That would make it $90. Was a Mr. W. J. McDonald employed on that patrol during those three months?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, during the winter months.


Alan Webster Neill: Was he the same gentleman who afterwards got a contract to build bridges?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Without competition. That contract ended on October 19. Did he go back again on the patrol on the first of November?

Supply-M arine


Alfred Duranleau: When?


Alan Webster Neill: This last November. If the minister does not know, I know; he did.


Alfred Duranleau: Why ask, then?


Alan Webster Neill: He was also a mail contractor and provincial road foreman. There was a good deal of local unemployment there and men were, I will not say glad, because no one is glad to work at such low rates, but at any rate compelled to be glad, if I might put it that way, to take $2.80 a day and work on relief on roads, without board. I protest against this fat contract being awarded a professional jobsher without competition. That is not the way to help unemployment there or anywhere else; certainly it is not my way. It may be the government's way, or the way of Mr. Graham and his satellites, but every one of these actions is a cheque drawn on the bank of vengeance, a draft drawn on the account of retaliation, and they must all be paid with interest on election day. There is one thing else I want to say. Patronage is dynamite in anyone's hands but it is doubly fatal when it becomes a personal attribute, used not even for the benefit of the party, not for the weal of the public, but against all those principles of fairness as between man and man, which have governed men's relations with one another ever since we emerged from the stone age. Patronage, I say, is doubly fatal when used in that way, and that is the way it has been used in this and other instances. I understand that there were some leftovers, lumber, nails and other materials, from this contract, the materials having been supplied by the government. What disposition has been made of those leftovers, and would it be in order if they were given to the contractor?


Alfred Duranleau: This contractor employed local men and it was the desire of that locality that local men should be given the work. They employed one man at $5 a day for 27 days and four men at $4 a day for 27 days. That was why no tenders were called for for this small job, after the estimate had been made by the officials of my department. Mr. McDonald is a first class-


Alan Webster Neill: Politician.


Alfred Duranleau: -builder of wooden
bridges, and we wanted local men put on the job.


Alan Webster Neill: You could have asked for
competition.


Alfred Duranleau: As regards the materials, I cannot give information but I suppose
that such materials as were not used should be returned to the department.


Alan Webster Neill: They will be?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose they will-


Alan Webster Neill: They should be.


Alfred Duranleau: -but I am not sure. There is a distance of four thousand miles separating Ottawa from ithe Pacific coast and we have to rely on the agent, who has a first class reputation there.


Alan Webster Neill: If there is anything left over it will be returned?


Alfred Duranleau: If any part of the
material we supplied has not been used in the construction there is no doubt it will be returned to the department.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will these estimates be
taken up again to-night?


Alfred Duranleau: Are there not some
private bills?


Jean-François Pouliot: After the hour for private bills.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know; I
hope so.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The boss is not here.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Edward Ross: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering item No. 137 "Life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $50,000."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hydrographic and tidal and current surveys, and to provide for the maintenance and repair of hydrographic steamers, $464,000.
Pierre-François Casgrain: How much was expended for hydrographic and tidal and current surveys and how much to provide for maintenance and repairs of hydrographic steamers? In this item there is a decrease of $4,000, but covering two distinct operations.


Alfred Duranleau: The expenses are not separated.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Where were these surveys made last year and what is the program for this year?
Supply-Marine


Alfred Duranleau: The Acadia, one of
our hydrographic boats, was employed on the north shore of the gulf of the St. Lawrence; the Cartier was employed on the lower St Lawrence; she carried out investigations and completion of hydrographic survey of Magdalen islands. Then there was a survey in Hudson strait, where a schooner or launch and a shore party operated at the western end of the strait. There was also work done on the St. John river and lake Winnipeg.


Peter John Veniot: What section of the St.
John river?


Alfred Duranleau: Up to Fredericton.


Peter John Veniot: Between St. John and
Fredericton?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes. We had another survey on the Pacific coast where our steamship itibe Lillooet was employed under the direction of Captain Parizeau.


Pierre-François Casgrain: At what places were the hydrographic surveys made on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence?


Alfred Duranleau: The survey was made between Natashquan, Cape Whittle and Point d'Amour.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Where were the supplies far the Acadia purchased? Were they purchased in Quebec or in the eastern provinces, and were any supplies purchased on the north shore of the river St. LawTence? If so, where and from whom?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot give definite details as to that. I know the Acadia was equipped at Halifax. She has her base there and some of the equipment and supplies are taken on at Halifax before she leaves for the season. The rest, I suppose, is purchased where the boat is operating.


Pierre-François Casgrain: But the minister has
before him no information as to where on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence such supplies were purchased?


Alfred Duranleau: I could not say offhand.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Were there on board
that vessel men hired from amongst the people of the north shore of the river St. Lawrence, or were the men for the vessel all selected at Halifax, or where did they come from?


Alfred Duranleau: The main part of the crew is taken from Halifax, because they have to take the boat to where she has to perform her duties; the other men as a rule are taken on from where the boat is operating.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Has the minister any
record of the men hired on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not that here,
but I can get it for the hon. member.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like the minister to give me a list of the men hired while the vessel was on the north shore. Who is in charge of the hydrographic survey on that vessel? I know there is a captain and the regular officials, but I wish to know the name of the engineer in charge, under the direction of the department, of the hydrographic survey.


Alfred Duranleau: We have an experienced officer on each of these boats. On the Acadia the engineer is J. U. Beauchemin, who has had years of experience in hydrographic work.


Pierre-François Casgrain: He is a very competent
man. Who was in charge of the hydrographic survey work on the other vessel, the Cartier?


Alfred Duranleau: H. L. Leadman.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Where was the work
performed by the Cartier?


Alfred Duranleau: The Cartier was working on the Gaspe coast, taking currents.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Who was in charge of
operations on the Cartier as engineer?


Alfred Duranleau: The engineer Leadman, I think. I will ascertain, but I think it was he. He has been on that boat for years.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Can the minister give
us an exact figure as to the cost of these operations on both these vessels, the Acadia and the Cartier, for the whole of last season?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot give the
exact figures as to the cost last year, but the amount is about the same every year. I shall give my hon. friend the estimate for the coming year, if that is satisfactory to him.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Does that include food
for the employees, fuel?

Supply-Marine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Will the minister give
us amounts?


Alfred Duranleau: It is estimated that
during next season the expenses on the Acadia will aimoumt to $87,536. This includes staff salaries, $13,176; wages, $24,000; supplies, $38,000; repairs, $7,800; travelling, $1,200 and miscellaneous, $3,360.


Pierre-François Casgrain: This item refers also to
repairs to hydrographic steamers. Were repairs necessary on either of these two vessels last year, or are any repairs impending for the coming year?


Alfred Duranleau: Just the running
repairs have been effected.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Nothing special?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Alan Webster Neill: I have had occasion to differ from the minister once or twice and perhaps on occasion mildly to criticize him. For that reason it gives me much pleasure to certify to the good work his department has done on the Pacific coast in connection with the item under discussion. There has been no political interference and the result has been excellent and always will be as long as the work is done under Mr. Parizeau, who is a first class man. Is it the intention to put into commission both the Wm. J. Stewart and the Lillooet during the coming year?


Alfred Duranleau: The Stewart alone
will be put into commission this year.


Alan Webster Neill: But the Lillooet will be retained and possibly be used when times get better, I hope, because there is ample work for both steamers on the coast, as the minister doubtless knows.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, I know the work there is very important, and we will keep the other boat in case we need it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio service, to provide for tlie construction and maintenance of radio ship to shore stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the dominion, $679,550.
Radio service, to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $280,400.
Ernest Lapointe: Why are there two items for radio service instead of one?


Alfred Duranleau: The provisions of the Radio Act are carried out under the first item, and the second item is for the broadcasting service.


Ernest Lapointe: But that comes under the Radio Act just as much as the other. The issuing of broadcasting licences for instance, comes under the Radio Act. Are two items inserted so that the total amount will not look as big as if there were only one item?


Alfred Duranleau: No. If my hon.
friend will look at the estimates of previous years, he will see that these two items have always been treated separately.


Ernest Lapointe: I know, but what is the reason?


Alfred Duranleau: I am advised that one relates to broadcasting and the other to the ship-to-shore service.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Is there not the same
general administration for the two services?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, but it is better to have the two items separate, I am informed.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is that to avoid interference?


Alfred Duranleau: As much as possible, yes.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that these two items be taken together?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: I want to take advantage of this opportunity to call the attention of the committee to a certain matter which to me at least seems very strange. Last year the minister was attending the world radio conference at Madrid, and by the way he promised me to give the house a report of his activities at that conference. Two months ago he stated that he would give such a report in the course of a few day's, but we have not yet received it. It would be interesting for the house and the country to know what my hon. friend has done at that conference, and wha/t benefits the country has received from his attendance there.
But what I wish to speak about particularly is the issuing of a broadcasting licence to a newspaper in Montreal at the end of October last. Another queer thing about the issuing of this particular licence is that it has had the effect of making this paper a very good and faithful Conservative newspaper. I would not like to suggest that that was part of the bargain, but at all events that has been the effect. I remember very well during the year 1930, when my hon. friend the member for Richelieu was Minister of Marine and

Supply-M arin e-Radio

Fisheries, he told us that 'he and the department were refusing to issue any new broadcasting licences because a royal commission was then investigating radio matters and the country was preparing for a national policy on radio. Accordingly no new licences were issued in 1930, and no new licences were issued in 1931. During the session of 1931 this parliament enacted legislation which is known as the Radio Broadcasting Act, nationalizing radio. We unanimously supported the legislation which the government brought down, and under that legislation this new radio commission, which was supposed to be absolutely non-political, was to supervise t'he issuance of radio broadcasting licences. As a matter of fact, there is a clause in the act which authorizes the commission even to cancel existing licences and which provides that no new licences can be issued without the approval of that commission. I asked a question in the house the other day, and I was informed that that oommissian was appointed on the fifth of October, 1932. The committee may see at page 1915 of Hansard the answer that was given to my question. The commission was appointed on October 5, 1932, and sworn in on October 31, 1932. But on October 28, 1932, three days before the commssion was sworn in and twenty-three days after it had been appointed, the Minister of Marine issued the radio licence I have mentioned to La Patrie in Montreal. I say that that was an insult to parliament, a violation of the pledge given to parliament, and a violation of the law. It was an insult also to the members of the commission. Either they agreed to it, which they should not have done under the circumstances, or if they did not agree to it, they are not the men who should be members of that commission if they acquiesced1 in the issuance of the licence notwithstanding. The licence was issued between the time of their appointment and the time of their swearing in as members of the radio commission. I protest against this thing having been done obviously for political purposes-I do not hesitate to say that-after the unanimous stand which the House of Commons took last year on this radio broadcasting question.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we are considering items 139 and 140 together. Perhaps item 247 might be discussed at the same time.


Pierre-François Casgrain: That is not the same
thing. That item has to do with the organization of the commission. The one we are now considering has to do with radio broadcasting.


Alfred Duranleau: I thought that the
observations of my hon. friend from Quebec East might be considered as coming under item 247.


Ernest Lapointe: They come under item 139 as well.


Alfred Duranleau: Just a word in answer to the observations of my hon. friend from Quebec East in regard to the licence issued to La Patrie Publishing Company a few days before the radio commission was sworn in. Montreal is the largest city, the metropolis of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: We all know that.


Alfred Duranleau: In the city of Montreal there were only two licensed broadcasting stations, while in other cities of Canada with smaller populations there were at least five stations with greater power than had those in Montreal. In my absence the acting minister of my department saw fit to grant a licence to the newspaper in question. There is nothing wrong in that; I can see nothing wrong in it. At the present time there are only three stations in the city of Montreal. In my view that is not too many, and I do not believe the commissioners would object to it. If they wish to object, it is their privilege to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: Were they consulted?


Alfred Duranleau: Of course they were not consulted, because they were not in office at the time. I want to say this, further, that even to-day licences are granted by the Minister of Marine.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, they are granted by the Minister of Marine, so I am suggesting that there is nothing extraordinary in the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: But the granting of a licence has to be approved by the commission.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member says La Patrie is a Conservative paper, and that the licence was granted because of that fact. I do nab believe the hon. member is sincere in that statement. I am not here to defend La Patrie and1 its attitude in politics, but I shall say there is another paper in Montreal which has a broadcasting licence.


Ernest Lapointe: And has had it for years.

Supply-Marine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: Is it not fair that a French newspaper with a circulation as wide as has La Patrie should have at least a small station?


Pierre-François Casgrain: They could have waited one or two years.


Alfred Duranleau: I dio not see anything wrong in the matter. Then, the hon. member mentioned the conference at Madrid. In reply may I say that the report of the head of the delegation is ready in both languages, and I can lay it before the house at any time.


Ernest Lapointe: All right.


Alfred Duranleau: But the annexed
treaty or agreement, the protocols, regulations, and so on, have been prepared only in the French language because, as the committee is aware, French is the only official language used in printing the documents of the convention. However, if it is the wish of the committee I am ready to lay the report, which is printed in both French and English, before the house.


Ernest Lapointe: Either language will do.


Alfred Duranleau: The pile of documents to be annexed to the report is ready in the French language only, but at the present time we are working on a translation of those documents, so that they may be placed before the house in both official languages.


Jean-François Pouliot: It would be the same thing as laying an egg without the white and the yolk.


Alfred Duranleau: I see it is the wish of hon. members that my report be tabled, even though the annexed material is ready in only one language. It will be tabled within a few days.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us have it in one or the other of the languages.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Either language suits me.


Mr. ERNST:: Both languages.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to
have it in English, French, or both, but I want to have it. Further, I should like to be well understood concerning the licence issued to La Patrie. I do not object to the fact that La Patrie has obtained' a licence, but I do object to the way it has been issued. No new licences had 'been' issued for the last few yeare. We understand that the Minister of Marine may still issue broadcasting lioenoes, but in spite of what he has said, parliament has enacted that mo lioenoes shall be issued 53719-163J
by him unless they are approved by the board. Years having passed without any new licence being issued, this legislation having been put into effect, and the board having been appointed, does the minister believe it proper that three days before the board is sworn in, he or his acting minister, without consulting the board, should issue a licence? In that way the board is operating in the face of a fait accompli. I say it is not right; it is not fair to parliament and, if it was done without the consent of the board-which I do not doubt-it was not fair to them. In any case the practice was objectionable, and as a member of parliament I protest against this strange conduct of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I do not wish to speak more strongly.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe the committee
should be familiar with all the circumstances. If my memory serves me correctly, in 1930 a commission headed by Sir John Aird was appointed to inquire into the whole matter of radio. A great deal of money was spent; the commission travelled throughout Canada and I believe even went to Europe in order to lay down a definite radio policy for Canada. Not satisfied with that, this House of Commons appointed a committee to study the matter, and the report of that committee was accepted by hon. members on all sides of the house. I think we may safely say that since this government came into power we have never seen such good feeling in the house or such unanimity of opinion as on the day the radio bill was introduced.


Mr. RALSTON:: Except on your report
about the soldiers.


Charles Gavan Power: I am speaking of the feeling in the house since 1930. Member after member from all parts of the house stated that the whole operation of the radio system in Canada should be safely confined to a commission.


Pierre-François Casgrain: And that it should be
non-political.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, and that the commission should carry out the work the committee and the Aird commission had recommended. First of all, when the Aird commission was investigating, no radio licence was issued'. The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, stated definitely he would not issue any new licences because he wished the national body which would be in control of radio to take that responsibility. If that was not expressly stated in the house-and I think it was-at
Supply-Ma vine-Radio

least the house was given to understand that radio matters would be controlled by the new radio commission. Yet twenty odd days after its appointment, and three days before it was sworn in-not the minister, who was absent representing the country at a bull fight-I know he is not in the habit of fighting the bull; it would be unparliamentary to say what else he would do with it-


Robert James Manion: The bull fight is here.


Charles Gavan Power: In any case the minister was absent in the performance of his duty, and no doubt when the report comes down we will know that he represented Canada honourably and to the credit of the country. But while he was away, and behind his back someone issued a licence to a newspaper which is very prominent in the Conservative interest in the city of Montreal. It is said it is a small licence. True; but, Mr. Chairman, you remember very well Marryat's novels, you remember the case where it was pleaded that it was only a little one. But the crime is exactly the same whether it be a little one or a larger one. I submit. Mr. Chairman, that the committee require more explanation than that given by the hon. minister in which he tells us that Montreal is a great city. We agree that it is a great city, it is a wonderful city, and up to the time this government came into power it was progressing in a remarkable degree. And as to telling us that La Patrie is a big newspaper with a large circulation, and has as much right to have a radio broadcasting licence as La Presse, we agree with that too, but we submit that the issuance of a licence to La Patrie should have been done openly, frankly, and by the commission duly appointed by this house to issue such licences. Surely they could have waited two or three days more. If they had a right to have a licence-and I should be the first to say they have-the place to submit their claim was before the radio commission. It seems to me the minister is not realty serious when he says that if the commission does not like it or does not approve of it they could cancel the licence. He knows very well that a large sum of money is involved in the obtaining of such a licence and in the putting into operation and maintaining of a proper broadcasting station and system. Even though this licence were issued without the proper procedure, issued injudiciously, wrongly, clandestinely, I do not think it should be cancelled, because it would involve too much financial sacrifice on the part of the people to whom it has been issued.

But I do believe we should have a better explanation from the minister or whoever was the acting minister in his absence.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Who was the acting minister?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not want to prolong the debate on this question. My hon. friends say that no other licences were issued since the Aird commission was appointed.


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon.
friends are wnomg in that respect. My hon,
predecessor in the department made a statement to the house that no licences would be issued pending the report of the Aird commission-and I think I have made similar statements myself-except in cases where we thought we should issue a licence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, in cases of fairness and necessity. And as a matter of fact I think we issued in Ontario-


Mr. EULER:: CKOK, Windsor.


Alfred Duranleau: -two or three licences last year, one in Windsor, because that part of the province had no reception whatever from Toronto, only from Detroit, and we thought it was advisable to grant the licence there. I think we granted a licence in another place in Ontario, I do not remember exactly where-I think Port Arthur.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that a big city too?


Robert James Manion: No mean city.


Alfred Duranleau: So I do not think
my hon. friends are fair when they say no licences were issued except the one to La Patrie. We have done so when the minister thought he should do it in fairness to those who were asking for the licence. That is my explanation. The licence to La Patrie was granted by the acting minister in my absence-


Pierre-François Casgrain: Who was he?


Alfred Duranleau: -and I do not see
anything wrong in that move on his part.


Ernest Lapointe: That is terrible; that is the worst part of it.


Alfred Duranleau: It was legal; the minister had the power to do it; there was no law at that time preventing the minister from acting as he did. It was his power-


Charles Gavan Power: And he abused it.

Supply-.1/ mine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: -and he must have received sound reasons.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, my mind
is not satisfied. The hon. minister is a very able and prominent lawyer, and in that capacity he has evaded the question. I have listened with great interest to what my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) has said, and my curiosity has been aroused even further. Since my hon. friend the Minister of Marine has spoken; I will tell you why, and tell you very candidly. The hon. member for Quebec South has shown great earnestness and great sincerity in praising the minister. He says: I do not complain about the fact that it has been given to La Patrie. We do not object to it; La Patrie may deserve it. It is not the fact that the licence was granted that we object to; it is the way in which it was granted. English is not my native tongue, and it is not the native tongue of the hon. Minister of Marine, but I express myself as well as I can; I could repeat the same thing in French or in Latin if you prefer. The point, the crucial point in this discussion, is this: Why on earth was it given under such circumstances?


Mr. DUFF:: Not on earth; in the air.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it was given on earth
to be used in the air. Let me quote the old Latin maxim so often memorized by members of the bar of such eminence as my hon. friend: Quis, quid, ubi, cur, quibus auxiliis, quomodo, quando? How was it given? Why? What was the raison d'etre of giramiting it? Wbait was the reason of the granting of that licence? That is the point. As the hon. minister of Marine smiles, I am sure he has understood the exposition of the facts.
There is another reason why I am very curious. My mouth watered when I listened to my hon. friend from Quebec South. Now I feel more eager after having listened to the minister, and why? The reason is very simple; it is that he said there was nothing wrong with the granting of the licence. If there was nothing wrong why does he not tell us the whole truth? Why does he conceal something, and leave something in the shade? If there was anything wrong he would be ashamed of what has been done, but if everything is all right he has no reason to be ashamed. He has done no wrong; lie is like the king, who can do no wrong. Why then does he not tell us what happened? This is just as fascinating as a detective story.
Let me give the minister some pointers. The acting minister was the principal in granting the licence, while the present minister was an accessory, but now the minister is responsible; he is the principal. We do not doubt the motives that inspired the granting of that licence, but in order that we may have no reason to be suspicious let him speak openly, tell us the whole truth and hide nothing. Be fair with us; tell us everything about the granting of that licence and perhaps we will agree that everything has been all right. Until the minister does give us all the details, however, it will be impossible for us to agree that everything is in order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: this licence was given especially to please our Tory friends in Quebec and to give them a chance to broadcast whatever they wished. Perhaps that is the reason why the letters are CHLP-Gamelien Iioud-e, La Patrie. That is exactly what took place; the licence was given for Tory purposes and Tory propaganda.


Mr. HACKETT:: Why not?


Pierre-François Casgrain: In common with other
members who have spoken, I do not object so much to this licence having been given a Tory paper, but I do .object to the way in which it was given. I object to the fact that parliament and the commission were overruled, as well as the a'ct we brought into being. That is where we find fault. Why not act in broad daylight; why go behind the back of the minister, when he was away, and have the licence issued by the hon. gentleman who acted for him at the time? Why give it in the dark?


Ernest Lapointe: In the blue.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Or in the blue, as my
hon. friend says. To-day we have that newspaper using the broadcasting station for its own purposes and for the spreading of the propaganda of its party.


John Thomas Hackett: Why not?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I am not complaining
about that, but I do suggest that the licence was issued in this way because perhaps the commission would not have granted the licence. Hon. gentlemen opposite wanted to be sure a licence was issued before the commission came into being, but now the minister says, "Well, it was given before the commission took charge. I was not there and I do not know anything about it. The gentleman who took my place saw fit to issue the licence; he thought it was all right."
I do not wish to complain so much about what was done at that time. A favour was given, it is true, but it was given in the wrong way, and to-day we have many complaints with regard to the programs broadcast from that station. When I was in Montreal the other day I did not have occasion to listen to this station, but many prominent people of Montreal complained to me with regard to what was broadcast. I should like to know from the minister if the programs broadcast from this station are under the control either of his department or of the radio commission. Recently I heard that some organizations in Montreal known as the Federated Labour Clubs were broadcasting addresses which were greatly resented in certain quarters of that 
city. Many people told me there was a touch of bolshevism about those speeches, and that they were directed against the government and the duly constituted municipal authorities. I should like to know if the commission is functioning and if it is doing all that is necessary by way of regulating these programs. If the commission is not doing anything along this line I should like to know if the minister has anything to do with it. I should like to know if the hon. gentleman controls the programs which are broadcast by that station.


Ernest Lapointe: Could not section 98
be applied?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I was just going to suggest that perhaps that famous section 98, which hon. gentlemen opposite voted to retain on our statutes, might be applied in this case, and the whole Tory outfit be confiscated. As I say, I have been told that what has been said over that station was more bolshevistic than anything else. The addresses spoke against constituted government and the constituted authority of Montreal.


Ernest Lapointe: From a Tory station?


Pierre-François Casgrain: From a Tory station.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are the people who last week were so keen to retain on our statutes that famous section 98 of the criminal code. I should like to have the minister tell us something more about this station and something more about the members of that company which had enough influence and power to go behind the back of the commission and of the government in order to secure this privilege. Who was in charge there? Who were so friendly to the government of the day that they could get almost anything to promote their own ends and the interests of the party?


Jean-François Pouliot: As the hon. minister is about to rise, may I ask a question? Would it be indiscreet to ask if the acting minister before granting this licence communicated with the minister either by cable, by long distance telephone, by mail, by radio or by other means?


Alfred Duranleau: In answering my hon. friend I would say, no. I still maintain that what has been done was done according to law.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have been done well.


Alfred Duranleau: I think in all fairness it must be said that the paper La Patrie was entitled to a licence.


Wilfred Hanbury: Let us admit that.

Supply-Marine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: Nothing wrong was done. The minister had the power to do it. and he thought he should do it in all fairness. As I told the committee, there were only two licences in the metropolis of Canada when other cities smaller than Montreal had as many as five, more channels than even the province of Quebec has at the present time.
I think my hon. friends from the province of Quebec are unfair to their province when they object to the granting of a licence to this paper in Montreal.


Wilfred Hanbury: That is just a smoke screen.


Alfred Duranleau: This is a Conservative paper, but do my hon. friends want every paper in the country to be Liberal? I think the electors of the country are entitled to read both sides of the story and are entitled to hear over the radio every angle of politics. My hon. friend asked whether the minister had control over the speeches made from La Patrie station. My hon. friend knows that even though the minister has the power to grant a licence, these stations are under the control of the radio commission. I remember the premier of Quebec objected some time ago to certain speeches made over this station, but I contend that the people at the head of this particular movement were within the law and had the right to propound their own ideas on politics. I ask my hon. friend to read the speeches which were broadcast last Saturday evening, I think by one of the leaders of the labour clubs of Montreal. Mr. Desrosieres made a speech last Saturday evening over this station in which he outlined the work they were doing. I invite my hon. friend to read that speech in La Patrie.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is it good?


Alfred Duranleau: I think he will find it is absolutely within the law.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do you
agree with it?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not say that I agree with all the ideas propounded, but I do not think there is anything to be objected to. I hold that these gentlemen have the right to voice their views provided their statements are not against public order. They have the right to make speeches, and particularly the one made last Saturday evening. Mv attention had been called to the speeches made the week previous and I listened in last Saturday as well as reading the speech in La Patrie. If my hon. friend will look over this speech I think he will find it is absolutely in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, my disappointment is so great that I can hardly find words to give it voice. We have great respect for the Minister of Marine, but I was under the impression that he was a real fighter, a man who w'ould stand up for his convictions. He leaves his native land for the land of the toreador, for the land of The Kid from Spain, to represent this country at an international radio conference. When a minister is away he still has in large degree the responsibility of his department. There may be an acting minister, but an acting minister is rather a dummy; he is there to look after the routine work. I have heard the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) say that no decision would be made before the return of a full minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -of a department, even though the department was in charge of an acting minister. I am afraid that because of what the acting minister has done, the minister must be considered as a fooled minister. I am very sorry about this. There is also a constitutional point to be considered. After the full minister had been told of what had happened, he should have offered to resign from the cabinet because an important step had been taken and an important decision arrived at without authorization from him. This decision was made and what he should have done was to go to the Prime Minister and tell him that he had to choose between either the full or the acting minister, that one of them must resign. But the minister did not do this, and I cannot understand why. But as everything is all right, according to the hon. gentleman, as he wishes to hide nothing from us, will he be good enough to tell us how it is that La Patrie got that licence? May I tell him that I said nothing against La Patrie. They have their views. I respect even the views of the Minister of Marine; I respect the views of everybody. I do not complain of the fact that the licence was granted to La Patrie; I complain of the way in which it was given. Will the minister be kind enough not to say that I object to the licence being given to La Patrie? Would he tell us the inside story of the matter? Who recommended that the licence be granted? Was it Senator Webster, who travels around the world while people pay so dearly for coal in Montreal and other parts of Canada? Is it that powerful man who had that done in the absence of the minister? Was it done by the substitute of the minister while the latter was absent? Will the minister be kind enough to tell us that?
Supply-M <trine-Radio


Mr. MITCHELL:: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister is just rising. It is the hour of the rising sun.


Alfred Duranleau: AH I can say to my hon. friend is that an application was made and a licence was granted.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but my mind is not yet satisfied. Who recommended the application to the department? I am sure the minister was not aware of the fact ait the time the licence was granted, because he was not in Canada, but he must have learned since. His acting deputy, who is present, can tell him who recommended the granting of that licence. After I have learned this, I shall leave the minister alone on that point; my mind will be satisfied and I shall take his word. Was it Senator Webster?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say that any recommendation was made by anybody in favour of La Patrie. I have not the record before me. It may be there was some recommendation, but I cannot say whether there was or from whom it came. But La Patrie Publishing Company was such a well known firm that I do not think it was necessary for the acting minister to ask for recommendations. Conditions in Montreal were well known; as I informed the committee, we had only two licences there1. The acting minister was aware of that fact; he knew that in other cities a larger number of licences had been granted previously, and it was only fair to such a large city as Montreal that it should have three licences. I do not think he needed any recommendation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then would the minister be kind enough to tell us who made the application on behalf of La Patrie?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose it was La Patrie itself; it is an incorporated company.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who signed the application?
'Mr. DURANLEAU: I think the application was signed by the manager of La Patrie, Mr. Bender.
'Mr. POULIOT: The manager had bien de Pair.


Mr. YOUNG:: Was the application made before the minister left for Spain?


Alfred Duranleau: I think so. I would not say yes or no definitely.


Edward James Young: The minister did not see it, anyway?


Alfred Duranleau: I am informed that the application was made on August 20.


Ernest Lapointe: Was the minister surprised when he heard that .that licence had been granted?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say that. I had heard of it, but I know no regular application had been made before my departure.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to make just this observation. In connection with radio broadcasting, an important principle has been established this evening. When this side of the house charged tihait this licence was granted because the newspaper was a Conservative one, members or supporters of the government said: Why not? Why shouldn't the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or the Labour party, or, for thait matter, a-ny other party, be granted a licence for a radio station?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Humphrey Mitchell: Somebody says: "Why not?" Possibly, because we have not the money to operate one. Someone suggests that that is a good reason, and it is a good reason for what I ana going to say now. With the development of radio broadcasting, we have reached a stage in this country where there should be rigid control of broadcasting of a political nature.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Humphrey Mitchell: The people who have
the money say: "Oh, oh!" The people who are in a position to monopolize broadcasting facilities prior to an election say: "Oh, oh!" Now that we have set up a radio broadcasting commission along the same lines as the British Broadcasting Company, why not carry the matter to its logical conclusion and give every group that seeks the support of the electorate in an election equal opportunity of making its views known? I believe the government has created a dangerous precedent. The minister says:	Why should both sides not be represented? Why shouldn't all three or, for that matter, all four sides, be represented? In my judgment, it is not an answer to the question for the minister to say: I left it to my deputy. That is ducking the responsibility of responsible government, and I believe it would be well if this house took the matter into consideration and even went so far as to recommend to the commission that rules be laid down governing the broadcasting of political matter, let us say, in the next general election.
I appreciate the fact that most progressive movements are composed of poor men. I am not unmindful of the power of money in an election., nor of the possibility and practicability of the people who have the money gaining almost a monopoly beforehand of the

Supply-M arine-Radio
best facilities of broadcasting over the national chains or the various stations of the dominion. What chance have the progressive, I might say radical party, if you like, if the situation as enunciated by the minister himself this evening is permitted to be developed? The best thing that has come out of this debate on the radio commission is that we have a clear-cut issue: Who is to control the broadcasting of political matter in this country? It would be well if we followed the precedent established in Great Britain whereby all groups seeking the suffrage of the electorate should have equal and ample opportunity of making their views known over our broadcasting stations, rather than that, as under present conditions, the man who has the most money should have the best opportunity of making his views known to the people.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Following the statement just made by the hon. gentleman opposite, I might inform the committee that so far as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan is concerned, I do not think he has anything of which to complain.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not complaining.


Ernest Edward Perley: They are on
the air every Monday night, as western members can confirm. The hon. member speaks about the party that has the money having the power to broadcast. In Saskatchewan the wonder is where the C.C.F. are getting the money to be on the air every Monday night. The government are on the air, I might say, only about once in six weeks and I know the western members can verify what I have just said.


William Daum Euler: I should like to refer to
some remarks I made last session with regard to a radio licence that was granted in ithe city of Windsor to the station known as CKOK. Preliminary to what I have to say, I should like to mention again certain principles which were laid down by the Prime Minister when he introduced the radio bill, namely, that two of the purposes of having a radio commission were to ensure that radio stations located should be under Canadian control, and also that programs broadcast in Canada should be of Canadian origin, using Canadian material and fostering a Canadian spirit, if I might put it in that way.


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend
will permit me, would he have any objection to postponing his remarks on this question until the hon. member for East Essex is present? He is away this evening, and he asked me to bring up this matter when he was here.


William Daum Euler: I may not be here when he is here. I have no particular objection to the minister's request, but last year when I made my statement the hon. member for East Essex was not in the house, and when he made his statement I was not ini the house1. However, I am quite willing to agree to the minister's suggestion, but I should like to know when the matter is coming up again because I want to speak on it.


Alfred Duranleau: Any time my hon.
friend wishes, except this evening if he will agree to postpone his remarks.


William Daum Euler: It is not particularly serious. My hon. friend from East Essex, for whom I have every regard and respect, can very readily answer my remarks to-morrow if I continue now. May I add that the member who should reply to what I have to say is the minister himself, and not the member for East Essex?
Last year when I brought this matter up I made the statement in the presence of the Prime Minister that the station at Windsor was controlled by Americans, not by Canadians, and that it was really created, in my opinion, for the use of the city of Detroit; that the United States people who are really behind the granting of that licence could not themselves obtain a licence in the city of Detroit, and therefore they sought a Canadian licence in order to serve that large territory, the city of Detroit. They got the licence. I made that statement, and on the following day, when I chanced not to be present in the house, the Minister of Marine made the following statement, at page 3432 of Hansard of May 25, 1932:
As far as the department is aware, the company is a bona fide Canadian company and is under Canadian control.
The minister goes on to say with reference to the statement that had been made that the station was under the control of the Columbia Broadcasting Company, and that the Columbia Broadcasting Company had a similar arrangement with other Canadian stations. He cited the Rogers-Majestic and Gooderham and Worts in Toronto and the Canadian Marconi Company and La Presse in Montreal, and then he said:
As far as the department is aware there is nothing happening as was stated by the hon. member for North Waterloo.
I must take that to be a direct denial, if you like, of the statement that the company was under United States control and that the greater portion of its programs was of United States origin. The minister further stated:
If it was brought to the attention of the department that practically the whole time of this

Supply-Marine-Radio
station was being leased to American companies for the advertising of American goods in Canada, the department would take the necessary steps to see that such a practice did not continue.
I have no desire to injure any Canadian investment, and it may be that now this company is more largely under Canadian control than it was last year. But I do want to submit for the information of the minister, if he does not know' it, and certainly for the information of the committee, that this is a United States station, or was as late as last June, and controlled by United States people.
1 have here a price list issued by the Columbia Broadcasting system. They have a list of twenty-two cities, the basic network it is called, and among these stations are listed Detroit, Windsor. It does not even pay the compliment to the Canadian station of naming Windsor first. There are twenty-two stations listed here, only one of which is Canadian. There are n>o Toronto or Montreal stations listed as being in the basic network of the Columbia Broadcasting system of the United States.
I can give a little more proof as to the ownership of the station itself. I have before me sw'orn evidence given before the Federal Radio Commission of the United States, sitting in Washington, and I shall quote just sufficient from the evidence to prove what I have said. The question was asked:
What part of the stock of the Essex Broadcasters

Those are the owners of the station at Windsor:

does the Fort Industry Oil Company own? Does it own a controlling interest in the Essex Broadcasters Limited?
A. I will answer that in this way, that the exact amount is not determined, but it is a controlling interest.
The question was repeated:
Q. Is it a controlling interest?
A. Yes.
That is from the sworn evidence given before the Federal Radio Commission of the United States.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the date of that?


William Daum Euler: June 18, 1932. The investigation was held at Washington. My remarks of last year were made prior to the taking of this evidence, so I submit that at that time my statement was absolutely correct. It may be, and I am so informed by some Canadians who are interested in this station, and whose investment I do not desire to injure, that some change has taken place. The statement was made to me a few days ago that now 51 per cent of the stock is held in

Canada. Whether that is so or not, I have no means of knowing. This, however, is true, that the other principle which was supposed to be observed is being violated; that is, that the greater proportion, in fact ninety per cent or more, of all the broadcasting, advertising and otherwise, that is done over that station, comes from United States sources. It does seem to me, and I say this in all kindness so far as the Canadians who are interested in this station are concerned, that that is not in accordance with the spirit of the creation of the Canadian radio commission. I said that ninety per cent of the broadcasting was of United States origin. I will give a few figures. I have a detailed record of the broadcasting from June 1 to June 8, 1932. It shows that ninety-four per cent of the time that CKOK was on the air in that period was used either by Columbia or Detroit. Anything that is broadcast by Columbia emanates I think from the city of New York. There were 192 announcements-I am referring to advertising alone-for Detroit merchants and 57 announcements for Canadian merchants. I have here the record of another week of broadcasting and the proportion is just about the same.
I would like to know if the minister can tell me whether the conditions as outlined here and as stated by me last year, and as they apparently existed in July of last year, still obtain. I hesitate to say to him that if he finds the facts are as stated he should cancel that licence. I know it is given as a reason or an excuse why American capital is interested in this station, that Canadian capital could not have been obtained. It is stated as a reason that the station had to take American advertising and American programs because they could not obtain them in Canada. I believe that is the fact. There has been a very large sum of money expended in that Windsor station, upwards of $200,000, and naturally the men who 'have invested their money in it are trying to get a return on their investment.
It was stated to me the other day by one who is interested in that station that it was quite impossible to get Canadian advertiser's to contract for tire time, and for that reason they had to accept United States programs. It was also stated theut when those contracts expire Canadians could get on the air and make contracts in place of the United States citizens. But I doubt very much if they will ait anj' time find enough Canadian business in the city of Windsor, important as it is, to take up the majority of the time of that station. The point I wish particularly to make, is that we aue not observing the prin-

Supply-Marine-Radio
ciples laid down when the radio commission was formed', which stipulated not only that the companies should remain under Canadian control, buit thait thait whidh they broadcast should be of Canadian origin and for the benefit of Canadian people. I should like, if possible, to have some infarmaitdon from the minister. This is one out of only thirteen Canadian cheunmels. Last year we obtained more exclusive channels, and were very glad to get them. The channel dim question is exclusively used by this concern, and it seems a pity to me that omie of the channels so hand won by the Canadian' people should be allocated almost entirely for the benefit of the people of another country. That is the point I wish to make, and if possible I should like to have same reassurance from the minister that the condition' is bettor than that I outlined last year.


Alfred Duranleau: When the hon. member raised the same point last year the company in question was not in operation. The licence had been issued, but they were not operating. My information is that the com-pamy began operating on June 1, 1932.


William Daum Euler: I spoke in May.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, I believe that is correct. I do not know the exact conditions under which they operated lost fall, but I can say to the bouse that to-day the management is entirely in the hands of Canadians. More than fifty-one per oent of the capital is owned by Canadians, and all the directors are Canadians.


William Daum Euler: That does not mean very much.


Alfred Duranleau: There is one director from Sandwich, one from Windsor, one from Walkerviile, one from Essex, one from Teeum-seh and the remaining two from Windsor. Them is no doubt that at the present time the management is in the hands of Canadians. Of course this broadcasting station, as all other Canadian stations, depends on advertising for its revenue, and as I said last year, so long as the stations operate' on the presept basis, one cannot readily see a reason why a Canadian station should not rent a certain amount of its time-


William Daum Euler: Yes, a certain amount of it.


Alfred Duranleau: -to United States advertisers, provided, of course, that no Cam-adnam programs are offering.
Mr*. EULER: Would the minister say that if a Canadian advertiser wanted to get time now he could get it?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, I think so.


William Daum Euler: If they are under contract with Americans?


Alfred Duranleau: I think so.


William Daum Euler: Can the minister tell us how many purely Canadian programs ever issue from that station?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot give that information now, but I can say to the hon. member and the committee that for some time my department have been following the operations of that station, and I frankly admit thait we are not altogether satisfied with it. We believe that the station is giving an undue proportion of its time to American programs. If the control of radio stations had remained under the jurisdiction of my department it was the intention of the minister and the department to exercise more control over the company at Windsor. We had even thought of putting some conditions into effect when we renewed the licence for this year.


Mr. GRAY:: Is not the commission itself under the control and regulation of the minister?


Alfred Duranleau: Since the radio commission has been in operation the station has come under its control.


Ross Wilfred Gray: But is the commission not under the control of the minister?


Alfred Duranleau: To some extent, yes; they have to report to me. I have to be their spokesman in this house. But the commission has control over stations. I can say that the station in Windsor is carefully looked after by the radio commission, and I think thait within a short time it will see that the station is operating according to law.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there another station at Windsor?


Alfred Duranleau: No, that is the only one.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I suggest that the minister should give the station in Windsor to the Border Cities Star, a very good paper. The minister could do in Windsor what he has done in Montreal.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think the hon. member can compare the city of Windsor with the city of Montreal.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but I can compare the Border Cities Star with La Patrie.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member for North Waterloo said' a moment ago that
Supply-Marine-Radio

the Windsor station, because of the small size of the city could not get sufficient Canadian programs to employ all its time in broadcasting. I believe one station is enough for that city. I think however the committee may rest assured that the radio commission will look into the matter and give satisfaction.


Jean-François Pouliot: My point of comparison is that the Border Cities Star and La Patrie may both be newspapers, but the Border Cities Star is a prominent newspaper.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand that the station in Detroit, to which we are referring, began operations in June.
An lion. MEMBER: Windsor.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, Detroit; why not
be fair about if? That is where it is operated from. I am informed upon good authority that seventy-five per cent of the broadcasting from that station is done from a Detroit studio. I understand from an employee of the station that the Windsor station is looked upon merely as a blind.


An hon. MEMBER:: A blind pig.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Bootlegging radio.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, there are lots of those in Detroit-or at least there were, anyway. In my opinion this should be a Canadian station. I do not believe we should be merely a convenience at a time when channels on the other side of the boundary line become crowded. We should not permit the very few channels at our disposal to be used for that extra advertising. Those channels should be used for the benefit of the Canadian people. In my view that was the fundamental principle underlying the appointment of the commission in Canada. I do not believe it was ever intended that licence should be granted to a station which had for its chief purpose the dissemination of American advertising. I am not unmindful of the fact that possibly there i>
more financial gain in the broadcasting of American advertising. However I do not believe there is a great deal of excuse for the conditions which have obtained at Windsor. The station commenced operations in June and the radio commission did not begin its work until October. From June until October they operated with 75 per cent of the material emanating from a studio in Detroit and 25 per oent from a studio in Windsor. If it is to be an American station why not change the call and be frank about it? If it is to be a Canadian station it should be Canadian. I have no sympathy with the people who invested money under those conditions.
[Mr. Duranleau.l


William Daum Euler: Has the commission arrived at the point of putting in force the regulation that only five per cent of the time shall be devoted to advertising? Because I am quite certain that this station is not observing that regulation. Perhaps others are not either.


Alfred Duranleau: As my hon. friend
knows, it was only in January that the technical member of the radio commission returned from England, where he was studying broadcasting operations, and, as stated this evening, he was not sworn in until, I think, the 15th or 16t.h of January. I could not say exactly how far the commission is exercising control of Canadian stations as to the five per cent of the time mentioned by my hon. friend. But I know it is preparing to enforce the law. This committee will permit me to add that personally I am of the opinion-and I will discuss the matter with the radio commission, -that the foreign programs handled by any Canadian station should be limited to programs advertising goods actually manufactured in Canada and to non-advertising programs of high quality. That is the view of the minister and of the department, I hope the radio commission will accept and enforce that view even in connection with the broadcasting station at Windsor.


Paul Mercier: I heard the
Minister of Marine say he was not satisfied with the operation of that station. May I ask if he reported the case to the radio commission?


Alfred Duranleau: Oh yes, my information is that the case of that station is in the hands of and under consideration by the commission at the present time.


William Daum Euler: Has a new licence been
issued?


Alfred Duranleau: The licence will not be renewed before the first of April; they come for renewal on that date. As I told the committee a minute ago, probably some restrictions or conditions will be imposed on that station before the licence is renewed.


An hon. MEMBER:: ' The first of April? Make it the second.


Alfred Speakman: I think the hon. member for East Hamilton put his finger on the important feature, that is the division of air channels as between the United States and Canada. After all, in spite of the enormous amount of air, the available air channels are limited, and in the division between the two countries I understand that the air channels which Canada may use are comparatively

Supply-Marine-Radio
few. The arrangement between ourselves and the United States being what it is, the duty of our commission is to see to it that Canada does get her proper share of those channels. Undoubtedly, if the station at Windsor is being used as is stated, the effect is simply a detraction from the limited number of channels allotted to Canada, and an addition to those available to the United States.
I made a very interesting discovery the other day. I got a radio for the first time. I had always been under the impression that the tariffs of this country were sufficiently high to keep out anything American, or almost so. But to my amazement I found that at least three quarters of the programs sent out by a radio outfit in Alberta were American programs. I suggest to the minister that he confer with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of National Revenue and make certain whether or not there is a gap in their tariff wall.


William Daum Euler: May I, with some reluctance, but in the interest of my hon. friend the minister and his party, make one other suggestion? It is that since the president of this particular station at Windsor happens to be the president of the Conservative association, he be very particular to see that the regulations are carried out, lest he be accused of favoritism.


Alfred Duranleau: Well the radio commission is a non-political commission.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the minister smiling?
And hon. MEMBER: Yes he is.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I would like to ask, for my own informationi and the information of the house, and .perhaps of the country: Is the new radio commission under the control and jurisdiction of the Department of Marine?


Alfred Duranleau: As I have already stated, the radio commission has to report to the Minister of Marine.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And vice versa?


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, that is an answer, but I do not think it means much. I should like to press my question, because I regard it as important. A great deal of money will be spent on this radio commission; what service will they render, and to whom will they be responsible? Does the minister consider that he is really the chief of that commission? Or does the chairman of the commission report to him? Are they under his control, or are they under their own control?


Jean-François Pouliot: Or is the commission responsible to the people, or to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation?


Frederick George Sanderson: I think perhaps this is an opportune time for the minister to make a frank admission in regard to the whole broadcasting situation.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no admission to be made dn the part of the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: He never admits.


Alfred Duranleau: The act is there, and there are a number of great lawyers on the other side of the house-my hon. friend from Quebec East could say better than myself. The act is short; it comprises only five or six pages, and one has only to read it to see whether the commission is under the control of the minister or not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is altogether too guileless.


Alfred Duranleau: To some extent I think I can say that the commission is under the control of the minister-if you can say, for instance, that the railway commission is under the control of the Minister of Railways. The radio commission is a commission that has certain powers.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is it a court?


Alfred Duranleau: No, it is not a court.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is why it is different.


Alfred Duranleau: But the commission has administrative powers; the only requirement is that they report to the minister once a year.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am mot yet through with my question. With all due deference to the minister I must say that I am not any wiser now than, before I asked the question, I will put the question in another way. The minister says he does not really know whether he is in control or not-


Alfred Duranleau: No, I do not say that.


Frederick George Sanderson: He does not know
whether the commission has to report to him or is responsible to him. May I ask this question: Is the chairman of the new radio commission in control of the minister? I think that is a fair question. The minister says he does not know. Who is head of the radio commission? Who is head of the broadcasting in this country? Is it the chairman of the commission or is it the minister?
Supply-Marine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: It is the minister in his capacity as minister, together with the radio commission under the powers conferred upon them by the act.


Ernest Lapointe: Are you satisfied?


Frederick George Sanderson: No, far from it; in fact I am rather perplexed. With all due deference I would suggest to the minister that he let this item stand and sleep on it, and tell us to-morrow who is in charge.


Alfred Duranleau: Perhaps in the meantime my hon. friend might read the act and become posted on the actual situation. There are some powers that are exercised by the commission, who report to the minister, and in other respects they may be under the control of the minister.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the minister report to the chairman of the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend is
joking. The minister has no report to make to the commission. The commission reports to the minister, as I have already told the committee.


Alfred Speakman: May I ask the minister whether the actual relationship between the commission and the department is not somewhat similar to the relationship between the pension commission and the Department of Pensions and National Health?


Alan Webster Neill: Once when I was at Sunday school-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: I observe with pain the frivolous reception which greeted that remark; it indicates the low mentality of those responsible for it. As I was saying, once at Sunday school I read a beautiful little book, into the details of which I will not go now; which was called "Alone, Yet Not Alone." That seems to describe the relationship between the minister and the commission.
Now that I have a chance, Mr. Chairman- for which I have been waiting patiently for an hour and a half-I should like to ask several questions for the sake of information, which I will put together so that the minister can answer them all at once. Possibly they do not come under this item, though I think they do. I should like to know which branch of the service, that is, the radio commission or the departmental officials, is charged with the issuing of licences for radio receiving sets. Then I should like to know the system now in vogue in connection with those licences. I remember that once we went to some gov-

ernment office, but more recently we have gone to the radio agent who sold the machine and obtained our licence from him. Perhaps he received a little rake-off or commission on those licences, and if so I would like to know what it amounted to. Now it appears that they are going to have it thrown into politics, as usual, and there will be one man appointed through political influence, which has happened already in my district. He will be termed the inspector of radio licences. Pretty soon we will have an inspector of drag licences, I suppose. I must say, however, that in the district I represent a very worthy man has been selected as chief inspector, and if my memory is not wrong-and I speak subject to correction-he gets a commission of ten per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: Is .that Mr. McDonald ?


Alan Webster Neill: For once Mr. McDonald
seems to have missed a job, but I have no doubt 'he will get the local appointment; I have every confidence in my hon. friend seeing that Mr. McDonald will get it. I understand, as I say, that the inspector gets a commission, of ten per cent. Then there is to be a local man appointed by the patronage committee in every little centre, who will have charge of the actual issuing of licences, and if I am not mistaken he will get a commission of 25 per cent. That is a total commission of 35 per cent, representing 70 cents out of the fee of S2. I do not know any tax in Canada the cost of collecting which amounts to 35 per cent.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Better look up the facts.


Alan Webster Neill: I asked the minister to correct me if I am wrong, and I must say perhaps I am wrong about the 25 per cent, because I do not know. But if that is so, that is a tremendous cost for collecting these amounts.
Then there is just one other point on which I should like to get information, and I hope the minister will reassure me. We know that under the old system of control we paid SI for these licences, but as soon as there was any suggestion of government control the fee was immediately jumped to S2, an increase of one hundred per cent. To a great many people the difference between $1 and $2 does not amount to anything, but to a great many more people it does mean a great deal. Now I see some symptoms, having a mean and suspicious mind, which I interpret as a sort of kite flying to see whether the people will stand for a fee of S3. I saw a suggestion recently in the Press that no doubt when the thing was working satisfactorily the people would not grudge paying S3 for such a valu-

Supply-Marine-Radio
able service. As I say, in a great many cases S3 is a very substantial item, and to many poor people living in the country whose only communication with the outer world is the radio a S3 fee will mean that the radio will have to be done without. I hope the minister will reassure me and say that the government or the commission, whichever is dominant, has no intention for this year at least of increasing the license fee beyond $2.


Alfred Duranleau: The collection of radio licence fees was made last year just as it had been made previously except that on July 1, three months after the beginning of the fiscal year, we appointed inspectors to go from house to house and ascertain those who had radio licences and those who had not. These inspectors were authorized to issue lioenoeis to those who did not possess them, and they were paid a certain commission.


Alan Webster Neill: How much?


Alfred Duranleau: Forty cents per licence; we did not pay a cent more than that. I am glad my hon. friend has brought up the matter so that I may give this information to the committee and to the house. As a matter of fact the net revenue collected by the department and turned over to the Receiver General on acooumt of licences issued during the ten months ending January 31, 1933, amounted to $1,396,447.57. After estimating the number of unissued licences remainiing in the hands of dealers these figures represent approximately 735,000 licences actually issued to January 31, 1933. The distribution and sale of licences for that ten months period was as follows: 69-9 per oenit or 513,776 licences were sold by dealers, at a cost of 71 per cent.


Paul Mercier: What percentage is paid the dealer?


Alfred Duranleau: He is paid 15 cents
per licence, which is at the rate of 7i per cent, and of the 735,000 licences issued, 513,776 were sold by dealers at that commission.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How much does that amount to?


Alfred Duranleau: 69-9 per cent of the
total for the ten months. The licences issued by the post offices numbered 130,535, or 17 per cent, and the commission paid was 2^ per cent or 5 cents per licence.


George Gibson Coote: Why the difference in the
commission paid to the post offices and to other people?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
was the total commission paid out under these three schemes?


Alfred Duranleau: I am just giving the figures. To answer my hon. friend in the far corner I would state that the commission paid to the post offices is less because these officials are already paid by the government. It is verry convenient to the taxpayers to be able to obtain their licences at the post offices, and this service costs the department only 5 cents per licence.
Mr. VEN'IOT:	How many radio licences
were sold by the banks?


Olof Hanson: In our district
the mounted police issue the licences.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The sexton does it in
some places.


Alfred Duranleau: The number of licences issued by the banks was 18,391 at a commission of 15 cents.


Peter John Veniot: Would a bank in a town
be authorized to issue licences at a 15 cent commission when it is situated within a hundred yards of a post office?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Why pay more to a
bank than to a post office?


Alfred Duranleau: We do this in order to provide every convenience for the taxpayer in buying his licence. When, a citizen goes to a bank he is able to buy his licence.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Why pay more to a
bank than to a post office?


Alfred Duranleau: I have already given the reason; because the postmaster is already paid by the state.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The banks make more
money than the post offices.


Peter John Veniot: Why should a bank be
authorized to issue licences at a 15 cent commission when it is situated within only fifty yards of a post office which receives only 5 cents? The minister says that the postmaster is already paid by the government, but the government would be saving money by taking this privilege away from the banks. God knows, they have enough privileges now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
much was paid out in commissions to these various collecting agencies?


Alfred Duranleau: I was giving the
figures.


Mr. SPENCE:: Give him a chance to
answer.


Alfred Duranleau: In answer to the
question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) I would say that
S upply-M a rin e-Radio

four thousand small post offices are paid 15 cents per licence, the same as the banks. We do not allow all 'banks to issue licences; I am informed by the officials that this is done only when the bank is some distance away from the post office. I should like to know the place which my hon. friend has in mind.


Mr. YENIOT:: It is Bathurst. The bank
is situated within fifty yards of the post office and contains a notice "Radio licences sold here."


Alfred Duranleau: I will take note of
that and we will see that some redress is made. From July 1 last the licences issued by our inspectors numbered 84,870 or 11 per cent. The Department of Marine received the fees direct for 15,083 licences or 2 per cent. The mounted police collected for 6,896 licences.


Alan Webster Neill: What rake-off do they get?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that so far the mounted police have received no commission.


Paul Mercier: They should all be collected by the mounted police.


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that the
same commission paid to the inspectors, 40 cents per licence, is paid into their retirement fund.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Are they not paid by the
state?


Alfred Duranleau: They have to go from house to house, sometimes travelling miles in their own cars, in order to issue licences.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Are they not paid by the state the same as the postmasters? Why should they get a bigger percentage?


Alfred Duranleau: Because they have to go from house to house like the inspectors. This commission does not go to them personally, it goes to their retirement fund.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Are they not being paid by
the government while they are going from house to house? Why should the mounted police receive anything extra when they are being paid by the government?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose the matter was weighed and it was thought advisable that it should be done.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Who authorized this payment, the minister or the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: The payment would be authorized by order in council.


Alan Webster Neill: I am like the member for
Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot),I am disappointed. I do not think the minister was quite fair in the argument he put forth. I wanted to know what arrangements had been made for paying men in the future, and I instanced cases where political appointments had been made. The minister came back by entirely begging the question. He said that 69 per cent of the licences were issued by dealers, but does he think we are so simple that we do not know that for the most part radio licences are taken out in the spring? These political appointments were made as late as October and possibly November, and the minister tries to draw a red herring across the trail by saying that the dealers had issued 69 per cent of the licences. That may be true for the past year but apparently it is the intention of the government to concentrate the issuance of licences in the future in the hands of these politicians. If I were a politician I certainly would insist upon getting the whole of the business, and not having it whacked up between the post office, the banks and the mounted police. The minister said that the inspector goes around from door to door and gets a 20 per cent rake-off, but unless my information; is out of kilter-I got it from the press-I understand that there is another man underneath the inspector. I have read in the local press that Mr. So and So has been appointed supervisor, I think that was the word used,-I will call it inspector, if that will make the minister any happier-or special issuer of licences for the district of Comox-Alberni. The gentleman to whom I refer lives in the town of Courtenay. In the same paper or the succeeding issue I read that Mr. Somebody Else, also a resident in the town of Courtenay, had been appointed an issuer of licences. The first man was a superman; he attended only to the inspectorship and got a rake-off of 10 or 20 per cent. But this other man does the spade work; he issues the licences and he was appointed for the town of Courtenay. If that is not correct,
I should like to be informed. Are there not two men engaged, one for the whole electoral district as supervisor and one vendor resident in each place? One of the latter will, I am sure, as the minister foreshadowed, be filled by his friend Mr. McDonald of Bamfield.


Alfred Duranleau: The horn, member for Comox-Alberni is quite right when he says that there is a supervisor. The department did not want to deal with more than one man in each district. That man would be responsible for the work and would have somebody else to help him out, to go from house to house, do the work and report.

Supply-M arine-Radio


Alan Webster Neill: What did they get?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the man who has the responsibility for the whole district was supposed to keep for himself ten cents per licence.


Alan Webster Neill: What does the other man
get?


Alfred Duranleau: Thirty cents. The
department had a regular price for every part of the country, namely, forty cents per licence. The supervisor keeps ten cents for himself and pays thirty cents to the vendor, the man who goes from house to house. That is forty cents, or 20 per cent of the license fee.


Alan Webster Neill: Prior to that we used to
have this done for seven and a half per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Two and a half per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: Prior to last year
no canvassing from house to house was done. This system was on trial last year. Before that the inspectors had no power to issue licences; they went from house to house finding out those who had not complied with the law and they had to report to the department. Last year we tried this system of giving power to these inspectors to issue licences.


Alan Webster Neill: But in previous years the
department used to issue them through the dealer or postmaster on a commission of two and a half per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: No. When the licence fee was only one dollar, we were paying 10 per cent, or ten cents a licence.


Alan Webster Neill: Now the department is paying 20 per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: Now we are paying
fifteen.


Alan Webster Neill: Twenty per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: Fifteen, cents per
licence to the dealer, or seven and a half per cent, and two and a half per cent to the regular post offices; and we are paying seven and a half per cent to about 4,000 small post offices and seven and a half per cent to some banks.


Alan Webster Neill: And 20 per cent to the
inspectors?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: That is 20 per cent to the
inspectors who formerly used to get 10; that is my point.


Alfred Duranleau: This is because they have to go from house to house, to travel.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister answer the question I asked about half an hour ago?


Alfred Duranleau: I have been asked
so many questions I cannot remember it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My question was:	What was the total amount of
commission paid last year under these various classifications?


Alfred Duranleau: It was $119,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is that for the ten months ending January 31 of this year?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes. As I informed the committee, we collected $1,396,000 free of commissions.


Paul Mercier: But the printing of the paper, the licence certificates, cost something?


Alfred Duranleau: That is included in
the expenses of administration of the department.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many licences were issued last year when the fee was $2, and how many the previous year when the fee was $1


Alfred Duranleau: In the previous year under the SI licence fee we issued 598,358 licences, or nearly 600,000. This year for the ten months we have issued 735,000 licences at $2.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Why is it necessary to pay any commissions at all? At a time like this when we need plenty of revenue, to pay men forty cents on every licence issued seems exorbitant. Why cannot the man who sells the radio simply send in a form to the department stating that so and so has bought a radio, and let it go at that?


James Arthurs: Before the minister answers, I want to show the other side of the question. It is true that the minister or someone on his behalf organized a plan to collect licence fees where they had not been previously collected, that is from those who had radios and had not paid anything to the government, the compensation being ten cents per licence to a supervisor in each constituency and thirty cents to the inspector, or 20 per cent in all. These men were given large territories, otherwise they would not have taken the job. Many men went around, spent days and days of their time, paid their travelling expenses and in the end did not get one cent of compensation for their work. The lucky men, largely in the big centres, issued licences, as the minister has said, up to a value of about $100,000, where the govern-

Supply-Marine-Radio

ment had previously obtained no licence fees. Those people had never before had licences issued to them. The suggestion of my hon. friend opposite that the vendor of a machine notify the government each time he sells one is all right to a certain extent; but it will be found that these machines are traded in and traded out; they pass privately from one party to another; there are many radio receivers throughout Canada that have not been in use for years and it would be very difficult to deal with the matter in that way. Some system of inspection is necessary, but where these men go into the back concessions in search of unlicensed machines, they should receive a decent fee, far more than the amount suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Alan Webster Neill: Would that system not be done away with entirely if a rule were made that no radio expert could sell or repair a radio unless the owner produced his licence?


James Arthurs: But what about the following year?


Alan Webster Neill: The radio would always need tubes or repairs.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is there in each district one man whom the minister calls a supervisor?
Mr. DURANLEAjU: Except where in a constituency there are. large cities.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the supervisor
appoint the inspectors?


Alfred Duranleau: He appoints the vendors or inspectors.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does he do that himself, or does he consult with the minister or the department or anyone else in connection with the appointment?


Alfred Duranleau: The supervisor attends to the appointments without any consultation with the department.


Frederick George Sanderson: How many inspectors would there be in each constituency?


Alfred Duranleau: It depends on the
size of the constituency. We have nothing to do with that. We do not limit the number of inspectors. It is up to the supervisors to "mploy as many inspectors as they see fit.


Frederick George Sanderson: In my own constituency there is one supervisor, and there are very many inspectors. I know that in one town in my riding the inspectors work in 
pairs, going around two at a time, and I was wondering if one of them represented the minister and the other the chairman of the radio commission.


James Arthurs: Are they Liberals?


Frederick George Sanderson: They are not.


James Arthurs: They should be.


Frederick George Sanderson: Can the minister tell
me how many inspectors he has in Ontario?


Jean-François Pouliot: In the meantime might
I suggest that each postmaster should sell his birthright to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a mess of pottage.


Alfred Duranleau: Was the question of
my hon. friend from South Perth, how many vendors, dealers, banks, and so forth, there are?


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not interested
in the banks or the postmasters at the moment, but only in the supervisors and the inspectors.


Alfred Duranleau: My information is
thait we have 47 supervisors in Ontario. I cannot answer as to the number of vendors.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is rather an important question. I think the committee has a right to know how many vendors, if you choose to call them such, or inspectors, there are in Ontario. I could not say offhand how many there are in my riding, but there are very many. Surely the minister can tell me how many there are in Ontario.


Pierre-François Casgrain: And in the other provinces too.


Alfred Duranleau: As we do not appoint the vendors my hon. friend can easily understand that I cannot give the number. We appoint in each constituency a responsible man called a supervisor who is responsible to the department, and we deal only with him. He can go around the constituency and canvass from house to house if he wants to, or he can appoint responsible men to work under him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the supervisor responsible to the minister?


Alfred Duranleau: He is responsible to
the department, and the only one who is responsible to the department. In order to see that everybody who has a radio obtains a licence we adopted a new system last year. We had ascertained that in the previous year at least 100,000 radio owners had not paid for a licence. We had tried1 to collect the fees in every way possible, by announcements over

Supply-M urine-Radio
the radio, advertising, and so forth, and last year we tried another mode of collection. We began organizing in July and continued up to September, because it was a new organization and it took some time. Under that new system of canvassing from house to house, instead of taking legal proceedings, as we did previously, against those who had not complied with the law in the first three months of the fiscal year, we collected 84,000 licence fees more than we had collected the previous year. Those supervisors finished their work to-day, February 28.
My hon. friend from South Perth asked how many vendors there were under the department. To-morrow we shall have none. We have not yet decided whether this new system will be in force for another year or whether another mode of collection will be tried, but the aim of the department is that every owner of a radio set shall pay for a licence.
A question was asked by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni, whether we intended to increase the licence fee this year. I do not think there will be any question as to that this year. I think the licence fee will remain at $2, but I repeat that it is the intention of the department to see that every radio owner pays his licence fee.


George Gibson Coote: I seems to me that the minister has shown great diligence in collecting the licence fees. I think the committee would be interested in learning just what use has been made of the fees paid by the licence holders. What service has been rendered by the department? How many engineers are working in the field to see that radio reception is just what it should be? I wish the minister would also tell the committee what the commission is now doing. I understand that it has been operating for some time. Is the commission exercising a censorship, and if so, on what grounds do they decide who shall not be allowed to use the air? Has the radio commission yet broadcast any national programs, and if so, what telephone or telegraph lines are they using for these national broadcasts?


Mr. MALCOLM:: The discussion is on the item of fees for radio licences. I quite appreciate the difficulties which the minister has in collecting the fees, but I doubt very much if the system under which radios are licensed is productive of the revenue which should be produced. The collection is a very laborious process for the amount of money derived. I do not think any new invention of modern times has presented just the same 53719-1641
difficulties that radio has in the way of collection of fees. I would suggest to the minister, if he wants to get a reasonable return from the users of radio receiving sets, and if he wants to avoid the present difficulties of collection, he could go about it in a very simple way by wiping out entirely the licence fee for the use of a radio set, and instead ask his Minister of Finance when he brings down his budget in a few days to put a direct tax of twenty-five cents each on all tubes used in radio receiving sets. There is no logical reason why the man with a crystal set or a one tube set should pay a licence fee of 82, but the owner of an eight tube set might very well be asked to pay a tax of twenty-five cents apiece on radio tubes. The minister would then have no difficulties in collection. The manufacturers would pay the tax just the same as they do the sales tax, and every cent of the revenue would come into the treasury. The cost of collection would be nil, and the tax would be distributed more evenly among those who use radio receiving sets with tubes.


Frederick George Sanderson: If I 'heard the minister aright, he said that there were 47 supervisors in Ontario, but he did not know how many vendors or inspectors there were. There might be one or five or ten thousand-any number. Surely the minister has some knowledge or information concerning the number of inspectors in Ontario under the control of his department. They draw revenues from the public exchequer; they are public servants; Surely the minister knows how many there are.


Alfred Duranleau: I think I answered
the hon. member's question. These vendors or inspectors were the employees not of the department but of the supervisors. We did not pay one cent to the vendors, but paid a commission to the supervisor. It is very easy to understand that since we had nothing to do with the vendors and dealt only with the supervisors, we cannot tell how many vendors there might be in each constituency. I should imagine the supervisor was a reasonable man-


Frederick George Sanderson: And a good supporter of the government.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say that;
if they are reliable men we are satisfied. I should imagine the supervisor would give the jobs to three or four men; those men could not earn their living if there were too many in the constituency. The number of men required would of course depend on the size and importance of the constituency. I do
Supply-M arine-Radio

not think the hon. member can insist upon an answer to his question concerning the number of vendors in his or any other constituency in the province.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Frederick George Sanderson: 
Alfred Duranleau: My department takes the responsibility for the appointment of supervisors. May I add that the supervisor has to purchase the licences from the department. The department takes no risk.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Does he pay in advance?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Edward James Young: Can he peddle them out as he likes?


Alfred Duranleau: The department has no responsibility so far as vendors are concerned, because I suppose they have to purchase their licences from the supervisors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does
the supervisor return the unsold licences and receive compensation for them?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, we have to make a refund in respect of unsold licences.


Paul Mercier: How many
radio inspectors have been appointed for the city of Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: One supervisor for
the city of Montreal.


Paul Mercier: Who is he?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. L. J. Bigonesse.


Paul Mercier: When was he appointed?


Alfred Duranleau: About the same time as the others.


Paul Mercier: Last year?


Alfred Duranleau: At the end of August or the beginning of September.


Paul Mercier: How many
licences were issued in the city of Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: By inspectors?


Paul Mercier: Yes, for the whole city of Montreal, under Mr. Bigonesse?


Alfred Duranleau: 11,245.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Have supervisors complete
control over the hiring and dismissal of the vendors who sell the licences?


Alfred Duranleau: As I said a minute ago, we deal only with the supervisors, and it is up to them to see that all people who own radios pay their licences. They may hire as many vendors as they like.


Mr. CRAY:: Have they full power of
dismissals?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, of course.


Ross Wilfred Gray: No one other than a supervisor has any power to interfere with the vendors of licences?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not believe anyone has.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am asking you.


Alfred Duranleau: Of course if my department had a complaint about a vendor we would place the matter before the supervisor and ask for an explanation.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Have the sitting members,
from the various constituencies through which these vendors are operating any control over the vendors?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not believe they have.


Mr. GOLDING:: If the supervisors have
full control after they have made an appointment, has the sitting member any right to tell the supervisor to discontinue the services of or to dismiss an appointee? I want to know, because I know of a definite case where that happened.


Alfred Duranleau: I say that no member has power to give instructions to the supervisor. Although I am not certain, in some instances a member receiving complaints concerning a vendor may have gone to the supervisor and without giving instructions, asked the supervisor to dismiss the man. I do not know if that has happened, but it would seem to be a very natural thing to do.
I would do that myself; if I had a complaint I would go to the supervisor and say, "I should like you to look after this gentleman, because I do not believe he is playing the game fairly with my constituents."

Supply-Marine-Radio


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Intelligent cooperation.


Alfred Duranleau: It may be; but I say no member has any power over supervisors.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for
South Huron asked a question about the authority of a sitting member to dismiss a vendor. I should like to ask if a defeated government candidate would have power of dismissal?


Alfred Duranleau: I would give the same answer to that question; he would have no more power than a member.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the minister
know of any instance where a defeated candidate has gone beyond his power and has had the supervisor dismiss an appointee? Has he knowledge of any such case?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Under this government
that happens every day.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I must confess this discussion has developed into a sort of Chinese puzzle, except that I am quite sure the method of collecting radio licences has a political complexion. I understood the minister to say that the tenure of office of supervisors expires to-day, amd thait he is mot sure whether or not the same system will be carried on for another year. I would like to point out to the minister that he can very well afford to change the system that has been in operation the last ten months. He has been paying two and a half per cent commission to the post offices, seven and a half percent to the banks and a similar amount to the dealers, but he has been paying twenty per cent commission to the supervisors. I am not saying that even the twenty per cent compensates them for the work they do; I do not believe it does. I have heard that they lost money through trying to collect radio licences even on the twenty per cent commission. But in view of the information given the committee that 69-9 per cent of radio licences have been sold by dealers and the fees collected in that way, and that the supervisors have collected fees in respect of receiving sets of which the department had no record, surely by this time there must be a complete record of all radio receiving sets in the country. It would seem unnecessary to have a long list of supervisors throughout the country, political appointees, who receive a twenty per cent commission on collections. This could, I submit, be very well handled through the post offices, the mounted police, and the radio distributors. Through these
three sources, and with the information the department already has, it should be possible to maintain a complete record of all radio owners and collect all licence fees without employing the supervisors who seem to me to have a strong political complexion.


James Malcolm: I should' like to ask the minister, having regard to information I have received from some of his officials, why he cannot adopt the suggestion I have made. I am informed that 3,297,000 radio tubes were made and sold in Canada last year. A tax of fifty cents per tube would give the department a revenue of over $1,600,000. Why not adopt that system and save all this trouble and expense?


Alfred Duranleau: That is a matter to be considered.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Am I right in assuming that the supervisor is responsible to the minister only for the payment of $1.60 per licence?


Alfred Duranleau: That is correct.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Am I right in assuming that he can then peddle these licences to whomever he wishes, and at whatever rate he wishes, allowing the vendor 20 cents in one case, 40 cents in another, or whatever rate he has a mind to make, and that the department has no supervision over what the supervisor may make on each licence?


Alfred Duranleau: As long as the supervisor charges no more than $2 to the radio owner for the licence, we have nothing to do with his vendors.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Have I made myself clear? I am not concerned what he charges to the licensee, but I am concerned with the question whether you have any control over what the supervisor charges to the vendor.


Alfred Duranleau: In the instructions of the department to the supervisor we state that 10 cents goes to him and 30 cents to the vendor. But we do not exercise any control of the supervisors on that account.


James Malcolm: They may cut rates if they w'ant to?


Alfred Duranleau: I think eveiy vendor knows perfectly well he is entitled to 30 cents.


Paul Mercier: But as long as you receive $1.60 you are satisfied?


Alfred Duranleau: Provided the radio
owners are well treated.


James Malcolm: Can the minister inform me what rates are charged for radio receiving sets in hotel rooms?
Supply-M arine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: The matter has not yet been settled.


James Malcolm: It is time it was, I should think.


Alfred Duranleau: Those who occupy a room in a hotel, having their own radio, pay the usual licence fee.


James Malcolm: No; I am referring to modem hotels which have radio equipment in ever}' room. From a central receiving station the radio program is transmitted to every room in the hotel. What is paid by the hotel for having radio sets in a thousand rooms?


Alfred Duranleau: I am informed that there is only one central radio set. The Royal York in Toronto, for instance, pays only one licence fee.


James Malcolm: I submit that that is the best proof in the world that there should be a tax on tubes, in which case you are paid for the service you render.


Paul Mercier: Take the case of the Ford hotel in Montreal, which has 500 rooms.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Who is the supervisor in the county of Northumberland, Ontario?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the information here.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Who is the supervisor in *the counties of Charlevoix-Saguenay?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the name of the supervisor. I know he has sold two hundred licences.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Will the minister give it the next time the estimates are before the committee?


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask whether the order in council has been passed allowing the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 40 cents per licence? I understood the minister to say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had not been paid anything but will be paid 40 cents per licence. The question occurs to me whether they sure being dealt with an the same basis as the supervisors, to whom licences are sold at $1.60 each.


Alfred Duranleau: The order in council was passed about a month ago. It was already stated that they would get 40 oenits per licence, which should go to their pension fund.
[Mr. Malcolm.1


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is being paid to them as a direct payment out of the consolidated revenue fund?


Alfred Duranleau: It is paid out of the licence fee, and goes to their pension fund.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Which is already in your
possession.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not understand.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me make it clear. To the supervisors, if I understood aright the minister's explanation, the government sells licences at $1.60 each. Forty cents per licence is kept by the supervisor, which I suppose he is obliged to divide with the vendors. Is some different arrangement made with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Do they remit the $2 per licence to the government, and are they now under the order in council to be paid back 40 cents?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that the system has not started yet, but I understand they will pay only $1.60 for the licence, and they have to remit to their pension fund 40 cents.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What about those they have sold-six or seven thousand, according to the figures given.


Alfred Duranleau: The order in council is not retroactive.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They get nothing for those?


Alfred Duranleau: They get nothing for those.


Jean-François Pouliot: Whose idea was it to
allow a different percentage to different people? Was it done under the instructions of the minister, or was it discovered by some official? There is discrimination in that.


Alfred Duranleau: There are not many
different percentages of commissions. The dealers and the banks get 15 cents, about four thousand small post offices get 15 cents and the large post offices get 5 cents or 2i per cent. The house to house collectors receive 40 cents.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are like pedlers.


Mr. DUR  ANLEAU@: I would not call these men pedlers; their duty is to ascertain who have complied with the law and who have not, and they have power to issue licences.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is
the total number of supervisors for the entire dominion?


Alfred Duranleau: We had 140 supervisors.

Supply-M arine-Radio


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I was under the
impression that Canada had a national, nonpolitical radio system, but now I find that practically all these appointments are political. How does the minister reconcile that fact with the former conception we all had? Are these 140 supervisors all Tories, or are some of them Liberals and some C.C.F.'ers?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know; all
that concerns me is whether the man is reliable. These collections do not come under the radio commission; they are still under the Department of Marine.


William Richard Motherwell: From what I have
heard, and I can hear fairly well, it appears to me that they are one hundred per cent political appointments. I think that is scandalous in a service such as this, and my hon. friend said they were naturally supporters of the government. Why?


Alfred Duranleau: I did not say that. I think my hon. friend heard that from someone else; I do not think the minister made that statement. If the man is reliable the department is satisfied.


William Richard Motherwell: Would they be
recommended by the patronage committees in the various constituencies?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know. Sometimes when we need information on a man naturally we go to the member or the defeated candidate. There is nothing new in that; that was done during the Liberal regime. When you needed some information you went to the liberal member or the defeated Liberal candidate.
Mr..MOTHERWELL: What are the names of the supervisors in the constituency of Melville?


Alfred Duranleau: I am sorry, but I
have already stated to the committee that I have not with me the names of the supervisors.


Mr. HOWARD:: May I suggest to the
minister that when reconsidering his plan of operation for the collection of licence fees next year he look into the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Bruce. To me it appears to be a very sensible one. May I say that I do not particularly object to the political appointment made in my own constituency; I think that was a perfectly natural consequence. I do object very strongly to the system, however. No one in a city like Sherbrooke knows where radios are as well as the mail carrier, who knows what is going on in every house throughout his route.
There is no person who could collect the licence fees as well as the mail carrier. According to the figures given by the minister, 2-1 per cent was paid to the post office and 20 per cent to the collectors. In times like these, when we need every dollar of additional revenue and wdien we are facing real financial difficulties, this system is altogether wrong; we have no right to pay 20 per cent when we can make the collections for 21- per cent. I will go further; I think there will be greater efficiency if the collecting is done by the Post Office Department, which also needs additional revenue. Then, if you could get around the difficulty of paying a man who already receives a salary from the government, you might give thie mail earner a small commission on his collections, and you would be sure to have a licence issued for every set.
So far as Sherbrooke is concerned there was a supervisor appointed, but with that I have no concern at all. Later the supervisor selected the men to work under him, but suddenly someone discovered that my constituency is seventy-five per cent French Canadian but that all the collectors were English speaking. As a result additional French speaking collectors had to be appointed. So I say I do not think this is the proper way to handle this proposition. I would suggest that next year the minister either adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for North Bruce or have these collections made by the Post Office Department at a commission of 2i per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: I have only a word
to say to my hon. friend from Sherbrooke. I agree with him when he says the Post Office Department should issue the licences to those who wish to go to the post office, but what are we to do with those who will not do so? I have positive proof that this year we issued over 100,000 licences which otherwise would not have been issued, and for each of those licences we are receiving SI .60. Some radio owners do not go to the post office, the bank or the dealer, so we had to find some way of ascertaining who had paid and who had not paid. I am quite frank to say to this committee that this was an experiment to see if we could have a licence issued for each receiving set, but I am glad to receive suggestions from hon. members opposite because at present we are considering what system we shall adopt next year. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for North Bruce that a tax should be imposed on radio tubes, I am told that in hotel rooms where there are radios there are no tubes used.
25S6

Supply-M arine-Radio


James Malcolm: But they have very
large sets in those hotels.


Alfred Duranleau: There might be a
different way of assessing the hotels, because they have large receiving sets but in the rooms they have only loud speakers.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I was not suggesting that everyone should go to the post office to get his licence. We have the mail carriers who go into every home and who know where every radio is located. If those carriers received a small commission you would get the finest collection system yet devised. I might go further and say to the minister that I do not believe the present system is good, speaking politically; I think it will cause more enemies than friends.


Alfred Duranleau: Our only aiim has
been to collect every licence fee, and I can tell my hon. friend that at the present time we are corresponding with the Post Office Department in order to see if collections cannot be made by carriers.


James Malcolm: Some years ago, before
radio was invented, I was interested in the marketing of phonographs. When this device for reproducing music came into use I felt that the government was missing an opportunity to obtain revenue by placing a small and reasonable tax upon phonograph records. It was never necessary to have a licence to . use a phonograph and, as the minister has pointed out, it would have been utterly impossible to follow all trades engaged in the production of musical instruments. I think the minister's explanation shows that he is running into the very same problem in connection with radio receiving sets. To-day the government needs money worse than it ever did, and this afternoon the Minister of Finance stated quite frankly that he would welcome suggestions for revenue. The government has gone to a great deal of expense and yet in my opinion $125,000 is being thrown away in collecting a tax which could be collected without a cent of cost. I suggest to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine that phonograph records could bear a fairly substantial tax. We pay 8 cents on a package of cigarettes; why should not phonograph records bear a fair tax? It would be a justifiable tax and would provide considerable revenue. A tax upon radio receiving sets is just as much a nuisance as a tax upon sewing machines would be; both are almost household necessities. The most equitable way of levying this tax would be to base the tax upon the use made of the machine. The man who buys an eight tube set in order to obtain 
better reception should pay more than the man who is satisfied with a four tube set. The man who uses his receiving set more than another should pay more in the way of taxation. A gasoline tax is based upon the amount of gasoline used, which represents the use made of our highways, and the same principle could be applied to this tax. By placing a 50 cent tax upon each radio tube, according to the figures for last year the government would receive a revenue of $1,600,000. There would be a great saving in the cost of collection, the whole matter would be simplified, and I believe the radio receiving set owner would be more satisfied with the general conditions. Many men occupy summer homes in which they have radio sets which are operated for probably only two months in the year. Some people take their sets back to their winter home, while others, having duplicate sets, pay for two licences. The mm who does this buys two licences but he is not living in two houses at the same time. If the tubes were taxed a man would be justified in moving the tubes, but when the tubes were worn out he would have to buy new ones upon which a tax would be imposed. This tax could be collected by the manufacturers without any cost to the government, in the same way that sales tax is collected. I submit to the minister tihait he should take up this matter with his colleagues, because I think it would prove to be in the interest of revenue, of convenience, and of economy in collection.


Alfred Speakman: What is the average
life -of a tube?


James Malcolm: A certain number of
hours' use-I do not know just how many.


George Gibson Coote: I asked the minister if he could give us some idea of the service rendered to the people of Canada for the licences they bought. I suppose he will say that he has not had time to give us this information, but I think he should give it before the item carries.


Alfred Duranleau: The present organization comprises twent)'-three permanent establishments and thirty-two part time establishments located in different towns and cities throughout the dominion, with a personnel of 148 full time employees and 41 part time employees. The permanent establishments are equipped with special radio interference detecting cars.


George Gibson Coote: What is the total expenditure for radio services?

Questions


Alfred Duranleau: I am asking for


George Gibson Coote: The minister said that he collected something over 11,000,000. I should like to know how much revenue the government will have from this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has only got started; the money goes to the commission.


Alfred Duranleau: It goes to the commission.


George Gibson Coote: How much will the commission have in its hands for this year's services?


Alfred Duranleau: Item 247 asks for
$1,000,000. Air. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 1, 1933