1933-02-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North
Battleford): I understand that the investigation into the sinking or scuttling of the British freighter Bright Fan in northern waters has been completed by the British Board of Trade. Has the report of this inquiry been received, and if so, when will it be tabled?
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: So far as I know, the report has not been received and so far as I am aware there is no obligation to table the report of another government; that can be done only with their permission.



WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: The other day I asked the Prime Minister whether the agenda of the World Economic conference was available. He said that copies had been published by the League of Nations. Is it possible for members of the house to secure copies of the agenda and further, will the house be given an opportunity of discussing it during the present session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained to the hon. gentleman the other day that a draft copy, published by the League of Nations, of the proposed World Economic and Monetary conference, had been received, but that there were not sufficient copies for distribution purposes. As far as discussing the contents of the agenda is concerned, the agenda was decided upon by the representatives set up by the League of Nations and at the moment I do not know of any reason that it should be discussed. I shall give further consideration to the matter, but I had not thought there would be any discussion of that agenda.
Trade Relations with Riissia



WESTERN FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Railways. The other day, in speaking on the question of freight rates, he intimated to the house that a suggestion had been made by the railways to the western provinces whereby the domestic rate would be reduced 50 per cent of the differential between domestic and export rates. My question is this: Is the rate in effect now, or are the railways awaiting a reply from the Minister of Railways as to whether this suggestion meets with the approval of the provinces?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: The rate is not in effect now. The submission has been put by me to the four western provinces and I have received from two of them acceptances of the proposition. This morning I sent telegrams to the other two telling them I had already received acceptances from the others concerned and asking them to hurry their replies. As soon as I receive the replies of the other two western provinces, I shall immediately take proper steps to have those rates put into effect, but I cannot move until an acceptance has come from at least one and preferably both of the other two western provinces. I think it would be better to wait for all the replies.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Before the Christmas recess the Prime Minister was good enough to make a statement about the policy of unemployment insurance. Can he give any information on it now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman, with his wide experience, knows, I think, how idle it would be to ask, without notice, for a statement on a matter of that kind.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: I was not in the house when the
order for motions was called. I should like 
to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he tabled the correspondence he said he would table?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The correspondence asked for in
the motion is one dealing with different departments and such correspondence is tabled by the Secretary of State.


John Vallance: May I ask the Secretary of State when we may expect it? I notice the Prime Minister stated last night that we might take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So we shall.


John Vallance: I would like to have
the correspondence before that is done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolution was
adopted the other day after it had been pointed out that what was involved would necessitate the transcription of, I fancy, at least 100 messages that have gone to various departments. In accordance with the system that has been observed in this country the practice is for the Secretary of State's office to send a copy of the resolution to each department. The departments then send to the Secretary of State copies of the documents and then the Secretary of State presents the return. The other day I pointed out that had the resolution been limited to the correspondence that took place with the Department of Agriculture, the return was ready to be made. Notwithstanding the fact that this would be only a partial return, perhaps the best course to pursue would be to table copies of that correspondence so far as it goes. The rest of it is purely informal, I would think, consisting of telegrams sent by people who did not know anything about the matter but who had read something about it in the papers and had been asked to send telegrams. The tabling of these messages will not help beyond showing that there were ten, twelve or fifteen telegrams received. I shall endeavour to see that the correspondence with the Department of Agriculture is tabled without delay. If it is ready now, I shall try to see that it is tabled before this evening.



GRADING OF HAY AND STRAW

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, respecting the inspection and grading of hay and straw.
Alan Webster Neill: Before the second reading passes, I should like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker. It will be noticed that this bill makes a distinct change

Grading oj Hay and Straw
in policy. In the previous bill the regulations regarding hay and straw were in the bill itself. It is now proposed to put into the hands of the minister power to make regulations. I see no occasion for that. It is just another case of which we have seen so many examples in the last ten years, of taking power away from parliament and putting it into the hands of a department, no matter how able its officials may be. I have very great respect indeed for the officials of the Department of Agriculture, but I have noticed over a period of years one peculiarity in their point of view, and that is that they adopt the policy of making the penalties very extreme for any infraction of the rules and regulations which they make. They appear to go ,on the principle of the Turkish sultan who made it his boast that, when he found a baker selling bread of short weight, he ordered him put into his oven and baked, and he claimed that that stopped that particular crime. But that is not the method we adopt in more civilized countries. But there is this tendency by the officials of the Department of Agriculture to make the penalties for any infraction of their rules and regulations very severe, and for that reason I should like to see the regulations framed by the house and not by officials only.
I also notice that the explanatory note, in setting out why this legislation should be passed, says that the grade standards for hay that were serviceable twenty-five years ago when the principal demand for baled hay was for the feeding of horses in cities need to be revised. I would point out that it is not twenty-five years ago; it dates back only to 1918, when the present grade standards for hay were established. The act was amended and thoroughly revised, and the present grades were established in 1918. Now 1918 is a good deal nearer than twenty-five years ago, and I think we might expect a little more accuracy in the explanatory note.
The explanatory note also says that baled hay was principally used up to that time for [DOT]the feeding of horses. Well, they are not going to feed motor cars with baled hay even now, and I suppose that if it was good to arrange a grade of hay for feeding horses in 1918, the relationship between hay and horses is very much the same even now.
Take one of the present grades:
_ Prime timothy shall be pure timothy, perfect in colour, sound and well cured.
That was the grade established in 1918, and is there anything wrong with that now? Has anything happened in the last fifteen years, not twenty-five, to require a change in that grade?
The minister also takes power under paragraph (c) of section 3 to prescribe the places where, and the conditions under which, hay and straw shall be inspected. Suppose I am baling my hay and straw and that I am getting a horribly low price, and I discover that it has to be inspected at a point fifteen miles away from my home or where I am baling it. That would be a very serious handicap to my doing business.
The explanatory note also says that there have been urgent requests for the repeal of the existing grades. I should like to hear where those urgent requests came from. In these days when it is so difficult to do business at all, and more difficult still to do it at even a minimum of profit, we should mark time for a while rather than introduce new regulations which, however desirable in themselves from the point of view of an official, are calculated to hinder business. Let the wretched farmer, if he can, get a sale for his baled hay and straw, and sell it under the conditions which have been in effect for the last fifteen years. I would ask the minister- I suppose he cannot speak now-to take notice of my suggestion that these regulations should be passed by the house and not be left to the officials.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: The information given, the house thus far by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has been very meagre, and I trust that before the bill passes he will amplify it somewhat.
This bill, or a somewhat modified one, should have been passed many years ago in Canada. One was introduced in 1928 or 1929, but a very much different bill, and it was opposed so strenuously by both wings of the then opposition that it was let die on the order paper. Just previous to that, a good many bills of a similar nature providing for the standardization and grading of farm products had been introduced by the then government, but the house seemed to think that we were going too rapidly in that direction. I am afraid that some of my colleagues thought the same, because they were quite satisfied to let the bill go by default, and I think maybe they were right because we were going perhaps a little rapidly. But I am glad to see that the minister is following in our footsteps, in that respect somewhat hesitantly, but nevertheless following.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has pointed out, this is rather an arbitrary bill, and it may seem strange that I am rather disposed to approve of it, but the bill must first be modified by explanations or otherwise in order to remove its arbitrary

Exchequer Court Act

nature. I hope the minister in his explanation will be able to satisfy the house on that point.
We have some five or six provinces which are concerned in the selling of hay, the mari-times, Quebec, parts at least of Ontario, part of Alberta, and there is a little selling in British Columbia, and then there are two other provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan which are concerned in the buying of hay. All these provinces either as sellers or buyers are interested in the grades of hay, and I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he follow the example of the government of 1906, not a bad one to follow in many respects, and consult with the provincial Ministers of Agriculture in the various provinces, whether they sell hay or not, and get their views on any new classification of hay, before being adopted by the minister. I remember that in 1906 the new grades were submitted to the Department of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, and because we were consulted we got more loyally behind the bill.
It is a very' naked bill that is before us, consisting of only three sections, and a fourth section repealing the old law. It is both naked and arbitrary, and I trust that the minister will give some explanation that will satisfy us before this bill is given its second reading. Then when it goes to the committee on agriculture we shall be able to make any modifications that are thought desirable. I am not going to oppose the second reading now because of the arbitrary nature of this bill because I think that the advice which the Ministers of Agriculture of the various provinces are in a position to give will give the minister all the direction necessary and enable us to get through a simple bill which can be modified from time to time as circumstances require, and which will also avoid the necessity of bringing these grading bills too frequently before this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Mr. A. R. LaVERGNE (Montmagny): Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the principle of the bill, but I am afraid when it reaches the committee stage it will have to be amended. A part of clause (2) in the bill reads:
... the Exchequer court shall not have jurisdiction to entertain any action heretofore

or hereafter commenced for the recovery of any sum of money paid to His Majesty voluntarily in mistake of law, if the recovery of such money might not in England be the subject of a suit or action against the crown.
This would seem to put the province of Quebec under the English common law, and when the bill comes to the committee stage I think there should be an amendment so far as the civil code of the province of Quebec is concerned.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be better to go into committee and have the explanations at that time, because I must say I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne). I should like to hear some explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Payments made voluntarily to His Majesty in mistake of law.
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Chairman, as is well known the
Exchequer Court of Canada was founded by a statute which is now chapter 34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. The jurisdiction of that court is expressed in section 18 of the act as follows:
IS. The Exchequer court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in which demand is made or relief sought in respect of any matter which might, in England, be subject of a suit or action against the crown, and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in which the land, goods or money of the subject are in the possession of the crown, or in which the claim arises out of a contract entered intc by or on behalf of the crown.
Then section 19 sets out a specific number of cases in which the court shall have jurisdiction. As shown in section 18, the Exchequer court is founded on the law of England and, as is well known, it is a court established by federal authority and has jurisdiction throughout all parts of Canada; irrespective of provinces. The only limitation in regard to the act, so far as I am aware, is the limitation contained in section 32 which prescribes that the statutes of limitations in effect in the various provinces shall have application to all suits pending before the Exchequer court. That is the only limitation.
It so happens that from time to time claims arise against the crown for the return of moneys which have been paid under mistake of law. Sometimes when claims are made

Customs Act
in respect of taxes, customs dues or the like, and where litigation ensues or is threatened, the parties compromise their claims and payment is made on the basis of compromise with the government of Canada. It has happened that in respect of some claims which have been so paid, subsequently by a decision of a superior court in Canada or by a decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, the law under which the money has been paid has been declared to be ultra vires of this parliament. Claims then immediately arise from the parties who have paid the money claiming recovery back of the amounts they have so paid. It is a well known principle of British law that when money is paid in settlement of a claim or of a litigated matter, when there has been no fraud or no threat of any kind made, the money cannot be recovered back. It is a further principle of British law that money paid under a mistake of law cannot be recovered. The theory is that the parties were at arms length, and were advised by their friends or solicitors, that they compromised and that settlement was made. If money has been so paid under a law which subsequently has been declared to be ultra vires, or an improper law, that money cannot be recovered back.
The object of this amendment is to declare that in Canada, in actions or proceedings before the exchequer court, that common principle of British law shall apply throughout all parts of Canada, and that the law in that respect shall be general throughout the length and breadth of Canada. The effect would be that in all matters which come within the jurisdiction of the exchequer court no party will be able to set up a claim in that court that he should get his money back because he paid it under a mistake of law. That is the proposal contained in the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry I have not had time to consider this bill, which was introduced only two days ago, because in my view it is very important. If I followed the explanations of the minister it would appear that this bill would not be necessary were it not for the law of the province of Quebec. After all, the Exchequer court is given jurisdiction in matters between the crown and the subjects, but it has to apply the laws of the various provinces. In the province of Quebec we have what is called repetition de 1'indu, or recovery of money paid under mistake. The proposed legislation would take away jurisdiction from the Exchequer court, and in a roundabout way apply to the province of Quebec the principle of the common law which, under the laws of the 53719-1395
province is not applied. I would ask my hon. friend to let the matter stand in order to give me and other members opportunity to consider the question.


Hugh Guthrie: I will be very glad indeed to let the matter stand. But before the committee rises I think I might point out that this proposal does not come in any way in conflict with the law of the province of Quebec within that province. There are provisions in the Quebec code under which money can be recovered when paid under mistake of law, and no one for a moment proposes to disturb that provision within the province of Quebec. But the Exchequer court is a federal court applicable to all parts of the Dominion of Canada. It is not intended in any way to disturb the operation of the law of the province of Quebec as applicable to residents of that province or to any matter which arises in that province.
However, I see that the point taken is of sufficient importance and intricacy to require some study. I would move therefore that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 30 to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Will the
minister explain?
Mr. RYrCKMAN: This bill deals only with procedure or administration. The explanation, of the first section is fully stated in the explanatory note. It has been found that by reason of this phrase "value for duty" not being explained and applied there is a failure under section 217 of the Customs Act. That section provides:
Where the goods so harboured, kept, concealed, purchased, sold or exchanged are of the value of two hundred dollars, or over, such person shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment-
The point taken, and I think, well taken, is this, that while this subsection 3 deals with value for duty, the magistrate before whom a smuggler comes, in cases of liquor, if it is specific duty say of $7 a gallon, says that there is no value for duty. That is a specific duty. Therefore the smuggler goes free; his defence is good. We desire therefore to define "value for duty" as it occurs in this act. I
Customs Act

may say that the same definition of "value for duty" appears in section 85 of the Special War Revenue Act, which says:
(b) "duty paid value" shall mean the value of the article as it would be determined for the purpose of calculating an ad valorem duty upon the importation of such article into Canada under the laws relating to the customs and the customs tariff whether such article be in fact subject to ad valorem or other duty or not, and in addition the amount of the custom duties, if any, payable thereon;
So, as hon. gentlemen will see, this is just a simple amendment to clarify the law and make those answerable to it who should properly be answerable.


Charles A. Stewart: Did the minister state that under the existing provisions of the act it was impossible to collect duty on an article, assuming it to be liquor, if the value is not over $200?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Evidently I have not made myself understood. Where one harbours or conceals or keeps goods contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act there is a penalty involved. No one cavils at the penalty, the point is that it refers to value for duty, and when the question of value for duty comes before the magistrate he says there is no value for duty when there is a specific duty.


Mr. POWER:: Would the $200 enter in at all?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Not at all. No matter what the penalty is, it is a case of the smuggler going free because it has been held that unless "value for duty" is defined as we have it here or in some similar way, there is no value for duty; therefore, there can be no offence.


Charles Gavan Power: Are not the penalties higher if the goods are of a value of $200 or over?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This section deals with goods of the value of $200 or over. The penalty is less when the value is less than $200. But it is not a question of the value of the goods that comes into consideration now.


Charles Gavan Power: But would not the paragraph have the effect of bringing goods of a value of less than $200 under certain specific penalties?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, I do not think so. I think this clause, which as I say is the same as we already have in our Special War Revenue Act, would define "value for duty" the ad valorem value of the article would be taken into consideration. Some of us have an idea of what the ad valorem value of

spirits may be, and I must freely admit that in determining the value under section 217 of chapter 42 that would be taken into consideration.


Mr. RALSTON:: Would the minister read subsection 3 of section 217?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will be glad to, but for the sake of a clearer explanation perhaps I had better read subsections 1 and 2 as well. Subsection 1 is as follows:
If any person, whether the owner or not, without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall be on the person accused, harbours, keeps, conceals, purchases, sells or exchanges any goods unlawfully imported into Canada, whether such goods are dutiable or not, or whereon the duties lawfully payable have not been paid, such goods, if found, shall be seized and forfeited without power of remission, and, if such goods are not found, the person so offending shall forfeit the value thereof without power of remission.
Subsection 2 reads:
Every such person shall, in addition to any other penalty forfeit a sum equal to the value of such goods, which may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction, and shall further be liable, on summary conviction before two justices of the peace, to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not lees than one month, or to both fine and imprisonment.
Subsection 3 reads:
Where the goods so harboured, kept, concealed, purchased, sold or exchanged are of the value of two hundred dollars, or over, such person shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment. . . .
As both lawyers and laymen, I think, will appreciate, the point is that it has been held that under subsection 3 of section 217 there is no value for duty when it is a specific duty. We want to correct that omission in the interests of the administration of the law. I hope this is an understandable presentation of the case.


Charles Gavan Power: As yet I have been unable to get the point of view of the minister. I did understand that paragraph 3 indicated that there were higher penalties for the harbouring of goods valued at over $200 than there were for harbouring goods valued at less than $200, but I do not know that the crown will improve its position by adding this definition of value for duty. The proposed section reads:
"Value for duty" means the value of the article os it would be determined for the purpose of calculating an ad valorem duty upon the importation of such article into Canada under the laws relating to the customs and the customs tariff, whether such article be in fact subject to ad valorem or other duty or not.

Customs Act
Does that mean the customs collector for that port would be called in by the prosecution in order to establish wihat would be the duty?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would understand it
to mean that the customs appraiser would value the article in question just as it would be valued if there were an ad valorem duty payable.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister would not
consider repealing that section altogether, would he?


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister really
think it is desirable, in fixing the penalty for a criminal offence, to make it depend upon the uncertainties of assessment by the customs appraiser? No one wants to protect an offender, but it seems to me that the offender at least ought to have some sort of notice of wihat offence he is committing and the penalty to which he may be liable. If you use as the test of whether a man is liable to the lesser or the greater penalty the value for duty as it may be fixed by the customs appraiser under the various sections of the customs act, then it seems to me you have not been quite fair to the criminal, because he does not know and cannot tell what the penalty is. He never will know, and the court will not know until somebody comes to the witness stand, takes the book and sa3's that for the purposes of duty the goods would be appraised at a certain figure, perhaps two or three times their real value. Would it not be satisfactory so far as the minister is concerned, and so far as the enforcement of the act is concerned, to adopt the same test that is adopted in subsections 1 and 2. namely the value of the goods? Then there is no trouble; anyone ought to know the value of the goods being harboured or kept, but if you adopt the uncertain test of the value for duty I do not think you are carrying out the principles which generally surround both the specification and the administration of criminal law, namely that there should be some certainty about it.
I wonder what is the objection of the minister, or if there really is any objection, to using the word "value" instead. I quite appreciate that "value for duty" has been in the act before, but while the minister is amending the act, and in view of the increased powers which have been given to fix arbitrary values, I would suggest that now is the time to let the value of the goods determine what penalty shall be imposed.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I may say to my hon.
friend that the question he has raised really
does not seem to be a proper one in view of what is proposed. This amendment is not suggested for the purpose of influencing or affecting in any way any penalty whatever. It is brought forward without regard to what the penalty may be. My hon. friend will find that the word "value" is defined in the interpretation section of the Customs Act.


James Layton Ralston: Just the word "value"
alone.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, and these words
"value" and "value for duty" as hon. members know have a difference in signification.
I merely ask that a man bringing in silks, for instance, on which there is an ad valorem duty, shall not be subject to these penalties while a man who brings in liquor, to refer to the commodity I mentioned before, gets off because there is a specific duty on that article. \Ve want to put everyone on the same footing, and there is nothing in the suggested amendment except equal treatment for all. It will be seen from the interpretation we place on "value for duty" that it is the actual value of the article, which should be known by the importer.


James Layton Ralston: Not the actual value.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I quote from the
amendment:
"Value for duty" means the value of the article as it would be determined for the purpose of calculating an ad valorem duty.
It seems to me there can be no objection to that when our customs tariff has both ad valorem and specific duties. If a man is found harbouring and concealing goods to cheat the customs, in the one case he would be subject to a penalty and not in the other because of the technical interpretation made by magistrates as to the value for duty. That is what we wish t'o correct.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the minister understands what I am suggesting. I am saying that there should be absolute equality with regard to goods upon which an ad valorem duty is imposed and those upon which a specific duty is imposed. That equality can be effected by making the value of the goods the value for duty proposes in order to decide as to whether the greater or lesser penalty should be imposed. The minister might have a prosecution against a certain man for harbouring goods. How is he going to know whether or not that is an indictable offence until the customs appraiser steps into the stand and states that if the goods had been subject to an ad valorem duty he would have valued them at so much.
Customs Act


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is unfair for my hon. friend to state the ease in that way.


James Layton Ralston: I do not intend to be
unfair.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend says
that the value would not be known until the appraiser stepped into the box, but that is not the case. In order for a man to get his goods he would have to come before a customs officer, the man would be treated the same way in the one case as in the other. The man would not be brought into court without knowing what he is charged with.


James Layton Ralston: The minister misses the
point. If a man was charged with harbouring goods that had been imported unlawfully, those goods would not have passed through the customs. There would be no appraisement made by a customs officer and the magistrate or the prosecuting officer would not know whether to lay the charge as an indictable or summary offence. The customs officer would have to be called to fix the value. The governor in council has power to impose all sorts of arbitrary values and a man may be charged with a more serious offence if the customs appraiser decides that the goods in question shall be valued at so much for duty purposes. When a man harbours silks or other similar goods he knows what the value is; if they are worth more than $200 he knows that he will be liable to the greater penalty. However, in the case of many other commodities he might be liable only to the lesser penalty. I am suggesting that it should be made equitable all round, it should be the same in this subsection as it is in subsections 1 and 2.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If what my hon. friend states is an injustice, it has existed in every case where an ad valorem duty is applied. I have never heard of it having worked unfairly and no complaints have been made against it. We are simply putting the two men upon the same footing and not making it subject to a magistrate's interpretation of the value for duty. Everyone who is familiar with the workings of the Customs Act knows that there is a right of appeal. If one is bent upon asserting his rights he has abundant opportunity to do so. We are simply trying to place those guilty of infractions of the law upon the same footing as far as ad valorem and specific duties are concerned.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry the former Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) is not in the chamber as he might recall with me that at the time this act was passed there was a somewhat bitter ntroversy in the house. 
It was contended that this was too arbitrary a power to place in the hands of the customs department, and that we had not really met the distinction between commercial smuggling and the ordinary petty smuggling which goes on over the border every day where people who have entered the United States come back with a pair of silk stockings or two or three packages of cigarettes. As I recall it, the debate at that time lasted through two or three sittings of the house. As the hon. member for Waterloo is not present, perhaps I should not refer to the fact that the bill was finally passed on a Friday night when most of the members who had opposed it were away. At that time an arbitrary power was given to the customs department; that was bad, but this is far worse. As the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) has pointed out, it would be impossible to know the value of the goods being harboured or smuggled until such time as a customs officer came into the box and stated that the particular merchandise was worth so much. In many cases 'he might not know himself until he had consulted with the higher officials of the department. If the articles harboured, hidden or smuggled were not articles usually imported in the ordinary course of business, I have not the slightest doubt but that the customs officer would have to apply to the commissioner of customs to find out what value had been placed upon them for duty purposes. I submit to the minister that it would be in the interests of the crown itself in avoiding expense in the prosecutions, and it would certainly be fairer to everyone if he would say that the value to be taken into consideration in the prosecution Shall be the real value of the article. He does not require the other sections of the Customs Act for the purposes of prosecution.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Let me interrupt for a
moment. That is exactly what this amendment proposes. The subsection reads:
"Value for duty" means the value of the article as it would be determined for the purpose of calculating an ad valorem duty upon the importation of such article into Canada under the laws relating to the customs and customs tariff, whether such article be in fact subject to ad valorem or other duty or not.


Charles Gavan Power: "Under the laws relating to the customs and customs tariff." The laws relating to the customs and customs tariff provide that there may be an arbitrary valuation for duty purposes, a valuation which cannot possibly be known to the person accused of this offence.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I submit that the section absolutely excludes an arbitrary value.

Customs Act


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend suggested
that I was unfair; I do not think that that statement is quite fair. The section reads: "Value for duty" means the value of the article as it would be determined for the purpose of calculating an ad valorem duty upon the importation of such article into Canada


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We want to put them
both upon the same footing.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend suggests
that that means the actual value. I think I could ask any importer to step into the witness box to deny that the value for duty purposes is the actual value of the goods, and particularly the value for duty as it would be determined. There have to be two presumptions; there has to be the presumption that the goods are subject to an ad valorem duty, which they are not, and there has to be the presumption that they are worth a certain amount which the appraiser is going to fix, which they are not. That is the sort of thing upon which the prosecution, the conviction and the punishment is going to be based. My hon. friend says that this has been done in the past; it is quite true that it was done in the past but at that time the value for duty meant the fair market value and only in the case of manufactured goods, under a special provision, was there any permission to make an arbitrary value. That has all gone by the board in the legislation of the last three years, and now my hon. friend and his officials have a right to fix any value under the sun-[DOT]


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is not correct.


James Layton Ralston: -and to call that the value for duty purposes. My hon. friend proposes to rest a criminal prosecution and punishment on that. I cannot see, and with all due deference to him I do not think he can see any reason that the real value of the goods should not be the test whether the increased penalty should be imposed. That would be putting the section squarely in line with the two previous ones, and he would not then be permitting an arbitrary prosecution based on an arbitrary price.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is it not a question of value in each case?


James Layton Ralston: No, a question of guess.


Charles A. Stewart: The only objection I take is that if the act is not to be amended for the honest importer, then we shall be giving a preference to the man who is trying to evade the law.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Let us take this case. How much is a gallon of alcohol worth? For ready reckoning, let us call it fifty cents.
The value of that alcohol, after it is free of customs, is much more than that. The tax which we impose is $7 a gallon. Supposing there were twenty gallons; that would mean SI40 in value of duty. But if the actual value is to be taken, then you would find our friends asking that fifty cents should be used and the total would be $10. Everyone knows twenty gallons of spirits, if it is potable, is worth more than $10, and thus one can see the justice in appraising the value of the article.
There has been no trouble in the administration of this section. What the hon. member for Quebec South says is true, not however, with regard to section 217. As far as I understand the matter, there was no complaint made against this section. I think I may fairly put it in this way: as one offender comes under the law and another, on account of a technicality, does not, would it not be proper to make the law cover all actual offences, putting one man on the same footing as another? That is what we are trying to do. We have a value for duty in terms of the Special War Revenue Act. This is just to make the law fairly applicable.


Mr. YOUNG:: WTe know in the last few years powers have been given to the minister to fix on goods coming into Canada any value he likes, regardless entirely of what the goods are actually worth. We know, if a man is found with goods in his possession of the actual value of $100. that have been imported without paying duty, that man is liable to a certain penalty. We know if he is found with goods of the value of S200 on which duty has not been paid, he is liable to a much heavier penalty. The provision of this clause, as I understand it, will put in the hands of the minister's officials power to value these goods so that the duty to be paid will be higher and the man will suffer a greater penalty. He may be in possession of goods of the actual value of $100, but the customs official can go into court and say: I value those goods at $200, and in that way the penalty will be much heavier.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He cannot do that.


Edward James Young: That is the lacv as I understand it. There are lawyers in the house who will put the same interpretation on it. If it is not so, will the minister so state definitely?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What my hon. friend has said about the law and the facility with which customs appraisers can act, is altogether incorrect.
Customs Act


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend state, as a fact with respect to goods imported honestly and fairly, on which duty has been paid, that a customs appraiser cannot, on instructions and under powers vested in the minister, put any value he likes on those goods?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will state positively that he cannot do so.


Charles A. Stewart: - There are unfortunately many people who have paid duties who say otherwise.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They have not paid duty on any value, no matter what it might be, that the minister cared to fix.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the sort of stuff hon. members opposite have broadcast through the country.


Charles A. Stewart: Not at all. I am not prepared to stand for that. I am ready to bring the evidence before the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Bring it in.


John Vallance: Let me put a concrete case. The Prime Minister announced, during the time we were putting through the Economic conference agreements-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The opposition were not putting them through; they opposed them.


John Vallance: The right hon. gentleman mentioned wire; he said that wire was coming from Holland at a certain price and that it was not allowed to come into Canada at the price suggested. The Minister of National Revenue being vested with the right, for duty purposes placed an arbitrary value on barbed wire. Is that so?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No.


John Vallance: What did the hon. gentleman do?


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Exercised his intelligence. That is all.


John Vallance: How did he keep out the wire?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What was found was this, that a German concern which was manufacturing barbed wire, was shipping it to be barbed in Holland because barbed wire was not in common use there, in order that it might in a country where there was no real market, establish a price which was a dumping and unfair price. It was shown that in Germany where this company had their home, they were charging more for barbed wire. It was shown that in Belgium, lying just alongside, they charged less for 
it, but they went to Holland where barbed wire was not in extensive use and when called upon to say how much was used there, they said 6,500 tons. It turned out that part of that was re-exported from the country. They were trying to establish a price to ruin anyone engaged in the business in Canada, and under section 36, not by action immediately of the minister, a value was fixed for barbed wire. What would have been the result if this barbed wire which it was proposed to distribute here, had been allowed to enter Canada? There would have been no chance of doing business in this country by the companies already here and the result would have been that later people would have paid through the nose, prices they never paid before, for barbed wire.


John Vallance: Does the same principle apply, as regards the valuation for duty purposes, to all articles? Under the old dumping act, if anyone attempted to sell goods cheaper in Canada than in the country of origin, the dumping duty applied. Will the minister say whether the same principle applies in regard to the valuation of goods coming into Canada to-day?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I shall say that dumping does not in any sense apply in the consideration of the amendment now before us. If my hon. friend desires me to answer any question arising out of his own knowledge of any particular subject, I should be glad to sit down with him and discuss it, and I am sure that he will find that there is no enlarged power taken of fixation. It is already provided under section 36 of the Customs Act what action shall be taken by the department itself, irrespective of the minister or the government, and such action is taken in the ordinary routine of the department. Yet members rise in the house and tell us that there has been some fixation by the minister of outlandish prices. I can only stress as emphatically as I can that such is not the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I say one word in answer to my hon. friend from South Battle-ford? The question of valuation was always predicated upon what was described as fair market value in the country of origin; that is, the price that would be paid in normal trading transactions for the commodity in question.


Charles A. Stewart: Except there is a distress market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said fair market value. Distress market has nothing to do with it;
I am leaving that out altogether. The difficulty arose because the surplus product of foreign manufactures was thrown upon the

Customs Act
Canadian and other markets at prices which were less than the fair market value. If any of the members of the committee are disposed to read the speech that Mr. Fielding made upon the matter when section 43 was introduced into our statutes by the late Senator Bureau, they will realize just what the difficulties in this country were. The fair market value became almost impossible to determine for many, many reasons, and we had what was called a dumping duty, but that was found to be wholly inadequate to meet the situation, and the extraordinary provision of the act of 1930-31-


Edward James Young: Extraordinary is a good
word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, to save the industrial structure of Canada.


Edward James Young: And ruin its farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did not. It saved the entire fruit industry, and I challenge the hon. gentleman to point to a single injury to any farmer by reason of it.


Edward James Young: How about barbed wire?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Barbed wire did not do
any injury, but the price of barbed wire was not enhanced by reason of any action that was taken.


John Vallance: The price was maintained.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly it was, and I
explained to the house when I was asked questions about barbed wire just what the situation was, that I do not think any member of this house believes in his own mind that it is sound business for Canadians to permit any commodity to displace Canadian commodities at distress prices, with the effect of destroying the Canadian industry, and then leaving the Canadian consumers subject to the price of a monopoly. That is what it gets down to. You must at least take a view of these matters beyond the immediate day. I could name half a dozen instances, if it rvere relevant to this particular matter, in which what I have indicated actually happened. It is a question that is not in the realm of doubt or conjecture; it is a real happening. Now Canada, we hope, will endure beyond to-day and to-morrow, but if your policies are based solely upon to-day, then the result is that to-morrow you suffer, and I wonder if there is anything clearer than the example of the railways in Canada on that point.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope my hon. friend is not blaming the dumping duties for ruining the railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same principle.
Everybody was clamouring for railways. Democracy got railways, and the day after woke up and discovered that it had destroyed itself. That is what happens in regard to these commodities.


Charles A. Stewart: Other things hapnened to the railways too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I will admit that. The hon. gentleman managed them for seven or eight years politically.


Charles A. Stewart: We will discuss that when the railways are up.


Ernest Lapointe: The railways were carrying goods then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they were carrying loans.


Edward James Young: What are they carrying now?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Deficits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the hon. gentlemen have exhausted themselves, I shall proceed. Fair market value was the test that was imposed, and when the fair market value could not be ascertained, other means were resorted to, to ascertain what that fair market value was, and the duties payable have been the duties payable on fair market value with fair competition. Hon. gentlemen no doubt saw in this morning's paper that yesterday the president of the Board of Trade in England said that England would have to take steps to save her shipping from unfair competition.


Edward James Young: More navigation laws.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has suggested one method by which it could be done.


Edward James Young: Going back a hundred years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has discovered that one hundred years of experience has taught lessons.


Charles A. Stewart: I think three years have taught some.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The people of this country have discovered that unless the steps taken had been taken there would have been no industrial fabric left in Canada.
The point at issue in this bill is one which the minister explained very clearly, and I cannot understand why there is all the fuss about it. You could not convict for violation of the statute because the duty payable on importation was in specific terms rather than in ad valorem terms, and that made possible punishment for a violation of the law. What the value is, is a matter of evidence. It always is. That is a matter of procedure
Customs Act

and evidence; that is all. The evidence will establish the value, and when the value is established, that is all there is to it; the duty then attaches at the rate indicated. Is there anything very strange about that? I cannot see it. Of course, I am open to conviction always.


Ernest Lapointe: The Prime Minister is improving.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is amazing what adversity does. If the hon. gentleman had to carry the burden of responsibility that I have done for the last three years, he probably would have improved too. I realize more and more every day what are the conditions in this country and the burdens we have to carry, and I endeavour to adapt myself as best I may to the continuance of the burden. I am grateful to the hon. gentleman if he thinks I show signs of improvement, for I should hesitate to remain, in the words of Pitt, one of those who continue ignorant despite the warnings of age and experience. That is all there is in this legislation, and I suggest it might be a reasonable thing to adopt it so that those who have violated the law in the past shall not be able to escape on a technicality.


Edward James Young: I have not the statute before me, but speaking from memory, the 1930 amendments to the Customs Aot give the minister power to fix valuation for duty, and he would fix those values for duty according to the price the Canadian producer thought he should get. I think the statute provides for a minimum price, that the price so fixed shall not be less than the cost of production plus profit to the manufacturer in the country of origin. That was the minimum, and the sky was the maximum. There is nothing in the statute as it now stands to prevent them making any valuation they like. Mention has been made of barbed wire. Will the minister tell us whether or not any confidential letters have been sent out from the department to the customs collectors in regard to valuation for barbed wire?


The CHAIRMAN:: I do not think that question is relevant to the matter before the chair.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I shall be very glad to answer if the chairman will allow me. I know of no such letters. Any letters that would be sent out would be in the ordinary routine of the office, and barbed wire would not be dealt, with any differently from any other commodities coming under the direction of the department. I know of no such letters.


Edward James Young: If the minister knows of no such letter in regard to barbed wire, will he tell us if any confidential letters have been sent out by the department touching valuation for duty? Have those letters been sent out tor the purpose of fixing the values for duty without allowing the importer to know the value until he has to pay the duty?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I know of no such instance.


Mr. HURTUBISE:: I should like to ask the minister if in the application of these changes he intends to use the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not know that that point comes under consideration in the discussion of these amendments, but as the hon. member knows, what is called the preventive service is now under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Part of it still remains with the Department of National Revenue, that part which might be termed the investigation branch. Investigations come peculiarly within the Department of National Revenue. But it was thought that where there was protective work to be done and enforcement of the law to be carried out, that in view of the fact that we had a police force which does its work efficiently that force should do the work formerly done by the Department of National Revenue.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: I am assuming a great part of the work of the Department of Customs will be undertaken by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I should like to state to the minister the fact that in this case, as in many others, there will be overlapping of jurisdiction.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I believe the hon.
member is out of order. Unless there is general consent the preventive service cannot be discussed at this time.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am quite willing to
answer any question the hon. member may ask. However, as you have said, Mr. Chairman, this does not seem to be the proper time to discuss the preventive service. When my estimates are before the committee I shall be happy to answer any question which may arise. If the hon. member finds it impossible to be in the house at that time, and will be good enough to let me have a memorandum of the information he desires, I shall be very happy to reply.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: I am prepared to wait and ask my question at another time. There is a specific occurrence in mind, however,

Customs Act
which I should like to bring to the attention of the house, one which took place in my constituency only last week. I am satisfied, however, to wait until later.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: How
many cases were dismissed under the old section? There is reference made to these prosecutions under the explanatory note.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I cannot tell my hon.
friend. I must say, however, there was more than one shot, and we thought we had to mend our fences.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In all
the provinces?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I cannot tell my hon.
friend, but I shall inquire and let him know.


Charles A. Stewart: I may be
dense, but I do not yet understand the situation. We will suppose someone attempts, to import two gallons of liquor into the country, knowing perfectly well that he is evading the customs law to the extent of $14, or at the rate of $7 per gallon. When he is caught and apprehended it is very easy to ascertain the amount he owes customs authorities. In addition, however, there is a desire to punish him. Are there no penalties in the act for infractions, without fixing values, or is this change merely for the purpose of fixing the amount of penalty? We will say, for example, that the reason for the insertion of the $200 means that if it is under $200 a magistrate cannot impose a penalty as severe as it would be if it were over $200. Is that where the difference arises?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member's question. If he had sectiion 217 of the Customs Act before him he would find that where the value is small the party is liable on summary conviction before a justice to a penalty not exceeding $200 and not less than $50, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than one month, or to both fine and imprisonment. But where the amount involved is larger, as stated in subsection 3 of section 217, there is an indication that the offenders have been indulging in what we call commercial smuggling, or that they are making a business of it. There is an indication that they are harbouring and concealing, in an extensive way, in contravention of the customs law. In the office we call that commercial smuggling, and the commercial smuggler receives more severe treatment than the one who may smuggle a small amount of alcohol for his own benefit or for the purpose of having a celebration with his friends. Only a day or
two ago there was an instance where twenty-four men held a celebration; true, under the law they were committing a breach of the Exoise Act, under which the penalties are more extreme. It is our hope that at this session those penalties may be modified. The twenty-four of them signed a round-robin stating they were all guilty, not knowing that they were making themselves liable to a fine of $200 and one month in gaol. That was not a case of commercial smuggling. The magnitude of the offence is something which must be considered, because in one case it is setting the law at naught, but in the other it is not only setting the law at naught but trying to make money out of doing so.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, the minister
has stated there have been no cases of extreme valuation placed on goods. I should like to give him the circumstances of a case which came under my notice not long ago. A man without money settled on a homestead in southern Saskatchewan close to the Montana border. He managed to get a little lumber with which to build a Shack; he had no furniture. A neighbour living across the line, on the American side, gave him an old democrat, from the body of which he made a cupboard. Another neighbour sold him the remains of an old mower for the sum of $5. With that purchase, added to other parts he was able to pick up, he made himself a mower sufficient for his purposes. His total investment was $5. These articles which were gathered from his neighbours' junk heaps were reported to customs officials, one of whom came along and put a valuation of about $40 on the goods. The farmer was told that the value for duty would be that amount. If that is not extreme valuation, I do not know what could be; it is both arbitrary and extreme. It might easily have happened that the customs collector would not have come along until the farmer had gathered a little more junk from his neighbours, at which time the valuation might have been placed higher than $200. Under those circumstances the farmer would have found himself liable under the criminal code. I say the valuations put on are absurd.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I had not heard of the
circumstances to which the hon. member has referred, but I believe they have no relation whatever to the clause we are now discussing.


James Layton Ralston: It shows exactly to what extent criminal law is being carried, when it is suggested that the penalty shall be based on a valuation of that kind. That is exactly what my hon. friend was endeavouring to point out. I understand the suggestion has been made that we have no arbitrary duties.
Customs Act

All of us have been giving examples in this house right along of the most arbitrary duties being imposed. We started out by saying we were going to have dumping duties, imposed in this way, that the customs appraiser was going to value the goods at the amount at which they would sell in the country of origin, that was to be the test. We soon got beyond that, we said:	No we will
not pay much attention to the selling price in the country of origin if it is below the cost of production in Canada; we will increase those values to meet at least the cost of production in Canada. That did not go far enough; then we abandoned any rule whatever, and gave the customs officer the right to put on any value he likes. Those arbitrary duties are being imposed from day to day. I think if my hon. friend reads the mail of his department he will find that complaints are coming every day from importers who if they place an order for delivery three months later have no idea whatever how much duty they are going to have to pay, owing to such arbitrary valuations. And that is to be the basis of criminal prosecutions launched against citizens of this country for harbouring. My hon. friend is always talking of spirituous liquors, as if they were the only thing on which specific duty is imposed. Let us take socks, upon which there is a specific duty. A man can have a bale of them in his cellar; he knows what the penalty is. But a, customs officer is found who says:	If I
had to determine the value of these goods for duty purposes, instead of $10 I would have valued them at $50, or instead of $100 I would have valued them at $300. A man incurs a penalty simply on the decision of the customs officer. Our objection is based on the fact that these arbitrary duties are being constantly imposed. Value for duty means something entirely different from what it meant when this provision of the law came into force; then it was fair market value, now it is any value the appraiser sees fit to put on.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
let the remark of my hon. friend go without an answer. I tell him specifically across the floor of this house that when he says the minister has the power to fix any duty he likes-those are his words as I caught them-


James Layton Ralston: Valuation.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -I say that is untrue. I will also add that the legislation that is upon the statute books, with the exception of the amendment made to section 43, was put od the statute books by the party opposite.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, no. If my hon. friend will read the sections of the act from No. 35 on, he will find the minister has that power. He will find further that the governor in council can give the minister special power. He will find that the only arbitrary power given under the former act was the power with respect to natural products and nothing else. That has now been extended to cover all the commodities we import into Canada.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 2-Special permission for lightening vessel and unlading goods.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Just a word in explanation. Section 8 of the Customs Act says that we shall not work on Sundays and statutory holidays nor between sunset and sunrise. That has been the law for a long time. As my hon. friends must of course know, it is sometimes necessary-not desirable but necessary-to work on a holiday. It is sometimes desirable to work between sunset and sunrise. We want that privilege in exceptional cases and when the minister authorizes that the work shall be done. As mentioned in the explanatory note, there was one case where not being allowed to lighter a boat resulted in an expense of about $2,500. Some of these boats cannot approach the wharf without being lightened, and it is necessary sometimes to do that when otherwise we would like to be at our devotions or taking our ease. I think the amendment is reasonable and should commend itself to the committee.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think the explanation justifies the change as far as working on Sundays is concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Doubtless it is possible that some company or corporation or individual may lose as much as $2,500 by not working on Sundays, but that happens everywhere and in every sphere. All the big corporations are losing more than that by being obliged not to work on Sundays. How will my hon. friend reconcile this legislation with the Lord's Day Act? He will have to amend the Lord's Day Act too, because here is the only exception covered in the Lord's Day Act as to loading and unloading of vessels. It is in chapter 123, section 11 (1):
Loading, unloading and operating any oceangoing vessel which otherwise would be unduly delayed after her scheduled time of sailing, or any vessel which otherwise would be in imminent danger of being stopped by the closing of navigation-

Supply-Dejence-Cadet Services
I do not see why there should be special privilege for unloading vessels on Sundays because of loss of money incurred by somebody by reason of having to wait until Monday. I think it is setting a bad example. And, Mr. Chairman, may I call your attention to the fact that already the law for the observance of Sunday is sometimes broken, I know that there have been many complaints in my own province about it. This is no time for the government to introduce legislation of this kind.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend is quite satisfied to have our railway trains travel on Sunday, he is quite satisfied to sail down the St. Lawrence on Sunday. Where, because of her heavy draught, it is necessary to unload a boat to a degree before permitting her to approach a wharf, surely it is in the spirit of keeping the Lord's Day that that necessary work should be done. Provision is sought for nothing but what is necessary, and I leave it to the common sense of members of the house. Would it not be altogether reasonable that in the cases mentioned there should be opportunity, not to turn the day into a working day, but where there are special reasons for the work being done, to save it from being a breach of Sabbath observance?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think the point taken by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is well taken. I do not want to add to what he has said, but I think it is inadvisable to set such an example, more especially in our province where I know some friends of the party opposite are taking the provincial government to task because in some cases they have had to carry on certain impending and necessary works on Sunday. After all this is only a question of dealing with customs and excise enforcement, levying fines and so on, and I do not think these matters are of such tremendous importance that we should do away with the Lord's Day Act just to give certain officials power that may force them to break a statutory law. I do not think it ought to be done, and if this question comes to a vote I for one will vote against it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman, some
members of the committee may wish to consider this matter further, so I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Ryckman, that we revert to the order of motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: On behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) I desire to lay on the table a partial return of correspondence with Mr. G. G. Serkau in connection with the proposed exchange of Canadian cattle for Russian goods, in response to the motion made by the hon. member for South Batlleford (Mr. Vallanee).
. SUPPLY



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Militia services: cadet services, $300,000. Hon. DONALD M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):	When the committee rose the other night we were considering this item, but since the hon. member who moved an amendment and the other hon. gentleman who said he wished to speak on the matter are not here, perhaps we might let this item stand for the time being and proceed to something else.
James Layton Ralston: I would like a little information on this item, and perhaps the minister would go on with it as far as possible. If the others are not here a little later perhaps it might stand. Would that be satisfactory?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Quite so.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder if the minister
would give us the number of cadet corps now operating, and also tell us if there have been any increases or decreases in the last year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There were 1,174
corps in existence on December 31, 1932. Up to March 7 last ten new detachments had been authorized, and since that time no further authorizations have been made. Last year forty-four detachments were disbanded.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many detachments
are there in the province of Quebec?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are 324 corps
in Quebec.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In view of the debate which took place when this item was under consideration previously, during which members on this side of the house belonging to both the official opposition and the group in the comer gave many reasons why this amount should be reduced, I should like to. know from the minister if he has considered the advisability of reducing this vote or, if

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
that cannot be done this year, of undertaking that next year we will not be asked to pass a similar vote.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I think I am quite safe in giving that undertaking, which I gave the right hon. leader of the opposition previously. Undoubtedly the estimate next year will be very considerably reduced.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I presume the minister has no idea of the extent of that reduction.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I cannot give a definite figure, but certainly it .will be very much reduced.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that when this item was under consideration the minister felt that he was hampered to some extent by existing arrangements or agreements. Let me point out to the minister that as I understand it-and he will correct me if I am wrong-the arrangements really are only with respect to the Strathcona trust fund, which really was the commencement of the cadet movement. That has to do only with the expenditure of the interest on a certain amount of money which was provided by Lord Strathcona. So far as I know there are no arrangements in the sense of contractual obligations of any kind with the provinces with regard to the expenditure of any sum such as this. I wonder if the minister had in mind that commitments had been made or that there were any moral obligations which he felt he should observe in asking parliament to vote this sum for the fiscal year ending 1933-34. Is it not the case that everything which might be considered either a moral or a legal obligation will expire by midsummer of this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: So far as any legal obligation goes I think the hon. gentleman is correct; I do not think we would be breaking any legal obligation if we announced a change of this kind in sufficient time to give school boards a chance to make their plans. However, I think there is a certain moral obligation on our part with respect to boards who have inaugurated the system and who desire to maintain it.


James Layton Ralston: I am not sure about that. As I understand it there is a contribution of $1.25 towards each uniform.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, the uniform
allowance has been cut off.


James Layton Ralston: Then the contribution now really consists largely of payments to instructors, and I wonder if I am right in saying that an instructor is paid $2 each for 
the first fifty cadets, and either $1 or 50 cents for each cadet in excess of that number.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The allowance to
cadet instructors is $2 each for the first fifty cadets and $1 each for all additional, with a maximum of $3,000 to any one instructor.


James Layton Ralston: What is the total provision made for instructors?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In round figures,


James Layton Ralston: What are the other large items?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are twelve
cadet officers, one in each district except military districts 2 and 4, in which there are two. The vote for these officers is $43,000. There are twelve civilian stenographers employed solely on cadet work, the allowance being $13,000. An allowance of $46,000 is made for pay and allowances of permanent personnel employed as physical training instructors at normal schools or with cadet corps. Transport and travelling expenses, $24,000.


James Layton Ralston: This vote has always
been the subject of attack in the committee but I have always defended the cadet system and I am prepared to do it again. However,
I submit that in view of our economic and financial position this item should be very substantially reduced. I think the minister agrees with me in his heart of hearts, even though he may not be willing to admit it openly. The $157,000 paid to cadet instructors is on the same rate as was paid in 1926, 1927 and 1929. A ten per cent cut has been made in the case of other civil servants and I think it would be only fair that a substantial reduction be made in these grants. I know I will not be popular in making this suggestion but I cannot see any reason why the cadet instructors should not also take a cut. The basis of remuneration is the number of cadets being trained, and that basis should be substantially reduced. The allowance for twelve cadet officers is $42,000, and this is in addition to the allowance for twelve stenographers. I do not think the minister would be breaking any contract if he reduced the number of cadet officers or assigned them other duties in order to effect a substantial reduction. I am still supporting the cadets but at this time I think this vote should have the benefit of the pruning knife and that to a very substantial extent.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Mr. Chairman, as I
understand it, we are now discussing item 84, whereby the administration seeks $300,000 for

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
cadet services, a reduction of $60,000 over the vote of last year. I understand also that there is an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) to the effect that this vote shall be reduced by $30,000, the sum being asked for by the United Charities drive in Ottawa. This amendment appears on page 2111 of Hansard.
I would not at all quarrel with the hon. member if it were possible that this vote could be reduced by $30,000 and that amount could be paid over by the government to the United Charities, but I know that though the item was reduced by so much, the $30,000 could not be distributed to that most worthy object. I might mention that this most worthy drive is again receiving very generous support from the citizens of Ottawa.
The other evening the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) explained just why this vote of $300,000 for cadet services was being asked for. At the outset of my remarks may I say that for the years which it has been my privilege and great honour to be a member of this house, I have consistently supported this vote. I am quite prepared to -accept the explanation given the other evening by the Prime Minister, to be found on pages 2114 and 2115 of Hansard. I think this explanation can be summed up in the following words of the Prime Minister:
In view of what has taken place in the past it would not be my judgment that the minister could ask the school districts to take a certain course. They are masters of the situation, they determine whether or not they will make any expenditure. At lien they determine that they will not, our obligation ceases.
I think this statement should be coupled with the statement made by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) which appears on page 2115 of Hansard, as follows:
As has been pointed out. ten per cent is being deducted from the salaries of civil servants and economies of every kind are being attempted if not in fact practised.
And again on page 2,120:
T say to the hon. gentleman that, unless as minister of the department he wall give us an undertaking, or, unless the Prime Minister will give us an undertaking on behalf of the government, that the government is prepared to communicate with the provinces, municipalities or with whatever bodies they may have made commitments, expressing the hope that those bodies may see their way clear to forego further grants for the period of a year, I shall when it next comes lip oppose the vote for this service.
These statements show just exactly how this vote was placed before the committee.
With what my right hon. leader said I
am in absolute accord, but at the same time may I say that in my opinion in years gone by there has been very much in fact, too much, lopping off or cutting or doing away in connection with our national services. Canada has reached a stage where every bit of her national services should be preserved.
I have seen with great regret the decrease of estimates in the very essential services. It is true that this is due to circumstances, but we should not, in time of crisis, do anything that may endanger the machinery whereby the national development of Canada is brought forward, so that when times return to normal we shall not be so far away from the well-beaten path, that we shall be unable to recognize the old blazes on tihe old trees, and find the trail we then travelled in ease, luxury and happiness.
I am altogether in favour of this vote for the cadet service. It does not make very much difference to me whether there is anything military in the training which these young boys receive. I am quite sure theTe is no military training in what is given to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. I am confident that if at the outset of the great war, Sir Sam Hughes was able in so short a time to gather together 35,000 men, send them overseas and have them on the field of battle, it was because of the training and discipline they had received in the summer training camps. It did not make militarists out of them. I honestly believe that the many feats of valour and glory on the fields of Flanders, Ahmy, Courcellette and elsewhere had their origin in the discipline and training our youths had received in the training camps of Canada. When they found themselves in difficulty, they knew exactly wlhat to do in cases of emergency. I am not one who believes in armaments or whose maxim is, si vis pacem, para bellum, but I believe the youth of to-day, the boys and girls, would spend their time very much better in the open, in the fields, in discipline and practice, whether they use a rifle or one of those sticks with a signal flag on the end of it, than by going to moving picture houses where they receive nothing that will improve either their morals or their physique.
I wonder if the work, for instance, of the Royal Military College may be said to inculcate militarism in the minds and souls of the young men who have been fortunate enough to follow the courses given there. Those who are opposed to this training ought to look into the matter and see how many of the young men who have received their training at the Royal Military College, or, for that
2216	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
matter, at any other military college that exists in Canada, go about preaching warfare. A large proportion of them are following ordinary vocations in life as engineers and in other capacities. I do not for one moment think this training is conducive to the creation in the youth of to-day of a spirit which may be anti-pacifist or bellicose. Canada in her youth should be prepared for to-morrow; the youth of to-day should receive training along the lines of the old Roman and Greek physical culture. We all know in the old days the Romans and Greeks believed in "mens sana in corpore sano," a sound mind in a sound body. The mere fact that boys drill under a military system, bow to discipline, even carry muskets, will not create in their souls a desire to kill somebody else. Our policy should be based on modern methods, on the necessity of keeping in touch with present conditions, and in some way we should put a stop to this lopping off of services that are conducive to the national standard of living. By the statute of Westminster Canada is now a nation. She should be garbed in the dress or uniform that befits her to-day-long enough to cover the subject and short enough to be interesting-but please do not make it any shorter. Methinks we can not afford to lop off any more.
I am in favour of this appropriation; I shall vote against the amendment. I would be much more at ease if the minister would say that he will procure, as my right hon. leader has suggested, an undertaking that some of these schools or bodies or corporations with whom we are concerned will advise the government that they will not ask for any further grants pending the betterment of financial conditions. But if that cannot be done, then, with less gladness of heart I shall nevertheless vote for this item.


Mr. ROSS:: May I ask the minister whether this is under a separate administration? This might be one way in which a saving could be made. I am strongly in favour of this training and will support it in every way, but I think at the present time we are a little top-heavy, and if this administration is not separate and apart, I see no reason why the duties should not be combined with those of some part of the administrative body.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The cadet movement has developed very rapidly in the years since the war. During the last few years particularly it has gone forward by leaps and bounds, and undoubtedly if the grants were not cut down there would be a continual increase in the movement. In view of that fact and the general opinion in favour of the move-
ment, it was considered too big to be tied to any of the other departments. Under present circumstances there is a good deal in what the hon. gentleman says, and no doubt considerable changes along the line of overhead can be made.


Arthur Edward Ross: I see no reason why the officer in charge of cadet services should not perhaps take on some other duty, thereby reducing the headquarters expenditure. On the other hand, it would be rather difficult to reduce the amount allowed for stenographers, because the officer has found it impossible to take a lady stenographer around with him to the different training classes. He insists on a male stenographer, which, of course, increases the stenographic expense. I think his reason is sound, but it makes the expenses for that section slightly higher than in the past. I repeat, however, that I can see no reason why in these days the cadet officer could not take on some other duties in order to reduce the overhead expense, especially when the whole service is being reduced.


Mr. HOWARD:: I appreciate very much the cadet service and personally I favour the training that is given and the way it is being handled throughout Canada, But the minister stated the other night that it was impossible to reduce this vote because of commitments already made, and he went on to say that he could not promise to reduce it another year because it was outside of his jurisdiction.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I did not say that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If that were so there would not be much use in our discussing the item.
I am exceedingly pleased that since then the minister has changed his position and now undertakes to do his best to make a reduction next year. I personally favour this vote, but in view of the conditions of the country to-day and the reductions in expenditures that are being made in all directions, I think this is one item in which we could make a substantial saving. I would make this suggestion to the minister. The fiscal year ends on March 31, and out of this vote there will be required an amount sufficient to cover only the remainder of the school year, that is, the months of April and May and up until about the middle of June. It would seem to me, therefore, that it would be an easy matter to cut this vote, as only two and a half months of the school year have to be provided for. Nearly all our schools in Canada close by the eighteenth or the twentieth of June at the latest.

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am fully in agreement with what the hon. gentleman says as to cutting down the vote next year, and that will be done; but nothing can be done this year because we are committed for the current school term. This vote of $300,000 covers the expenditures from the first of last September to the thirtieth of June, 1933, the end of the school term. So in fairness and justice there is nothing we can do this year. But a cut will be made for the school term beginning on the first of September next.


James Layton Ralston: Is the minister quite correct about that? We are voting money now for the fiscal year from March 31, 1933, to March 31, 1934. We are not voting to pay accounts for last September. They should have been paid out of last year's vote.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. gentleman is not correct. What we are voting now will be spent for this current school year, which ends on June 30. These arrangements were made several years ago, and it has been well understood that that was the custom regarding this vote.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is satisfied about that, that the expenses, let us say, for cadet instructors in September and October, 1932, are paid for out of the vote for 1933-34?.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Then that answers the point raised by my hon. friend from Sherbrooke as to the school year. Does the minister consider that the vote will be exhausted by the end of June next?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The money that is being voted here?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: There is one thing I should like to mention in this connection. I understand that the instructors are put into the normal school. That is the way in which instruction gets out to the general schools. The teachers in the normal schools are instructed, and the teachers in turn take the cadet corps in the schools. In addition, cadet instructors visit the schools from time to time and give certain training, and cadet officers also do inspection work. These are two services in regard to which it seems to me a cadet holiday might be declared, at least until financial conditions improve. Once more I want to repeat that I am not expressing the slightest change in my belief in the desirability and efficacy of the cadet movement, 53719-140
but I am talking about a temporary holiday in cadet activities until financial conditions improve. It seems to me where there are so many necessary items of public expenditure, and where there is so much need and want and misery and suffering, this is one of the places where we could save money.
Amendment (Miss Macphail) negatived: yeas, 11; nays, 43.


James Layton Ralston: Through an error, 1 have voted. As a matter of fact I am paired with the Minister of Finance in all matters, even in committee. Were I in the house my vote would have to be counted, but in committee that is not necessary.


Charles Gavan Power: I am in the same position, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineer services and works, $297,500.
Charles Gavan Power: Would the minister tell the committee whether he has set aside any special sum for engineer services in military district No. 5, Quebec?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, $20,000.


Charles Gavan Power: For what purpose?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This vote is for
general engineering services, such as repairs to rifle ranges, maintenance of barracks, repairs to ordnance buildings, drill halls, armouries, and so on.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to invite the
attention of the minister to the condition of Kent gate, Quebec. I understand the engineers have been dealing with this problem. This is a covered gate and comprises part of the walls of the city of Quebec. During the month of August or September it was found that these walls were decaying, involving serious danger to passersby. The military authorities under whose control this gate and other sections of the Quebec fortifications come, decided to condemn it. AfteT considerable time I gathered from the newspapers that the department at Ottawa had set aside a certain sum of money for repairs to the gate, to be expended under control or supervision of the Royal Canadian Engineers in Quebec. Work was begun, but, for some reason I have never been able to ascertain, was never carried to completion. For some months the scaffolding impeded passage through the gate, and in spite of protests from newspapers and public bodies in Quebec no further action was taken. Then, the scaffolding, Which obstructed one of the most important streets of the city, that leading to the

Supply-National Defence

legislative buildings, was taken down. Repairs, however, were not effected. Only last week I passed this point and noticed that no further work has been done. I remember reading in the newspapers that the Solicitor General had given an interview in which he stated that the work could not be done until such time as parliament voted the money. I judged from this interview that moneys had been set aside for the completion of the work. I regret to learn that apparently no such specific sum has been put aside. The citizens of Quebec, who are keenly interested in the condition in which this gate has been left, would like to have an explanation from the minister, and would like to know whether or not his department intends to proceed with the work.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I wish I could give every hon. member an answer as satisfactory as I am able to give the hon. member for Quebec South. Arrangements have now been made, and the work to which he has referred will be proceeded with very soon. Although in the past we have expended considerable sums on fortifications, this added amount was entirely unexpected. There was nothing in the vote which passed the house last year to take care of it, as there was no intimation that an emergent condition would arise. At the present time, however, not only has a decision been made, but the matter will be attended to very shortly.


Charles Gavan Power: What amount is it the intention of the department to expend?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I cannot give that
figure, because part of the work will have to be done as unemployment relief. The hon. member knows that there are a number of men at the citadel who will be engaged on the work, and there is other highly skilled labour which would not come under the unemployment relief expenditure. It is impossible therefore to state definitely the amount required.


Charles Gavan Power: The remarks of the minister bring another question to my mind. I suppose the minister has reference to the men being housed at the Quebec citadel?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I had never fully understood the arrangement with regard to those men. I should like to learn from the minister what work they are doing, what pay they are receiving, and in what way or under what authority the money is found to pay for the work.
rMr. Power.]


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Some time ago it
was felt that the Department of National Defence could be of assistance in carrying out some of the work in aid of the unemployed, and that particularly it could help single homeless men. In furtherance of that policy, on October 8 last an order in council was passed setting forth certain facts about the unemployment situation, and stating that with advantage to Canada certain works could be undertaken by the Department of National Defence during the months of November, December, January, February and March which would provide occupation for single homeless men. This work included development of the Trans-Canada Airways, and the repairs, renovations and renewals of certain portions of the old fortifications in the city of Quebec. The amount allocated to that work in Quebec was $45,000. There has been a subsequent order in council increasing the amount available for that work.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the amount covered by the subsequent order in council?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: $6,330. *


Charles Gavan Power: That was to be attributed,
I assume, to the particular work to which I have referred?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It would be included in that.


Charles Gavan Power: These men, I understand,
are being housed, fed, and paid twenty cents a day?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is right.


Charles Gavan Power: Are their services being
leased to any contractor or other person?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh, no.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there any arrangement
with them whereby if they remain during a certain specified period they will receive more than twenty cents a day?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Charles Gavan Power: And they are being utilized to carry on work such as that to which I referred, of an emergency character, in rebuilding the walls and in restoring the structure, such as the Kent gate? .


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is not entirely on the Kent gate; it is more particularly on the general walls. Some of the work that can be done that way will be done under -the arrangement referred to.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know whether
there is much in the way of criticism with regard to the general scheme, but there may

Supply-National Dcjence
be some criticism if the services of these men working for twenty cents a day are to be utilized on works which could be carried out by other workmen in Quebec. If, for instance, one of these unmarried transients is doing work which could just as easily be carried on by a married labourer of the city of Quebec, I should think we might have serious ground for complaint. The repairs to the Kent gate could, I am sure, be carried out by ordinary labour available in the city. I should be glad to know if there is any justification for discrimination in favour of outside people as against those living in the city who require to earn their living.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are no outside people-only those from Quebec and the immediate vicinity, would be so employed.


Charles Gavan Power: That goes pretty far.


Ernest Lapointe: AVho selects those men? Is there any regulation under which they are admitted? A couple of young unemployed men came to my office and told me that they had tried to get work on the citadel and could not do so; they were told they had to have a recommendation from a friend of my hon. friend the Solicitor General. I should like to know whether in order to get work there one has to have the support of somebody in Quebec city, or whether he has to have special recommendations or qualifications.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Did they say who
told them that fairy story?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I should say there
is nothing in that at all. Men are taken on from the provincial employment bureau at Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: At any rate it is widely
and generally recognized throughout the city of Quebec that no man is unemployed in the sense that he can get a twenty cents a day job unless he has a certificate of such unemployment from one Nolan, who is the ward heeler of the hon. Solicitor General. Whether through the activities of my hon. friends opposite during the last election they became expert in the ability to ascertain who was unemployed and who was not, I do not know.


Leslie Gordon Bell: What is a ward
heeler? I never heard of it.


Ernest Lapointe: Before my hon. friend
graduated into government employment he knew what that was.


Charles Gavan Power: I should be very grateful
to the minister if he would instruct the officers in Quebec who have to do with this matter 53710-1401
that a man may be legitimately unemployed and entitled to obtain this twenty cents a day from the government even though he be not recommended by the political adherents of the Solicitor General. I know that the military officers there would act in the best interests of the public generally, but perhaps it would be well if they received instructions from headquarters. I would have more confidence if they did.


James Layton Ralston: Is there anything in this
vote for improvements or repairs or work at the citadel in Halifax?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. The hon.
gentleman knows that as far as this department goes we have moved entirely out of the citadel. Work is being done there, but it is not under this vote, neither is what we have been discussing with regard to Quebec.


James Layton Ralston: Can the minister tell me
if any expenditure is contemplated with regard to the militia quarters in Yarmouth? Fo' some time the question has been under advisement of a rearrangement of quarters there, and in fact something substantial has been done. I wonder if the minister has under consideration any further plans in that regard?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I remember that
matter coming up. If I recall aright-I speak subject to correction-they were going to take over an old church or other building and remodel it. But on account of the difficulty of finances, as in a great many other cases, any change or move that necessitated an increase of rent or anything of the kind had to be laid over.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: A few years ago the department secured a site in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for a drill hall, and started to excavate. For the last few years nothing has been done. I would like to know if they still have that site and if they intend to do anything, or if there is anything in this vote for the work. At the present time, with the unemployment that prevails it would help the city of Prince Rupert greatly. As you know, I am not a military man and do not favour cadet training, but money is devoted to that purpose, I think our young people in that part of the country are as much entitled to a share as any others.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: When I was at
Prince Rupert I saw the site. I think it is right next to the one they are using at the present time, an additional lot. I believe we have that yet. I told the officers there at the time that under present conditions we
Supply-National Defence

could not go ahead and get a new building, that it was impossible. They have pretty fair quarters there; probably they could be better or larger, but I told them, and I have to repeat to the hon. gentleman, that I do not see any immediate chance for a new building at Prince Rupert.
Mr. BANSO'N (Skeena): Is it the intention of the government to do anything at all to improve that property? At the present time rented quarters are being used.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is nothing in these estimates to provide for a new building. If there is anything in the way of repairs to be done, that might be arranged, but at present we can do nothing more.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General stores, $667,800.
Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I note that there is an increase of $8,926 in this vote. Will the hon. Minister of National Defence inform us whether this signifies an increase in the military forces of this country? All are aware that the cost of living has considerably decreased, yet I note an increase of $8,926. I would like to know what are the main items which are comprised in that amount.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This vote provides for the purchase, inspection, repair and maintenance of clothing, equipment and ordnance stores, medical, dental and veterinary stores, telephone signals and wireless equipment, the cost of material and labour for the manufacture of munitions at the Quebec arsenal, the inspection of output, and maintenance charges and repairs to the arsenal buildings.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The vote
amounts to $667,800. I would like to know what are the items which make up this vote. Will the hon. minister explain why there is an increase?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The increase is
largely due to additional material we expect to use at the arsenal in Quebec. Last year, of course, the vote was cut down a great deal, and during the summer it was necessary to close the arsenal for nine weeks. This year we hope to reduce that period to six weeks.


Charles Gavan Power: Does this vote cover the arsenals?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask if there is any truth in the rumour we have heard in Quebec

recently, that it is the intention of the government to begin immediately the construction of a new arsenal?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, that is not correct.


Charles Gavan Power: Are there any buildings to be substituted for the existing arsenal buildings? Is that contemplated at present?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We are going to change some of what we call the danger buildings, where the actual loading is carried on. There is a danger building pretty close to the city of Quebec, and these buildings probably will be located at Valcartier.


Charles Gavan Power: That is part of the cartridge factory, what they call the Cove Field buildings?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is where they load the shells, back of the citadel.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it the intention of the department to move the Cove Field buildings to Valcartier?-


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, eventually they will be all taken there.


Charles Gavan Power: I think perhaps the minister deserves our congratulations, because the buildings were not very well located, and they seriously interfered with any development of the national battlefields. I suppose the minister is well aware of an order in council that was passed some years ago providing for an annual vote of some thousands of dollars to provide for the change in location of those buildings. Will the minister tell me how much it is proposed to expend in that direction this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We are spending
$10,000 for preliminary work.


Charles Gavan Power: For laying the foundations, in other words?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, and for spur
tracks.


Charles Gavan Power: What will be the eventual
cost of the buildings?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Of course if a full
arsenal were built there the cost would be tremendous.


Charles Gavan Power: I suppose about $3,000,000
or $4,000,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, but we cannot
do that at present.


Charles Gavan Power: If all the buildings that
are called danger buildings are removed to

Supply-National Defence
Valcartier I imagine the cost will be in the neighbourhood of $500,000 or more, will it not?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It depends on how much is moved. At the start, of course, the manufacture of the shells will go on at the arsenal, but eventually the arsenal probably will be moved to Valcartier, although there is nothing definite about that.


Charles Gavan Power: The arsenal is in operation at present, is it not?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: What holiday is proposed
for this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This year we will
have to close for six weeks.


Arthur Edward Ross: How much of this amount is
to be devoted to medical supplies or stores, and what are those stores used for? Are they used for anything but regimental purposes? Are they used for military hospitals?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is $9,000 for
medical stores. That is to provide for the purchase and upkeep of medical and surgical supplies for the permanent and non-permanent active militia.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: Is any provision made to replace the hospital at Work Point barracks, Esquimalt, which were destroyed by fire some time ago?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. We have been doing the best we could; the sick are being well looked after, but under the circumstances now existing we cannot replace the building.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have a point to bring up
which may sound peculiar, but I believe if a member sees a chance to effect a saving and at the same time do good service he should bring it to the attention of the government. Could the minister say how many patients are in the military hospital at Kingston and how many patients are in the general hospital?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not the
record here.


Arthur Edward Ross: I wonder if the minister could get that information when we consider item 89? I will have a suggestion to make then which I believe will give better service and at the same time prove economical.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $1,994,000.
Olof Hanson: I notice there is an increase in this item and I should like to know if anything is being allowed for the regiments of northern British Columbia.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not the detailed information as to what each regiment will get. I could obtain the expenditures last year and let my hon. friend have them.


Olof Hanson: I should like to have that information, and also the details of the increases this year.


Charles Benjamin Howard: How is the increase
brought about?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In my j udgment,
this is the most important vote in our whole estimates. For the last two years practically nothing has been done for the artillery and provision is being made to allow them to get together a little this year.


Mr. COOTE:: Are training camps to be
conducted this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Not in the sense
they were some years ago. There will be none of the large infantry camps which we used to have.


Charles Gavan Power: Will there be any cavalry
camps this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Last year a number of the units took their allotment and supplemented it themselves in order to hold local camps. We want to further that practice as much as possible and some of the increase will be for that purpose.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: 
Ernest Lapointe: What are
the privates doing during that time?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: They are idle, as usual.
I have here a bill for $70.74 worth of cigarettes bought from one of our local dealers' by a captain and receipted by a certain lieutenant; this bill has not yet been settled. On another occasion-I can divulge names-payment was refused on a bill for beer amounting to $144. Fortunately, the honorary colonel of the regiment was generous enough to send his own cheque to the St. John's merchant who had sold this beer.
I think that these camps have no usefulness. All classes of men are brought to camp, men of all ages, from 16 to 50 years old. They are kept there for two weeks at the country's
Supply-National Defence

expense. Thefts and all kinds of disorders take place, notwithstanding this, grants are increased by $111,190.
I think that it is more than time to reduce the estimates of National Defence by discontinuing the training in camps, at general headquarters, etc., especially when the salaries of civil servants are reduced.
I fail to see the usefulness of these camps. If the hon. minister visited the military camp of St. John's he would soon realize the uselessness of them. I cannot understand why soldiers from St. John's are transferred to Ontario camps, when there exists in St. John's a military school, and when, moreover, the Department of National Defence has at its disposal the best sites in that town. I fail to see why such a camp should be maintained at a cost of some hundred thousand dollars.
I am amazed at the amounts voted for militia purposes. This year, there is a cut in the estimates of National Defence of $8,596, while the cut in those of agriculture amounts to $381,948. The estimates of agriculture are greatly reduced while there is hardly any cut in those of National Defence, yet hon. gentlemen opposite make no protest. I think that instead of making an outlay of $10,060,000 or $11,000,000 for militia purposes, agriculture should be better encouraged.
I request the hon. Minister of National Defence to kindly see that bills for beer and cigarettes are settled previous to the breaking up of camps, when regiments from Joliette or elsewhere are sent there. The solicitor of the merchant who sold the cigarettes referred to, wrote to the minister in this respect, on August 25, 1931. The minister's secretary replied and the hon. minister must have been apprised of the facts.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 16, respecting the Synod of the Diocese of Saskatchewan and to change its name to "Synod of the Diocese of Saskatoon." -Mr. Mackenzie King.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth

for the second reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the criminal code (unlawful associations), and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, a number of observations made in the house during the course of this debate prompts me to rise to lay my views before parliament. It has been claimed by some hon. members that in the opinions we express in this corner we do not at times represent the organized labour movement in Canada. On this occasion, however, in the few observations I intend making on this particular bill, I think 1 fairly adequately express the viewpoint of the organized labour movement. Another reason that prompts me to rise at this time is that I represent in this parliament a constituency which is probably one of the strongest from the standpoint of the communist party. In that constituency, North Winnipeg, there is what I woidd call the real centre of the' organized communist movement; from there they spread their tentacles in all directions. Therefore, if I speak on this question, I do so from a certain knowledge of the work and activities of the communist organization which has been discussed at such length in different sections of the house.
Before doing so, however, it may be as well that I refer to the fact that the legislation now before us arises from the circumstance that in 1918 a number of orders in council were passed and certain repressive measures were taken by the then government. Amongst the orders in council that were passed were those that made illegal in Canada certain organizations such as the Chinese Nationalist League, the old Social Democratic party and a number of similar organizations. Those who look back over the years and think of the action of the government of that day in repressing by law the activities of those associations will surely come to the conclusion that that action was most unwise.
But during the course of the present debate I could not help coming to the conclusion that many hon. members who have spoken have over-emphasized the importance of the communist party in this country; it has been receiving gratuitous advertising and has had thrust upon it glory and honour which it does not deserve. Canada is certainly in no danger from anything the communist party might, do or even attempt to do. In fact, I believe we have a much greater danger to fear from the stand-patters than from the communist party. I happen to know something about its strength, because for a number of years

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
I have been mo?t bitterly assailed and opposed by it; I have been opposed by it in quite a number of elections going back as far as 1924. Numerically it is rather small. In Winnipeg, where I said at the outset it is probably as strong as anywhere else in Canada, if I put its number down at about 3.500 to 4.000, I am giving it a fairly generous measure for the amount of support it has in that city. That figure has been tested out in a number of elections, and even as late as November last in the mayoralty contest in Winnipeg, when they named a candidate for mayor, their votes on that occasion amounted to approximately 3.500.
In addition to the numerical strength of the communist party, they 'have a certain amount of financial strength. As to that I must confess that I have not the faintest idea where they get all the funds of which they are possessed. Only recently in Winnipeg, when about twenty of their associates were committed for trial on a charge of rioting, they were able to place in the courts of that city the sum of $20,000 in cash as bail for those individuals. Where they got that money I really cannot say.
In addition to their financial strength they are possessed of many buildings in various parts of the dominion, and again I do not know where they obtained the funds to purchase those buildings. In my constituency they must own about six different buildings where they hold their meetings, where they gather together, where they have social events, and those buildings are usually paid for and maintained out of funds owned and controlled by the organization.
As regards section 98 of the criminal code, the real opposition of the communist party to this section in my opinion is the fact that it contains one clause which was elaborated upon yesterday by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and which gives to the government the right to confiscate property in case of its being owned or controlled by illegal organizations. The real attack of the communist party against the whole of section 98 is not against that clause which infringes upon the right of free speech or of .assembly, but against that clause Which they feel might be invoked against them and whereby they might lose the property which to-day is nominally or actually in their possession.
Efforts have been made in the house by certain hon. members who, I think, ought to know better, and who, if they do not, ought to try to understand a little more about the matter, to link us in the labour party up
with the work and activities of the communist party in Canada. It seems to me that those members have a very hazy understanding of some of our problems and of the meaning of the word "communist," and a similar hazy understanding of even the term "socialism" or the things for which we in the labour party stand. Fortunately or otherwise the term "communism" in the year 1933 has taken upon itself something of the character of those activities engaged in by the communist party in those countries where communism happens to be in operation. Now the only part of the world where the communist party is in the saddle to-day happens to be Russia, and so any action taken there by the powers that be becomes, so to speak, part and parcel of what some people like to call the activities of the communist party. On the other hand When we speak of anarchism we immediately confuse that term with the activities of the man who attempts to assassinate a ruler in some part of the world, and forget about the philosophy that underlies the theory of anarchism. Those who have read some of the books of Kropotkin and other philosophical writers on the theory of anarchism can see how far removed from anarchism are the practices of those who think they are following the ideas of the writers to whom I have just referred. Unfortunately or fortunately, communism to-day implies the things that are taking place in Russia, and naturally I do not blame anyone for condemning some of the things that are taking place to-day in soviet Russia. We of the labour party are totally opposed to a great many of the things which the communist party have done and are doing at the present time in soviet Russia. We believe fundamentally in an ordered democracy. We are opposed to all forms of dictatorship. We are opposed to a dictatorship in Moscow just as much as we are opposed to a dictatorship in Wall street. One is just as obnoxious to us as the other, and consequently when the communists in this country attempt to attack those who oppose them, their first line of attack is against those who happen to be part and parcel of the labour movement. And so in this country, as in many other parts of the world, we find those Who are closely associated with the communist party attacking those of us in this house and outside who are associated with the labour movement more vigorously than those who belong to the Liberal or the Conservative party.
In this country the. communist party has had control directly or indirectly of a number of organizations. Affiliated with them, as has

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
been previously pointed out, is the Canadian Labour Defence League, the Workers Unity League, the Farmers Unity League, the Workers and Farmers Educational Association, and a number of others, as to which I have ample proof in the files in my office. So far as the communist party in this country is concerned, we, here, of the labour party, have no associations whatsoever with them. In fact in my last election the only party that had any associations with the communist party happened to be the Conservative party. At one of my election meetings at which the communists were present in large force I was not allowed to speak, and after the meeting one of the leading Conservatives in that part of the city where the meeting was held spoke to the crowd and said: "If you cannot support the Conservative party, then by all means vote for the communist candidate."
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that we, here, of the labour party are totally opposed both to the tactics and to the ideas of the communist party as expressed in this dominion. There have been, as I said before, certain hon. members who have tried to associate us with the communist movement in Canada. I would point out to the hon. members of this house that in my last election when I was running in North Winnipeg about two and a half years ago the only districts in which I attempted to hold meetings were those in which the communists claimed to be strongest, and it was my privilege, if I call it such, at every one of those meetings to be howled down and prevented from speaking by those very people who to-day are howling for the rights of free speech in Canada.
I have no fear in the least so far as the communist party in Canada is concerned. Those who have studied British history and imbibed its traditions must realize that institutions such as parliament which have existed for about seven hundred years are not so easily going to be turned upside down by the talk and cry of a few individuals who have no knowledge of British history and of the traditions of British parliamentary institutions. In this country the strength of the communist party lies almost entirely among those of the foreign-speaking population in this dominion. It is an unfortunate fact, and one that I regret extremely. I have been in public life in this parliament or in public office for a period of over sixteen years, and during the whole of that time I have attempted to the best of my ability to do all I possibly could do to prevent racial hatreds. I have tried to bring together the component parts of our Canadian citizenship in order that we might build up a Canada that is worth while both

for ourselves and for the generations that are to come, and when I see the activities of these people who are of more recent origin in this Dominion of Canada I feel that they are not only doing a disservice to themselves but a tremendous disservice to all those people who have come to our shores during their own lifetime. I know how easy it is to stir up racial hatred in almost any part of the world. In my own constituency, comprising about 63,000 people, about forty per cent of them, or fully 25,000, are of what might be called foreign nationality, and among this 25,000 are to be found, almost exclusively, those who have come to this country from Russia. We find a section of them imbued with the idea that the only way in which improved conditions can be brought about in this dominion is by doing what has been done in Russia. The actions of this comparatively few people in Canada are having a bad effect, to my way of thinking, in a most unexpected and undesirable way. They have created amongst sections of our Canadian people a distrust and a misunderstanding of large sections of the foreign-born population of the dominion, and if some of those communists who think they are performing a useful service by their actions could only see some of the results of their activities, I am inclined to think that a great many of them would change their ways.
I have attempted to indicate the feelings of the communist party in Canada towards those of us who in some way or other have been connected with the labour movement in Canada. Those hon. members who have been attempting to link my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with the activities of the communist party really must not have read anything that that party has had to say about the hon. member. He has been described in this house as one who is always attempting on the floor of the house to support the activities of communist organizations. I suggest that is hardly in keeping with the facts. We find that away back in 1925, when I first became a member of this chamber, we asked the then government-which was not exactly in power, but was in office-to enact certain legislation. At that time they consented, but there was nothing extraordinary in their action because prior to 1925 they took exactly the same stand as they did subsequently. Communications passed between the then Prime Minister and my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre concerning this very question. They undertook to bring in remedial measures looking towards either the amending of section 98 or its deletion from the criminal code.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
During all these years that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been attempting to have this clause deleted from the criminal code, unkind and untruthful statements have been made about him. I shall attempt to outline some of the statements which have been made-and may I add that what has been said about him has been said about other hon. members, including myself. In a short article I have before me, published a little over two years ago, there is reference to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River as "Peter Heenan, the tj'pical renegade." Then, in one of the communist papers there is reference to "Woodsworth and Heaps at the old faker's game." There is hardly an issue of the communist paper in which there is not a reference to some hon. member in this corner of the house, and on all occasions we are referred to as fakers or traitors of some kind or anothgr.
I shall give one further illustration by referring to an article written about a year and a half ago by a gentleman who is now spending his time in Kingston penitentiary. This article, which concerns Mr. Woodsworth, and is taken from the Labour Monthly, is as follows:
Mr. James Woodsworth, the recent labour faker, does his share in betraying the workers' interests by adding his voice to the renewed anti-soviet war agitation. This slave of the capitalists utilizes his recent visit to the U.S.S.R. for a series of articles in the capitalist press directed, together with all other garbage press reports, to undermine the growing confidence of the workers in the success of the socialist republics.
I commend that article to the attention of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol). These are statements made openly in an effort to create a feeling of hostility towards some hon. members who happen to sit in this House of Commons. I shall attempt to tell hon. members what is done behind closed doors, because I have in my possession a document which I shall quote because in my view it will prove interesting reading. This letter comes from the city of Toronto under date of April 21, 1931, and is as follows:
To All Party Functionaries Dear Comrades:
This mimeographed pamphlet contains a special letter of the organization department of the communist international. It deals very concretely with the very important problem of shop work. It does not only tell what is necessary to do but it gives a wealth of materials as to how it is to be done.
This letter, signed by the central organization department, then proceeds to give the
following instructions from abroad to its membership in the Dominion of Canada:
All the social democratic and reformist officials in the factory should be severely criticized in the propaganda and agitation in the factory nucleus with the help of communists factions and especially the factory paper each number of which should cite facts exposing the treacherous anti-working class part played by these agents of the bourgeoisie in the factory.
That, of course, had reference to the fact that men like my colleagues from Winnipeg North Centre and Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) had to be exposed, and our treachery laid bare to the great mass of workers in Canada or in other parts of the world. Immediately this circular was received by the organization in Winnipeg its membership was told to vilify, abuse or slander those who are part and parcel of the labour movement in Canada, and who do not owe any allegiance whatsoever to those associated with the communist party.
I believe I have given sufficient evidence to indicate the hostility of the communist party towards some hon. members in this corner of the house, and I should like to indicate that our feelings towards them are of a similar nature. There is absolutely no analogy in the things for which we stand, and we have little in common. When I turn to some of the statements which have been made in this house I cannot help but feel how essential and necessary it is to have section 98 removed from the criminal code. I am sorry, sir, that you are acting in the place of Mr. Speaker, because I wish to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. Of course I have the advantage that when he is in the chair he cannot reply to my statements.
Speaking in this chamber last night the hon. member to whom I have referred seemed to take offence at some of the statements made by the hon. members for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail) and Winnipeg North Centre. He seemed to be particularly grieved to think that anything could be said about another chamber not far removed from this one, and in that connection quoted the following words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
"It is absurd for the Senate, a body without responsibility, to veto measures passed by the elected representatives of the people," he declared. Assailing the capitalist system, _ he urged his hearers to be ready with practical solutions for some system to replace it as it crumbled.
The hon. member for Toronto Northwest seemed to feel that my colleague ought not to be allowed to make such statements, and
2226	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
for that reason he urged that section 98 ought to remain. Imagine a person saying that the Senate was not a responsible body! It would appear that in the view of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest the gentleman responsible for the statement quoted had been guilty of something approaching sedition. I should think that in these days when the Senate has been reformed, and is of a certain complexion, it might be classed as a responsible body. I suppose when they change their complexion, either one way or another, they become irresponsible. To-day they are not responsible, in the eyes of those who sit to the left of Mr. Speaker, but are responsible in the eyes of those who sit to his right. There was a time not long ago when even the Conservative party had in its platform a suggestion that the Senate was not a responsible body.
I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was far from the actual fact when he suggested the crumbling of the capitalist system. To-day we see it under our very eyes, and are helpless in the situation. When the hon. member referred to the system I presume he referred not only to Canada but to other parts of the world as well. When we see in the state of Michigan people unable to withdraw their savings from the banks, we cannot help but feel there certainly must be something wrong with the whole capitalistic structure.
Then the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) proceeded:
The House of Commons is the place where we must enter-I almost said capture.
When the Conservative party in the last election used those terms it was perfectly legitimate, but the moment they are used by the hon. member for Southeast Grey it verges on sedition.
If every member of the house were a free citizen voting on what seemed to him best, we would not be in the mess we are in.
Those were terms used by the hon. member for Southeast Grey. Some members of this house object to that kind of language being used by a member of parliament, and therefore ask that section 98 of the criminal code be allowed to remain on the statute book. The expression of views of that kind bv certain hon. members clearly indicates the need for the deletion of section 98.
It has been claimed further that we should retain the section on account of the conditions *that prevail at the present time. I am free to admit that there is a great amount of unrest in Canada, more than there has been for a number of years. But that has not been
{Mr. Heaps.]
caused by any action of the communist party, for the communist party is not responsible, nor is even the labour party, for the economic conditions that now prevail.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have just taken advantage of them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Just the same as hon. members opposite took advantage of economic conditions in 1930. It is a poor rule that does not work both ways. Section 98 of the criminal code will not prevent any political organization from taking advantage of the conditions that prevail. I think if we want to do away with the communist party in Canada we are not going to achieve that result by repressive measures. I would far rather we attempted to do it by changing the conditions that at present exist so that every one who is now out of a job may have employment under decent and healthy conditions. By retaining section 98 in the criminal code we are trying to repress ideas held by individuals. I am one who objects to the use of force, I care not by whom, because force is no remedy for the existing conditions. Force, wherever used, cannot maintain itself permanently, because force begets force; if any party has to be maintained in power by force its power cannot be lasting.
It was pointed out yesterday by the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that a person who had in his possession Plato's Republic was charged with sedition. I know people who have been charged with sedition because they quoted certain passages from the Bible. A person so minded could go into a home where there was a Bible and charge the person having such Bible with being in possession of ^seditious literature. I know people who were charged with sedition, against whom the use of certain passages from the Bible was given as evidence.
Ideas can be classified into two categories, the good and the bad. Those of us who are believers in democratic government have faith in the people, believing that ideas that are bad will be discarded and ideas that are good will ultimately prevail. If ideas are good, I do not care whence they come, let them come out into the open, we have no reason to be afraid of them; if ideas are bad, let them still come out into the open, for I think that is the best way to kill them. By attempting to suppress them we only force them underground, and they thereby become possessed of a strength far greater than they would otherwise have. Consequently I would much rather see us err on the side of leniency, as far as legislation is concerned. Let us have

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
faith in the people of this country, because 1 am satisfied they will pick out the ideas that they think are best suited to our needs, and in the final analysis we can trust the people to give Canada the government that they themselves desire.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss briefly section 98 of the criminal code, I wish first to say to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Heaps) that his speech, from the standpoint of fairness, was admirable. The striking thing about it to me was that in his thirty minutes' denunciation of the communist party comprising the first part of his speech he was in my view building up a case for those who stand for retaining section 98 in the code. When an effort is made to indicate that those who believe section 98 should remain as it is are actuated by a desire to include within the ambit of section 98 statements such as my hon. friend has attributed to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), speaking in Toronto, such as that about capturing the House of Commons, it goes so far outside of anything contained in section 98 as it now stands as to indicate at once that a red herring is being drawn across the trail and an attempt made to divert the public mind from what is actually contained in that section.
Speaking in the house the last evening this measure was under consideration, the hon. exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made two statements to which I would like to refer. First he said that both in Great Britain and in Canada efforts had been made by judicial and parliamentary bodies to define sedition. If his argument meant anything it meant this, that notwithstanding all these efforts, these bodies had found it practically impossible fully to define sedition. And he stated that the common law made provision by which juries and courts could in their own way, as each particular situation arose, define what sedition actually -was. Speaking as a layman, not a lawyer, it appears to me that there is certainly nothing in section 98 that in the least degree circumscribes anything that is in the common law or any statute with relation to sedition. The particular class of people or the particular offences that come under this section of the code are clearly set out. There cannot be any misunderstanding, it is expressed as clearly as the English language can make it. In a moment or two I will read the vital clause in the section that defines exactly what the section aims at.
The ex-Minister of Justice also made reference to the origin of section 98, and if I
understood him correctly-I have not checked it up in Hansard-he stated that section 98 was a war measure. As a matter of fact section 98 was not a product of the war and did not come into existence because of war conditions. Section 98 was written into the criminal code because of disturbances that took place in the city of Winnipeg, when the persons against whom the section is directed and their agents, directed as to the actions they should take from a foreign country, undertook to turn into a virtual insurrection a simple dispute between a group of working men and their employers, such as we have had in Canada for as long as my memory takes me back and such as we will have again under ordinary conditions. The people, directed as they were to carry out that act, seized the government of the city of Winnipeg and undertook to seize the postal service and to destroy the transportation system of this country. I have here part of the instructions which were forwarded to the committee operating in the city of Winnipeg before this move was taken. These were contained in a letter written by the gentleman who is now the head of the communist organization in the United States, and who then styled himself the head of the One Big Union, with headquarters in Chicago. I intend to read part of his letter to the Winnipeg committee which, as I said a moment ago, undertook to turn into a virtual insurrection a simple dispute between a group of working men and their employers. That is exactly what the communist party of Canada is endeavouring to do to-day. And, if I may say so, notwithstanding what my hon. friend has said and not endeavouring in the least to link him up with it, I want to say now that the political labour party, as represented in this House of Commons, does not in any sense represent organized labour in Canada as we know it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would deny that statement absolutely.


George Brecken Nicholson: I have no doubt my
hon. friend will deny it, but I happen to know the viewpoint of a very large body of men throughout this country who form the backbone and the head and front of the organized labour movement. Let me read what Mr. Fred G. Biedenknapp, general organizer of the One Big Union, wrote from Chicago just before the Winnipeg insurrection :
The true communist and labour leader rejoices more over one unsuccessful strike than over ten strikes that succeed.
And I presume the hon. member who has just spoken will agree with that statement.
2228	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
What the O.B.U. and similar organizations aim to create is not better working conditions for the average man but worse conditions. The workingman, or organization of workingmen, wrho strikes for higher wages and gets them, or for better working conditions and fewer hours of labour, and gets them, is not the material from which revolutionists are made. He is likely to be contented and take a conservative so-called sane view of a world in which the conditions have been easier and better for him. On the other hand, the striker, or group of strikers, who fails, are likely to be more embittered against the employers, the whole employing class and society generally and after repeated failures of this kind they will come to the conclusion that striking and voting are alike useless to improve the workingmen's lot, and they will listen to the red who talks intelligently of direct action and the overthrow of society and forms of government as at present constituted.
We have heard a lot of this in recent times from public platforms across Canada.
We have already two million workers-
My hon. friend said Winnipeg 'had two thousand of those.
-members of the O.B.U., and our numbers continue to grow as one successful strike follows another. Therefore, we, of the new vision, encourage strikes not because we desire to better the workingmen's conditions but in order that they may fail.
Our first aim must be to destroy organized labour as it has previously existed. It is one of the chief obstacles to a successful revolution in any country where it exists.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the date of that
letter?


George Brecken Nicholson: June, 1919.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That was months after the
strike started.


George Brecken Nicholson: There is no use trying to sidestep it; my hon. friend knows that what I say is correct. The strike in Winnipeg did not amount to anything; it was nothing more than the strike of the employees of a small basket factory, or something of that kind. The fact is that the strike was used in. order to bring about a revolution in the city of Winnipeg. The government of Winnipeg was actually seized, and as an evidence of the character of the government that was sought to be set up by these people, their first act was to deprive the children of Winnipeg of their supply of milk.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is not correct.


Mr. MacMILLAN:: Yes, it is.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was a member of the
city council at the time, and I should know something about it.


Frank Roland MacMillan: You were also a member of the strike committee, so you should know something about it.


George Brecken Nicholson: Now let me come to
the part of section 98 that is the cause of the whole discussion. The section it is desired to repeal reads as follows:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force-
My hon. friend spent half an hour, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has spent hours in endeavouring to convince members of this house that this is the very thing they desire to condemn. They profess to be against those who would bring about changes in the social and economic order of this country bv-
-force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force

Every other part of this section is linked up with these specific acts set out in paragraph one of this section. Let me read them again:
-to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury-
What are the arguments that have been brought forward for the annulment of this section, and to take away that protection from the Canadian people? My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, in introducing his bill a few days ago, said that because of section 98 of the criminal code eight men are now lying in the penitentiary at Kingston, convicted under that paragraph. I am not going to take time to look up Hansard for his exact words, but I think the hon. member will agree that he made this statement. What is the only meaning that can be taken from the hon. gentleman's plea? It is that these men are there unlawfully; that the state brought these men to trial and convicted them of doing things that section 98 says decent, ordinary citizens shall not do in this country. Of what were they convicted? They simply formed an unlawful assembly or association. These people are like ordinary cowards, if I may say so; they run in packs and in groups, and their work is carried on by groups.
I was extremely interested, Mr. Speaker, in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who admits that in his constituency he is surrounded by these people, and who tells us that he has been opposed by them over a long term of years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, that was not
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


George Brecken Nicholson: Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will try once or twice to possess his soul in patience and keep his seat while other hon. members are speaking.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


George Brecken Nicholson: I referred to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is all very well.


George Brecken Nicholson: This is what the hon. gentleman referred to, something that has been referred to in this house many times over. He asked: Where do these people get their money? My hon. friend says that they have a tremendous amount of property in Winnipeg. It is well known that none of them work, they are not engaged in any useful industry or business, the only thing they do is to go across Canada in an endeavour to create dissension among our people and, as my hon. friend admits, take advantage of the times through which we, in common with the whole world, are passing, in order to attempt to break down our social system. My hon. friend said, just as I have said many times over: Where do these people get their money? I could give the house one or two illustrations of where they get their money, illustrations which would indicate that they are getting it from somewhere outside of Canada. The money which these people are spending in the city of Toronto, in northern Ontario, in Kirkland Lake, in Sudbury, in Copper Cliff, and at Hearst, the money they have spent to bring about riots and all that-where is it coming from?


An hon. MEMBER:: Russia.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is it exactly, it is coming from Russia. It is sent into Canada and the agents are in this very city.


Mr. IRVINE:: Some of it comes from the Conservative party; I can give my hon. friend an instance of that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense.


William Irvine: No, it is not nonsense.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend might tell the house from what joke book he got that.


William Irvine: From the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies).


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member must have been listening to Amos 'n' Andy before coming here to-night.


William Irvine: I am listening to Amos now.


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member is listening to one of those who stand for law and order in this country.


William Irvine: Disorder.


George Brecken Nicholson: And he will continue to stand for law and order, and will endeavour as far as possible to oppose those who want to bring about a condition which would make it impossible to carry out the very things outlined in this statute.
I do not intend to refer in detail to the remarks of the hon. member who introduced this bill (Mr. Woodsworth), but I should like to quote briefly from Hansard of February 14, at page 2098. The hon. member for Southeast Grey almost went into a fit of apoplexy last night because another hon. member suggested that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had used the word "force" or had suggested that force might be used. In introducing the bill to amend section 98, after referring to something which had taken place in Manitoba and in England, the hon. member went on to say:
My point is that if the use of force under certain circumstances is so well recognized by our own leading men, and has been so generally recognized all down through the years, it seems very like persecution to set up a law that permits a certain group of men whose opinions are repugnant to the majority of people in Canada to be persecuted simply for holding that in certain contingencies resort must be had to force.
Those gentlemen who are residing to-night -I sincerely trust they will remain there for some time-within the portals of Kingston penitentiary advocated the use of force in this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness it should be said that these men were prosecuted because they belonged to an organization.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member should not interrupt without the permission of the speaker.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will accept the hon. gentleman's correction. He states that they were not convicted individually for advocating force but were convicted as an association for advocating force-combined force instead of individual force. His words are specific; he states that these people should not be punished simply for holding that in certain contingencies resort must be had to force. There is nothing in this act which prevents a man from defending himself, from using force to defend his family or his home, but there is something in the act which prevents
2230	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
him from entering into a conspiracy with other people to destroy my home or to destroy society as a whole. Hon. members have referred to the position of organized labour and the churches, they have mentioned the petitions sent in here against section 98 of the criminal code, but they know perfectly well that there is nothing within the four corners of that section which would affect in the least degree any man who is willing to abide by the law and live as a decent Canadian should live. There is nothing against a man who is willing to endeavour to create harmony instead of distrust and disrespect.
For these reasons I shall vote to have section 98 of the criminal code left just as it is.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I believe that those who advocate force when in power would have no hesitation in using it when out of power in order to gain their end if they had the opportunity, and so I am beginning to feel rather afraid of removing section 98 from the statute book. In anticipation of the success of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation at the next election, I would not be a bit surprised if we might not want to use section 98 against the unlawful assemblies of hon, gentlemen opposite who are now advocating the use of force against helpless people who have speeches to make. It is quite possible that this section will be of some use sooner or later.
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Nicholson) has indicated that a man is at liberty to use force in defence of his family and home. If the western farmer hears that it may create a great deal of trouble.


George Brecken Nicholson: It certainly will when the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation tries to operate.


William Irvine: The western farmers may want to defend their homes against foreclosures, and they may quote the words of my hon. friend which gives them the liberty to use force in defence of their homes against foreclosures by sheriffs, and such like. He had better be careful or he may be getting into trouble.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hour for private bills has elapsed.



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.

Contributions to Empire Bureaux, $21,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The minister was to give some information as to where these different bureaux were located and what they were doing.


Robert Weir: Information was asked regarding the location of these bureaux. They are all in the United Kingdom, two in London and eight others at different places in England, Scotland and Wales.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the nature of the work they are carrying on?


Robert Weir: Their work is to accumulate from all parts of the empire results of research work and to disseminate that information through the different parts of the empire. Last year I believe they sent out reports numbering in the neighbourhood of 10,000. This is just a machine for accumulating the results of research and disseminating them. The contract is for five years, from 1929 to 1934.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Institute of Agriculture, $8,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister please explain the work of this institute?


Robert Weir: This institute is also a machine for the gathering of agricultural statistics and reports, and disseminating them through the various countries that contribute to its upkeep. It is not an empire but a world arrangement.
Mr. MeINTOSH: Where is it located?


Robert Weir: In Rome.


Edward James Young: How often does it send out reports?


Robert Weir: Regularly, annually.


Edward James Young: I understood this institute was organized for the purpose of keeping the world informed as to the situation in regard to grain, that is the supply and demand, so that people could form an estimate of what the price should be. If the report is an annual one, it would be rather out of date.


Robert Weir: In addition to the annual report, they make intermittent reports or they will send reports to any countries that ask for them, but these are summarized in the annual report.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Why is there this decrease?


Robert Weir: There is a set sum for membership, but the decrease is due to exchange values, I believe, and also to the

Supply-Agriculture
223i
fact that we do not make the same contribution towards its publications. Part of the vote is set aside for publications.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: To whom would they make reports? If requests were made for reports, would the reports be made to the government or to the private corporation? I presume the reports come annually to the government.


Robert Weir: To the Department of Agriculture.


William Gilbert Weir: Then the department would furnish that report to the interested party?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. DON  NELLY@: Is this only in connection with grain or does it deal with other matters?


Robert Weir: All farm products,
chiefly grain.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister give us
some idea of the length of the report and where the volume is available? Is it available in the library or in the department, and how voluminous is it?


Robert Weir: A large number of
volumes of the report are available in the library of the Agriculture department and elsewhere in the department.


James J. Donnelly: How many countries
subscribe to this?


Robert Weir: In the neighbourhood of forty. I believe the number changes from year to year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When did this grant first begin to be made?


Robert Weir: In 1907.


Edward James Young: Can the minister tell us
whether the reports sent out by this institute are anything like those we get regularly from Broomhall?


Robert Weir: Broomhall's reports are practically entirely grain reports. No doubt they will use the reports of the international institute to check up their information.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Is there any relation between the two items, the International Institute of Agriculture and the empire bureaux, of which we have been speaking?


Robert Weir: None.


Edward James Young: If I remember rightly, a
long time ago I read something of this institute and I understood it was organized
for the purpose of collecting accurate statistics as to the supply of grain throughout the world with a view to enabling people to estimate fairly correctly what the market price should be and to know whether violent fluctuations were justified. The information given by the minister would indicate that such was not the case; that it was issuing reports at long intervals, so that they would be practical^' valueless from the point of view of the object for which the bureau was organized.


Robert Weir: If I gave that impression. I did not intend to do so. The following information is given so far as Canada is concerned.
By cable dispatches as soon as received:
1.	Statistics from every adhering country on area sown, prospective crops, quality of crop, total crop.
2.	Information concerning nature and extent of animal and plant diseases and insect attacks as they occur.
3.	Statistics of exports and imports of foodstuffs and feeds.
By correspondence or through publications:
1.	Information statistical, technical or economic concerning farming, both vegetable and animal products.
2.	Information concerning the commerce in agricultural products and the prices prevailing in the various markets.
The institute publishes four monthly bulletins and two year books namely:
(a) Monthly. Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology.
lb) Monthly Crop Report and Agricultural Statistics.
(c)	Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Statistics.
(d)	International Bulletin of Plant Protection.
(e)	International Year Book of Agricultural statistics.
(f)	International Year Book of Agricultural Legislation.
Besides these periodicals the institute publishes from time to time comprehensive monographs on various subjects of universal interest which have been more particularly investigated.
The outstanding value of the statistical data published by the institute is that they are reduced, from whatever country they have been obtained, to a common comparative basis so that on simple inspection one grasps easily their relative importance.


Edward James Young: How often are these reports sent out-some of them monthly, some annually?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Edward James Young: Did I understand the ministei to say that Broomhall bases his estimates on these reports?


Robert Weir: I would say that he may use these reports to check up his own estimates.
Supply-Agriculture


John Vallance: The minister has
explained the difference between the amount of the item for 1983-34 and that for 1932-33. I see the amount this year is $8,500. What is the basis for Canada's quota of $8,500?


Robert Weir: The countries are
arranged in various groups, and Canada is in a group with that quota.


John Vallance: Is that the average
amount paid by the different countries, or what is the basis?


Robert Weir: At the time the
institute was established, this was the amount that was considered fair for a country of Canada's population in comparison with other countries.


William Gilbert Weir: After this information is received, how is the information put out in Canada? Are publications issued based on the information received?


Robert Weir: The information
received is given on request. It is also disseminated through the bureau of statistics and other channels of government service.


Mr. SPENCER:: If I remember correctly,
Canada has sent representatives to conventions of this institute from time to time. On what basis are the different countries represented at such conventions? Is the representation based on the amount paid by each country, or according to population, or the amount of grain grown?


Robert Weir: Each country has
so many units which determine its representation.


John Vallance: The different countries
which are member's of the institute pay a certain percentage.


Robert Weir: Yes; there are some forty countries.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does each country pay the expenses of its own delegates?


Robert Weir: Each country looks after its own representation, and so far as Canada is concerned it has been the practice on some occasions to be represented by the British delegate.


William Richard Motherwell: Can the minister
tell us if the United States is still represented in the institute? About three years ago the United States was on the point of withdrawing, for a number of reasons which seemed substantial to them, but I have not heard if they have actually withdrawn. Has the United States or any other country withdrawn?


Robert Weir: My impression,
which I shall be glad to verify, is that the United States have withdrawn officially, but they still maintain a contact with it. I have not precise information here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publications, $28,231.
John Vallance: The vote for the
previous year was $7,500. Why the increase this year?


Robert Weir: Let me explain that by first explaining the decreased vote last year. Last year, when we were endeavouring to cut estimates as low as possible, it was felt that by making use of all the supplies of material left over from the previous year, we could carry on with a smaller vote. That has all been expended, and this year we have to have an increase.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What are the names of
these publications, or are they too numerous to give to the committee?


Robert Weir: They are not really publications. This is to pay for the service of sending out publications.


Mr. GERSHAW:: How does the department compile lists of farmers to whom these publications are to be sent? I realize that the publications contain much valuable information, and I know farmers who have been anxious to get it but have never succeeded unless they wrote specially for the information they wanted.


Robert Weir: Different methods have been tried from time to time. It has been felt that to send out the publications indiscriminately would mean a good deal of wastage, because many of them might not be read at all. A list of the publications available is published from time to time, or any farmer who writes to the department for a particular publication receives it, and when the publication is sent to him there goes with it a list of new publications; he is requested to mark any that he wants, and they are then sent to him.


Edward James Young: This vote is to pay for sending out the publications, for the services of the clerks addressing envelopes, and so on?


Robert Weir: Yes, addressing
envelopes and duplicating.


Edward James Young: Under what item is the cost of the publications themselves?


Robert Weir: That comes under each branch.

Supply-Agriculture


Edward James Young: What is the total cost of all the publications?


Robert Weir: That would come under the votes for the various branches. The cost of the experimental farm publications, for instance, would come under the experimental farms branch. I have no record showing the total cost of the publications under each branch.


Edward James Young: It would be interesting to have that.


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to see if I can get it.


James J. Donnelly: Do the weekly farm reports come under this vote?


Robert Weir: They are prepared in the branch concerned and distributed by the publications branch.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are the clerks who perform this service appointed by the Civil Service Commission or by the minister without regard to the commission?


Robert Weir: I understand that they are civil service appointments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairying, $246,300.
John Vallance: In view of what the Prime Minister said the other day when speaking of the Russian barter proposal, would it best suit the convenience of the minister to discuss that proposal under this vote or under the live stock vote? The Prime Minister promised that when the agriculture estimates came up we would be given the opportunity to discuss the whole Russian barter proposal. As a certain percentage of the cattle concerned
in that proposal were dairy cattle, it occurred to me that the minister might wish to have the question discussed under this vote. I am quite prepared, however, to suit his convenience in the matter.


Robert Weir: I appreciate the spirit of the hon. gentleman's remarks. I understand that the Minister of Justice, when a question was asked him the other day, said that the Russian barter proposal could be discussed under the live stock item. As the papers were not submitted until this afternoon perhaps it would be satisfactory to members of the opposition, as it would be to me, to defer the discussion until the live stock vote comes up.
Mr. VALLAiNCE: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cold storage warehouses, $140,000.
John Vallance: There is a reduction of $60,000 in this item. Just how does the minister propose to make that cut?


Robert Weir: On the basis of the requests last year it was felt that we could carry on this year with $140,000. It is expected that that will meet all present commitments and, allowing for certain contracts not being completed, there will be sufficient to take care of any new or contemplated obligations for this year. It is also felt that at the present time there is no shortage of cold storage space.


Thomas Reid: In what cold storage plants
are these commitments to be expended this year?


Robert Weir: The commitments
are as follows:
Name
Nova Scotia Public Fish and Cold Storage Terminals, Limited.
Pacific Coast Terminals, Limited	
Norfolk Fruit Growers Association (1)	
Norfolk Fruit Growers Association (2)	
Penticton Co-operative Growers Association	
Prince Edward County Fruit Growers	
Georgian Bay Fruit Growers, Limited	
Trenton Cold Storage Company, Limited	
La Sarre Creamery	
Middlesex Growers Co-operative	
W. L. Hamilton	
Thedford Cold Storage Company	
Kelowna Growers Exchange (1)	
Kaleden Co-operative Growers Association	
Berwick Fruit Company	
Location
Amount
Halifax, N.S	
New Westminster, B.C
Simcoe, Ontario	
Simcoe, Ontario	
Penticton, B.C	
Picton, Ontario	
Clarksburg, Ontario___
Trenton, Ontario	
La Sarre, Quebec	
Strathroy, Ontario....
Coliingwood, Ontario..
Thedford, Ontario	
Kelowna, B.C	
Kaleden, B.C	
Berwick, N.S



$41,352 36 23,784 34 2,500 00 4,000 00 1,770 15 4,403 23 2,560 00 6,200 00 320 00 1,526 25 805 00 4,340 00 4,060 00 4,235 00 4,703 37 REVISED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. JOHNSTONE:: Is the vote for the purpose of repairs or for building new plants?


Robert Weir: It is for new cold storage equipment.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: What revenue is derived from those cold storage warehouses?


Robert Weir: There is no revenue to the government-


Mr. TOTZKE:: What percentage does the government pay towards the building of these plants?


Robert Weir: Thirty per cent spread over four years.


Thomas Reid: Could the minister tell us the total amount paid to the Pacific Chid Terminals Limited in New Westminster?


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member referring to the total payment?


Thomas Reid: Yes, the total payments which have been made.


Robert Weir: We will have to work out that information, and will be in a position to give it in about five minutes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is there any application from any part of Saskatchewan which could not be accepted 'because of the cut in the estimates?


Robert Weir: My information is that there has not been.


Mr. LUCAS:: Can the minister tell us the total number of cold storage warehouses in Canada?


Robert Weir: Does the hon. member refer to the plants to which contributions have been made?


William Thomas Lucas: I refer to thy plants which come under this vote.


Robert Weir: Fifty-seven warehouses have been subsidized under authority of the act.


William Richard Motherwell: Has the minister any information with respect to the interesting experiment being carried on in the Pacific cold storage terminals in connection with the freezing of fresh fruits, such as strawberries and loganberries? Large quantities of these fruits were shipped and frozen, and turned out afterwards in fresh condition. Is that experiment being continued?


Robert Weir: Yes, it is being continued, and the experiment is working out satisfactorily.


William Richard Motherwell: How are the revenues of cold storage plants standing up in these hard times?


Robert Weir: I understand they are alii in operation, and in view of the times through which we are passing they are doing very well.


William Richard Motherwell: They are all in
operation?


Robert Weir: Yes, all in operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fruit, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian Horticultural Council, $456,200.
Albert Frederick Totzke: Why is there an increase in this item?


Robert Weir: I believe some of the $30,000 increase is for travelling expenses, and some of it is necessary on account of the shortage in equipment which was brought about by a smaller vote last year. Then, there is an additional staff for apple maggot work in Ontario and the maritimes.


John Vallance: Does the minister still think the Canadian Horticultural Council should receive this $5,000?


Robert Weir: Yes, I do.


John Vallance: Why?


Robert Weir: They are perhaps
the most representative body that we could have in an agricultural industry, and it is of great value to the government to have such a body whose advice may be accepted. They are competent to tell us of the needs of the farmers engaged in the fruit industry, and in that way we gain the information through which we may render assistance.


John Vallance: Is any of the $5,000
allocated to the Canadian Horticultural Council used in disseminating information acquired by the horticultural council?


Robert Weir: This grant is given with very few strings attached. The money is used to defray expenses of the executive. No doubt some of the work of the executive is as the hon. member has suggested.


John Vallance: The publication of the findings of the Canadian Horticultural Council is being paid for out of this $5,000, so that the council itself does not receive the $5,000 as indemnity for sitting as a council?


Robert Weir: I do not believe
I understand the hon. member's question.


John Vallance: Is the $5,000 merely to indemnify the council for their time in sitting, or is a certain percentage of the $5,000 paid out for the dissemination of information acquired by the council?

Supply-Agriculture


Robert Weir: The members who
sit on the council receive no indemnity. They receive only expenses.


John Vallance: That is indemnity. Is
it correct to say that the whole $5,000 goes to pay the expenses of the horticultural council?


Robert Weir: No, this money is
put into a fund created by the horticultural council to carry on its work. This is our contribution to that fund.


Edward James Young: What is their work?


Robert Weir: In a general way
they are a clearing house for the whole horticultural industry. Perhaps I could not do better than to read the description I have before me:
During the past year the Canadian Horticultural Council had in membership elected representatives of the various branches of horticulture in Canada, including fruit growers, vegetable growers, amateur horticulturists, nurserymen, florists and gardeners and wholesale fruit and vegetable dealers. The council was, therefore, as usual fully in a position to represent the consolidated view's of the horticultural interests of the dominion.
As an indication of its representative nature the following list of representatives upon the council during the past year is cited:
President-W alter	J. Cook (vegetable
grower), Kingston, Ont.
Chairman-W. B. Somerset (fruit grower), Burlington, Ont.
Fruit Growers
R. H. Macdonald, Vernon, B.C.
Paul A. Fisher, Burlington, Ont.
W. J. Tawse, Montreal, Que.
W. W. Hubbard, R.R. No. 1, Oromocto, N.B. John A. McDonald, Upper Dyke Village, N.S.
Vegetable Growers Fred Lewis, Vernon, B.C.
Walter J. Cook, Kingston, Ont.
Charles Haeck, St. Martin. Que.
F. W. Bishop, Paradise, N.S.
W. J. Boulter, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Nurserymen E. B. Luke, Montreal, Que.
Florists and Gardeners Chas. Craig, Ottawa, Ont.
Amateur Horticulturists Dr. C. F. Patterson, Saskatoon, Sask.
Canadian Fruit Jobbers Karl B. Conger, Ottawa, Ont.
A. McCallum, Winnipeg, Man.
Chairmen of Committees W. B. Somerset-Markets committee.
Dr. W. T. Macoun-Ornamental horticultural committee.
E. B. Luke-Publicity committee.
Fred Lewis-Transportation committee.
Prof. W. A. Middleton-Economics committee.
53719-141 i
Due to the unsatisfactory financial state of the industry, with prevailing prices much below cost of production, the problems handled by the counciil during the past year were more numerous, more intricate and probably broader in scope than those with which the council had been called upon to deal during any of the past ten years. Iin spite of the abnormal business conditions and due to some extent at least to the activities of the council, the horticultural industries face the coming year with possibly a slightly better feeling than most of the agricultural interests.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the minister reading from?


Robert Weir: A synopsis I had
prepared for my own information, to satisfy myself of the work they were doing.


John Vallance: May I ask how often
this horticultural council meets, or do they just meet when called?


Robert Weir: They have one
annual meeting, usually, if not always, held in Ottawa; and they have an executive that meets from time to time.


James J. Donnelly: Can the minister tell
me if there was a grant of $5,000 to the horticultural council last year, and if so, the number of the grant?


Robert Weir: Under the same
item, but in the supplementary estimates.


James J. Donnelly: I have the supplementary estimates here, but I cannot find it.


Robert Weir: My information is
that it was deleted from the regular estimates, but voted in the supplementaries under this heading.


James J. Donnelly: I cannot find it.


Robert Weir: May I ask the
hon. member if the supplementary estimates he has are those of this year or of the end of the fiscal year ended March 31, 1932?


James J. Donnelly: March 31, 1933.


Robert Weir: That would not be the supplementary estimates in which it would be included.


Edward James Young: I understand that in addition to this $5,000 the horticultural council have a free office in Ottawa, at government expense, that their telephone is attached to the central of this building, and that they have other perquisites. May I ask what is the total cost to the government of this association?
Supply-Agriculture


Robert Weir: I believe they occupy a room in a government building, but my information is that the telephone is not a government telephone.


Edward James Young: I think it is on the exchange of this building.


Robert Weir: The number is
Queen 1165. It is not charged to the government.


James J. Donnelly: I cannot find the vote. I have the supplementary estimates of last year and this year, and it is not in them.


John Vallance: While the minister is
looking that up, I hold in my hand the supplementary estimates of 1932-33 and the estimates of 1933-34. I find in the supplementary estimates, No. 332, "fruit, further amount required, $31,000." Would it come under that item?


Robert Weir: It might be included in that estimate.


James J. Donnelly: It cannot be, because in the estimates for 1932-33 the amount is $426,200. If I add up the estimates we had last year I get only $421,000, so there is $5,000 missing somewhere.


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to
check that up and give the information the next time the estimates come down.


Edward James Young: A year or two ago I placed on Hansard part of the report of the annual meeting of this association. If I recall aright, the growers at that time were withdrawing from the association because they said the whole association had degenerated into a political organization. I notice from what the minister said to-night that the growers appear to be in again. Will the minister tell us if they have composed their difficulties and have ceased their political activities?


Robert Weir: As far as my information goes they have never been a political body. My recollection is that in Ontario there was some misunderstanding between the amateur horticulturists and those in what we might call a commercial way. I cannot say whether those differences have been settled or not. My understanding is that it was more a personal difference.


Edward James Young: Does not the minister know that the bulk of the growers had withdrawn from their organization, that they complained that they were some 85,000 as against some 5,000 dealers or processors, but that the 5,000 had full control of the organization?


Robert Weir: The growers'
organization is still in existence. They have elected their officers, and they were present at the annual meeting that concluded, I believe, in Ottawa yesterday.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask whether this
horticultural council is representative of all Canada? Is every province interested in this council? And as to this grant of $5,000 per year, is there an equitable distribution, province by province?


Robert Weir: The grant is given
to the dominion association to carry on for the year. There would be no distribution of it to any provincial organization. My understanding is that it is a very representative body.


John Vallance: Last year the supplementaries and the regular estimates combined, $426,000 and $31,000, make a total of $457,000 voted under this item. Does the minister contemplate any supplementaries on this item?


Robert Weir: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has Saskatchewan any
representation on this horticultural council?


Mr. MacNICOL:: They only grow wheat.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They grow something
better than you.


Robert Weir: They are eligible
for representation. They have none at present.


Edward James Young: This is $5,000 out of $456000. Will the minister tell us what is done with the rest of the money?


Robert Weir: The greater part of it is spent in salaries of fruit and vegetable inspectors. On this there is returnable in fees for what is known as commercial inspection in the neighbourhood of $90,000. So against this amount approximately $90,000 will be collected and returned to the receiver general.


Edward James Young: What did these gentlemen
do for their salaries?


Robert Weir: Their principal duty was inspecting fruit and vegetables and attaching their certificates setting out the grades for interprovincial and export trade. Last year they were engaged longer than usual in making a survey of orchards in connection with the presence of apple maggot.


Edward James Young: I understand that there is
considerable dissatisfaction among many growers with the way these inspections are

Supply-Agriculture
carried on. They feel that the whole power has been centralized too much and that this work could be done more efficiently and more economically by local authorities. Has the minister had any complaints along that line?


Robert Weir: Complaints have
been made by individuals and those complaints have been investigated. So far as I am aware, complete satisfaction was expressed by those individuals after the matter was gone into thoroughly.


Edward James Young: That is not my information. I am told this expenditure is wholly unjustified and that the work could be done for a fraction of this sum if it were performed by local authorities. Further I should like to ask why this service is not made self-supporting, like the administration of the Canada Grain Act.


Robert Weir: It could be made
self-supporting if the hon. member felt that under present conditions, with prices so low, it would be advisable to make a further levy or charge which would have to be deducted from the receipts of the producers. With regard to this work being done locally, I think almost everyone would agree that this would be a very dangerous practice. Let us consider what might happen in connection with the shipping of apples to the old country. If there was a local inspector in Ontario, for example, terrific pressure might be brought to bear on him by a friend whose apples were infected. A shipment might be made, and as a result an embargo against all Canadian apples might be put in force. We feel that the work is done in a very satisfactory manner at present, and in any case, the apples would have to be accompanied by a certificate in order to be exported.


Edward James Young: The dominion certificate
would have to go with the shipment, but is it necessary to have the orchards inspected, and so on, before that certificate can be given? Could not that be done better by men right on the ground, familiar with local conditions?


Robert Weir: We feel that it is
all gain to have the men who are to inspect these apples for export survey the orchards and advise the growers as to the importance of spraying and other control measures. We believe the inspectors will be able to have a better picture of general conditions and to carry on a better inspection of the districts where there are infected orchards. In Nova Scotia this year they appointed a non-partisan committee which has just completed a
survey of the Annapolis valley for the purpose of ascertaining public opinion in connection with the enforcement of regulations. They believe that they can get men there who can carry out the surveys of the orchards at a lower cost than would be the case if we sent men who might be better qualified to do the export inspection. They are now preparing for submission to me a statement as to the difference in cost, and if it is as appreciable as the hon. member suggests this work will be done in that way.


Edward James Young: I do not know what credence can be placed in newspaper reports, but it is intimated in the press that when the budget comes down we will be confronted with a deficit running into eight figures. In view of this fact, if it is a fact, I do not think this enormous expenditure can be justified, and I would suggest that this amount be cut in half.


William Richard Motherwell: I hope the hon.
member who made that suggestion is not serious, because the agriculture estimates already have been cut quite enough. I do not understand why my hon. friend the minister has restored the grant to the horticultural council while the dairy council remains out in the cold. Surely he does not take the ground that horticulture is of greater importance than dairying, or that in times such as these the dairy industry does not require the aid of a council. Dairying has gone to the bow-wows, though we were led to expect something very different if only hon. gentlemen could get rigging up the tariff with regard to butter. The dairy industry needs support now more than it ever did. It is not on an export basis, yet prices never have been so low in the history of the proverbial oldest inhabitant. If we were on an export basis the prices probably would be even lower by possibly five cents.
This is an opportunity for my hon. friend to come to the aid of a very important branch of agriculture, just "when a feller needs a friend." I do not expect the minister to deal with dairying now as that vote is passed; but I want to commend him for restoring the horticultural grant. Look how nice and quiet it is here this Friday evening. To-night my hon. friend could get through almost anything that bad any reason to it. If he can get as suitable a night another year I would suggest that the grant to the national dairy council be restored also.
My hon. friend from Weyburn raised an important question when he spoke about local fruit inspectors. To an outsider the appoint-
Supply-Agriculture

ment of local inspectors would seem to be the best and cheapest way to carry on this work. They have not far to travel and they are acquainted with local conditions, but according to my experience this is really the worst way to carry on the work. That statement applies not only to fruit but to almost everything else as well. We should have inspectors with as little social or other connection as possible in the vicinity of their work; then we will get the best results, and I think that applies to almost all forms of inspection. As a matter of fact we want to have that policy followed in the maritimes a little more than is the case at present. They have perhaps the most beautiful apples in the world down there, but it is the most difficult place to introduce a proper inspectional service because of the tendency of hanging on to old methods of inspection. One reason, however, is the continuation of local inspectors. Many do not even yet look upon such appointments as coming from the Civil Service Commission particularly; they prefer to obtain them otherwise, and some do not take the work very seriously. I am glad to know that some improvement is being shown in that respect since shipping point inspection was adopted two or three years ago, but still I believe the further they can get away from local inspectors the better it will be for them. We have had the great danger of too much local influence being exercised on the inspectors, who in the past have looked upon their positions as political perquisites. This is now the exception, I understand, rather than as formerly, the general rule.
Let me tell the committee that inspectional service has practically no value at all unless the certificates are lived up to. The hon. member for Parkdale is a dealer in fruit and vegetables, and be knows that to be so. A certificate is just a piece of paper; its value depends upon the character of the inspection and the manner in which the inspector has lived up to the regulations. When a certificate has that one hundred per cent value it becomes almost as negotiable as a barrel of apples itself. In connection with wheat a buyer depends upon the certificate; that is what it is for. No one doubts a wheat certificate, especially since mixing was stopped, and no one doubts a cheese certificate. The buyer accepts that certificate without ever looking at the product, and that should be the case with each of our exportable farm products. Perhaps when we get things standardized and adopt the practices that have been in vogue in connection with cheese and grain, these fruit certificates will become so well established and so well known that

they will become accepted without question. That has not been the case in the past with regard to fruit, especially in the maritimes and to a lesser degree in other parts, but I am glad to know that these conditions are improving greatly there. This service will not be fully improved until the local inspection service is discontinued as much aa possible, allowing the locally qualified men to inspect in other places. Is the chief fruit inspector still in the department?


Robert Weir: He has retired.


William Richard Motherwell: It was about time.


Mr. SPENOE:: Does the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) mean that local inspectors should be used irrespective of their knowing anything about the work? If that is so, I do not agree with him. It takes years of study to qualify as an inspector for the foreign market.


William Richard Motherwell: Certainly not.


Edward James Young: Will the minister explain how this is done? Take John Brown; he has a fine orchard of apples and would like to export. Just how will he proceed to have his orchard inspected and obtain a licence to export?


Robert Weir: The actual inspection occurs when they are being packed or being delivered to the pre-cooling plant.


Edward James Young: I want to know every step he would have to take.


Robert Weir: With reference to the inspection for export?


Edward James Young: I want the whole thing. John Brown wants to export his apples and before he can do that he must have an exporter's licence. I want to know how he will proceed to get that.


Robert Weir: There is no export licence; the apples are inspected and if they pass inspection they are eligible for export.


Edward James Young: Where are they inspected?


Robert Weir: In the large orchards, as they are being packed, and in other instances, when they are being shipped into cold storage.


Edward James Young: Do I understand that before John Brown can pick and pack his apples he has to wait until a dominion inspector is on the ground?


Robert Weir: No.

Supply-Agriculture


Edward James Young: The minister says they must be inspected while they are being packed; I do not see how that can be done unless an inspector is there.


Robert Weir: In the large orchards, they are inspected While they are being packed, otherwise they are inspected when being loaded into cars or sent into the cold storage.


Edward James Young: When apples are being loaded into cars they are either in boxes or in barrels, and I should like to know how an inspector from Ottawa or anywhere else can inspect apples in sealed boxes and barrels.


Robert Weir: The great majority of the apples are inspected while they are being packed in the large orchards. The staff is sufficiently large to carry on this work, and we extend this service as far as possible to the smaller orchards. The survey made of where the apple maggot is occurring guides the inspectors in the closeness of the inspection which they feel is necessary.


Edward James Young: There must be a considerable staff of inspectors employed for a short season while the apples are being packed; what do these men do the rest of the year?


Robert Weir: They may do anything they wish, as they are just temporary employees for short periods.


John Vallance: I notice there is a reduction of 1381,948 in the total estimates for agriculture this year, and I should like to know if this reduction is the result of the interprovincial conference held in Ottawa some time ago when the overlapping of the dominion and provincial departments of agriculture was discussed.


Robert Weir: An inspection of the estimates as a whole will show how the decrease is accounted for. Part of it is as a result of arrangements made at that conference, and we hope that next year a further reduction will be possible.
but there was one a few years ago. The grain growers are in just as serious a financial position m the fruit growers, and assistance in the inspection and grading of wheat would be welcomed.	*


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand that representations were made by the railways to the railway commission to increase the classification on bulk apples in order to put the rate up on a level with the rate on packed apples.


Robert Weir: I could not say whether or not an application was made to increase the freight rate on bulk apples, but the committee might foe interested to know that last night the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself met a delegation asking for the lowering of the rate on packed fruit from British Columbia to the prairies. This matter is under consideration, and it is hooped that a reduction may be made. This would 'be a comparable reduction to that made in the case of feed grains going from the prairies to the west.


William Gilbert Weir: Was that unpacked or bulk shipments?


Robert Weir: Bulk shipments, but not necessarily carload bulk.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If the application I referred to was made, I would like to know the position of the horticultural council upon this very important matter.


Robert Weir: The council went on record as opposing an increase in the rate.


William Gilbert Weir: That is an
increase on shipments of bulk apples, the classification having been raised last fall?


Robert Weir: Yes, on the bulk rate.


Edward James Young: The minister said there was no such thing as an exporter's licence; is there an exporter's certificate?


Robert Weir: An export inspection *certificate. Any fruit to 'be eligible for export must have an export certificate.


James J. Donnelly: There is no objection from the prairie provinces to this vote, but the wheat growers feel that they are being discriminated against to a certain extent. Perhaps my remarks should be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). We are asked to ipay for the grading and weighing of our wheat and surpluses have occurred from this charge wfoidh were turned into the public revenue. I do not know whether a surplus exists at the present time,


Edward James Young: Is it necessary to have the orchard inspected in order to get that certificate?


Robert Weir: No.
Mr. MeKENZIE (Assiniboia): A short time ago the minister read a synopsis of a recent meeting of the horticultural council here in Ottawa. He mentioned several names, and I should like to know if those individuals are producers of fruit or jobbers.
Supply-Agriculture


Robert Weir: I think in reading
the names I stated what they were. For instance, the president is a vegetable grower; the chairman is a fruit grower. They are the elected representatives of growers' organizations, dealers' organizations and others connected with the industry of horticulture.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I notice the item states that they are facing considerable difficulties at the present time and looking to the future with no great hope. Knowing this organization a few years ago put out certain political propaganda with regard to increased protection against fruit coming from the United States, I was wondering whether they had not at that time received something that would solve their difficulties. I wonder now what their difficulties are. They have surely, under this government, all the protection they need. What is their trouble to-day? What are they clamouring for?


Robert Weir: The chief difficulty at present is the low price of their fruit due to low purchasing power, also difficulties in British Columbia with the fire blight; in Ontario the apple maggot and coddling moth, and in the maritimes the apple maggot. The work of the department is to serve in the best possible way all branches or phases of agriculture, and I know of no better way in which we could get such representative opinion than through a body like this, elected by the people concerned.


Robert McKenzie: Do they
admit the protection they have received from the government has been of no value to them?


Robert Weir: I have never discussed with them anything that might be considered as being of a political nature.


Robert McKenzie: They believe it is not.
Mr. \OUNG:	What are the regulations
in regard to the spraying of orchards? The minister spoke of pests existing in all the provinces.


Robert Weir: The regulations for spraying are provincial and therefore are not under control of the federal department. As the hon. member knows, perhaps better than I do, the spraying depends upon the nature of the pest it is desired to combat. The spraying, however, is largely under provincial direction.


Edward James Young: This, then, is the situation: spraying the orchards and fighting the pest that is infesting the apple are under provincial control, but the inspection of the fruit is under federal control. Is that a sane system?


Robert Weir: I would say that
it is sound that the provincial authorities have control of the product that is grown, because they are the people on the ground; but as regards export certificates that will really carry any weight in foreign countries, the matter should be under federal supervision.


Edward James Young: When the federal officials
are going to issue an export certificate, do they consult the provincial officials to find out whether an orchard has been properly sprayed?


Robert Weir: Not necessarily. As
regards the case in Nova Scotia I cited, our man assisted the provincial men to start the campaign. We felt that our man, on account of perhaps longer and wider experience, would be able to advise them.


Mr. MALCOLM:: With regard to export
certificates on fruit, are there many complaints as to the fruit not being up to standard?


Robert Weir: Practically none.
There has been some local complaint this year on account of scab and other diseases, but this does not concern export.


James Malcolm: I understand we do not give an export certificate except where the fruit is exported to a foreign country, a certificate comparable with a grain certificate.


Robert Weir: That is right.


James Malcolm: The minister says there has been no complaint regarding our export certificates on fruit this year.


Robert Weir: I am not sure
whether I understand my hon. friend's question. There have been complaints from fruit growers that they could not get export certificates.


James Malcolm: That is not my question. I am sorry if I did not make it clear. My hon. friend knows the inspection of grain is so close to perfection that very few cases of complaints have been established that the grain was not as represented in the certificates, and, as the former Minister of Agriculture stated, the grain certificate is so good that it

Supply-Agriculture-Seed
passes almost as legal tender. I wanted to ask the minister if we had progressed so far towards a state of perfection in the inspection of apples that there were no complaints from importers in foreign countries.


Robert Weir: There has been
practically no complaint this year-none that I know of.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Has the minister received any complaints from the horticultural council since the tariff on sulphate of copper was increased by ten per cent in the intermediate and general tariffs? They are very keen on these tariff matters. Has there been any complaint as to the increase in the tariff on nitrate of soda?


Robert Weir: Not that I remember. I could not say without looking up the matter.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I am surprised that the horticultural council, which has been so keen on this question of protection in relation to fruit, has not seen fit to make a complaint when the tariff is working against the interests of the fruit growers.


Robert Weir: A complaint may
have been lodged, but my answer is that I do not remember any.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc., also grant of $18,900 to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $443,200.
Edward James Young: This is another item of
nearly half a million dollars. Would the minister tell us what we get for our money in this case?


Robert Weir: This, again, is
chiefly the administration of acts. The great part of it is for the salaries of the men who are carrying out the provisions of these acts, including the inspection and distribution of seeds and the inspection of fertilizers and feeds. Part of the grant, as set out in the item, is to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Has the minister anything to do.with customs duties on fertilizers, or does that come under the Department of National Revenue?


Robert Weir: My understanding
is that a shipment of fertilizer being imported cannot be released until it receives a certificate of inspection from our officials.


John Vallance: I notice a grant of
$18,900 to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association. In the western provinces we have provincial seed growers' associations. Is this an amalgamation or federation of all the provincial associations?


Robert Weir: A dominion association, common to all the provinces. The provincial organizations have more to do with merchandising. Each province is represented on the central organization. It is not an amalgamation in the true sense of the word, because it is not comprised of provincial associations.


John Vallance: This is not an amalgamation of the commercial and distribution end?


Robert Weir: No.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I notice that included in this item are grants to seed fairs. How large are these grants, and on what basis are they made?


Robert Weir: The grant is $50 for each seed fair on condition that the province puts up a like amount.


John Vallance: What is the total amount of the grants to all seed fairs?


Robert Weir: We have not that information at hand.


John Vallance: I notice that this item is for seed, feed and fertilizer control. How does the department control the fertilizer?


Robert Weir: By administering the act respecting fertilizers.


James J. Donnelly: Under what vote does the grant for the world's grain congress come?
Mr. W'EIR (Melfort): An amount was put in the estimates last year which the executive felt would be sufficient, but there is also provision under a number of branches for exhibits at the fair.


Frederick William Gershaw: How extensively is the fertilizer product which is manufactured at Trail being used, and with what results at the experimental farms?


Robert Weir: I would ask that that question be deferred until the experimental farm item comes up, when I shall be glad to give all the information. The results have been very satisfactory.


Edward James Young: I understood the minister to say that a large part of this vote is for the salaries of seed inspectors who inspect pure bred seed. Some of the farmers used to make
Supply-Agriculture-Seed

a business of growing pure bred seed and selling it to their neighbours. But there are not many farmers to-day who have money to spend on pure bred seed; they have to get along with the seed they have, and it would naturally follow that we do not need so many inspectors. Would it not be possible to reduce this item accordingly?


Robert Weir: In the province from which the bon. member comes, much heavier work was done by our inspectors last year to ensure that the seed which the farmers received : especially the oats imported from other provinces, were of a good quality, and that they got value for what they were paying.


Edward James Young: Does the minister mean
that the seed put out by the Saskatchewan seed commission was inspected by these inspectors?


Robert Weir: Except the wheat
that was stored in the elevators in the south. It was not felt necessary to inspect it. We had a conference in Regina, where the plan to be followed was recommended. Any wheat that was imported from other provinces was inspected by our inspectors, also the thousands of bushels of oats that were shipped in.


James J. Donnelly: Were the oats that
were shipped in to the southern part of the province last year inspected by these inspectors?


Robert Weir: All of it.


James J. Donnelly: Then they made a very poor job of it, because most of it was wild oats.


Robert Weir: Does the hon.
member mean seed oats or feed oats?


James J. Donnelly: Seed oats.


Robert Weir: I am afraid the
hon. member is misinformed there.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
under this vote there is a distribution of grass seed and clover among the western farmers. I hope that a great chunk of this extra $30,000 will be used for filling a lot of orders out there this spring which the government were unable to fill last spring owing to the cut in the vote. What percentage of the fields sown with grass seed and clover last spring secured a good catch?


Robert Weir: Eighty-two per
cent.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the
department buying grass seed for distribution among the farmers of Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: Yes, also in Alberta.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
appreciate that, but it has been my experience for some years that it is a good thing for Saskatchewan to have a federal minister representing the province, and il would suggest that when the government change they change the location of the Minister of Agriculture so that the rest of us might get an even break once in a while. I notice that Saskatchewan gets an increase of $30,000 this year. We are all very much interested in agriculture, and the agriculture vote is a very respectable one, but I hope that it will not all go to Saskatchewan.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: What is the total
amount of the grants to seed fairs, and how many seed fairs are held?


Robert Weir: We have not the
total of the grants to seed fairs available in that form.


William Gilbert Weir: Has the minister instituted a policy of providing grass seed in various areas in the west?


Robert Weir: In. the prairie provinces, including Manitoba.


William Gilbert Weir: How much was
spent on that last year, and what is the policy in that regard?


Robert Weir: The policy in general is this, that a supply of the best available seed is purchased and is distributed through a provincial committee, in conjunction with federal officers. Last year we were able to supply a minimum of three farmers per municipality, they undertaking to return to the department an equal amount of seed or half the price of the seed two years later. The money so received goes to the credit of the receiver general.


James J. Donnelly: Does the department
inspect the Caragana seed sent out by the Department of Public Works in Regina for the growing of Caragana hedges?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Have the obstacles in the way of the importation of fertilizers, more particularly nitrate of soda, been removed as was promised by the Minister of Finance?


Robert Weir: I am sorry I have
not that information.

Supply-Agriculture


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think the matter has
been settled quite satisfactorily.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Satisfactorily to the
manufacturer or to the farmer?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: To the farmer.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Where are these seed
grain fairs held in Saskatchewan?
Mr. WEIR. (Melfort): There are two provincial fairs in Saskatchewan, one at Maple Creek and the other at Saskatoon.


John Vallance: Surely the minister does not mean that. Seed grain fairs are legion in
Saskatchewan. Within a short radius of my own farm there are at least half a dozen. Whether they are under provincial or federal jurisdiction I do not know, but I feel sure the minister does not mean to say there are only two or three seed grain fairs in Saskatchewan.
Mr. WEIll (Melfort): That is my information regarding fairs to which we contribute.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Entomology, $30,000.
John Vallance: I notice there is an increase of S25,000 in this vote, and I am wondering what new bug has caused this increase. I am sincere, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You look it.


William Richard Motherwell: You mean, what
new humbug.


John Vallance: The ex-Minister of Agriculture has suggested that I am referring to a new humbug, but I should like ter know why the increase has been made.


Robert Weir: The increase is due to increased travelling expenses transferred from civil government, and equipment.


Mr. ILSLEY:: What is the purpose of the vote? How is the money to be expended?


Robert Weir: For headquarters
staff organization.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the minister refer to the staff in Ottawa? I take it he does not include the laboratories at different points, such as the one at Annapolis Royal.


Robert Weir: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Under what vote does it come?


Robert Weir: The next vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of Destructive Insect and Pest Act, $673,300.
Edward James Young: Explain.


John Vallance: Could the minister tell us what insects we have in larger proportions than we have had at other times, and why it is necessary to spend $30,000 more this year than last year? Surely the pests of the Tories are not increasing?


Robert Weir: There are increased expenditures in connection with inspection work concerning apple maggot control, and in connection with a threatened invasion of the dreaded Japanese beetle, particularly to the Niagara peninsula.


Mr. BROWN:: Has the Dominion government anything to do with the control of the grasshopper pest in western Canada?


Robert Weir: Federal men make surveys, in other words they do the scouting work. They give information to the provinces concerning the likelihood and the extent of the grasshopper outbreaks. The federal government, however, does not supply any of the materials for poisoning, for instance, in the coming spring it is feared there will be another very serious outbreak of grasshoppers. The federal men will assist provincial officers in supervising the work which is done, the provinces supplying the material and the actual labour costs.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What part of the work in connection with apple maggot control is done by the federal government?


Robert Weir: The federal government does much of the orchard survey work and the inspection work, certifying shipments for export. We report on the extent to which the infested area may be affected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Are additional men required, or what men are used? For instance, do you use the staffs at Kentville and Annapolis Royal?


Robert Weir: The work is done mostly by fruit branch inspectors, although last year other inspectors of the entomological branch were used.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: I think it is about time the government of Canada made a concerted effort to exterminate the insect pests which have been blighting our country for some time. Had hon. members been in points adjoining the constituency of Long Lake during the last summer they would realize the magnitude of the damage done. In
Supply-Agriculture

a stretch a hundred miles long and fifty miles wide, as a result of the ravages of grasshoppers, army worms and cutworms, all plant growth was stopped. We have to fight these pests, and we might as well make up our minds to do it. There is an increase in the vote, and I hope that as a result there may be more complete cooperation between federal and provincial departments in the extermination of these pests.


William Gilbert Weir: Strange as it may seem, I am going to lend my support to the hon. member for Long Lake. I appreciate fully what he has said with respect to grasshopper damage in western Canada last year. It was particularly bad in the area from which I come, where early in the spring I saw hundreds of fields eaten off as bare as a floor. In some sections of the country grasshoppers have totally destroyed gardens and green vegetables. Those of us who are familiar with the damage they do readily appreciate how necessary it is to take all possible steps to control them. I am happy to see that the vote has been increased by $30,000. I am just wondering if the minister has a report on what conditions may be next spring, in the event of another grasshopper outbreak. I am not asking him to read it, but I am wondering if the report is available for some of us to see. Last year about this time a map was published indicating in a general way the areas which might be infested by grasshoppers. May a similar report be expected this year?


Robert Weir: Maps are under preparation now. In certain areas, and especially in the southern part of Manitoba, there is evidence of outbreaks worse than those of last year. It has been estimated that in some districts there are 100,000 grasshopper eggs per square foot.


James J. Donnelly: Can the minister tell us anything with regard to the progress they are making in connection with information concerning cutworms? Last year information was given out in western Canada as to how the farmers should handle their summer fallow to meet the cutworm pest. Many of those farmers are claiming the information was absolutely wrong. I have spoken to some who said that the sections of land in connection with which they followed governmental instructions were infested with cutworms and other sections were not. Some tracts of land were split in two, half being cultivated and the remainder left with a hard top, through which, it was stated, the cutworm could not go. The result was that

where the ground was left with a hard top there were cutworms, and where it was cultivated there were none. Can the minister give us any further information concerning this
pest?


Robert Weir: I am sure the hon. member realizes how difficult it is for any branch to give information that will be foolproof having reference to climatic conditions, soil, and so forth. Especially around Indian Head last year there was a good deal of criticism that those who did not follow the instructions sent out by this branch did not have the same damage from cutworms as some of their neighbours who did. We made a careful examination as soon as the complaints came in, and we received every cooperation from those who at first were critical. The control recommendations are built upon the preference of the moth in egg-laying and are designed (1) to keep land free from cutworm eggs by maintaining it in a crusted condition during the period of egg-laying, namely, August and the first half of September, (2) to save the crop being eaten out where cutworms are present in a field by the use of an indicator strip, and (3) to prevent reseeding of fields destroyed by cutworms until after the cutworms have ceased feeding. The recommendations as published, interpreted and applied by farmers, have proven to be of the very greatest value throughout the entire infested area of Alberta and Saskatchewan wherever they were seriously attempted. Here is a report regarding the outbreak:
The campaign which has been in progress for three years was carried out by officers stationed at Assiniboia, Indian Head, Saskatoon, Drum-heller -and Lethbridge. It has involved the forecasting of the outbreaks, the distribution of 2,500 posters, 100,000 pamphlets and maps, reinforced by a press campaign and a personal canvass of thousands of farmers. The control practices were of very great value and the savings of crops throughout the areas infested unquestionably amounted to tens of millions of bushels of grain. Even under the most difficult conditions such as those where there had been soil drifting in the autumn of 1931 and the spring of 1932, Indian Head region, the recommended control practices reduced the losses almost a half. Elsewhere, and in the great proportion of the area where-ever the control practices were seriously attempted, the saving of crop was phenomenally successful and was in practice upon hundreds of thousands of acres.


James J. Donnelly: In every village in the south country where you met a group of farmers they were all talking about it, and

Supply-Agriculture
the general opinion seemed to be that where they followed the advice of the Department of Agriculture and left their summer fallow after the fifteenth of August, the soil was infested with cutworms, but wherever they went on and worked in the fall there were none. This applies not only to the Indian Head region, but to the whole south country.


Robert Weir: I just used that as an illustration.


William Gilbert Weir: I think the minister said that no part of this appropriation was used in actual control of the grasshoppers, that it was devoted simply to surveys indicating the possible extent of the outbreak the following year.


Robert Weir: None was used in
the purchase of material.


William Gilbert Weir: I may say to
the minister that if his report is right he may be called upon to help, because this thing is coming to be what may well be called a calamity.


Albert Joseph Brown: I support that statement.
In the southern part of my own constituency they are likely to suffer seriously during the coming year. The district represented by my hon. friend from Macdonald had the pest a year earlier than we had, but last year they came to us for the first time, and there is every evidence that the condition will be much worse this year. I know they are very serious. The municipalities will not be able to provide funds to fight the pest. The provincial government, it is true, did so last year, but to what extent they will be able to do so this year I cannot say. It is certain the Dominion government will again be called upon to help in the compaign.


Walter Davy Cowan: We cannot
afford as a nation to put on a great staff of highly paid experts, college bred men, to do this work, but it seems to me that the minister at the appropriate season could get two or three dozen hard-headed experienced farmers-all Tories, of course-to do the work and help the farmers in the campaign against these pests. I do not know anything that could be better. These farmers are quite capable; their services could be secured for a short period and would be mighty useful. We have simply got to fight these pests. In the early days the ex-Minister of Agriculture will tell you the prairies were swept by prairie fires which roasted these insects and their eggs. I have no abjection to roasted grasshoppers, but when they get as they are now
they are a menace which we must deal with. Our old friend the prairie fire is gone, and the modern methods of agriculture are not suited to cope with these pests.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I ask if any proportion of that money is spent in the province of Quebec?


Robert Weir: A very considerable proportion.


Charles Benjamin Howard: At what main points?


Robert Weir: We have laboratories in the Montreal district, Hemmingford district, and field stations in other sections, particularly for the study of forest insects. There are summer camps studying the forest infestation, which is a very serious thing in Quebec.


William Gilbert Weir: I do not want
to delay the passing of this item, but I should like to impress upon the house the seriousness of the grasshopper menace in southern Manitoba. My hon. friend from Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) suggests that we might engage a dozen good Tories to help fight this menace. If he had been in the area which had the grasshopper invasion this year he would appreciate the efforts that were made. In practically every municipality in my constituency there was a mixing station established in which half a dozen men were working day and night, and trucks were running back and forth to Winnipeg practically every day bringing poison ingredients. These were delivered to the farmers round about, who last spring spent the better part of every forenoon for a solid month spreading the poison in an effort to control the grasshoppers, and even then they were not able to control them. At this distance away we may not realize that the grasshopper menace is so very serious, but in southern Manitoba during the latter part of July of last year, when the crops began to ripen and the fields dried up, the grasshoppers, seeking more succulent forage, moved on to the yards and gardens and completely destroyed them, so that not only garden stuff but potatoes and corn and everything was eaten right to the face of the earth. It was not for lack of effort or using plenty of men-and they were not white collar men, as my hon. friend from Long Lake would lead us to believe, but good hardheaded farmers. I hope the minister will give this thing the consideration it deserves, otherwise it is going to spread to a still greater extent.
Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions


George Gibson Coote: A good deal of apprehension is felt in some parts of southern Alberta regarding the grasshopper menace. I wonder if the minister has any report from his officials as to whether there is serious risk of an outbreak of grasshoppers in southern Alberta this summer.


Robert Weir: The reports are
that there is evidence now that there will be some slight outbreak, but nothing at all in proportion to what is expected in Manitoba. The provincial government has been advised and is making preparations to meet it.


George Gibson Coote: The actual preparations for
fighting it are left in the hands of the provincial government?


Robert Weir: Yes, with the guidance of the reports they have and the information they receive from our men. Our men are also engaged in an advisory capacity.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Assistance to fairs and exhibitions, including the Royal Agricultural Winter fair, $395,000.
John Vallance: I should like to ask
the minister if he has decided in his own mind, in view of the decrease in this item, where it is proposed to economize. Is he going to pursue the same policy that was followed last jrear with regard to class B fairs throughout the various provinces?


Robert Weir: The decrease is not entirely in the grants to fairs. Previous to this year there were included in this vote grants to junior farmers and farm clubs, but at the suggestion of the auditor general those have been shifted to the live stock vote. This year the policy with reference to fairs, especially class B fairs, is that the grant of last year will be continued, if they meet the standard required, and all such fairs will have the opportunity of earning an additional $500 by way of a regional grant.


William Gilbert Weir: Would the minister give us a statement as to the success of the regional fairs last year, and could he tell us where they were held?


Robert Weir: We have not a list af where they were held last year, but they were quite evenly distributed among the different provinces. I think there was one in Ontario at Port Arthur last year and there were two the year before at Peterborough and Lindsay. There was one in Quebec at Ayer's Cliff and in the maritimes at Chatham, one in Manitoba, at Portage la Prairie, one at Melfort in Saskatchewan, one at Red Deer in Alberta and one at Armstrong in British 
Columbia. On the whole the reports that we have received as to these regional fairs is to this effect: They did give a stimulus, in proportion to the money given, much greater than was the case with the ordinary grant, which has become mare or less a matter of routine. This year we are making available to all class B fairs that comply with the conditions already outlined the possibility of earning $500 as a regional grant.


William Gilbert Weir: What was the
grant given last year and the year before?


Robert Weir: Last year and the
year before we did this as an experiment in order to see what would be the result, and as a rule it was given to one place in each province, with the exception of the older and larger provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Previously the sum given was $1,000. The result led us to reduce the offer to $500 and to make it available to all fairs that complied with the regulations.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What are those conditions?


Robert Weir: The general condition is this:	If in addition to their general
fair they put on' a competition between the districts surrounding the centre where the fair is held and in that way develop a healthy rivalry as between one district and another, in contrast to the severe competition within the districts which the other method promotes, then they are in line for the grant.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What areas are included
in these districts?


Robert Weir: That depends on
local conditions. The agricultural society at Lacombe, for instance, will decide what localities might compete. It might be an area surrounding small C or D fairs, as they are called in the west; it might be a village or a municipality or a number of municipalities. Suggestions are made by the agricultural society.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Who decides what fairs are entitled to this grant of $500?


Robert Weir: It is entirely in
the hands of the fair board. Previous to this year, when we were trying it as an experiment, we asked the advice of the provincial minister of agriculture as to what B fair he thought should get the grant. This year it will be in the hands of the agricultural society or fair board itself. If the B fairs conform to the conditions we set out, and any B fair board may do so, they will be in line for the additional grant of $500.

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions


John Vallance: Is this competition confined to any particular organizations such as those adjacent to any large centre of population, say a town of 1,800 or 2,000, that has a class B fair now? Has the fair board the right to say what organizations may compete within the district designated by the board? As the minister well knows, we have many organizations throughout the west, in every district.


Robert Weir: We will take the
hon. member's constituency as an example. If the agricultural society of Kerrobert had paid out sufficient money over a period of years, and this year they could pay out in prizes on live stock and other farm exhibits the sum of money required in the standard, they would be entitled to a regional fair. Then they would meet and decide what places might wish to compete. It might be decided n this way: 'Coleville might be given an opportunity to compete; Denzil might compete; Salvador, or some of the other districts surrounding Kerrobert might compete, and the number of points made by everyone competing for the one particular district would be totalled. If Unity competed, in the same way their points would be totalled and the jommunity with the most points would get first prize.


John Vallance: So it would not be
confined to any particular organization? There are various organizations throughout these districts mentioned by the minister. They would be allowed to gather their exhibits and send them in to the local fair?


Robert Weir: It might not be a
village at all; it might be a municipality such as Ruby Lake.


William Gilbert Weir: I am quite in
sympathy with the regional fair idea which the minister is promoting, and I may say that the Dufferin agricultural society has carried on something along these lines for some time, although they have not gone into it as extensively as the minister now suggests. I recall that in the past organizations such as the local branches of the United Farmers of Manitoba have been given the opportunity of soliciting exhibits, that is, encouraging people to show. As these people do so, the credit goes to the particular organization which went after the exhibit. I remember that on one occasion the Rebecca lodge was successful in winning the highest number of points for promoting these exhibits, and I was wondering if they would be eligible under this arrangement.


Robert Weir: That would rest
almost entirely with the agricultural society; there is a good deal of freedom left in that connection. They would decide as to the basis upon which the competition should be held.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Has there been any
change in the policy with regard to class A fairs?	.


Robert Weir: The province of
Quebec has given a good deal of attention to the reorganization of its system of exhibitions, taking as a basis the regional fair idea. Although their policy is decidedly different from those of the other provinces we have felt that it would be in tihe best interests of the whole work if we cooperated in every way with the provincial government, and that is what we are doing.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What will be the grant
for class A fairs in the province of Quebec during the coming year?
Mr. WElIR (Melfort):	It will be $2,500
to class A fairs only.


Charles Benjamin Howard: How will that work out
in the province of Quebec?


Robert Weir: The grant to the
newly classified fairs is $1,500.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What will the A fair in
Quebec city get?


Robert Weir: $2,500 to the Quebec provincial exhibition, and in addition there will be a grant of $1,500 to the Quebec regional, provided it qualifies.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is the regional fair held
in the city of Quebec just prior to the A fair?


Robert Weir: That is the policy of the Quebec government, and they wished us to cooperate with them in that respect. We thought it was only the proper thing to do.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What will you do in connection with Sherbrooke?


Robert Weir: Sherbrooke gets
two grants, $2,500 and $3,000. -


Charles Benjamin Howard: $2,500 to each one?


Robert Weir: To the A fair, and $3,000 to the winter fair.

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is $500 in excess of last year, when it was reduced from $5,000. Can the minister give the details of the total reduction of $45,000?


Robert Weir: I gave that when
the item first came up. There was an item of $81,000 for grants to junior clubs, but at the suggestion of the auditor general, these grants have been put into the live stock vote.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would not like to
dispute the minister's word, but that cannot be correct. Five thousand dollars is being saved in Sherbrooke alone.


Robert Weir: This vote is made up as follows:
Grants to A fairs, $51,500.
Grants to B fairs, $74,000.
Last year this item was $49,000.
Grants to winter fairs, $107,000.
Grant to City of Toronto, Royal Winter Fair, $103,713.
Exhibits, $25,000.
Special grants to organization, $23,786.
Allowance for freights to Royal Winter Fair,


Mr. MYERS:: In case Sherbrooke and
Saskatchewan get all this vote, I should like to know if there is any possibility of the grant to the Prince Edward Island fox fair being restored this year.


Robert Weir: We understand that that society is in strong shape financially, but this matter is under consideration.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Where is the regional
fair in Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: It could be any B fair that qualified.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What about the policy of making grants to A and B fairs in Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: $2,500 for A fairs, $3,000 for winter fairs, $1,500 for B fairs, with a possibility of an additional $500 if they comply with the conditions.


John Vallance: Is there a closed list in connection with B fairs?


Robert Weir: This is the first time there has not been a closed list. We endeavoured to work out a policy which would enable any place to qualify as a B fair.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Any fair which could meet the standard set for B fairs would receive a grant?


Robert Weir: Yes, subject to the department's approval.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Upon what basis and when are these grants to B fairs paid? If a district held a fair in 1933 it would expect to have the grant paid immediately afterwards.


Robert Weir: A portion of the money would be paid immediately, but the regional grant would not be paid until a reasonable time later.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do I understand the minister to mean that any B fair could qualify as a regional fair?


James J. Donnelly: Has the minister given notice to the B fairs of the standard they would have to meet to qualify as a regional fair?


Robert Weir: Yes, that is right.


John Vallance: Let me get this thing right. Do I understand that any fair in any province of the dominion coming up to a certain standard can apply to the department for a $1,500 grant?


Robert Weir: I think the hon. member is a little confused. This is only a policy carried out from year to year. This year any exhibition in the dominion that has been previously recognized as a B fair and that conforms to the conditions which we have set out in connection with the grants they will make for live stock and farm products, not what appears in its prize list, but that has been actually paid, can qualify as a regional fair and be entitled to this grant.


Albert Frederick Totzke: There are still a number of class B fairs that are classified as in previous years?


Robert Weir: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Could the minister give the committee an idea how many regional fairs he will expect in Saskatchewan under these regulations?
Mr. W'EIIR (Melfort): We cannot <tell yet, but there cannot possibly be over seven, according to the conditions set out.


John Vallance: Coming as I do from a western province, and having every sympathy with the minister in dealing with the fair situation throughout the dominion, I am

Questions
opposed to any minister of agriculture, I do not care of what political shade, setting up a standard for fairs. There has always been trouble throughout western Canada because of this very thing. Standards have been set up and rural districts are asked to attempt to attain a position which was not in the best interests of the district.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 20, 1933