1934-05-18

BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, according to the morning paper Great Britain is heading a number of nations in a proposal to put an embargo on the shipment of armaments to the disputants Bolivia and Paraguay. I understand that in this matter Great Britain seeks cooperation of the United States. I believe that we are not shipping any armaments, but that our people are very much interested in a movement of this kind. I have wondered whether the government could see its way clear to make a statement of endorsation or congratulation of Great Britain upon the stand she seems to be taking at this time.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was good enough to indicate to me that he purposed mentioning this matter on the orders of the day. While my personal view was that we might discuss the matter on the item I had left open in the estimates under the Department of External Affairs, namely the item concerning the League of Nations, I have prepared a short statement which I shall be very glad to make to the house at the moment, and further discussions may take place when that estimate is under consideration.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: We passed that estimate when my right hon. friend was not in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the house desired to discuss the matter, and I left the item for that reason. If necessary I shall provide facilities for further discussion. The Associated Press dispatch which appeared in this morning's press indicates that Great Britain has taken steps to place an embargo on the shipment of arms to South American countries. I suppose the house recalls the position of members of the League of Nations with respect to matters of this kind. Article 23 of the covenant provides that the members of the League agree to entrust the league with the general supervision of the trade in arms and ammunition with the countries in which the control of this traffic is necessary in the common interest, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon. That, is the provision in the covenant of the League of Nations. It will be within the
memory of hon. members that last year we took action with respect to the International convention.
Canada signed the "International convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms and ammunition and in implements of war" at Geneva on June 17th, 1925, and, following approval by parliament, ratified the convention on May 8th, 1933, subject to the reservation that ratification shall not take effect until ratifications of the convention shall have been effective, in accordance with Article 41 of the convention, in respect of Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States of America.
The object of the convention is to establish a general system of supervision and publicity for the international trade in arms and implements of war and to set up a special system for areas where special measures are gradually recognized to be necessary.
Some action has been taken. But as I shall presently indicate, for reasons that perhaps are well known no very effective action has been taken with respect to this matter among the nations of the world, primarily, I assume, because the convention is not yet in force, and will not become effective until four months after fourteen ratifications have been deposited by the signatory governments with the government of the French republic. So far the convention has been signed on behalf of thirty-seven countries and thirteen ratifications, including the Canadian ratification, have been received, but the majority of these are contingent upon ratification by the producing powers. Of the latter, the following have not yet ratified the convention-Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States of America. His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom and in Australia have made their ratifications contingent upon ratification by all producing countries. Our ratification was not dependent upon that qualification.
In February, 1933, His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom suggested to the league that action should be taken under the terms of article XI of the covenant to recommend that the various governments impose an embargo on the export of arms and ammunition to Bolivia and Paraguay. On that occasion the Canadian government notified its willingness to cooperate with other nations in concerting prohibition of export of armaments to Bolivia and Paraguay. A draft regulation to be signed by the governments in favour of this step was considered by the council and accepted by all the states members of the council, including the United Kingdom. A number of states made their acceptance
Freight Rates on Lumber

subject to acceptance of the declaration by a specified number of other states including the United States. The government of the latter country, however, were unable to impose an embargo until necessary legislation was passed by congress.
Yesterday, according to the press dispatches to which I referred, Anthony Eden, Lord Privy Seal of Great Britain, again brought the issue of an embargo on arms and ammunition to Bolivia and Paraguay before the council of the League of Nations, which is now in session at Geneva, expressing the hope that the council would adopt a resolution to consult the arms exporting countries as soon as possible. Press reports indicate that support for the United Kingdom government's proposal was promised by delegates from France, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Czechoslovakia and Australia, which is this year a member of the council as Canada was some years ago. The matter was postponed to a later session of the council "to be convoked as soon as possible." Press reports further indicate that a communication will probably be made to the following countries in addition to the great powers:	Canada, Australia,
Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Holland, Persia, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Yugoslavia. No official communication has yet been received by the Canadian government.
I certainly think, as the hon. member has said, that His Majesty's government in Great Britain is to be warmly congratulated and heartily commended for the action that has been taken. I assume that it is hardly necessary for me to add that in the event of the opportunity presenting itself Canada will participate favourably in any such action as may be taken in that regard.



FREIGHT RATES ON LUMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) yesterday asked a question respecting an order which he said had been issued by the board of railway commissioners in regard to lumber coming from the Pacific coast eastward. I find that there has been no such order. I shall read the communication that I have received and then lay it on the table:
Referring to your telephone message this p.m. asking for two copies of the ruling of the board in connection with the British Columbia lumber rates, I have made inquiries and I find that there is no recent ruling of the board in

the matter. There is, however, on file an application from the Montreal Wholesale Lumber Dealers Association, Montreal, by telegram dated the 16th instant, and from a number of other lumber associations, for suspension of the proposed reduction in transcontinental lumber rates, British Columbia to eastern Canada, to permit eastern lumber manufacturers to be heard, who claim they need similar reductions to remain in business and compete with coast lumber manufacturers: and I am enclosing, for your information, tw7o copies of letter from the board to the Montreal Wholesale Lumber Dealers Association and the other parties enumerated, which will explain the situation.
Yours very truly,
A. D. Cartwright,
Secretary,
Board of Railway Commissioners.
I am laying copies of the whole correspondence on the table for the information of my hon. friend and others who have asked me in regard to it.


Mr. POWER:: This is probably another
of those press rumours to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday.



GLANDERS IN SOUTHERN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: May I
inquire from the Minister of Agriculture if his department is in a position to give the house any information with regard to a serious outbreak of the disease known as glanders among horses in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the St. Johns district. Would the minister state how many animals have been destroyed, and if the situation is well in hand?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The hon. member for Cartier informed me that he was going to ask this question, and because of the uncertainty in the minds of many farmers I think it well to make a fairly detailed statement. There has been an outbreak of glanders in Quebec. The first traces of it appeared on November 1, 1933, in three horses imported by Guy C. Tillotson, Coaticook. Two gave suspicious reaction. They had been transported three hundred miles by truck to Coaticook.
On November 18, 1933, these horses were retested; two reacted and were slaughtered without compensation in accordance with the regulation.
On November 25, 1933, five horses from the same stable as the imported horses reacted and were slaughtered. On November 29 three horses also reacted on this owner's farm, so that the outbreak did not originate from the imported horses. Subsequently it has been found that this outbreak is almost certainly

Soldier Settlement Legislation
a carry-over from an outbreak dealt with three years ago in the Knowlton district, Quebec.
The disease is in a mild form. Very few clinical cases have been found and these so indefinite that suspicion was not aroused; hence glanders was not reported.
Reports of suspected glanders are received from time to time in different parts of Canada and in such cases all the owners' horses are tested with mallein. All imported horses are either accompanied by certificate or tested with mallein before entering Canada.
Immediate steps were taken to trace and test all contacts and as reactors were found this increased the work in tracing contacts from additional diseased horses.
One horse recently shipped from Alberta reacted in Quebec. When traced back its mate reacted. This case was traced back to an outbreak near Beiseker, Alberta, where opposition to giving information had been encountered which made difficult the tracing of all contacts.
This horse had not been in Quebec long and has no relation to the origin of the Quebec outbreak. All contacts in Alberta are being dealt with now.
The details as to compensation are as follows:
Compensation awarded in Ottawa records: 306 horses slaughtered, $23,316.
Compensation passed for payment, $16,980.61.
The latest information from Quebec, dated May 12, 1934, is as follows:
5,511 horses tested.
319 horses reacted.
224 infected premises.
$24,070.33 compensation awarded.
Since the outbreak developed, horses passing through the Montreal yards have been tested, the total number of horses tested being 1,783. The number of officers was gradually increased as the situation warranted. Experienced men were employed and, because of their experience, three were brought from the western provinces. The disease has been confirmed by post mortem examination and in laboratory small animals. The improvement shown during the last week to May 12 is indicated by the following figures: 476 horses tested; 3 reactors. That shows that the situation is well under control.



VICTORIA DAY ADJOURNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition):	May I ask the
Prime Minister if he has reached a decision as to whether or not the house is to sit on the twenty-fourth of May?
Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I had not the opportunity to discuss it with one or two who desired to speak about it, but this evening before the house rises I shall bring the matter to the attention of the house. I have no definite idea myself about the matter one way or the other. I would just as soon sit as rise, but it has been suggested that we should not sit.



ALGERNON LIGHTHOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. FERNAND FAFARD (L'lslet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire
of the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duran-leau) whether he intends to rebuild the Algernon lighthouse which was located at the Traverse St. Roch and which was carried away by the ice last spring. If so, will the work be done by day labour or contract?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, an
inspection of the Algernon lighthouse was made some time ago and we though it proper to erect a temporary light on the ruins of the lighthouse in question. A definite decision has not yet been arrived at in connection with the rebuilding of it.
KINGSTON PENITENTIARY FIRE On the orders of the day:


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Mont-morency):: May I ask the Prime Minister
in the absence of the Minister of Justice if he is in a position to give any information to the house with reference to the fire that took place and also the outbreak at Kingston penitentiary?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not care to say more in the
absence of the Minister of Justice than that there was an outbreak of fire which did substantial damage. No prisoners escaped.. The fire has been completely extinguished, and the buildings that have been destroyed will be rebuilt.
SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LEGISLATION On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	On February 23 last I directed
a question to the Acting Minister of Immigration and Minister of Labour as follows:
Has the government under consideration and does it contemplate bringing before parliament at this session any measure further to alleviate the serious conditions affecting soldier settlers throughout the dominion, especially those of the four western provinces?
Marketing Act

Part of the answer given by the minister was as follows:
At the present time I have not under consideration any further remedial legislation.
That is, with respect to soldier settlers throughout Canada.
On April 17 last the Prime Minister made a statement to the effect that an amendment would be brought down to the Soldier Settlement Act, but in his statement to the house on May 14 no mention was made of this pending legislation. May I ask the minister if he is contemplating bringing down any amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act this session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps I should answer that. The Minister of Immigration was not in the house when I made the statement.
It is proposed to deal with certain questions that have arisen in connection with the taxation of land1. That does not affect the soldier settlers, qua settlers, at all. It is that phase of it that the minister is dealing with. I was dealing with it as affecting taxation by municipalities and the making of lands available as other lands are for tax sale when the taxes have not been paid. It has to do with that phase of it and not with the question of the settler himself.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith-Mr. Weir (Mel-fort)-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 3, subsection (9)-'Payments authorized.
Mr. POULIOT:: I should like to ask the minister if he can give me an answer to the three questions I have placed on Hansard in connection with the decrease in the home consumption of certain farm products?


Robert Weir: No, the information is not completed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret that so much time is being taken to answer these questions. I first brought up this matter on March 26, when the house was in committee on the resolution. At that time I asked this question. which appears on page 1812 of Hansard:

As the government has not answered my question I suppose I am to understand that it does not intend to do any thing to improve home marketing conditions.
In fairness to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) I must say that he rose to answer my question but an hon. member on this side started to speak. I give him credit that he was willing to make some answer. I again put the figures on Hansard on May 8, nearly a month and a half afterwards.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: The committee is discussing section 3, subsection (9), and I cannot see that this has anything to do with that subsection.


Jean-François Pouliot: Subsection 9 reads:
The governor in council may from time to time authorize payment to the board, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of such sums of money as may be necessary for the purposes of this act.
The purpose^ of the act is stated in the title, which reads:
An act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
This is a bill to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and I am complaining about the decrease in home consumption and, therefore, in sales of natural products. I submit that what I am saying is perfectly relevant and in accord with subsection (9) of section 3. Under that subsection the governor in council may from time to time authorize payment to the board, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of such sums of money as may be necessary for the purposes of this act with regard to the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada. I submit that what I am now saying is quite relevant.
On May 8 I quoted some figures showing the decrease in the home consumption of apples, honey, eggs, dressed beef, concentrated milk, cheese, potatoes, peas, oats, barley, wheat and wheat flour. I gave figures showing the spread in prices in 1933 as compared with 1930, after which there was the following dialogue between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and myself:
Mr. Pouliot: Just a moment; I am just concluding my remarks. I am sure the minister will answer.
Mr. Weir (Melfort) : My understanding was that with these statistics on record in Hansard an answer would be submitted to the hon. member for Temiscouata.
Mr. Pouliot: I thank you.

Marketing Act
That appears on page 2893 of Hansard of May 8. On the following day I asked a question of the minister which appears on page 2931 of Hansard and reads:
Mr. Pouliot: Is the minister ready to answer my question of yesterday?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): The principle under consideration in the wording of clause 9 is to confine the application of power to the creation of interprovincial and export trade.
The minister was answering another question. However, I do not blame him for that as there was a great rush of questions at that time. I thought I was very reasonable when I waited several more days. On page 3094 of Hansard of May 16, the following appears:
Mr. Pouliot: I should like to ask the minister if he can give me some explanation with regard to the decrease in the consumption of apples, honey, eggs, fresh beef, concentrated milk, cheese, potatoes, wheat, oats, barley and wheat flour, as compared with the previous year. I take the liberty of asking this question because on May 8 the minister said that an answer would be given me in this connection.
Mr. Weir (Melfort) : The officials of the department have been working since May 8 to gather the information requested by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I have inquired as to the matter on a number of occasions, the last time this morning, but the work is not yet completed. We hope to have the information in the very near future. There has been a very great deal of work in this connection.
Mr. Pouliot: Would the minister be kind enough to tell me if it will be completed before the bill is reported by the committee?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): I believe it will be completed this week.
That was the day before yesterday. In the Hansard of yesterday, at page 3121, the following appears:
Mr. Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if he now has available the information that I have been seeking from him for some time? Yesterday he was kind enough to give me a ray of hope when he said that he hoped to have the information in the very near future. What I want is information with regard to the decrease in the home consumption of several farm products which have been mentioned several times in Hansard. I hope the minister will be kind enough to tell me, first, if w-e still have a local market for these commodities; secondly, the reason for the decrease in the home consumption of such products; and thirdly, the remedy, if any, which has been applied by the government to prevent that decrease which has been taking place since 1930.
Mr. Weir (Melfort): I regret that the information asked for has not yet been completed. I am sure the hon. member will realize when the answer is brought down that there was perhaps more -work entailed in getting the information than he had in mind when he asked for it, but I hope it will be in shape to be brought down at the beginning of next week, if not to-morrow.
Mr. Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, and if I can be of any assistance to the officers of his department in cooperating with them I shall be very glad to do so.
I would suggest to the staff of the Minister of Agriculture that they should cooperate with the staff of the bureau of statistics. They would get the same information which I have received and which is official. The information in regard to home consumption was given to me by the bureau of statistics, and for the two items I found the price in the Year Book, while for the other items I have divided the value of exports by the quantity in order to arrive at an average price. The quantity of decrease has been multiplied by that average price for 1930 and 1933 respectively. It is very simple to work it out. If the members of the minister's staff are not strong enough on mathematics they might consult the treasury board or the mathematicians in the architects branch of the Department of Public Works, who- I am sure would make the calculation for them. It is a matter of applying the simple rules of arithmetic, and it ought to be easy for them to ascertain whether the figures are correct or not. I assure the committee that it is a matter of utmost importance, because what has been discussed until now is only the external trade. The only figures in regard to internal trade are those that are to be found on March 26 and May 8, and in respect of May 8 I have been more than generous, because I have subtracted the amount of exports of butter and pork meat from the amount of decrease in home consumption of same. If the exports of butter and pork products were added to the decrease in home consumption, we should have a real idea of the decrease or the price spread as between 1933 and 1930 in connection with those two products.
I am not going to dwell very long on this matter, but this is my contention. I maintain that it is because of the loss in external trade that we have a loss in internal trade, and the loss in external trade is something fearful. Our external trade is only one-third of what it was in 1930. It may be said that it is just as true for imports as for exports. The point is that it has created a great deal of unemployment, and here we come again to the high tariff walls which have been erected around this country, which have been an obstacle to external trade, and which explain the decrease in our home trade.
Mark you, sir, the decrease in exports from Canada from 1930 until the present time amounts to over a billion and a half dollars.
Marketing Act

How much unemployment has that meant throughout Canada? The reason there is a decrease in consumption in Canada, although the hon. gentleman presiding over the Department of Agriculture may not be willing to admit it, is that the people have no purchasing power; they have not enough money to buy apples, honey, grain, vegetables, cheese and other farm products. And it is because of the loss of purchasing power among the people that the farmers are suffering, notwithstanding that the population is larger than it was in 1930. If the population were smaller, and if the prices of farm products were higher, I would not insist on this point; I would say that the people were not buying luxuries. But these twelve articles which are mentioned there are primary farm products. The sales should be at least as much as they were in 1930. There is no excuse for the decrease, because many of these products cost less now than they did before.
From my point of view therefore it is of the utmost importance, in order that I may understand the working of the bill, to have answers to the following three questions. Have we still got our local trade in these commodities? The Prime Minister stated last year, and he repeated it time and time again, that we still have our local trade, our local market. But if the home consumption of these farm products has decreased to such an extent, can it be said that we still have our local market, as the Prime Minister stated categorically and emphatically a year ago? That is the first question.
The second question is this: What have been the causes of that decrease in home consumption? There must be a reason for it. Was I wrong in stating that the decrease in external trade, due to the high tariff policy of the government, has been responsible for a decrease in internal trade, which depends to some extent upon the purchasing power of people working in the manufacturing industries, who must have the money necessary to buy these farm products.
In the third place, if the reason is not as I suggest, what is it, and what remedies have been taken by this government to prevent that decrease in home consumption? I ask this question because up to now the discussion has been about external trade only, and I should like this government to give us an explanation so that we may see whether as a matter of fact such a relationship exists between external and internal trade.
Trade matters are very difficult. It is like clockwork. You can remove one wheel from a clock and it might rvork just the same, but it would be either faster or slower and would
IMr. Pouliot.]
not keep time. But if you remove all the wheels from the clock how can it work? I do not want to say anything unpleasant to the minister, but I tell him here and now that I have been most patient, for these figures have been on Hansard for over a month and a half. I am entitled to an answer after all the care I have taken preparing the figures. It could be done much more expeditiously by the officers of the minister's department, and I say that if they have not these figures at hand they deserve only one thing, and that is to be put out at once. They should prepare the right information for the minister, and there is no excuse for their not doing so. They must inform the minister accurately and if they fail to do so then they are not fit for the job and should be put on direct relief. But I believe that they can do that work provided the minister will tell them seriously, "I want that information at once. It is my duty as a minister of the crown to supply every member of this house with that information, and I am telling you to bring it to me at once, because your job is at stake." If the minister would take that attitude he would find at once that the answer was, "Ready, aye, ready; we are ready."
I hope that as I have been so lenient and patient, having waited a month and a half for that information-I have not insisted before ; I have merely reminded the minister that I wanted the information for my electors -he will now take proper steps to have it prepared and submitted before six o'clock to-day.


Robert Weir: Although a great
deal of this is out of order, I assure the hon. gentleman that there has been no intentional delay. Every effort has been made to prepare for him the most accurate statement possible. I had thought it would be ready for to-day, but as soon as it is it will be submitted at once.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman and take his word for that.


Robert Weir: Before the subsection carries I shall ask to have an amendment moved. I propose that subsection 9 of section 3 as amended be further amended by the insertion, after the word "necessary" in line 3, the words "to assist in the organization of local boards."


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I move the
amendment.


Samuel Gobeil: The subsection as amended would read:

Marketing Act
The governor in council may from time to time authorize payment to the board out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament such sums of money as may be necessary to assist in the organization of local boards, to defray the operating expenses of the board incurred by it directly and any expenditure incurred or authorized by the board under the authority of section 9 hereof.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister please explain how the money may be made available to assist in the organization of local boards?


Robert Weir: This was a matter brought up in the discussion just before the committee rose last night. A scheme would be submitted, but it was pointed out that especially under present conditions, until the local board was appointed, there would be no means of raising money to carry out the poll, for instance, if that were necessary in the formation of the board. Following the principle in force in the United Kingdom, assistance would be given, if required, in the organization of the local boards.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The minister is amending subclause 9 of clause 3 and I understand his amendment deals with clause 9. Personally I intend to move that clause 9 be struck out.


George Halsey Perley: We are amending subclause 9 of clause 3.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
authority of clause 9 is cited in the amendment.


Charles A. Stewart: The last few words of the amendment refer to clause 9, and without anticipating what the committee is going to do, I intend to oppose clause 9 in toto and to move for its removal because I do not think it is necessary in the bill. If the minister's amendment refers to clause 9, I would ask that his amendment be allowed to stand until it is typewritten so that it may be attached to the subclause because as it was read by the chairman, it was scarcely understandable. My main objection is its reference to clause 9 which has not yet been reached by the committee.


Robert Weir: I would suggest that the chairman read the subclause as amended and I think the hon. member will have no difficulty in following it if he has the subclause before him.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with you in being presented with amendments written in longhand, two of them to the same subclause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Three.


Charles A. Stewart: I understood there were just two. This makes it a difficult task for the chairman.


Samuel Gobeil: I can follow it.


Robert Weir: This was not in longhand.


Charles A. Stewart: My suggestion is that for clarity the subclause stand until the new subclause as amended is written out.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I am getting somewhat razzle-dazzled too, but I understand this amendment perfectly and I know what it means; I approve of it heartily. So far as any anticipated change in clause 9 is concerned, whatever is done when we shall have reached that clause, we can revert to this subclause of clause 3 and make it conform to the change in clause 9. We must take the bill clause by clause if we are to make progress. The only justification for departing from that procedure is when a knotty problem arises like the one mentioned by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) that is not capable of being understood. It is not a bad idea to let the subclause stand; I was going to ask that myself with respect to section 5 or section 6 or both; but this section is becoming so involved one would need a Philadelphia lawyer to puzzle it out. All the clauses that are left over to-night should be consolidated with the amendments so that we may understand them. That would be an office consolidation and it would be quite in order so as to assist us. I would ask the chairman and the minister not to forget that the amendment now moved to give organization assistance to producers is just what the growers want, and what was done in many of the provinces; that is, any new selling organization that was set up by governmental legislation was given a grant or loan to set it on its feet. This was done in the case of the Cooperative Live Stock Association; it was given a grant for three or four years to give it a start. Any measure that is sponsored by the government presupposes that they want to get the organization started and the only way to do that is to give it some initial assistance. I shall not object to the subclause standing so long as the minister does not forget it in the final redrafting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to ask the minister if he would consider between now and the time we reach the last provisions of the bill the insertion at the end
317G
Marketing Act

of a clause which will require a report to be made to parliament within fifteen days after its assembling, of what has been done under the provisions of the measure? Such a clause usually appears in bills of this kind, but it does not seem to be in this one. We are introducing a number of new features; this is in large part experimental legislation and I think it ought to follow other acts in the particular I have mentioned.


Robert Weir: I see no objection to that.


George Halsey Perley: That suggestion will be carefully considered.
Subsection 9 stands.
On section 4, subsection 1-Powers of board.


Robert Weir: The committee have before them the amendments printed but not moved.


Charles Gavan Power: It would facilitate matters if the minister, out of all these funds he is going to get, would get a law clerk to assist the chairman of the committee, so that the minister and the unfortunate chairman may know what we are discussing. Here we are wasting half our time. We have amendment after amendment, some of them written, some of them barely thought of, and most of them a mess. The chairman has made a desperate attempt to shed light on the subject. I suggest we get a law officer, particularly to help the minister.


Robert Weir: After this praiseworthy outburst, let me say that in conformity with the wishes of hon. members the amendments that were proposed to be moved have been printed and have been before the committee for some time. In this particular case only one word is struck out and one word added to meet a particular problem in one province. Therefore I maintain that the difficulty of following this is very slight.


Charles Gavan Power: The matter to which I referred was the amendment to subsection 9 of section 3.


Robert Weir: We agreed to let that stand.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister objects to the criticism I made, and I am going to reply. To that section there was an amendment made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) last evening. When it was read by the chairman no mention was made

of the amendment. Then there was another lengthy amendment made verbally by the minister himself. The result was that the chairman was unable to follow what the minister wanted.


Robert Weir: I submitted the amendment I moved in typewritten form.


Charles Gavan Power: There were three amendments to the one subsection.


Mr. DUPRE:: I move:
That paragraph (a) of section 4 be amended as follows:
In line 4 add a comma after the word "quality;" strike out the word "or" and insert the words "or class" after the word "grade."
The section will then read as follows:
(a) to regulate the time and place at which, and the agency through which the regulated product shall be marketed, to determine the manner of distribution, the quantity and quality, grade or class of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality.
The only change is one granting the board power to direct that the product shall be sold through a certain agency. There was some question whether the former wording permitted of such direction, and, in order to avoid any uncertainty, it was suggested that the language be more explicit.


Mr. REID:: That is not the amendment we have before us. The amendment just read has added words to the printed amendment. There are three words which are not in this amendment.


Robert Weir: That is right, that is what I explained when the amendment was read, so that hon. members could follow it. The only change is the addition of the word "class" at the request of producers in British Columbia, dealing with the marketing of their apples on the basis of size as well as the regular grades.


Charles A. Stewart: It is apparent that this board is going to supplement the work now done by graders.


Robert Weir: No, not at all.


Charles A. Stewart: Then what is the sense of putting this into the bill? The government now have an army of these men.


Robert Weir: The graders who are now grading will grade in the same way as they do now. This will enable producers to organize. There will be no extra grading

Marketing Act
necessary, the same grading that has been done will be done in the same way by a similar staff.


Charles A. Stewart: This bill
certainly puts into the hands of the board the control of all this grading.


Robert Weir: No, not the control of the grading.


Charles A. Stewart: Why not?


Robert Weir: Because the same fruit graders will grade. There will be no grading done under the board. They will ship on the basis of grade.


Charles A. Stewart: Then why not say so? The bill as you have it printed now will give the board power to control all grades.


Robert Weir: Not control of
grading.


Charles A. Stewart: You have here an army of graders grading for every conceivable thing. Grades are fixed to-day. They are marketed through the agency of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Now you are going to set up a board outside of the control of the Department of Trade and Commerce, unless the minister of that department happens to be the minister in charge.


Robert Weir: The grading of
fruit and vegetables and whatever comes under this bill is now done under the Department of Agriculture, as far as agricultural products are concerned, and will continue to be done in the same way.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite familiar with what is being done. I am not raising any complaint, except that there is a tremendous duplication going on.


Robert Weir: No duplication in this.


Charles A. Stewart: There can be. The minister will find that.


Robert Weir: There will be no duplication in grading.


Charles A. Stewart: I say there can be, as the bill is drafted.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Do I understand the
minister to say that besides the local board there will be a selling board or selling agency? Will that be distinct from the local board?


Robert Weir: No, there will be no selling agency set up except under section 9.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The local board is the only board referred to?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is there anything in the hill with regard to a democratic organization of that local board? That is for the producers to come together in what we might term free assembly-free organization, free discussion, and as a result set up the local board. Are they allowed to do that under the bill?


Robert Weir: That is the purpose of the bill.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will they have a vote to do that? I understand that the vote is optional.


Robert Weir: Optional, yes, with the producers themselves, the people concerned.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do I understand that if the producers wish a vote they will have it?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: As the bill reads I think it is optional with the minister to allow the producers to have a vote. I think that is wrong. I believe that as far as western Canada is concerned the local producers will want a vote, and they will want any board they set up organized in a democratic way so that it will be as satisfactory as possible to those about them and to themselves, and therefore a factor in production as well as in financing the district.


Robert Weir: Might I raise the point that we would make better headway if we finished each clause by itself. Later there comes a subsection dealing with how a vote shall be taken and whether it is optional or not.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: All right. That will be satisfactory.


Samuel Gobeil: Perhaps
I should read the substituted subsection, as amended.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Reamended.


Samuel Gobeil: Section 4 subsection (a) if accepted as amended would read thus:
To regulate the time and place at which, and the agency through which the regulated product shall be marketed, to determine the manner of distribution, quantity and quality,
3 ITS
Marketing Act

grade or class of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How does the minister purpose having the board enforce the provision to prohibit the marketing of any product? How will they go about prohibiting marketing?


Robert Weir: The people who submit the scheme would have to state the way in which it will be done. Under the bill relating to fruit which has been given second reading a similar provision has been assented to by the house, which prevents the marketing of products of a certain grade.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There parliament has made provision but in this bill parliament is not making any provision, and for that reason a parallel cannot be drawn between the two pieces of legislation. I am asking the minister how the board will prohibit; how will it go about the task of prohibition. Will it put a man in gaol, or what will it do, and by what authority will it act?


Robert Weir: By enforcing the
regulations which will be set up, the same as under any other legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How will the
board enforce the regulations?


Robert Weir: The same as they
would any other regulation, namely by penalties, cancelling of licences or otherwise.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Is that power given to
the dominion board under this section as amended?


Robert Weir: We have set out
all the powers which we think would be necessary to meet the different proposals which might be submitted from one part of the country, or another, dealing with the different branches of agriculture. They are set out under the dominion board with the proviso added that any of these powers which may be required may be delegated to the local board. It was felt impossible to say that each local board should have each or all of the powers set out here. That is why the plan was adopted of stating the powers of the dominion board, and the further provision that powers could be delegated where necessary to work out the scheme.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the dominion board have power to carry out what is contained in this subsection, irrespective of the local or provincial boards?
[The Chairman.]


Robert Weir: It will be carried
out through the local boards. But this has reference only to a regulated product, that is a scheme submitted by the producers themselves defining what the regulated product will be. In regulating the marketing of that product they ask in their scheme that such powers shall be given them as will permit them to put their desires into effect, and only in so far as the powers as set out in this bill allow will it be possible for the dominion board to delegate those powers to the local board.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister has said
that we have no right to legislate or to give powers to a local or provincial board, so the powers we are giving under this subsection must be given to the dominion board. Under this subsection you are giving power to the dominion board to prohibit the marketing of any commodity.


Robert Weir: The dominion board through the local board.
* Mr. BEAUBIEN: Through the local board.


Robert Weir: Yes, because a scheme would have to be set up before the regulated product would come into being.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Under this legislation will not the dominion board have power to exercise its powers without any local board having anything to do with it?


Robert Weir: In the case of emergency, if a scheme were set up as under section 9.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Only if a scheme is set
up?


Robert Weir: Yes. I think I understand the hon. member's difficulty. For instance, if a scheme is set up in Ontario to deal with the marketing of grapes, the producers submit that scheme, it is approved, and the local board is set up.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I interrupt the minister. Do you mean the provincial scheme or the scheme which concerns only the province?


Robert Weir: If it has to do only with marketing within the province, yes, but I was taking the wider view which would cover all cases, provincial, inter-provincial or export. A local board is set up which asks for certain powers which would permit them to give effect to their wishes. The dominion board will then name them as its agent, giving them these

Marketing Act
powers. In that way the dominion board could exert its powers. It could not impose powers in duplication over the local board.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: How can the federal board transfer its powers to the local board?


Robert Weir: It names the local board as its agent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister is suggesting that a board given certain powers under this bill is to have power to give its power to a local board, which as yet is nonexistent, to fine and imprison the citizens of the country. It may give these powers to a local board about the personnel or character of which at the present time neither parliament nor the minister has any knowledge, and will not until long after the bill is passed. If I understand the minister correctly, that is what he is saying. I do not read the section to mean that, but if the meaning is as we have been told, it is fortunate that we have found that out. As I read the section it relates to the powers of the board, and the board only. It states that the board shall, subject to the provisions of the act, have powers to do certain things. But the minister has said that among the things the board shall have power to do is the power to delegate to some other body still to be brought into existence the power in certain eventualities to fine and imprison the citizens of Canada, one of which may be simply because they offer for sale certain of the commodities they have produced. Surely the minister would not expect the committee to accept such a clause as that.


Robert Weir: In the event of a violation of the regulation, the court only could enforce what the right hon. gentleman has in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does the court figure in this? This is a provision to the effect that the board shall have power to do certain things; it does not say that the courts shall have power. It states that the board shall have power to prohibit marketing. The minister has said that the way in which it will prohibit marketing is by fining and imprisoning those who contravene its orders. He goes on to say that this power of fining and imprisoning is to be given to local boards to be exercised against their fellow citizens. That seems to me a most extraordinary provision.


Mr. BURY:: Are we not getting away from subsection (a) of section 4?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the one we are considering.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: We are getting away from it. Subsection (a) of section 4 deals exclusively with regulating the powers of the board, that is the dominion board, and says nothing at all about local boards.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You
have not read the amendment; wake up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
has said it deals with the local boards.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There were some
amendments on May 11.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Subsection (a) of section 4
reads:
To regulate the time and place at which, and the agency through which the regulated product shall be marketed; to determine the manner of distribution, the quantity and quality or grade or class of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality.
If the hon. gentleman would waken up, himself, and read the subsection he would find there is nothing in it dealing with local boards.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
does "agency" mean?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am speaking about subsection (a) of section 4.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That subsection has
been amended.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am reading the amended
subsection, as the hon. member would learn if he would waken up. I am reading the amendment. Now, being awake, 'if he will read the subsection he will find that it deals with the dominion board, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has suggested. There is nothing in the subsection that refers to the powers of the local board whatsoever.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then may I ask why did the minister himself mention it?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am merely calling attention to the fact that a great deal of the trouble which the committee is causing itself is caused by members of the committee wandering beyond the limits of the particular section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the minister who has wandered beyond it, and my hon. friend's criticism ought to be directed against him.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No, because the minister was answering a question that had been asked by the hon. member for Provencher and which did not come under this section at all.

Marketing Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
does the word "agency" mean in the amendment? The minister gave a different reply from that given by my hon. friend from East Edmonton, and I think the minister knows more about it too.


Charles Gavan Power: I back the hon. member for East Edmonton.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If hon. members will read section 4 (1) (a) they will see that it is plain that it refers to the dominion board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the minister a question? In his judgment what is the meaning of the word "agency" in the amendment?


Robert Weir: Any organization or any branch of the trade that the local board may designate.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre may think he is very clever, but if he will just apply his ordinary intelligence to the language of the section he will sec that what it provides is this: that the board, that is the dominion board, has power to regulate the time and place of marketing and has power also to regulate the agency through which the regulated product shall be marketed. That says nothing about the powers of the agency. This section deals entirely with the powers of the dominion board, and the powers of the dominion board are clearly defined as the power of regulating and the power of fixing or appointing an agency through which the regulated products shall be marketed, and so on. But the powers of the local board are not defined except in so far as they are a mere agent of the dominion board.


Mr. BROWN:: I think there is need for more explanation of this clause. I agree with my hon. friend from East Edmonton that this does not necessarily refer to the local board. Indeed, up to this point of the bill we are not supposed to know that there is such a thing as a local board. This section deals entirely with the powers of the dominion board and among those powers is the power to regulate the time and place and the agency through which a regulated product shall be marketed. We have a right to know just how wide that term "agency" is. It may mean a local board as set up under this act. It may mean one of any exporting agencies. It may mean that the dominion board has power to delegate to this or that exporting firm the marketing of a certain product. If the powers of the board

are as wide as that, it seems to me that we are giving the board very, very wide powers indeed. Does it mean that the dominion board may determine that a product shall be marketed through a local board, through a marketing firm that is in the regular trade, or through any firm whatever? It seems wide enough to include all of these constructions, and if it is that wide we are giving to the dominion board powers that I think should never be given by this parliament.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
for Lisgar is correct in saying that so far the local board has not been mentioned in this bill. This refers to the dominion board. But later when we come to the local board it will be seen that these powers can be delegated to the local board as an agency. It was simply to clear up the question that had been asked me, Mr. Chairman, that I went out of my way to give the explanation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There can be no doubt according to the minister's interpretation that this board has the right to prohibit the marketing of certain products, and that is definitely set forth in the section. If a producer is engaged in offering for sale certain products this board has authority under this bill as it now stands to tell him that he must stop producing those particular commodities. He must not even offer them for sale if that happens to be contrary to some provision which the local board may set up. Is not that correct?


Robert Weir: The board has no
power under this section to tell a man that he cannot produce.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If a man is
prohibited from selling or offering for sale, which is the definition of the word "marketing," it certainly means that in the long run he cannot produce, because no man is going to produce beyond what may be sufficient for his own needs any commodity he cannot sell. Just to show the extreme to which this bill goes, I have pointed out that there are clauses in the bill which would bring a man to ruin in no time unless he happened to fall in line with what may come to be a regulation that some unknown board may hereafter make-not with what is the law of the land as determined by this parliament. The minister and some hon. gentlemen opposite have made a little fun of me because I quoted Magna Charta. I am going to quote again one clause from Magna Charta which this house had better keep in mind in all legislation, and particularly in considering this particular bill:

Marketing Act
No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way brought to ruin: we will not go against any man, nor send against him save by legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. ... To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay right or justice.
Under this section you are giving to a board power to bring to ruin an innocent producer without his having had any judgment by his peers, and you are doing this under a power other than the law of the land, under some regulation that may be made by a group of local producers. You are denying him justice, and you are taking away from him the right as a matter of justice to do what he pleases with what he himself produces. You are doing all this without sanction in the name of the law of the land. I take no exception to parliament making any regulation it deems necessary in the interests of the community at large and for the protection of producers in the marketing of their products. By that I mean a regulation that may be enforced at law and is a part of the law of the land. But I do say that this parliament has no right to countenance any legislation which will delay and deny right and justice to any citizen of this country or seize, imprison, dispossess or bring to ruin any man except by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land.


Robert Weir: The regulations set up under this act are subject to the approval of the governor in council exactly the same as in any other act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The governor
in council is not parliament, and these regulations, as the minister says, are purely local regulations. They are not regulations that govern from coast to coast. They are not the law of the land. Nothing can be the law of the land that applies, for example, only in the city of Belleville and not in the city of Guelph, or in the city of Guelph and not in the city of Belleville. That is not part of the law of the land at all. It is making a farce of law altogether.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to follow for
a moment the remarks made by the leader of the opposition. I am referring to the last fourteen words of the clause, "prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality."
When the leader of the opposition objected to that the minister rather cleverly gave an illustration referring to the fruit and honey act that we passed. But that is hardly a parallel case. Under the fruit and honey act power is taken to prohibit the marketing of a product of an inferior grade.
74726-201 i


Robert Weir: Without wanting
to lead the discussion into the next subsection, I think it will be found that that matter will be taken care of there.


Alan Webster Neill: I am following the remarks
made by the minister under this section in connection with prohibition. The fruit and honey act forbids the marketing of inferior grades but this section forbids the marketing of any grade, it is a total prohibition. Sometimes a homely illustration is even 'better than a reference to constitutional procedure. I have in mind a couple of men who go out and rent a field of ten acres from a farmer. They put in potatoes and spend the whole season cultivating their crop. In the fall when they want to sell they have to take the market price because they have no facilities for storing. They take their money, pay their rent and the remainder is their compensation for their labour. These men might be prohibited from selling their potatoes or the sale might be postponed for six months. Potatoes are not like wheat which can be carried over. Potatoes grown in certain soils must be sold1 quite early in the season. I ask the minister what those men are to do when they find themselves forbidden to sell the produce they have grown. This illustrates the great difference between this bill and the British act which was supposed to give us a precedent for our legislation. The British act is fundamentally based upon the encouragement of production. Mr. Elliot's ideal is to get them to produce more. If a man produces more-than the market will stand, Mr. Elliot does: not tell him that he cannot sell, he tells the-man in Canada or the man in Denmark that he cannot ship so much. From the very nature of things, this matter is important because we are an exporting country. I should like to know from the minister what is to happen in the case of a man who has produced a perishable article and is told that he cannot sell it?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I think we could solve a lot of our difficulties if we read the whole of the section. The next paragraph of section 4-


Charles A. Stewart: Are
you reading the amendments?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am reading
the votes and proceedings. It is suggested that paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 4 be struck out and the following substituted therefor. Under this amendment it is provided that the board shall have power:
Marketing Act

To compensate any person for loss sustained by withholding from the market or forwarding to a specified market any regulated product pursuant to an order of the board; provided that no compensation shall be paid in respect of a regulated product that may be withheld from a particular market because the grade of such product is deemed by the board to be unsuitable for such market,-
There is nothing new in that.
-or because of restrictions imposed by the government or other competent authority of any other country-
I suppose that is to meet quotas-
-upon the importation of any regulated product into that country.


Alan Webster Neill: That is just too bad for my friends.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think there is ample provision to meet any hardship . caused by any order of the board.


Alan Webster Neill: If the order is in consequence of a quota, they are sunk.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What are you
going to do?


Alan Webster Neill: That is what I am asking
the minister; it is his legislation, not mine.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The quota is not made by this board, it is made by a foreign country. This board cannot deal with a quota imposed by a foreign country and they should not be asked to compensate for any action of a foreign country. The section provides that they shall compensate for any loss due entirely to their own action but they shall not compensate for loss as a result of a quota or something else imposed by a foreign country.


Alan Webster Neill: Any restriction of that kind will almost necessarily be the result of a quota.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not necessarily.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly.


Mr. VENIOT:: I should like to ask the minister to give an explanation of a case I intend to quote. I should like him to tell me how he would work out the time and place at which the regulated product shall be marketed and determine the manner of distribution and so on. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Gagnon) referred to the sardine industry in that county and pointed out that a large quantity of sardines were fished in Canadian waters and 
sold to American canneries. Supposing a group in the industry obtains a prohibition of the sale of Canadian-caught sardines to the American market and forced their being held for canning in Canada, what will happen? Would the board have the power to fix the price which would be paid to the fishermen by the Canadian canners once this prohibition of sale or export is in effect?


Robert Weir: The point that
seems to be overlooked is the fact that the producers themselves are given the authority for the regulating of the marketing of their own product. They do not buy or sell, they regulate the marketing of their own product. Surely no person would be as much concerned about injury to a producer as the producer himself.


Mr. YENIOT:: The hon. member for Charlotte pointed out the conditions which existed in his constituency, and he is quite correct. Let me point out to the minister how this thing might work out. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) stated that one province had already appointed a provincial board. He did not name that province but I shall give it now-it is the province of New Brunswick. A board has been appointed there and I claim it has been sitting without authority. How is that board constituted? The natural producer is represented by a commission merchant. I am not going to say that he is not a farmer and does not know what he is doing, but the fact is that he is a commission merchant. The chairman is the deputy minister of agriculture of the province and the third member is a sardine canner. The original producers are not represented at all. I have every faith in the honesty of the members of this board, but I do oppose the principle of appointing as a member of a provincial board an exporter and purchaser of the natural products. How is such a person going to distinguish between his own interests and those of the natural producer from whom he purchases the natural products to be canned for export? This shows how this thing can be abused. I do not say this will happen with this department, but it may happen with the departments of certain governments. I believe these three men are absolutely honest but I am opposed to the principle of appointing men who are themselves interested in the export of an article while the original producer is not represented at all. Now that act passed by New Brunswick is being put into operation before the federal act is passed giving them authority to act, and they are acting in both

Marketing Act
respects, export and interprovincial trade. I am merely pointing this out to show the minister what abuses can creep in under this act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When these local boards are framing their regulations, assuming that there is one producer who produces a hundred times as much as any other in the same area-


Robert Weir: Before discussing that point, I suggest that we wait until we come to the formation of local boards; it would facilitate the passing of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to what the minister says, the central board will act on the representation of the local boards, and this fact makes very vital what I am about to say. Assuming that you have a group of producers in a locality asking for certain regulations and submitting a scheme to the minister, and in that locality one producer produces a hundred times as much as the others, would the majority so called be counted in relation to the quantity of the produce that is produced, or would it be according to the number of producers?


Robert Weir: It would be a combination of both. For example, it would state that there should be 75 per cent of the producers and 75 per cent of production.


Alan Webster Neill: Where is that provided for?


Robert Weir: Under the heading of scheme submitted by producers. That is one matter that would have to be decided.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it provided under the scheme to be presented that 75 per cent must be producers?


Robert Weir: As I said before, if we fixed any percentage of votes or of production it might be taken by the provincial authorities that we were going out of our way to tell them what they should do. Because it was felt that it might lead to objections, and because we wished leave it as flexible as possible, that was left out. A body of producers coming forward to submit their scheme might ask for a poll, or not, depending on the scheme. If they ask for a poll it is provided that they can be given one. My own opinion was that any reasonable body of men would make certain, when such drastic steps were to be taken, that there would be a percentage of producers and also of production.


Alan Webster Neill: I understood the minister to say that 75 per cent was provided for; now it appears that it is only possible. If they choose
to ask for 75 per cent they may or may not get it, but they do not have to. There is the difference between this and the British act, which looks after the interests of the minority.


Robert Weir: Their problem is very different from ours. They have one government instead of ten, and it was to get over that difficulty that we dropped any set percentage, trusting that any provincial government would have as good judgment as the federal.


Alan Webster Neill: I understand that. But I suggested, when I was speaking a day or two ago, that that might have been got around by the dominion government putting forward some sort of skeleton scheme to which every province would have to subscribe in the main lines if they wished the cooperation of the dominion. Without interfering with provincial jurisdiction, the minister could simply say that if the province wanted dominion cooperation they must agree to such and so. The federal government did that in connection with old age pensions. They did not enforce any obligation on the province but simply said, "If you do so and so, here is our skeleton scheme and we will do so and so"; and every province, without a great deal of trouble, saw their way to agree to the scheme. The provision made under the British act might be put into this scheme. Under the British system it has to be two-thirds of the people voting at the poll; there must not be less than 50 per cent of a vote of all producers; and there must be at least two-thirds in quantity produced. I would ask the minister whether he could not qualify the words "and the agency through which." The idea is to allow probably the milk and fruit people of British Columbia, let us say, to deal through their associations.


Robert Weir: That was not the intent.


Alan Webster Neill: Through some cooperative agency. The language is much too broad. If you say through any agency, it leaves it open to some tinpot commission agent to get the whole agency for some product in his province, and it is these things that arouse suspicions in the minds of people. The dominion board may prescribe "any" agency through which the product must be marketed. Think what that might involve. It might involve the decision that it should be done through the local board; but the board has
Marketing Act

power to delegate it to someone else. It might involve its being done through a cooperative association or a farmers' institute, or it might involve a man with political pull who has a petty agency, and it would amount then to giving him a rakeoff. I do not object to the spirit of the words but I think the minister should qualify them so that the section would not be so broad and liable to abuse.


Robert Weir: I think we have for the past three months followed pretty much the line the hon. gentleman has suggested. We started out by trying to make the bill specific enough to include all conditions, but we were forced, because of representations made and the great difference in the conditions we had to meet, to do just as he has said, namely, to set up a skeleton bill which would make it possible for cooperation between provinces and the dominion, so that one could provide for domestic marketing and the other interprovincial or export trade.
I agree with the hon. member that if we had one government instead of ten that could be very easily overcome; but I think we have a perfect safeguard in the fact that the local board has to be set up by the producers themselves, and I suggest that no one would have their interests more at heart than the producers themselves. The purpose of putting in the agency was not at all to make it easy for all the products to go through a certain cooperative agency; I do not think the great body of producers themselves would advocate that. Perhaps the picture that illustrates it best is this. One farmer may be quite a large producer with a large volume of product to market. If he has a considerable volume to market he can make a better bargain with different channels of trade, because if they get a greater volume it will be less costly for them to market the product when they know the quality.
We are really making it possible, if the growers wish to organize so that they may have a greater volume, that they can have the advantage in the different channels of trade.


Alan Webster Neill: Would not the words "time and place" cover that?


Robert Weir: I thought it would, and that is why it was worded as it was in the first place,-where and when the board would decide. It was pointed out to me however that "where" might be interpreted to mean for example the Vancouver market rather
(Mr. Neill.]
than the Victoria market. It was just to clear up that point that the word "agency" was inserted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister is making it pretty clear that the bill as presented is the result of representations largely from special groups, groups that come from particular localities.


Robert Weir: So that nothing that is not quite accurate may be put on record, what I intended to say was this: We made use of all known information after a careful study of the different acts in force. We felt that it would be to the advantage of the primary producers to have a marketing bill under which we could set up a marketing board. A great deal of information was then before us as to the problems with which we had to deal and in the preparation of this bill we have been in touch with private individuals, the trade and cooperative organizations, in order to add to the information that was already ours. That was the way in which the representations were made. This bill, it has been stated, I believe, by hon. members on both sides, is the result of demands made upon me as Minister of Agriculture in Regina when the cooperatives met there last summer.
I am quite certain, however that the cooperatives themselves would be the last to make such a suggestion because I stated there I felt we should have competition in trade but on the fundamental principles we disagreed. After the frank discussions we had, a committee met with me in the Royal York hotel at the time of the Royal Winter fair and there again I emphasized that point very clearly, but the preparation of this bill was proceeding much earlier than the meeting that was held at Regina. We were working on a definite plan to assist in the marketing of the products of all primary producers; we gathered all the information possible from cooperative organizations and others and of course we always welcomed any suggestions whether they came from cooperatives or not. But this bill was not prepared simply to meet the wishes of cooperative or special organizations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
illustrations that have been given in the course of the discussion make clear what I am saying. Usually a reference has been made to some organization in the west; I think I am right when I say that the minister and others in speaking have usually referred either to British Columbia or to Regina or some other part of the west. There has been very little reference to eastern Canada. What would be the result were this

Marketing Act
measure to be in force to-morrow? The applications under it would come to the minister presumably largely from interested groups in western Canada.


Robert Weir: I would say not.
As a matter of fact I have more requests from eastern Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
might be permitted to continue what I had in mind to say, because the impression I am getting very strongly as a result of communications that are coming in to me is that while western producers feel that they may be able to assist themselves by presenting a number of schemes which will be approved by the minister, those schemes all have the effect of limiting production; that unquestionably is one of their effects.


Robert Weir: That is one point
on which my hon. friend and I evidently seem still to disagree. I do not see how this bill would in any way limit production. It is simply to regulate the marketing of the product.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is only a
step from restricting or prohibiting the sale of commodities to limiting production. That is the inevitable effect and it is simply playing upon words to say that regulation will not restrict production because any regulation that will restrict the sale or offering for sale or prohibit the offering for sale of commodities will certainly very shortly affect and limit production. Let us assume that some organizations in the west have their plans approved, and that they are satisfied with them but that producers in other parts of Canada have not made similar applications for similar schemes, have not similar schemes, and are free to continue to sell their commodities as they please. What will the effect of that be? I am being told by one person after another that they believe the effect of this measure will be to sacrifice the production of the west to the profits of the east; that is the impression which is becoming more and more general as to the result of this legislation. In its actual working out it will mean that the production of the west will be sacrificed to the profits of the east.
I put it in that clear way so that this possibility may come clearly before the committee.
I say that the possibility is there with regard to commodities regulated in any part of Canada and not equally regulated in other parts, that the production of regulated commodities may be sacrificed to commodities that are not regulated in other localities. That only brings out the wisdom of any
regulations, if they are to be effective, being made by parliament, not by local groups, so that the regulations will cover Canada from one end of the country to the other. If they do not they are bound to have the effect that the production of those having to do with regulated products will be sacrificed to the profits of those who produce commodities that are not regulated.


Robert Weir: The right hon.
gentleman is surely not serious in his statement. If we consider the picture that he has in mind, it means that the western producers themselves will so act that they will restrict the production and the marketing of their goods to help the east. That is what the right hon. gentleman said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I give a concrete illustration? Supposing you have a group of producers in one part of British Columbia: in order to work out a scheme that will bring everyone into an organization-


Robert Weir: In British Columbia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -in one locality in British Columbia, in whatever portion of the province it may be, and assume that they get the minister to approve their scheme and he approves it, but in Nova Scotia there is no similar scheme and the producers there go on producing and selling just as they have been doing in the past. Does the minister mean to say that under those circumstances the producers in the east will not have an advantage over those in the west?


Mr.   IVEIR@Melfort: Would the producers in British Columbia not be credited with having sufficient intelligence to look after their own interests in any scheme they might submit?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think what will happen under this legislation is that only a local point of view will be taken of anything done under it. The national view may fail to present itself at all.


William Richard Motherwell: We are suffering
under heavy difficulties in trying to get this agricultural bill through. First, it is before the worst committee on top of earth one could find-the committee of the whole House of Commons; that is difficulty number one. The bill should have been either discharged from the order paper and rewritten or else consolidated after the amendments had been introduced and before tabling. I do not think anybody can put this bill through as it stands or explain it properly. If I did not know a little about it I would be rather up the flue as regards understanding it with
Marketing Act

all these amendments and subamendments as it stands now. We have one crop of printed amendments brought down by the minister, another typed crop submitted to the chair, and there you are. As one intensely interested in this bill I hope we shall not in the melee lose any of the good things the minister has already given us in the amendments. We shall not mind if there are some more. He made a very good one to-day and it is standing; I hope he will not get huffed too much and let it get lost. His difficulties are imposed upon him by his colleagues; that is the situation.


George Halsey Perley: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Who is guffawing
' now? My hon. friend knows that what I say is true.


George Halsey Perley: I do not think the hon. gentleman is really serious.


William Richard Motherwell: Serious! The very
first criticism I had of this bill was that the government had grabbed off too much; too many fingers in the pie, too many cooks spoiling the broth. The minister has told us he has been all over Canada getting advice. That is all right, but in trying to please everyone he pleases no one. You know the old story about the fellow that lost his ass in the bargain. I say that the ministry is putting the Minister of Agriculture in a position that I have been in several times myself. I have sweat blood a number of times, but I never was properly caught except once. I venture the guess that the Minister of Agriculture, as long as he occupies the position he now does, will never be caught again with this kind of agricultural bill going direct to the committee of the whole house. That is my opinion; see whether it is not justified.
Now, might I suggest that if the minister has any estimates or anything like that to put through, he in the meantime have this bill consolidated 'by the Justice department; then let us start in Monday morning with a bill that we can understand. I say that as one wanting to get along, to make this as good a bill as possible, and expressing appreciation of everything the ministry has already done by way of amendment. But no one seems to be able to get a grasp of it, even the good things seem to be in danger of going in the midst of this medley. Another difficulty was embodying so many natural products in an agricultural bill as forecast in the throne speech-fish, flagpoles, saw logs, etc. At the beginning it was proposed to in-

elude minerals also. Why do they not include hydro power also? Whisky is in, and beer.
Is it any wonder that the whole house is contracting legislative gastritis? We are simply biting off more than we can properly masticate. The fault is not with the minister, he is simply put up against the impossible. For goodness' sake get this bill before a smaller committee and get it consolidated so that we may know what it means and can get along. We are going to get a good bill out of it, no matter how long it takes and how impossible it looks.


Robert Weir: I cannot agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not expect
my hon. friend to admit it.


Robert Weir: The amendments
have been printed and have now been before the committee for a week. The discussion has been going on for a week-


An hon. MEMBER:: Three weeks!


Robert Weir: -on these amendments. Although no person perhaps has said so definitely, I think it is well known on both sides of the house and in the country that there is a very definite effort being made by hon. members opposite either to block the passage of the bill-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not fair.


Robert Weir: -or deliberately to misrepresent it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Weir: I shall take one instance. The right hon. leader of the opposition should certainly understand English much better than the average person. Why would he give the misrepresentation that was given in his first statement, of including boots and shoes? I do not think anyone would think for an instant that if he had seriously read the bill he would have given that interpretation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said it because I thought boots and shoes were made of leather and that leather had to do with cattle and that cattle are to be classed as one of the. natural products of agriculture. I was speaking of derivative products.


William Richard Motherwell: A natural assumption.


Robert Weir: I repeat that to meet the wishes of the committee and facilitate the passage of the bill-the greater part

Marketing Act
of the objections having come from people outside the agriculture committee-the amendments have been printed, they have been before hon. members for a week, and I see no gain in doing other than proceed with the bill no matter how long it takes.


William Richard Motherwell: All right, I am agreeable.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I do not think the minister should get away with the statement that he has just made, that there was a concerted effort on the part of the opposition to block this bill.


Robert Weir: On a point of order.
I did not state that there was a concerted effort on the part of the opposition to block this bill-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That was my impression.


Robert Weir: I stated that in my opinion there was either a concerted effort to block the bill or to misrepresent the bill.


John Vallance: First let me tell the minister there has been no concerted effort to block the bill, and as far as misinterpreting the bill is concerned, not even the ministry have been able to interpret what they mean by the bill. Does this government think for one moment that simply because they bring down a bill and because there are 138 hon. members sitting behind the Prime Minister, we of necessity must swallow the bill and may not offer just criticisms of it? Any criticisms I have offered I think have been quite just, and time has not permitted me yet to say all I want to say against it. The very fact that to a bill of some twenty-one sections we have eighteen amendments shows the situation. And we are not through with it yet, we are still dealing with subsection (a) of section 4. I resent the attitude of the minister in saying that anyone is attempting to block this bill. Those of us who have been taking part in the discussion realize what this bill means, and we are trying to get the best possible bill to take care of an emergency, and I believe there is an emergency at any rate so far as agricultural products are concerned. As one representing an agricultural constituency I resent the minister's statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to draw your attention, sir, and the attention of the committee to what took place just before the minister spoke. When you asked, shall the clause carry? I said, No, we will vote, and we were prepared to vote then, but the minister seeing he had not the number in the
house that he wished, prepared to send his whips out and has been blocking the measure since.


Robert Weir: No, we are ready to vote now in this section.


Mr. HANBURY:: You have got your instructions.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Just a minute before you put that question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is blocking now? Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: This is no blockade. Do I understand that the body spoken of as the agency is one and the same thing as the local board?


Robert Weir: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then the local board will have power to set up a selling agency outside of itself?


Robert Weir: I would say no.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will the minister then explain just what the situation is?


Robert Weir: The local board may direct the regulated products through any channel of trade they see fit. As I explained in some detail a few minutes ago, if they did not have this power they would not have control of the marketing of the product in the same way that a farmer would have when he could choose his own agent.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then instead of setting up a selling board they can make use of any cooperative agency for selling purposes?


Robert Weir: If the majority of producers feel that, that is in their best interest.
Subsection agreed to on division.


William Richard Motherwell: Will somebody
some time before we get through with the bill decode this subsection?
On subsection (b), section 4-Exemptions.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment. I am glad the Prime Minister is here, I think he will appreciate the point. I do not think the minister quite understood me the other night when I spoke about it. I refer to the words "to exempt from any determination or order any person or class of persons'' et cetera. I want to strike out the words "determination or order" and put in the word "scheme" so that it will read "to exempt from any scheme any person or
Marketing Act

class of persons" and so on. I said yesterday, and I shall repeat it, that the difference between this and the British system is enormous. The British system exempts from the scheme the small, petty producers whose enumerations, and everything else, would be a perfect curse to the department, and of no earthly use at all. They leave him out of the picture altogether, but having once passed the scheme everybody is subject to any order, as they properly should be. We do the reverse. We put under the act everybody who owns a cow, three or four chickens or a pig, and he is subject to all the regulations and forms. It would take an army to enumerate them. Then, we realize the absurdity of the thing, and under this section we take the power to exempt these people, or anyone, from any determination or order; but it means giving them each an exemption under each and every order. I object to that procedure. This is the British system as indicated in paragraph (b) subsection 1, section 6 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of Great Britain:
Every scheme shall provide for the following matters, that is to say:-
(b) for exempting from all or any of the provisions of the scheme producers and sales of such classes or descriptions . . .
And so on. I believe there have been only two or three schemes formulated, one of which is a dairy scheme. They exempt anyone having less than four cows. Then, under the poultry scheme they exempt anyone selling less than twenty-five eggs at a time. Exempt those people, and you save an infinity of trouble; you save a lot of. people a lot of trouble, and you play the game fairly. But when I find that under this section it is possible that any producer or marketer may get exemption from any specific order, then I say the way is open to all kinds of suggestions of impropriety and favoritism, something which the minister I am sure does not want. A basic principle is not at stake, at all. This merely calls for a little common sense in carrying out the provision, and the prevention of any imputation of unfairness.
I move:
That the words "determination or order" be stricken out and that the word "scheme" be substituted therefor.
So that the paragraph would read: "to exempt from any scheme any person," and so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the paragraph now
stands the word "determination" is used because it is the complementary word to the word "determine" in paragraph (a) of section 4. It will be observed that the board is to fMr. Neill.]
regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product, and to determine the manner of distribution, and so on. Paragraph (b) is to exempt from any determination or order. The words "determination" and "order" are complementary to the word "determine." I have followed the argument of the hon. member, but I make this statement merely to indicate why these words are used. His further argument is another matter altogether.


Robert Weir: Although we are
not bound by the British legislation, I may say that the words used there are:
For exempting from all or any of the provisions of the scheme producers and sales of such classes or description as may be specified' in the scheme or determined by the board.
It is the same as in this bill.


Alan Webster Neill: No, it is not the same. In
one case they exempt from the scheme altogether.


Robert Weir: Yes, as determined by the board.


Alan Webster Neill: The class or description is to be determined by the board. The British act gives power to the board to exempt the small man. We want to exempt him, but we exempt him in the wrong way. Instead of exempting him at the fountain head, so that he will not come into the scheme at all, and then having orders made later by the board apply to all in the scheme, you are doing it the wrong way. You are bringing these little producers who produce only a few eggs a week under the power of the board, with all the forms and formalities connected with it. Then you recognize the absurdity of it and propose to exempt him under each separate order. It does not make sense, and will be a tremendous source of inconvenience and confusion. If my suggestion is not adopted, at least I will have the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so."


Samuel Gobeil: Does the hon. member wish a vote to be taken on his amendment?


Alan Webster Neill: Put it to a vote.
Amendment negatived on division.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
On paragraph (c)-compensation for loss.


Maurice Dupré: To	ou* Paragraph (c) of subsection
(1) of this section and substitute the following therefor:

Marketing Act
(c) To compensate any person for loss sustained by withholding from the market or forwarding to a specified market any regulated product pursuant to an order of the board; provided that no compensation shall be paid in respect of a regulated product that may be withheld from a particular market because the grade of such product is deemed by the board to be unsuitable for such market, or because of restrictions imposed by the government or other competent authority of any other country upon the importation of any regulated product into that country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume this compensation which is to be paid by the board will be paid out of the taxes of the people. Does the board have this power apart altogether from any ministerial responsibility in the matter?
Mr. WEIR (Melfort); No, they take it out of funds raised from the producers themselves, the local board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From the producers themselves?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Is that which the Solicitor General read the same as the printed amendment?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand the minister, any compensating to be done by this board is to be done not out of the consolidated revenue fund but out of proceeds which the producers themselves must provide.


Robert Weir: The subsection we were discussing last night covered that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not an answer.


Robert Weir: I refer to the amendment to section 9.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I misinterpreting the minister? I wish to have it clear.


Robert Weir: I would suggest that the right hon. gentleman read the clause. So far as I understand his question I believe he is right, that if the order were made by the local board the compensation would come from taxation made on the producers who set up the local board, and not from the consolidated revenue fund.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Supposing it was by the dominion board, and not a local board?


Robert Weir: Under section 9 as amended, where the dominion board acts directly it would be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund.


John Vallance: I should like to ask a question. We will suppose the existing wheat agreement is kept in existence after the creation of this board and that Canada's export to the world market is 200,000,000 bushels. Suppose we produce 400,000,000 bushels and have an excess of 200,000,000 bushels, which this board will be permitted to market, because of the quota; do I understand now that the farmer who is compelled to hold the wheat on the order of the board will be compensated and only compensated from the tolls extracted from the 200,000,000 bushels which have been exported? Or, is there any compensation coming to him?


Robert Weir: If the hon. member would read the amendment he would find that provision is made for the condition he has mentioned. In a case of a quota like that there would be no compensation paid.


John Vallance: The amendment contains the words:
To compensate any person for loss sustained by withholding from the market or forwarding to a specified market any regulated product pursuant to an order of the board; provided that no compensation shall be paid in respect of a regulated product that may be withheld from a particular market because the grade of such product is deemed by the board to be unsuitable . . .
And so on. Suppose I am holding No. 3 wheat, and the board decides it must not be sold. Is there any way of my getting compensation for being compelled by the board to withhold it from the market?


Robert Weir: I take it that the
hon. member is referring to the local board. If the producers themselves in the scheme that they submit wish to have that provision, feeling that it is in the interests of all, then I would say that there would be no compensation.


John Vallance: You are going to have
local boards; you are going to have provincial boards; you are going to have a national board. I take it that under this bill the national board will have control of all the products exported. It must have, as I see it. Then it must be by the order of the national board that I am compelled to withhold a certain volume of my products from the market. The local board does not have disposition of the surplus, and I do not see how it could give compensation. The minister knows conditions in western Canada just as well as I do, and I would ask him this question: Where there are no facilities for withholding the wheat, is the board going to permit me to be compensated at all events
Marketing Act

to the extent of providing the wherewithal for facilities to store the wheat which I am compelled to withhold from the market?


Robert Weir: It might go that
far or it might not. As far as the local board is concerned, that is the board for a province, if the producers themselves decide that it is to their advantage that a certain product of a particular grade should not be marketed in a particular market or not marketed at all through the ordinary channels, they might decide for or against paying compensation out of their own funds. As far as the quota is concerned, that is imposed by outside countries, that question would have to be dealt with on its merits when it arose.


John Vallance: There is one question
on which I should like a definite answer from the minister. I will put it as simply as I can because I want the farmers to know just where they are going to stand when this bill is through. If I am going to be compelled by an order of the board-I do not care whether it is the local board or the national board-to hold back certain products I have to offer for sale, the compensation that I am going to get, if any, must come from the producer. I want the minister to say whether the farmer himself who is in the scheme will have to take care of this charge by paying tolls.


Robert Weir: If done under the
local board, which would mean the producers themselves, yes; if done under the dominion board-


John Vallance: That leads to another
question. Has the local board the right to export surpluses without taking into account the central board here in Ottawa?


Robert Weir: Except in the case of a quota I would say yes.


Albert Joseph Brown: It is a well known fact that many of the communications that have come to Ottawa asking that wheat be included in this scheme have come from those who have been carrying on an active propaganda in the west for wheat to be included. I think it should be understood by those who have been speaking for the pools and by the country generally just what are the implications of this bill. It is quite clear that those who have been carrying on this propaganda are not sufficiently acquainted with the provisions of the bill and all that it implies. Under the pooling system there was, of course, an understanding that when the crop was sold the proceeds would be divided equally, having regard to grade, varying freight rates, and so

forth. That was satisfactory to the men who were in the pool. But it should be made very clear to them that this is an entirely different scheme, and that it does not provide for dividing up equally the proceeds of the crop. This provides that a certain proportion of the crop shall be sold at a certain time, and that at some future time if the other part of the crop is sold, if those who have withheld their crop from the market think that they should be compensated in some way, that compensation, according to the statement made by the minister, may come in the one case from the local board, in which case a charge will be levied upon the producers themselves, or in the other case from the dominion board, presumably out of the consolidated revenue fund. I just wonder how far either the local board or the dominion board is prepared to go in the way of compensation. Are they prepared, as was asked by my hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), to bear the storage charges, for instance, of farmers who are compelled by an order of the board to withhold their grain from the market? A very common method of taking our wheat to the elevator is by truck, by hired truck, it may be, and have it delivered immediately to the local elevator. Under the regulations issued by the local board a farmer may not be able to deliver his wheat to the local elevator. Are we prepared to assume the cost of storage involved and all the extra costs of handling and so forth, to which the farmer will be put in case he is not allowed to put his wheat on the market at a given time? These are all questions that arise. I do not think that those who have been asking for the inclusion of wheat in this bill have considered all the possibilities that may arise in connection with this question of withholding products from the market and compensating those who thereby suffer loss. There are complications in this bill which I am sure that those who have asked for the inclusion of grain have not thought of for a moment. I am quite certain that if all these things were understood a good many of those who have been sending telegrams to members and scaring some of them almost to death would be ready to reverse their position.


Robert Weir: This bill does provide for pooling.


John Vallance: In view of what has
been said by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), I think those of us who are familiar with the wheat pool contract will agree that that to which he objects was in the contract. Time and place was in the

Marketing Act
contract but it was never enforced. There was no compensation under the old wheat pool contract, and while I may not have very much respect for this pool as it is now, I should like to keep the record straight. I think the minister and those who are interested in pooling will agree with me when I say that there is a disposition on the part of many to believe that the proper place to store the surplus wheat of Canada is on the farm. Some of these people have argued with me that such wheat is not visible, but I do not think that is the case. When you ask anyone, speculating on the crop of wheat as to what is now in storage they will tell you how much is moving, how much is at the head of the lakes, how much is in local elevators and how much is being held in the hands of the farmers. I have sent a great many copies of this bill out and asked for approval or condemnation of the measure. I have received some condemnation, but after I have pointed out some of the reasons why I have maintained the attitude I have towards the bill, their feeling is a little different. I think the stand I have taken has been well justified by the fact that there are now eighteen amendments to the bill.


Albert Joseph Brown: The hon. member for
South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) seems to think that I have a misunderstanding of this matter of pooling. We must distinguish the pooling proposed to be done and that done under the voluntary system when members of the pool waited until the grain was all sold. They got an initial payment, then a second and third payment and perhaps a final payment. I understand quite well that such a thing might be carried on under this bill, but it could be done without the bill. I make that statement in answer to the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) who spoke last night. What was done under the pool system was done voluntarily, but under this bill there is a possibility of a man being compelled to hold his grain off the market and keep it on his farm. Is the cost of doing that to be borne by the producers or paid out of consolidated revenue funds? This brings up a question which did not arise under the pooling system; it introduces an entirely new feature into the problem.


William Richard Motherwell: Is a proviso for
compensation included in the British and the other similar acts which have been passed in other countries?


Robert Weir: There is something
of a similar nature.


William Richard Motherwell: There is going to
be a whole lot of trouble for anyone who administers a thing like that. I know I had some hangover claims from the old food board of 1917 which we used to cuss up hill and down dale. Old claims were presented to every government since and I would not be surprised if this government is not still receiving them. Even where the parties concerned had died, their executors presented claims for compensation for money alleged to be lost through prices going up afterwards. Suppose a producer lost money by holding a regulated product off the market at the beginning of the year and then made money later on in the same year, would the gain help to offset the loss, or would he just pocket the gain and then claim compensation for the loss? This is a feature which has not yet been discussed. I understand one of the sections providing for compensation has been dropped, or the two sections have been merged into one.


Robert Weir: Merged into one.


William Richard Motherwell: Make no mistake
about it, the government will be loaded up with claims for compensation. The first thing that will have to be done is to set up an adjustment board, because there will be an avalanche of claims. This may be a very good section to set in motion just prior to an election; I do not know whether or not that was in the mind of the government, but I know enough not to oppose it. The government are just piling up barrels of trouble for themselves. They will never be through with it; the next two or three governments will be having these claims presented. I see the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) realizes, by his smile, there is something to it. Anything he can get out of this in the way of votes he is welcome to, provided his government has to settle these claims after the next election. I do not know how much evidence there is that that will be the case, but it may be the present ministry will have to handle these matters for another session.


Robert Weir: That would be
taken care of if their products were marketed under the pooling system, I would say.
Paragraph (c) as amended agreed to.
On paragraph (d)

Compensation for depreciated currency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would this
compensation come out of the proceeds of the producers, the same as with the section
above?
Marketing Act


Robert Weir: It is the same
principle.
Paragraph (d) agreed to.
On paragraph (e)

Assistance by grant or loan.


Maurice Dupré: I move to strike out paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of this section and substitute the following therefor:
(e) to assist by grant or loan the construction or operation of facilities for preserving, processing, storing, or conditioning the regulated product and' to assist research work relating to the marketing of such product.
The word "processing" has been added.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These grants
or loans are to met by the producers themselves?


Robert Weir: It is the same
principle.
Paragraph (e) as amended agreed to.
On paragraph (f)-Registration or licence.


Albert Joseph Brown: I should like to ask a
question in connection with paragraph (e). Would those loans and grants be made by the local boards?


Robert Weir: It would be the
same principle as in the other section, depending upon whether it was a local board or the dominion board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That provision for the cancellation of a licence by the board means that any man's business would be in the keeping of the board. If the board made up its mind to cancel his licence he would be out of business altogether.


Robert Weir: That is if the
producers themselves decide that such a regulation shall be included in the scheme dealing with their own products. I would say that a man could be reinstated; it is just a matter of imposing the regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But every producer will have to carry around a licence in order to be allowed to produce.


Robert Weir: Not to produce.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well then, to sell or offer for sale the product he has produced.


Robert Weir: I would not say it would be necessary for him to carry around a licence. It would be a matter of finding the volume of product for sale. If he were breaking any of the regulations the licence could be taken away from him.

Mr. MoENTOlSH: Has the minister any information to show whether or not the producers really want to be licensed?


Robert Weir: Some of them are very decidedly in favour of it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: But as regards the
majority of the producers, are they in favour of it or not? Can the minister answer that question from any information he has received from western Canada?


Robert Weir: A vote would have to be taken before one could give a definite answer to that question. Where the industry in different parts of a province has been organized however they are in favour of licensing.


Charles A. Stewart: Do these regulations apply to anyone who is outside the organization, not a member of it?


Robert Weir: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Any individual who does not join the local board does not come under the provisions of the act at all?


Robert Weir: He does if he is not exempt and is not in an area that is exempt.


Charles A. Stewart: But that is the point. Supposing he is in an area bounded by the geographical limits defined in the act.


Robert Weir: In the scheme submitted by the producers an area will be defined, and if, after the scheme has been approved, a poll is asked for in the submission of the scheme, the matter to be voted upon is set out. If a majority voted in favour of it

that is, a sufficient majority- then every person within that region, unless exempt as provided here, would conform in the same way as the rest.


Albert Joseph Brown: Let us take the milk situation in an area around a given city. Does this bill contemplate the possibility of producers within a certain area bringing forward a scheme and excluding from that market those who are not in that area?


Robert Weir: There is no provision for that here.


Albert Joseph Brown: Is there a possibility of it?


Robert Weir: It is not provided for in the act, so they could not do it.

Marketing Act


Mr. TOTZKE:: There is a possibility of making a close corporation of any industry. If a certain number of producers came under a scheme of any kind, by this section, which provides for licensing, the board might prohibit any other farmer in that area from coming within the scheme and producing the particular commodity dealt with.


Robert Weir: Not within the area.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The board might refuse a licence; they might say that there were sufficient producers of that commodity at the present time.


Robert Weir: Every person who is brought under the scheme within a region where a licence must be got, except those exempt from the licence, may receive a licence.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Let us suppose that in a particular area there are a hundred farmers growing a certain commodity. Licences are issued to these hundred farmers, and then the board may decide that there shall not be any more production of that particular commodity, there shall not be any more producers, and by refusing any more licences they will so limit the number of producers.


Robert Weir: I have already answered that. They have no authority with regard to those outside their own organization.


Albert Frederick Totzke: But that has happened in England in connection with hop production; they have refused to allow further production of that commodity. Under this section the board, by refusing a licence to any new producer, may create the same condition in Canada.


Robert Weir: Under the British act they have authority to restrict production, but not under this act. Under this act there is no authority to interfere with people outside of those to whom the scheme applies.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely the minister does not suggest that this act is not intended to restrict production.


Robert Weir: Absolutely.


Charles A. Stewart: But the
whole tenor of the act indicates that purpose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely; if you think it doesn't you are badly fooled. There is no other intent in this act.


Robert Weir: Read where it gives that authority to restrict production.


Charles A. Stewart: It runs all through the act.


Robert Weir: Read one section.


Charles A. Stewart: One would have to read a dozen. This act is for the purpose of regulating production.


Robert Weir: Regulating not production but marketing.


Charles A. Stewart: Regulating the producer.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Will the minister look at paragraph (f) of subsection 1 of section 4:
To require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board, or to obtain a licence from the board . . .
My contention is that the board may by refusing a licence prevent the incorporation in this scheme of new producers.


Robert Weir: It cannot refuse a licence to anyone who is in the area to which the scheme applies. It is stated very definitely that the producer shall be licensed so that the volume he produces will be known, but the bill has nothing to do with restricting production. It has to do with the regulating of the marketing of the product.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I respectfully say to the minister that he is not right when he says that the producers wish to be licensed. I do not believe that the general feeling of producers in western Canada is that they should be licensed. They agree that those engaged in marketing operations should be, but I do not think that they are very anxious to have all production licensed, in wheat, for instance.


Robert Weir: As I say, the only way to decide it is to have a vote.


Alan Webster Neill: I suggest to the minister that the penalty prescribed here is very severe. It is possible for a man, in consequence of a trivial violation of any provision of the act or of any regulation, to lose his means of livelihood. These regulations will be so involved and multitudinous and complex that a man won't be able to go out of doors and kick the cat without breaking one of them.


Robert Weir: Does the hon. member know what the regulations are going to be?


Alan Webster Neill: I dread to think what they will be; I have seen the act. This act re-
Marketing Act

minds me of a magician I saw last week. He reached into the air and pulled out sometimes a duck and sometimes something else, and there is such a cloud of mysticism surrounding this bill that we are apt to get anything but the thing we want. If a man parks his car in the wrong place he is fined $2.50, but his licence is not taken away from him except after a series of violations of the law, and that is of far less importance than the licence of a producer. Could not the minister put in a provision making it possible to revive the licence? Is a man to suffer forever, is he to be prohibited from earning his living, because of a violation of one of the provisions of a regulation under the bill? As regards the minister's suggestion that this bill does not restrict production, may I point out that there is restriction of marketing, and if you cannot sell your product, that automatically interferes with production. However, the point I am urging is that there should be some modification here to provide that at some time or other the man who has lost his licence may get it back. Or, better still, for a petty offence let him be fined an appropriate sum. But don't take his whole means of livelihood away from him. The minister says he may get his licence back, but this does not say so. The minister has a habit of blaming the local board, but this is not the local board; it is the dominion board.


Robert Weir: It is not compulsory that the licence shall be cancelled, but in flagrant cases it may be. It is in the option of the board, and so long as anyone conforms with the regulations there will be no enforcement of the provision. The hon. member is losing sight of the fact that the whole basis of this will be the judgment of some primary producers in the handling of their own products.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this not
true? Suppose in one part of the province the producers presented a scheme and that scheme was approved, would not all under that scheme be obliged to be licensed and permitted to carry on their occupation provided only they had a licence, whereas with respect to the other part of the province in which a similar scheme had not been presented, production could be carried on by anyone in the ordinary way in which they are carrying it on to-day?


Robert Weir: If the producers so decided, and they would no doubt have full information of what the right hon. member
says.
Paragraph (f) agreed to on division.

On paragraph (g)-Full information and periodic returns.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to suggest to
the minister that here again the point comes up of which I spoke before, of these elaborate returns being required of people who may own only a cow or a pig or a hen.


Robert Weir: That is covered in
a subclause that we have already passed; they may be exempted.


Alan Webster Neill: I beg to differ, and I think
I have the backing of the Prime Minister. The minister has not yet grasped the simple fact that there is a difference between exempting people from single individual orders and exempting them from the operation of the whole act. This wretched man in the backwoods with one cow is going to be subject to the bill. The board may issue an order every day or every week. He has to keep himself posted on those orders, keep his ear to the ground and say to himself: Am I exempted under this order? I was on the last one but I may not be on this one. I saw a very good illustration of this in a western paper, I do not remember its name. A farmer had his team hitched up to begin operations; he was telephoning to the minister to find out whether he could put oats in the north forty acres and he was waiting for an answer. That of course is an exaggeration, but it illustrates the point. Why does the minister want to load up his department with getting returns and tabulating them from all these unhappy petty producers?


Robert Weir: This does not add
any work to the Department of Agriculture. This is the local board set up by the producers.


Alan Webster Neill: We are talking about the
dominion board; we have not yet reached the local board. We are discussing clause 4.


Robert Weir: It does not say that they shall be licensed but they may be in accordance with the scheme set up by producers in forming their local board.


Alan Webster Neill: Where does it say that?


Robert Weir: Later on.


Alan Webster Neill: We are not dealing with
"later on"; the minister made that statement before. We are dealing with the powers of the dominion board and it has power to require full information, and so forth.
Paragraph (g) carried on division.
Paragraph (h) carried on division.

Marketing Act
On paragraph (i)-Real property.


Maurice Dupré: I move that paragraph (i)
be struck out and that paragraph (j) replace paragraph (i).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
reason for striking it out?


William Richard Motherwell: When the Solicitor General gets up to read something, is it a new amendment or one before the committee in the votes and proceedings? Is he doing this just for the minister?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought at the
beginning it was another stunt he was pulling
off.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the
reason for that that it more or less repeats clause 3, subclause 6 of the bill?


Robert Weir: The reason was
that it was not felt necessary to include that for the first year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister has that power in subclause 6 of clause 3:
The board shall be a body corporate and shall have power for the purposes of this act to acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property.
It occurred to me that paragraph (i) was a repetition of subclause 6 of clause 3.


Robert Weir: The first reference
is to the dominion board, but in the clause under discussion there are set out the powers that may be delegated to the local board, and the reason for striking out this paragraph is to prevent the dominion board from delegating those powers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Clause 3 refers specifically to the dominion marketing board, and then if you look at the interpretation clause the "board" means the dominion marketing board.


Robert Weir: But later in the
bill it states that only the powers set out in clause 4 may be delegated to the board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So that
this was repeated for the purpose of delegation?


Robert Weir: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (i) struck out.
On paragraph (j)-Cooperation.
Maurice Dupré: I move that paragraph (j)
read paragraph (i) instead of paragraph (j).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (j) carried on division.
On section 4, subsection 2-Collection of charges.
Maurice Dupré: I move to amend subsection 5 of this section to read as follows, and insert it as subsection (2) of this section:
(2) Whenever a scheme for regulation by a local board has been approved, the board may authorize the local board to exercise such of the powers of the board as are outlined in this section and as may be necessary for the proper enforcement of the scheme of regulation, and may at any time withdraw from the local board authority to exercise any of its powers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister is presenting the amendments in a different order.


Maurice Dupré: What we intend to do is
this: the present subclause 2 will disappear as well as subclauses 3 and 4. Then subclause 5 as I read it a moment ago will become subclause 2.


Charles Gavan Power: Let us dispose of the striking out of subclauses 2, 3 and 4.


Maurice Dupré: Subclauses 2, 3 and 4 will
go out and then subclause 5, as I have read it, will become subclause 2. Subclause 6 will become subclause 3 and we will add other paragraphs which will be numbered subclauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which I will read in a minute.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subclauses 2, 3 and 4 struck out.
Subsection 5 as amended agreed to on division.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Subclause 5 becomes
subclause 2.
On section 4, subsection 6-Board may require full information.


Maurice Dupré: Subclause 6 will now become subclause 3.
Subsection agreed to on division.


Maurice Dupré: Then I move that we add the following subsection 4:
(4) The board, whether exercising the powers conferred by this act or by provincial legislation, may establish a separate fund in connection with any scheme of regulation and for the purposes of such scheme may impose charges and tolls in respect of the marketing

Marketing Act

of the whole or any part of the regulated product, which charges and tolls shall be payable by such persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product as the board decides.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I ask the Prime Minister a question, which comes up n different places in the consideration of this oil'l? Does the Prime Minister say that the federal government has .power to give to any province a power which it does not already possess under the British North America Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question has been much discussed as to whether or not the dominion may delegate a province to act for it as agent in respect to certain matters. It cannot confer any greater constitutional powers than a province possesses under section 92 and other sections of the British North America Act, but it can, as it seeks to do here, confer upon a province certain powers to act as agent, and on the other hand the province may ask the dominion to act as agent for it for the purpose of carrying out any joint enterprise or effort. That is as far as I would go.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I ask if the view of the law officers of the crown has been taken on that all-important point, and is the Prime Minister in a position to state their view to the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The law officers of the crown have gone over every .phase of this with *great particularity. As it now stands, in their opinion the Clauses are within the legislative competence of parliament.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do I understand from the Prime Minister that the federal parliament can delegate powers outside of the ambit of its own power?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said. I said the federal power might ask a province to act as its agent to do certain things. That is as far as I went.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the whole basis of this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) realizes that that is the general purpose. The cooperation between the provincial and the federal power arises from an understanding with respect to the exercise of their respective powers as agent for one and the other.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the Prime Minister admit that the federal government cannot grant discretionary powers to the provinces? They can only carry out the orders of the dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am quite sure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) will understand that I do not desire to be disrespectful, but I do not care to express opinions of purely academic value about so complex and difficult a matter. I can only say that the clauses of this bill have been framed so as to be within the legislative competence of this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where the British North America Act gives certain powers exclusively to the dominion, does the Prime Minister construe that as meaning that any of these powers can be delegated to a province?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is exactly what I did not say. I tried to make it perfectly clear. Section 91 deals with peace, order and good government and then states:
. . . and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section-
The federal parliament is given exclusive legislative authority over the twenty-nine subjects which follow. Then, with respect to section 92, it says that the provinces shall have exclusive power over the matters therein mentioned. What the right hon. gentleman I trust did not understand was that I was suggesting for a moment that action taken by the parliament of Canada could confer upon the provinces legislative jurisdiction which under section 92 they do not possess, or that any action taken by a province in the exercise of its exclusive powers could confer a power upon the dominion.


Charles Gavan Power: The intention is to have them act as agents?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely. And there is no reason why the instrument for the purpose of effecting the will of the federal parliament might not, with consent, be a province or anyone else, or that the agent to effect the will of a province might not be the federal power or anyone it might select. That is the whole suggestion. The bill is based upon that appreciation of it. But I should like to make it perfectly clear to the hon. gentleman that I would agree with him, and I trust he does not think I am suggesting that there would be any power in this parliament to give larger powers to the provinces than the constitution affords, or that there can be a diminution of provincial powers by acts of this parliament. The statute of Westminster provides that this parliament has not power

Marketing Act
to lessen or abridge or expand the legislative powers conferred by the British North America Act upon the provincial legislatures on the one hand and the federal parliament on the other.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I then
ask this concrete question? The second of the exclusive powers given to the dominion is the regulation of trade and commerce. Would the Prime Minister say that the dominion could in any way confer upon any body within a province or upon the province itself the power to regulate trade and commerce in any particular or to any extent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the case of Parsons vs. Citizens' Insurance Company the privy council held that the words "trade and commerce" in the statute, paragraph 2 of section 92, are to be construed as they have been previously construed as used in a statute passed in the reign of Queen Anne. Later, in the insurance reference following that decision, which held that statutory conditions in fire insurance policies were within the power of the provincial legislatures, the privy council held that our insurance acts were ultra vires and that the words "trade and commerce," while including insurance, did not mean any one branch of trade. That was the limitation placed upon them in the two cases. I do not suggest that the words "trade and commerce" mean that the parliament of Canada could by any legislative act confer upon the legislature of any province the power to enact legislation with respect to trade and commerce as the meaning of those words has been interpreted by the privy council. But I do say that the dominion parliament in the exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to trade and commerce can confer upon any instrument that it selects the necessary power to act as its agent in the carrying out of its legislative power under trade and commerce.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Inside the area of jurisdiction?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course inside the area of jurisdiction, within trade and commerce.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 77 for the relief of Aileen Marie Thompson Robb.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine). 74726-202^	.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Doris Jones Earp.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Jean Gordon Worden Ellis.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Mary Alice Beatrice Featherston Moxon.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Ethel Irene Probert.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith- Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Robert Weir: Mr. chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Immigration - salaries and contingencies, $1,239,288.
Wilfred Hanbury: Before this item carries I suggest that the minister give to the committee the reason we have immigration offices in Europe at the present time.	.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: The offices maintained in Europe are very necessary for inspectional work, medical and civil. There are people who under the regulations are entitled to come from Europe as emigrants, and those offices could not possibly be done away with because we would run into difficulties in the nature of disease, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $2,450,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I do not wish to detain the committee or to trouble the minister, but I should like him to make a short statement as to the prospects of improving the subvention
Supply-Immigration

for coal mined on Vancouver island. There is a press record of there being a meeting with the minister of the eastern British Columbia coal people, the Alberta coal people and I think some of the eastern men who are suggesting increased subventions for themselves.
I have no objection to that; that is their problem. I see it is stated in the press that so far as Nova Scotia is concerned things are shaping well for a boom year in the Cape Breton coal industry, according to the Hon. Michael Dwyer, Minister of Public Works and Mines for the province.
I will just comment in passing that the coal output of Vancouver island is going down once more. The last record I have of it is for February, when there was a decrease of 21 per cent from the same month last year. That is an increasing trouble.
The cost to the government of assistance to Nova Scotia coal mines increased from $228,000 in 1931 to $1,447,000 in 1933, and in the case of Alberta and the Crowsnest pass from $212,000 to $228,000; for Saskatchewan the cost exactly doubled. These are all substantial increases. But the amount for subsidy for bunker and export coal for Vancouver island decreased in the same period from $36,756 to $26,952. There was a bonus of one dollar per ton on export coal, but there was no movement of export coal in 1933 and practically none in 1932. It was anticipated that this bonus of one dollar per ton for export coal would produce a trade of approximately 50,000 tons. I think the Prime Minister will recall that being said to him by a delegation that waited on him, but unfortunately, owing to perhaps unforeseen and unpreventable matters, the depression and war in- the South American republics, that trade has not eventuated. The trade in fact has totally disappeared. I suggest that in the case of Vancouver coal the subsidies have not been successful, or not successful at all events to the same extent as in the east, and I would suggest that the bunker coal subsidy should be raised from fifty cents to one dollar a ton. That is not very high considering that coal carried on the railways gets as high as two dollars a ton, and that the subsidy is paid on the long ton in the case of Vancouver island and on the short ton in the case of Nova Scotia coal. I know, because I have been in communication with him, that the minister has been kind enough to consider this matter, and I would just like a short statement from him or an assurance that the matter is still not finally settled, and I should like to know what hopes he has of being able to meet our views in this case.

The amount would not be very great. It would even then fall very far short by something like one-third of the amount estimated to be given in the beginning.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The subvention given to
Vancouver island coal at the present time is, as has been stated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), fifty cents on bunker coal and one dollar per ton on coal for export. When these subventions were arranged after conferences with members on both sides of the house representing the locality and with the owners of the coal mines and some representatives of labour it was deemed at that time that the assistance then granted would be of a very substantial character. The operators depended in large measure upon the coal they would be able to export from the island into South American countries. However, experience has shown that that trade did not materialize. I doubt if any coal has been exported because, for reasons that are well known to members of this committee, the assistance to that movement could not apply to the United States.
Then difficulties also arose by reason of the ships from the orient, particularly from Japan, double bunkering. That resulted in a contraction of the market for coals from the island. At the present time, by reason of the changed conditions in the coal trade, largely brought about by the operation of the laws that have come into force in the United States, it has been found desirable and' necessary to give further study to these subventions, having regard to the increased price of United States coals under the N.R.A. That matter is still under review, and it is my hope that assistance this year to the coal mining industry of Canada will be maintained at least to the same extent as last year, but at a very much reduced cost to the treasury. It is obvious, of course, that by reason of the increased price of United States coal our mines will not and need not expect the same amount of assistance they received in the years past.
To the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I can state that the position of the mines of Vancouver island is at present under consideration, and if it is possible to adopt some plan that is in harmony with the amount of money available I shall be very glad indeed. But I can assure the hon. member that study is being given to the matter in the hope of providing more employment for those engaged in the mining of coal on Vancouver island.

Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: I understand that the western operators have been down here asking for practically the same treatment on a mileage basis as is given to the movement from the east. Do I understand from what the minister now states that owing to the increased prices of American coal the government will maintain practically the same geographical limitations, but that the cost by way of subventions will be less? Is that correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is substantially the
situation.
Mr. McK'ENZIE (Assiniboia):	Does the
minister contemplate any change in the subvention that 'has been given to the lignite fields of the Estevan and Bienfait areas in Saskatchewan?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If any change takes place
with respect to the Estevan field it will place the operators in the same relative position with respect -to their competitors from Alberta and the Crowsnest pass as before the change. But the change that will be made has not yet been determined because the question is rather a complex one.


Albert Joseph Brown: Do any of these subventions apply to coal coming into Manitoba?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, the subventions apply to all industrial coals coming into Manitoba from both Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Does the movement of
coal from the west extend farther east than Winnipeg or does it stop there?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So far as railway coal is
concerned, the subventions apply as far east on the Canadian Pacific as the Ignace division, and on the Canadian National as far east as Sioux Lookout, those two points being the same distance from the mines although one movement comes further into Ontario.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: How far west do the
subventions on Nova Scotia coal apply?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The furthest west that
Nova Scotia coal has been shipped is Stratford and London, Ontario.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, representing as I do one of the important coal counties in the province of Nova Scotia I think it but due that I should bear some testimony to what has been done by the minister and by this government in recent years to increase our coal traffic as between the maritime and the central provinces. Last year we shipped Nova Scotia coal to eighty-eight towns and cities in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario
to which we had never before shipped any coal. These subventions were inaugurated in 1928 and in that year we shipped 114,000 tons, while last year we shipped something over 1,400,000 tons the movement of which added something over a million dollars to the revenues of the Canadian National Railways. So far as Nova Scotia was concerned, this simply meant the difference between a lack of employment and a very considerable amount of employment for our people, and thereby decreased the amount of money necessary to be spent on unemployment relief. For these results, I desire to thank the minister and the government.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was unavoidably out of the chamber when the items covering soldier settlement were taken up and I should like to know if an opportunity for discussion will be given when the bill to which the Prime Minister referred to-day in answer to a question I put on soldier settlement, is under consideration.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think there will be any difficulty when the bill is in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fair wages and inspection, $11,000.
Mr. BRADETTE:: During last winter there was a considerable movement in the town of Timmins to have the fair wages policy applied to all relief work. I think the minister knows that during the last three years the fair wage clause has not been applied to relief work in northern Ontario. This year the wages are much better, in some instances having been increased by two hundred per cent, and I should like to know if the minister has received any resolution in connection with this matter from the town of Timmins.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have no present recollection of having received any such resolution, although one may have come into the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration, Old Age Pensions Act, $2,000.
Wilfred Hanbury: It has been drawn to my attention that no provision is made for burial of old age pensioners who die. I would suggest that the government give some consideration to this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-M iscellaneous
Richard Bedford Bennett: We will leave the penitentiary item; there may be some further discussion and the Minister of Justice is not here.



MISCELLANEOUS

[Stage Direction]
Advertising and publicity in the United Kingdom and Europe to be administered by the High Commissioner, $200,000.
Wilfred Hanbury: This is a new item. I think it would be well to have some explanation of what it comprises.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I indicated some time ago that the other dominions, after the agreements of 1932, were spending substantial sums in advertising in various ways, and after discussion with the High Commissioner it was thought desirable, in cooperation with the Department of Trade and Commerce, that we should use a larger sum of money for the purpose of advertising Canadian products in Great Britain and on the continent. This represents the sum total-I wish it were a larger sum-of what we are able this year to devote to advertising our products in the United Kingdom and in that part of the continent that purchases our products.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the policy, instituted some years ago, still being carried out, of assisting firms anxious to increase their business, or is this direct government advertising?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is direct government advertising of all the departments and all the services, under the direction of the High Commissioner and in cooperation with the various departments, but notably with the Department of Trade and Commerce. This grant refers purely to publicity of the government itself.


Charles A. Stewart: Then the former practice of assisting firms has been discontinued.


Mr. STEVENS:: A trial was made, and while I will not say it was unsatisfactory it was not deemed desirable to continue it.


Charles A. Stewart: We voted $50,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. It was a laudable effort but there were so many demands that it would not have been satisfactory; in fact, it would have involved a very large sum and would not have been as effective as the method now followed.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is this advertising of commodities or of services, or is it just general advertising?
[Mr. Hanbury.l	-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those members of the house who have been recently in London will recall the advertisements of South Africa and Australia on hoardings, in newspapers and in displays of the products of their countries in various windows. This publicity involves all newspaper advertising, all display advertising and every form of publicity undertaken by the government under the direction of a head who was appointed by the previous administration and who was in charge of publicity in the United Kingdom. At the moment their activities are coordinated under the High Commissioner and the several departments make their various representations. One can now see displayed on some of the vans that travel about London the names of Canadian products. It was for that purpose that we decided to use the words "maple leaf" as distinctly Canadian. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been endeavouring to promote the use of those words as a designation specifically applicable to Canadian products ini Great Britain, and the movement to which attention was directed by the press a few days ago, undertaken by the High Commissioner, to have a mission to Canada is really a form of advertising growing out of this effort to make known Canadian products. The effort, by advertising, to stimulate an improvement in. quality and standardization is the domestic reaction to the effort that has been made in Great Britain and on the continent to make our products known. It includes all forms of advertising that are carried on under the direction of the High Commissioner. I only wish we could spend a larger sum. The other dominions are spending greater sums than we in advertising in 'Great Britain. The High Commissioner had been noticing a particular form of transport in London travelling over every part of the great city, and he conceived the happy idea of utilizing one side of these vans for the purpose of advertising Canadian products, as had been done and is still being done by our competitors in that market. Anyone who knows the excellent advertising methods adopted by the people in the United Kingdom will realize how essential it is that we should resort to similar methods to sell our products.


Wilfred Hanbury: I quite agree with the Prime Minister as to the desirability of advertising, but the particular question in my mind is whether that advertising is specific or general, whether we advertise apples and other fruits or wheat or lumber.

Supply-Miscellaneous


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is skilfully, efficiently and scientifically carried out. The chief agent of the Canadian government, Mr. Geraghty, who has been there a great many years, is, as I think those who know him will agree, one of the most resourceful and competent advertising men we could possibly have. All sorts of commodities, bacon, apples, fruit, tobacco and so on, are advertised in the most attractive displays.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The Prime Minister has referred to advertising in Europe. I think he should be more specific, because there are some parts of Europe with which we do not deal. Just what is meant?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Naturally, in many countries in Europe there is not much done. But there are some countries such as Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and perhaps Germany and France, in which a certain amount is done, and in the Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, there is a certain amount done.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the minister given up advertising through the large fairs?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, we still carry that on in a limited way.


Charles A. Stewart: I would much rather see the minister sipend more money in this way and drop the fair business. I never believed we got value for that expenditure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Our expenditures in the fairs are limited, but there are certain fairs that are widely recognized and we patronize them.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister, I thought, indicated that he was rather stressing the maple leaf as a symbol. Has Canada abandoned the use of the beaver, and does he not think the beaver would be a more arrestive symbol than the maple leaf, which is not very distinctive? To the people, say in London, a symbol like the beaver would be more arrestive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The beaver is difficult to use effectively on certain types of products; in some instances it looks rather like a rabbit when it is finished up. All I can say is that after a great deal of consideration the authorities seem to think that the maple leaf brand was the best single symbol that we could take for the purpose of making known as
largely as possible our products. There is belonging to a private enterprise a brand known as the Maple Leaf brand and efforts to have the matter disposed of have not yet been concluded.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for salaries and expenses of the tariff board-payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $120,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Could the Prime Minister give us any indication when we may have the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I cannot, but I should say within the next two or three weeks. The custom is to deliver judgments sometimes during term, but usually at the conclusion of it. My inquiry the day before yesterday resulted in my being informed that there were ten or twelve cases yet to be argued. As soon as the decision is made known I will communicate it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, $12,600.
Charles A. Stewart: I see there is an increase in this particular grant. Is this the result of the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare taking over more work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The arrangements made by the minister contemplate an extension of the services through the voluntary efforts of the organization known as the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, which has been operating to some extent through the voluntary efforts of individuals with money supplied by insurance companies and others interested in the welfare of the people of the country, and the devotion to child welfare of substantial sums of money by these private institutions has induced the minister to consider it desirable to unite our effort with theirs as an experiment. The increased amount is a result.


Mr. BLAIR:: I have before me a child
welfare magazine from Alberta and it contains a protest; it states:
Protested to the Hon. R. B. Bennett, Premier of Canada, the action of the Department of Health of the Dominion government in closing its child welfare division, and assigning the work of this division to a voluntary organization, the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare. The council felt that such an action by the government was a decidedly retrograde step in the public health work of the Dominion of Canada.
3202	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Child Welfare
While appreciating the good work the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare was doing in the child and family welfare field', it protested its action in acquiescing in the Dominion government closing its division on child welfare. Tile Calgary Council on Child and Family Welfare felt that instead of attempting to assume the duties of the state the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare should have been a factor in striving to develop and strengthen the work of the government along the lines so ably begun and developed by Doctor Helen MacMurchy, while chief of the Child Welfare division.
In 1926 a protest came in from the different medical councils and from the county associations because the death rate among the children in Canada was so high, and maternal mortality was also very great. Many complaints were received. Doctor MacMurchy took the matter up in 1926 when the greatest number of complaints came in, and by her efforts the rate of child mortality, which was ten per cent that year, was greatly reduced. In the last three or four years the maternal mortality has also been considerably reduced. I do not say that this is due to the activities of Doctor MacMurchy's department, but I think the work is being amply provided for by the provincial government. I do not think the work should be taken out of the hands of the Department of Health; surely, if this is a medical department, a doctor and not some person who is merely a graduate of Queen's university should be in charge of the situation. While such graduates may be extremely capable, as I believe they are, and very enthusiastic over the work-and I have no fault to find in that regard-when we come to make an investigation from a medical standpoint, surely that requires a doctor and not some graduate of Queen's university with the degree of B.A. or M.A.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter to which the hon. member has referred is one of very great importance not only to this chamber but to every citizen of Canada. Doctor Helen MacMurchy was head of a division, if it might be called by that name. She retired, having reached the compulsory retiring age. The question that the minister had to consider with the aid of the deputy and his assistant was whether it was desirable to link the activities of the department with that of the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare which had been doing the direct service. It will be remembered that the dominion does no part of the direct service, the provinces are concerned with that. And it is under the direction of the provincial boards of health that the work in detail is carried on. The federal department has no doctors that go

into the homes, no medical attendants that visit the communities; but the provinces maintain their health centres and provide medical attention in municipalities and communities. The child welfare council is sustained by private subscriptions, largely from insurance companies because they are interested in the prolongation of human life and in the general welfare of the state. On the advice of the deputy minister, and having gone into the matter with care, the minister submitted that the best interests of the country would be served by at lea^t making the experiment. It must be recalled that the major part of this money in the child welfare division was paid as salaries. The resolution to wThich the hon. gentleman directed attention was received by me. It does not represent, I am sorry to say, very exact knowledge with respect to the matter. Had they taken the trouble to make inquiry they would not have passed the resolution in the terms in which it was passed. The fact is that the appropriation by this house for the child welfare division was largely utilized for salaries-that is, the federal side- while the provinces were carrying on the work they were, and the child welfare council the detail work to which I have referred. This is an experiment, if you may designate any agreement of this type as such, to coordinate the efforts of the state, in a matter which is largely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, with private effort. It has been exceedingly successful and I believe will result in great benefit, much greater than could result from maintaining the word "division" for the purpose of paying a salary to an official who might be at the head of it.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
objecting to the increase in the grant, because I am not at all familiar with the change that has taken place, but I know it is the only grant to organizations of this kind that has been increased. I am not aware of the additional work that is being thrown upon the officers in charge of this organization. I have sometimes wondered if it would not be well to leave these services to the provinces. But heretofore we have been making these grants.
I want to refer to No. 242, mental hygiene. There has been a paring down of this grant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ten per cent reduction, that is all.


Charles A. Stewart: Not only
this year but in former years. It seems to me rather strange that the appropriation for so important a work as that of mental hygiene, with which many of us are quite familiar,

Supply-Miscellaneous-Child Welfare
should be reduced. The propaganda they have carried on is of great benefit. I do not see why that should not be done by the provinces, but we have established the principle of assisting these organizations. I do not understand why one in particular is chosen, child welfare, which is certainly a provincial undertaking, to receive an increased grant, while the others are cut the usual ten per cent that runs through all the appropriations this year. I can hardly agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister that this is of sufficient importance to warrant an increase at this particular time, if the others are to be cut down. If the others are to be treated in the same way, I have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I do not interrupt, it
is a lesser sum of money that is being used; this contribution, which was used in the welfare division for one purpose, namely for salaries, is now being used for the purpose of promoting the work, without any additional staff. The minister is not here this evening. I have not brought with me the correspondence, because I had not expected to be dealing with it. If the committee desires I am content that it stand in order that they may have the information.


John Knox Blair: I am not claiming that this
grant should not be given, but I feel that looking after medical health is the duty of the provinces. The rate of maternal mortality in Canada is extremely high, 5-8 per thousand. In Italy it is only 2-7. We are an extremely barbarous country in regard to maternal mortality. In infant mortality the rate for Australia is 47 per 1,000 and for Canada, 89, almost twice as much. New Zealand is 35 per 1,000. I do not say this grant should not be given, but I do say it should be given to some medical department or some doctor who would have charge. The Prime Minister says they do not come in contact with the individual; that is true, but I have some seventy-five different books and publications of different types-not all with me-that are sent out through the provinces, especially Ontario; I cannot speak for the other provinces. These are paid for by this organization. It is said they are free, and I think that is right. The grant from this government is, I believe $3,600, while the insurance companies give about $10,000, and churches and other organizations, such as the. Rotary club, also contribute until they have altogether about $30,000. This organization is operating as a federal government organization for medical health. I cannot understand how any person who was formerly a stenographer, I do not care if she is
a graduate of Queen's, can take charge of a medical department. This is medical literature; it ought to be written by doctors. There are plenty of doctors in Toronto or Ottawa who are on relief, and this work should be done by medical men. I would have no objection, for that matter, if the grant were cut off entirely, because I think Hon. Mr. Robb was quite capable of looking after Ontario without any assistance from any graduate of Queen's.


Thomas Cantley: I am at a loss to think
what better deserves our consideration than the matter which I understand we are now dealing with. In my home town of New Glasgow we have had for some years a baby clinic. That institution is visited daily by the doctors, and once or twice a week children, from a week old to three years or thereabouts, are brought there by parents or nurses and weighed and measured and records kept of their growth. The doctor gives the mother advice as to food, care and treatment. In my judgment that is a most important and valuable service, yet we talk about a few thousand dollars for it and we throw away $300,000 annually on the League of Nations without fifteen cents' worth of return to this country. I put these two expenditures before you as a matter of contrast; which better deserves the support of this house and this government and this country? Any man who gives the matter consideration must reach but one conclusion.


Charles A. Stewart: None of this money goes to the institution the hon. member speaks of-not a nickel.


Thomas Cantley: Well, we are aiding the
provincial government. This is a vote in aid, as I understand it.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not this one.


Mr. DONNELLY:: The whole objection
we have to this is the duplication of service between the dominion and the provinces. We agree that it is a very important work, but as far as the work of this department is concerned in western Canada we know nothing about it. We hear about our own provincial work, and the work carried on in the provinces, but we do not hear about the work carried on by the dominion. It may be done down here in the east, but we do not know. Who pays the salaries, who are getting the salaries, and how much is paid in salaries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is aware that the Department of Health came
3204	COMMONS
Supply-Miseellaneous-Child Welfare
into being during the term of the Union government, and the child welfare division was established. In 1928 the Department of Health was allied with the Department of Pensions. The functions of the Department of Health, federally, certainly to some extent overlap the functions and duties discharged by the provincial boards of health. But the federal body was to be a coordinating body, and ever since it came into being it has brought to this city once a year the heads of the health departments of the provinces. Here, under the direction of the deputy minister, they have met together, discussed their problems, decided upon uniformity of regulations and legislation, and, if the hon. member, who is a medical man, would take the trouble to look into the matter, he would find that the services they have rendered to this country are incalculable. It has brought about uniformity of action; it has brought about improvement in what I may term sanitation, and in public health standards. It has resulted in the formulation of uniform policies.
The hon. member who spoke about the literature distributed in Ontario, the dental clinics which operate the provinces, and the efforts made to supply prenatal care in communities far removed from the larger centres, is fully aware of the fact that the federal administration has been responsible for bringing together the representatives of the health departments of all the provinces, and formulating the very policies to which he has referred, to the end that a measure of uniformity and the best known practice with respect to these matters should prevail. The hon. member for Willow Bunch is quite correct in saying that naturally in the western provinces they come more closely in contact with the provincial authorities, but the cooperative effort that is made on the part of the federal and provincial authorities to arrive at uniform standards and to improve working conditions with respect to the development of health policies any medical officer in any of the western provinces will tell you has been exceedingly great. I know that from my own observations when I was actively associated with the work of the Red Cross at a time when they were establishing hospitals in the very remote sections of northern Alberta and British Columbia. One knows, for instance, of the work of the voluntary organization which has been meeting in this city, the Victorian Order of Nurses, founded by Lady Aberdeen. Of course, they do work for one of the insurance companies for which they are paid, but in addition to that, so far as they can, they look after the 
various sections of the country. And the coordinating effort of the federal Department of Health has ensured the prevention of duplication of effort on the part of voluntary organizations with governmental instrumentalities. That has been great in the northern part of the western provinces. I can only assure the committee that if further knowledge is desired as to the details of the working out of this matter, the minister, who did not know this subject would be discussed to-night, would be glad to supply it. But with respect to salaries the point is that instead of appointing a successor to the late head and maintaining salaries it was decided to use that money for the purpose of actual work with the children, as the present child welfare council has been doing.
I deprecate the statement of the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair), with respect to the graduate from Queen's having once been a stenographer, and I think upon reconsideration he will withdraw it. Lord Russell of Killowen, one of the most eminent judges, was at one time a stenographer, and Charles Dickens, the great novelist, in his younger days learned something of it. The fact that Miss Whitton, who has undertaken this work and is a graduate of Queen's was at one time secretary to a minister in a government sitting opposite to the party now in power, and that she has not only attained a place and position in this country but certainly is recognized as one of the best known Canadian women social workers at Geneva, reflects no discredit upon her. During the last ten days she has been representing this country with great distinction in London. I mention that fact because I think upon reconsideration it will be found that if each one of us, when we have to give account for the work we have done, is able to say he has done his work as well, as faithfully and as fearlessly as she has, he will not have any cause to be ashamed of his record.


John Knox Blair: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I did not cast any reflection upon Miss Whitton because of the fact that she had been a stenographer. That was not my intention. I believe I complimented her upon being extremely capable, and it is no reflection upon anyone to accuse him or her of being a stenographer. I do think, however, that although she may be a first class stenographer or a first class graduate of Queen's, or an M.A-which I think she is-when she is taken out of that class and put into a medical department I say she is not competent. I do not think you can transfer a person from one profession to another. Neither am I speaking

Sup-ply-Public Works
unfavourably of the work that has been done by this organization. Under Doctor Helen MacMurchy splendid work was done; I believe I have said that. But now the work has been taken out of her hands and put into the hands of a university graduate. I believe my sentiments are reflected by some of the leading men in Toronto. I say that this work should have been placed in the hands of a medical man who would be more likely to have a better knowledge of the work than would a university graduate who had not studied medicine or was not even a graduate nurse.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish only to correct one statement. The work was not taken from Doctor MacMurchy. Doctor MacMurchy was retired because she had passed the age of seventy years; that is the reason. But in addition to that, the medical men are still doing the work they have always dome with respect to this service-possibly they are doing a little more. But the executive driving power behind it is that of the head of the organization selected and paid not by us- because we. pay her nothing-but by the voluntary contributions of an insurance company which regards the services rendered as being of the very first importance.


Charles A. Stewart: As I said before, I am not objecting to the grant, nor am I objecting to the selection of Miss Whitton. I think perhaps the society were particularly fortunate in choosing her, because she has been able to obtain an increased grant for the society from the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, what does the $3,000 mean, if it does not mean an increased grant? All of these are grants. I think she is to be commended for her ability to obtain an increase when others in similar positions are cut down. They all sustain the ten per cent cut, with the exception of this particular grant. I am not complaining, but rather commending her upon her ability to secure more money for the particular society in which she is interested, and I am assuming that she is doing splendid work. But I do wish to say to the Prime Minister and to the committee that the remaining grants are just as important as this one. In fact, the grant to the blind is in my opinion even more important, yet it has suffered a reduction, along with the others. That is my complaint at this time. Had this society of which for the moment Miss Whitton happens to be the representative received the same treatment I should not have had a word to say, except to express my regret that it was necessary to
cut the grants. I do think they are important, and I believe that sooner or later something will have to be done for the unfortunate blind in this country. I simply want to voice my regret that this particular grant is chosen as the only one to receive an increase while all the others receive the ten per cent cut.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the observations which have been made, absolutely unwarranted because there has been no increase in the grant, I shall ask that the item stand. The point was that new services were undertaken and the money that had been used by the department in one way is now to be used to pay for additional services to be rendered under contract.


Charles A. Stewart: What particular grant is it taken from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This sum of money that was used for salaries in the department is now being used to pay for services to be rendered. But the matter is so important in view of the statements that have been made that I cannot think it is proper for me to allow it to pass without having the documents presented to the committee. I shall therefore ask, Mr. Chairman, that the item stand.
Item stands.



PUBLIC WORKS-MISCELLANEOUS

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-salaries of architects, clerks of works, inspectors, draftsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $63,700.
Engineering branch-salaries of engineers, clerks, etc. of outside service, $366,000.
For operation and maintenance of inspection boats, $10,000.
Maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, $23,100.
National Gallery of Canada, $25,000.
National monument on Connaught place,
[Stage Direction]
Surveys and inspections, $55,000.
Balance of expenditure for works already authorized provided amount for any one does not exceed $200, $4,500.
Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $3,000 to be expended upon any one work, $50,000-Total, $697,300.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This item was before the committee on a previous occasion when every detail was discussed but the item was allowed to stand because the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency had asked for certain information. Since then I think he has obtained the information he desired. I suggest that the item be passed on the understanding that as we have some sup-

Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests
plementary estimates, and if the hon. member desires to ask any further question or requires any additional information, I shall be pleased to furnish it on the supplementaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What would be the sense of the committee as to taking items 44, 45, 46 and 48 on the understanding that there will be an opportunity for any further discussion that is desired on any one item?


John Vallance: I think item 44 should stand.


William Richard Motherwell: We were promised an explanation with respect to item 44, Experimental Farms, the amount of the vote being SI,815,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can pass items 45 and 46, if the committee thinks well of it-


Mr. DUFF:: On the understanding that they can be fully discussed on any one item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Entomology, including investigations and' inspections relating to destructive insects and pests, $350,000.
William Richard Motherwell: This vote has been reduced now from year to year. One part of it has disappeared altogether, and the rest has been very seriously reduced in the face of one of the worst plagues of grasshoppers that Canada has ever seen. An item went through the other day which I thought we should have had an explanation of, with respect to plant diseases. But here we are dealing not with a plant disease but with a pest disease, and the vote for it has been shot -well, I won't say where, but it is not all here.
I saw a dramatic photograph in one of the local papers of the battle that was going to be waged against insects this year. It was well done, one of the best displays of what this government should be doing but is not doing with regard to this pest that is right upon us. There are enough grasshopper eggs in Saskatchewan now to destroy two-thirds of our whole crop if they get a proper hatching, and they are hatching to beat the band at ninety in the shade. The battle is on and all the ammunition is absent so far as this government is concerned. All the government's artillery seems to have retired to bombproof caves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is wholly incorrect.


William Richard Motherwell: We will see if it
is incorrect. Let us see if the Prime Minister

knows more than the Minister of Agriculture does about it. Let us see what they are doing in the United States to-day to combat this plague. Let me read to you what the battle is going to be like across the line. The government at Washington are on the ground; they are not two thousand miles from the battlefield with their ammunition reduced, as ours is in the form of these much reduced estimates now before us-less than half of what the vote was in 1931. What are they doing in Montana, Minnesota, Idaho, Nebraska and several other states? Here are the grasshopper plans of the United States as outlined at a meeting by Dr. J. R. Parker, of the Department of Agriculture of the United States, who discusses the control problem with the spring wheat millers. The item reads:
Dr. J. R. Parker, chief entomologist of the United States Department of Agriculture, who is in charge of all field work in connection with the government's grasshopper eradication campaign, met with a group of spring wheat millers in Minneapolis, March 6. to discuss the situation. He added that the house had passed the appropriation bill for the purchase of the necessary bran and other supplies but that the senate had still to act.
Here is another item headed "Grasshopper bait fund before senate committee." It reads:
Washington. D.C.-The $2,000,000 appropriation for grasshopper eradication, which is part of the general appropriation bill, was considered by the senate committee, March 5, with the probability of its approval. The bill passed the house last week. The Department of Entomology is prepared to contract for bran for making poison bait as soon as the authority is given, but can do nothing further until then.
I have not followed that up further to see what happened, but evidently the appropriation had passed one house and was likely to pass the other. That is their intention, at all events, across the line, but what are we doing here? If only our friends opposite had even pious hopes or intentions of doing something of this nature! But this government is leaving it to three impoverished provinces, which it knows are on the verge of bankruptcy, to fight the battle alone, except for advice and expert supervision. Hon. gentlemen opposite have retired into their cellar to let George do it, while in the United States the federal Department of Agriculture is out to fight this battle on the other side of the line to the tune of $2,000,000. Does the Prime Minister say I am not wholly correct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes I do.

Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests


William Richard Motherwell: Then get up and
show me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not quite sure
whether to be amused at or sorry for the statements that have just been made by the hon. gentleman. This is a vote dealing with pests. It has no reference to the hon. gentleman.


William Richard Motherwell: I will turn on the
juice so that I can hear this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a vote for
" entomology, including investigations and inspections relating to destructive insects and pests." Technically there is nothing to be learned by Canadian scientists with respect to grasshoppers. Even the ordinary boy passing through school is able to tell you the habits of the grasshopper. All that was long since known. That the grasshopper is a pest is well known. That it has worked incalculable injury in the United States is also well known. It came to Canada from the United States. As a matter of fact large numbers that are now in the western provinces came to this country from the United States. The chief entomologist of the United States has been having a meeting with the millers and telling them that one house of congress has passed an appropriation and the other house is thinking about it. That is the illustration we are given of the high standard of excellence which characterizes the efforts of a government in some other country, entirely overlooking the fact that in the country in which the hon. gentleman lives steps were taken, not to meet the millers and have a talk with them, but to deal with the governments as to how the grasshoppers were to be destroyed.


William Richard Motherwell: What did they do?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They provided the money to enable that to be done. This government cannot go on to a man's farm in Saskatchewan nor can it legislate to do so. The provincial governments have sole and complete control in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. When they represent to us that loans are required and assistance should be given, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) takes the appropriate steps. I ask any hon. member from these provinces:	Has he any complaint to make as to what this government has done?


James J. Donnelly: I will name one right
now. Last fall they came through my district and started propaganda on how to kill grasshoppers. They were asked by the municipalities if they would send in feed, but that feed arrived after the ground had been frozen and no work could be done. Two carloads of oats came into the municipality after the ground was frozen up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which government was
that?


James J. Donnelly: I suppose it was the provincial government, but you were supplying the money and they were not doing the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) was a little premature. The thing to do is to get the provincial government started with a campaign of propaganda for the destruction of grasshoppers in the province. The program in Saskatchewan was somewhat more intensive than the one carried on in the United States, and what is more, it was carried on in the fall rather than waiting until the spring. If the hon. gentleman who knows so much about it will inquire as to what was done by the provincial government last fall and the steps taken to supply bran and poison and preparations for the destruction of the grasshoppers this spring, he will realize that at least it is not the fault of any government if the destruction is not complete. I have before me not only, the statement made by the minister as to the steps taken, but every request they have made to us for necessary assistance in order that they may discharge their duties, we have met. We have met those requests just as fully as the congress of the United States met theirs. Our scientists have been as active and the propaganda has been more intense than it was in the United States, and this was carried on last fall, not this spring.


James J. Donnelly: There was a great deal of propaganda around last fall, but it was all propaganda.


William Richard Motherwell: Propaganda alone will not kill a grasshopper.


James J. Donnelly: They went around and talked about what to do to kill grasshoppers, to do so much ploughing and so much work around the summer fallows in order to keep the grasshoppers out. Anyone who lives in that part of the country knows that after the middle of October you are quite likely to have a freeze-up and cannot do any work. The propaganda was started in September but the oats did not come out until the end of October or the first of November when the ground was frozen. Feed was not supplied to the people when it should have been supplied.

Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests


John Vallance: I should like to clear up this matter. Are we to understand that the assistance being given by the federal government for the destruction of the pest known as the grasshopper is not to come out of this item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends upon what the hon. gentleman means. If he means the monetary assistance given to Saskatchewan, that was not under this item; it was under the relief measures.


John Vallance: I have in my hand the estimates for 1934-35, and these include a vote of S350,000 for entomology, including investigations and inspections relating to destructive insects and pests. In 1933-34 the vote was $399,946. I have the estimates for 1931-32-I keep them just for reference-and I find that entomology is not included with the administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act. In that year the vote for entomology is $35,000 and the vote for the administration of the act, S705.000. In 1930-31 there was a vote of $675,000 for the administration of the act and 830,000 for entomology. I could enumerate many others but I should like the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to tell the committee how it is possible, in view of what the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has just said, to reduce this item to the figure it is this year.


William Richard Motherwell: It is just half what it was in 1931.


John Vallance: This year it is $350,000 as compared with $399,946 last year. What are the reasons for the reduction?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are always those who think that the expenditure of large sums of money indicates efficiency and effectiveness. The fact that $750,000 was spent one year presumably resulted in the elimination of the pests and the same amount was not required to be spent the next year. There should be a reduction in expenditure when the pest disappears. That is only logic. That is why the grant for the destruction of cattle affected with tuberculosis is much less this year than it was two years ago. That is why there will be an increase in the cost because of the outbreak in Quebec to which reference was made this afternoon. The same situation has developed with respect to insects and pests. This is all educational work; the federal government does not carry on the specific operations for destruction. It makes known and brings to the minds of the people knowledge, first, the character of the pest; second,

the habits of the pest; third, the methods by which the pest may be eliminated; and, fourth, educational addresses are delivered throughout the communities affected as to the threatened danger of a pest in their locality. All this has been done in this country for years, and the result is that a lesser sum is now being expended for that service. The sum asked for here is ample for the necessities of the service. It may well be that three years hence some new pest will rise up; there may be a Liberal government in power and it will be necessary to expend larger sums of money for its elimination.


Peter John Veniot: You are confusing the
governments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely mention that in
passing. Knowledge is progressive, and the educational program carried on by the federal government is for the purpose of making known to the people the dangers incident to these ipests. The provinces have always had to deal with the specific destruction of the specific pest. In this instance the sum asked for is ample for the purposes sought to be achieved, but the actual destruction of the grasshoppers bears no relation to this vote. There has never been any complaint that there is lack of knowledge on the part of the people, and the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has said that a great deal of propaganda was carried on last fall. I am able to express an opinion only from reading, and my knowledge is necessarily limited. But from what I know, from reading, as to what has been done in Saskatchewan and in some parts of Alberta and Manitoba, the propaganda was I thought very intense; and I ventured to think after they related to me what had been done, and after I had read what had been done, that they had made a particularly good job in anticipation of the spring. The danger time is in the spring of the year, and every possible effort has been made by the province to meet that situation. In fact, representatives of the government came here to request an extra loan in order to deal with the situation, and within the last few weeks an extra loan was made to enable the province to cope with its difficulties, because of its lack of financial resources to carry out what it conceives to be a very necessary and important task.
I do greatly deprecate the thought that the reduction in the size of an item indicates that there has been neglect, because we hope that as the years go by what we do with respect to herds of cattile in the country will obviate the necessity of the work being done over again.

Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests
I remember that only a few weeks ago an order in council was passed in which provision was made for retesting a small section of the country where a few short years ago a very large sum of money was expended to defray the damages that had arisen by reason of the herds in that locality having been infected with disease.
The whole problem is one of education, of appreciation of the difficulties, and of meeting the situation by adequate measures which scientists have devised and made known to the people. And this vote is ample for the purpose for which it is requested. It is not my duty to be familiar with every item in the estimates. The minister will be available if it is desired; he was called away, though he had intended to remain here. I would not for a moment ask this committee to adopt an item in respect of a matter of this kind in which they thought there had been dereliction of duty on the part of the government in providing ample funds to meet the necessities of the situation.


John Vallance: If the Prime Minister will look at the estimates he will find that he is linking together two items, tuberculosis and glanders. That is taken care of by the provision for health of animals. I do not wish to enter into any altercation with him, and I pay tribute to the staff of the experimental farms for the part they played last fall in doing the very thing which the Prime Minister says this vote is intended to accomplish, namely, spreading propaganda and educating the people. For the first time in twenty-eight years, in that part of the province in which I have been privileged to live, we have not had any such pest as necessitated anyone coming in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then no money had to be spent.


John Vallance: And that is what I am complaining of. In 1931-32 there was a vote of $705,000 and in 1934-35 the vote is only one-half of that; though the Prime Minister, I fancy, is as well aware as I am of the fact that so far as the west is concerned the grasshopper pest to-day extends from Eagle Hills, south of Battle river, clean south to the Saskatchewan river, or between the two Saskatchewan rivers. If he tells me that less money is needed to-day to provide the necessary education-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said.


John Vallance: Then if it was necessary in 1931-32 to have $705,000 I should think that double that sum would be needed in
1934-35 for educational purposes.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I will have another little whack at this. I would not mind letting the matter stand until the minister comes back, but I would just as soon take a round with the Prime Minister now, especially since he has tried to discredit the statement I have made. I did not follow up the American vote, but I do know that when the Roosevelt government brings any measure in it is likely to go through, and a vote of this kind did go through last year. The states in the American union to which I have referred are like our provinces; they are right up against it financially, and when there is a plague like grasshoppers we find the American government coming to the assistance of the farmers to the tune of two million dollars. But this government retires, as I have already indicated, to its bombproof cave and reduces its ammunition by one-half for this class of work. We find that previously there were two sums, $707,000 plus $35,000, making over $740,000, and that is twice as much as we have for entomological purposes this year. If the Minister of Agriculture were here he would at least tell us that by a more efficient handling of the money they were able to do as much work as they did formerly with a larger vote. He has been trying to put that across and we have been accepting it, but not in toto, intimating that we did not quite accept it. But the Prime Minister has not had ingenuity enough to take that ground; instead he tries to discredit what has been done in the United States, where certain states are in the same position in this regard as our western provinces. The difference between the United States government and this government is that they came along with assistance to the tune of two million dollars whereas my hon. friends have retrenched to the extent of $350,000 for pests generally. That is the difference.
I will tell you what apparently the Prime Minister does not know. For the sake of argument we will say and it is actually so in normal times, that this work belongs to the states in the American union and to the provinces in Canada. But is there not a vast difference between voting $740,000 in 1931-32 when there were no grasshoppers and voting $350,000 when there is a grasshopper plague? The right hon. gentleman takes the ground that the reason the vote has been reduced is that the pests are receding; the less pests the less money needed. But are they receding? Does not all the evidence go to show that we are confronted with the worst invasion of grasshoppers in the history of Canada? My

Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests
right hon. friend says that they are receding. Well, that is what I call stretching a pretty long bow, though not, I hope, intentionally. But he merely says something for something's sake that doesn't amount to much. If it were the other way about, $350,000 voted when there were no grasshoppers in 1931-32 and $740,000 voted now that there are grasshoppers and other pests, that would be something that one would expect. But the right hon. gentleman is right up against it for an argument. When the Prime Minister of Canada cannot squeeze out of a hole it is because he is too far in to get out. With his facility of speech he can get out of almost anything, but he cannot wiggle himself out of the difficulty he has got into now. The fact is that the grasshoppers are there by the tens of millions, ready to eat the crops. The trouble was, the poison was not there last year for the last lap. Talk about propaganda 1 How much propaganda will it take to kill a grasshopper? Far more than my hon. friends can spread. If you don't get the dope into the grasshopper how are you going to get rid of it? What was lacking in the fight last year was poison and a good deal of the effect of the early campaign was lost because the grasshoppers were allowed to reach the stage where they took flight, going into and beyond the region of my hon. friend from South Battle-ford. The more you kill when they are small the less there are in the flight season. The flight was carried to within ten miles of my own farm, and I am sure that if the grasshopper campaign had been strong enough last year their flight would not have extended half the distance it did. But in the absence of sufficient poison the grasshoppers grew and took flight, seeking pastures new. And they found them in that and other western regions. Moreover, they laid their eggs wherever they lit, and the laying was good. Yet we are preparing to fight them by reducing the estimate for entomological pests instead of giving a special vote as they did in the United States. That would have been a great battle in the time of the war if we had prepared for it by reducing our ammunition, our large ordnance, our staffs of men and our money vote, but that is the way we are preparing to fight Ihe grasshoppers. No wonder they are thriving! They are real grasshoppers, hopping all over our prairies and developing into locusts, we are told, while our friends are sitting in this chamber reducing the estimates and claiming they are doing their full duty. If our provinces were in good shape I would not make any complaint about this, but they 
are in a very bad state; they cannot for lack of money do as well as they know how to do. Where is the peace, order and good government relief vote that it cannot be drawn upon? Can we not keep order among the grasshoppers as well as elsewhere? Why can we not draw on that provision in this emergency?
It has just flashed upon me that this is the way in which my hon. friends are going to reduce the wheat acreage and production- let the grasshoppers have their fling. It will be an act of God, I suppose, instead of an act of the Bennett government, that is the situation. The grasshoppers are on the prairies in such a superabundance that unless some absolute miracle happens we shall not begin to fill our quota; we shall be able easily to give possibly 50,000,000 to the Argentine unless something is done to help the provinces fight the grasshoppers when they hatch, and they are hatching now. If my hon. friends think I have not produced a case against this government, then we shall have to take a gimlet, perform a surgical operation on their craniums and pour the information into them some other way. The tell tale estimate is there; no one can challenge the figures I have given. If conditions were normal the United States government would also not be helping their states, but conditions are not normal there and they are not normal in Canada. That shows the difference between the government at Washington and ours. I have a right to protest. I am glad the Prime Minister has given me the opportunity to explain the matter while he is present, because I would not care to talk to the Minister of Agriculture in the way I have done to my right hon. friend. He is the head of the government, very much so, and I hold him more responsible than the Minister of Agriculture for the disgraceful way in which the agriculture estimates have been reduced in the last four years. I hear an hon. member opposite groaning. Well, he ought to groan. What occupation other than agriculture have we to rely upon to bring back to normal the economic welfare of this country? What estimates have been reduced more ruthlessly than those of agriculture? I do not know. Talk about economy! This is a penny wise and pound foolish policy, reducing the estimates of the one branch of our country's activites on which we rely the most, that represents one-half of the people of Canada and feeds them all in addition to what we export. Yet my hon. friends are chewing and screwing those estimates down and then pretending that they are not doing so. That is what makes me angry. They get up in broad daylight, or rather in gaslight-and it is gas

Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests
that they gave us-telling us they were doing their full duty when the facts and figures deny that right to the hilt. The Prime Minister tried to discredit my statement because I gave the facts in regard to the United States up to the date stated, asking where I got the information and indicating that I did mot know whether the legislation went through. I know it went through last year and there is not one chance in ten thousand that it did not go through this year. Now, if the Prime Minister wants to retire and hand things over to the Minister of Agriculture, he is at liberty to do so or to give them to anyone else he likes.


Thomas Cantley: The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) is not the only one who has had to fight grasshoppers; we had them in Nova Scotia forty years ago. My hon. friend opposite, the member for An-tigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) will I know recall that. They were there so numerous they stopped the railway trains day after day, and that was not confined to one year. We did not then go yelling to the federal government for help; we looked after and met the situation ourselves. My hon. friend opposite has apparently reached the age and stage where the grasshopper is a burden. Why not go out and fight them as we did? He whines and demands assistance for everything that happens and blames the government for its happening. Let him get to work on the grasshopper problem and stop his growling.


William Richard Motherwell: That must be one of the Rocky mountain locusts we have just heard from.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this evening's paper the following appears on the front page:
Are Critical Days For Western Crops
The next two weeks will be the most critical ones affecting crop prospects in western Canada. The dry weather with high winds has caused *considerable top soil drifting.
Wheat seeding is practically completed and that of coarse grains well advanced. Grasshoppers are beginning to hatch in some districts, but elimination measures are well in hand. The northern empire of the Peace River reports conditions and prospects are excellent according to the weekly crop report of the Department of Agriculture, Canadian National Railways.


John Vallance: From what is the prime minister reading?


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the front page of this evening's paper. "But elimination measures are well in hand." I have received no complaints in regard to elimination measures. While I am always ready and willing to assume responsibility for any acts of 74726-203
the government or of myself in an official capacity, I think most intelligent people who have listened to the discussion for the last five minutes will wonder just what this country is coming to. I ask this chamber: What do thoughtful people in the gallery listening to this think? I console myself with the proverb "Answer not a fool according to his folly." Age has its claims to respect and in this instance to silence. If the United States spent 82,000,000 federally to destroy grasshoppers, this vote of 8350,000 multiplied by twelve would make 84,200,000. and if you divide $2,000,000 by twelve, the United States having twelve times the population of Canada, we would be spending less than $200,000, but we are actually spending $350,000.


James J. Donnelly: It is not all over the United States; it is only in certain states.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not all over Canada either, and it is over a wide area in the United States. If the United States spent on the same basis as the Canadian figures suggest, they would be spending more than $4,000,000 federally. This $350,000 is for the whole of Canada. The mistake is to assume that it is limited to a particular area. Might it not be the fair thing in dealing with a matter of this kind to ask whether any demand or request made by those affected had been refused, whether any suggestion as to assistance had been declined, whether there had been an entire disregard of an obligation that legally belongs to others but that morally, by reason of financial conditions, is accepted by the federal government? I wonder sometimes whether after the last five minutes it is realized and recognized the amount of money the dominion government has put into Saskatchewan in the last three years; I wonder if it is realized the extent to which we have been subject to adverse criticism both public and private; I wonder if it is realized the way in which we have met the situation, because we have had faith in the future of that great agricultural province whose population is some 900,000. We have cared directly at one time for as many as 300,000 men, women and children, providing them with food and clothing through the long winter days and weeks and months, and the reward given for the efforts made, not by the government but by the Canadian people, is to be traduced, abused and slandered because they have thus done. It is their money, largely from eastern Canada, supplied through the purchase of bonds, that has enabled this to be done. Is it any wonder that at times we find it increasingly difficult when in endeavouring to deal with a situ-



Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests
ation of this kind we are confronted with statements such as those to which we have listened to-night? Let us at least be fair. Here is a calamity that has come to a part of Canada which Sir William Butler spoke of as the great lone desert, the part of Saskatchewan south of the Saskatchewan river. We have had drought; we had the binder of the soil destroyed by cultivation; that great alluvial deposit was dried and ground to an almost impalpable powder that the winds picked up and threw high in the air so that the trains passing through were covered with dust. Yet the courage of the people has been sustained and maintained. Ten millions, fifteen millions, reaching into the twenties, loaned, assuming direct obligations, caring for the people-all these things have been done, and there has been no complaint of which I have knowledge that the assistance rendered by this dominion to Saskatchewan in respect of grasshoppers has been inadequate. In the face of that I put it to my fellow Canadians whether they think that exhibition and that attack is calculated to encourage those upon whose good will and good feeling towards western Canada we must rely in our time of peril. I leave that to the committee.
I say with respect to the vote for entomology that it meets every demand. I am not confusing the two votes; I used the other by way of illustration. I am perfectly well aware that the variation in the amounts of votes depends on the extent to which work is undertaken. The work which was undertaken and paid for through the relief measures in Saskatchewan during the fall results not in complaint but, in reports in the newspapers that elimination measures are well in hand. Against that we have these denunciations of individuals, of myself, of the Minister of Agriculture, alleging failure of duty, failure to understand and appreciate the situation. That is helpful! That is constructive! That is calculated to encourage those who have risked their money for the purpose of trying to assist us-and by "us" I mean those of us who live in western Canada, that being my home as well. If at times one gets discouraged after listening to the tirade I have listened to to-night, in view of the knowledge of what we have done and are still endeavouring to do with respect to that drought stricken area, who can blame us? I leave that in the hands of the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: When the Prime Minister gets into his last ditch he always starts up the sob sister stuff. That is what he is doing now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: Not until I am through. My right hon. friend is trying to make out that Canada was doing more than the United States. How much of this goes to buy poison? That is what the west was short of last year and is likely to be again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not one dollar of it.


William Richard Motherwell: Everything is done except the one thing necessary. They can feed them with propaganda, but they will fatten on that alone, if you don't get the dope into them. The right hon. gentleman's remarks were aimed in my direction. Slander. There is no slander. Every word I have uttered is doubly true, and proven by the records and official estimates-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Richard Motherwell: -and by the statements of the hon. members for South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance) and Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). The vote is now not half, less than half of what it was in 1931, and they try to make out that they are doing more. The Prime Minister has tried to figure it out so that it will look better by taking the forty-eight states of the American union and trying to make it appear that we in Canada have been giving more than they are giving over there. But the forty-eight states have not all got grasshoppers, any more than the nine-provinces of Canada have. It is just a lot of bunk that cannot be supported by anything but a whine. Think of the horses being allowed to die in the country, crops being put in with mules and cows and steers and oxen and anything that can go into a yoke or collar, and yet the elevators full of grain within a gunshot of these dead animals! Hundreds and thousands of them dying, and the elevators filled to the top with wheat that cannot be sold and that they don't know what to do with. But the animals know what they would do with it if they could get a gallon a day to keep them going through the winter, even if it is wheat. Letting them die! Supplying seed grain to put in another crop and then sitting back knowing that there is not one chance in ten thousand that the grasshoppers will not eat it all up again, and not supplying one dollar's worth of poison to help. Then my right hon. friend starts that whining that he can pretty nearly put across, as he has done two or three times this session, but he cannot to-night because the record is against him. He ought to be totally ashamed of himself. I say again what I said before, that neither

Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests
the national government in Washington nor that in Ottawa would have needed to help either the states there or the provinces here if the conditions were normal, if the provincial revenues were half as buoyant as they used to be. What is needed is to provide lots of poison and lots of help to distribute it. If the right hon. gentleman cannot see it, that is only evidence that this government is about the greatest aggregation of-what shall I call them?-something that can produce a marketing bill some of which no one can understand, not even themselves.


John Vallance: I have heard the Prime Minister on more than one occasion eulogize the people of western Canada, and I was rather disappointed to hear him to-night reminding this house of what eastern Canada has done for the west. I would like to tell him something from a different point of view. I see him smiling, but he smiles from the chair of a law office in the city of Calgary, most of the time. I want to take him back to the great open spaces where people are living 150 miles from a railroad. I want to tell him of the contribution that these people made to the making not only of western Canada but of eastern Canada. I am pleased to be able to say that in the twenty-eight years I have been there I have made my contribution, and I resent the Prime Minister's telling me and the people I represent what eastern Canada has done for them. I would like him to visualize the God-given wilderness we went into twenty-eight or thirty years ago, 100 or 150 miles from railroads, and without facilities, many of us with only an ox cart. We have built highways; we have built railroads, churches, schools, towns, villages and hamlets. We have created billions of dollars' worth of wealth, and where has it gone? Those people he talks of are sitting in those lone homesteads to-night with very little equity, if any, in what they have created, and the Prime Minister tells us what eastern Canada has done for the west. He should go out and tell them that. Where has this wealth gone? Can he tell me where it has gone? I should like him to tell the people in the west where it has gone. After all their work and privation we have to sit here tonight and they have to sit in their homes and listen to what eastern Canada has done for them. Put western Canada in the position, as I have heard him say before, where they have purchasing power, and in eastern Canada our industries will hum. Make it possible for the 300,000 farmers west of the great lakes to have 12,000 or S3,000 purchasing power, and what will happen? I am not
74726-203 J
blaming this government, but I am blaming the Prime Minister for the statement he has been trying to get across as to what eastern Canada has done for the west.
I would like to tell him about my own province. What do the other eight provinces get from the province of Saskatchewan? We have to take our coal from Alberta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Vallance: Most of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One million tons were
taken from Saskatchewan this year.


John Vallance: Yes, from the Estevan
field going into Manitoba. We take practically all our lumber and fruit from British Columbia. We take nine out of every ten carloads of groceries from Manitoba. We take implements of production from Ontario, and some from Quebec and the maritime provinces. Yet out of the whole production of the province of Saskatchewan Canada does not take twenty per cent, and for the remaining eighty per cent we must find a world market. Then the Prime Minister wants to tell us what eastern Canada has done for us. .No, Mr. Chairman, I resent it. I have listened to him in this house pay one of the greatest tributes I ever heard anyone pay to the pioneers of western Canada, but when I listened to him remind them to-night of what eastern Canada has done you cannot wonder that I rise in indignation.


Mr. HPROULE:: I do not speak very often in this house, but I think it is time some hon. members opposite should stop and realize that in Canada there are some provinces besides the western provinces. There are people in Ontario who need money just as much as the western people need it, so far as that is concerned. Only a couple of years ago we gave them a five cent help on their wheat, but never got any thanks for it. They talk about grasshoppers, and to listen to the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) one would think that there were grasshoppers only out in the west. My friend in the east told the committee that his constituency had been bothered with grasshoppers, and we have some in Ontario. But when the grasshoppers strike Ontario we look after them, and we do not complain. I believe the origin of a good deal of the trouble out in the _ west can be traced to the west. So far as this discussion is concerned, I do not think there should be any line drawn between the-east and the west. I have a good deal of respect for western members, and particularly those sitting on this side of the house. L

Supply-Entomology-Insect Pests
do say, however, that there are a great many chronic complainers sitting opposite who are not thankful to the Ontario members who sit here and do not say a word.
The Prime Minister has just finished telling about the grants which have been made. I feel sorry for the people who have to accept what might be called the dole, but I think a little more consideration should be given to the east. It seems to me that the people in Ontario and the other eastern provinces are getting very little thanks for what they are trying to do for the people in the west. I have all kinds of faith in the west, and I do say that the remarks by the hon. member for Melville were unbecoming to him; they were very much out of place. I do not intend to take up any more time, but' if I got hotter I could say more about it.


Alan Webster Neill: We are a long "way from bugs, Mr. Chairman. I suggest you use your authority to stop this discussion, which will not help us any, and is merely setting the east against the west. We are getting nowhere. I appeal to my hon. friends to allow the discussion to drop. Such recriminations will not promote good will between the east and the west.


Thomas Cantley: I have listened with a good deal of indignation to what the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Yallance) has had to say. He asked what the east had done for western Canada.


John Vallance: I did not ask that; the Prime Minister told us.


Thomas Cantley: Well, I rather think you did, and I will tell you. In the first place, we bought it and paid for it. In the next place we built three railways to it.


John Vallance: Who are "we"?


Thomas Cantley: The four original provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian people.


Thomas Cantley: One railway would have been enough. Who paid for the west? I will tell you where the money came from to pay the Hudson's Bay Company. It was taken from a grant that we had to our credit in London to construct the Intercolonial railway.


John Vallance: Who gave them that?


Thomas Cantley: It was contributed by the British government, and we switched it from the Intercolonial railway to buy out the Hudson's Bay Company. We gave it to you as a free gift. Now you want to talk about

a return of the natural resources of your western country. There is no end to what you fellows think you ought to get. You exhibit very little gratitude-


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman will not listen to an appeal of common sense, so I ask you to enforce the rules of the house, and particularly the rule which states that we must adhere to the item under discussion. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will leave the item as it stands. I desire to say only this, that the observations made by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) are not warranted by anything I said earlier. I have stood for the west in good season and bad, and I shall continue to do so. But it does seem passing strange that after all this discussion the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), whose hearing may not be acute, does not understand that this item has nothing to do with supplying poison, or anything else, for grasshoppers, and that that is provided for by loans which we have made to the provinces. No complaint is outstanding to-day by any western province with respect to any provision they have been able to secure from this government for that purpose.
We will pass on to another item, in order that the position of the western provinces may be fully defined before this committee, and so that there may be no misunderstanding as to the facts.


James J. Donnelly: I should like to refer to one other pest we have in western Canada.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: The item stands.


James J. Donnelly: All right.
Item stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe the other items stand, and the Canadian National Railways items go to the select committee.



DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports of the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act and temporary buildings and' rentals, $6,113,000.
Salaries and travelling expenses of officers of the inspection, investigation, audit, and the preventive service undervaluation services, $916,698.
Miscellaneous, including printing and stationery; subscriptions to commercial papers; flags; dating stamps; locks; instruments; express charges on samples; legal forms; legal

Supply-National Revenue
expenses; premiums on guarantee bonds; uniforms for eustoms-excise officers: laboratory equipment and supplies, etc., $500,000.
Amount to be paid to the Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for to it for customs-excise secret investigation service, $15,000.
To provide for the administration of the Income War Tax Act 1917 and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and the said positions and staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act, and salary of $8,000. (Less statutory deduction of ten per cent) for the commissioner of income tax, $2,000,000.
Amount to be paid to the Department of Justice, to be disbursed by and accounted for to it for the income tax secret investigation service, $15,000.
Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in this department one item should be allowed to stand, because the minister wild re-member that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and other hon. members are interested in some matters in connection with it which were left unsettled.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth asked for certain information which I can give the committee now, if that will be satisfactory.


Charles A. Stewart: He is not here and I know he is interested in this matter. I have no desire to hold up the minister's estimate. Perhaps if the item is carried on the understanding that he can bring up on any other item the matter in which he is interested-


Richard Bedford Bennett: We had better leave one item. These are all grouped in one vote.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to protest against this method of preparing the estimates. The practice is not confined to any one department but is being followed by all the departments, I presume with a desire to curtail discussion. Certainly it does not give the committee the opportunity which I think it should be given of criticizing the estimates. While you have subheadings the votes themselves do not contain very much information. This particular one is not so flagrant as some others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What further details could be given than are given here?


Charles A. Stewart: A great
many. These items are all lumped in one
vote, No. 252, with very few details of an appropriation amounting to over nine million dollars. I protest once more against this method of preparing the estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it not the practice followed in your time?


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly
not, as my right hon. friend will see if he will look up our estimates or even the estimates of his own government of former years. It is a practice that is growing yearly in the preparation of the estimates under this government. I protested against it before and I. do so again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to say, to relieve the former minister of any difficulty on that score, that the officials are largely responsible for the grouping of these items.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton); But the government are responsible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government bring them in, I will admit. But vote 252, for instance, generally covers all the items that are specified here, and discussion, as I understand it, ordinarily takes place with respect to each of the six or seven items that comprise the whole vote.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: May I suggest to the prime minister that the best way would be to call these items separately?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I suggest.


Robert Charles Matthews: I think I should say that this vote is in precisely the same form as it has been for years. There is no change in the method of presenting it. For the information of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) I may say that there will be an item in the supplementaries upon which the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth may discuss the matter in which he is interested if the committee will allow this vote to pass.


Mr. COOTE:: Would the minister explain how he manages to get a decrease of half a million dollars in the first item of vote 252? Half a million dollars is a very large amount to be cutting an important collection department.


Robert Charles Matthews: This is due to reduction in staff and economies effected in overtime and general contingent expenditures.


Thomas Reid: When the minister's estimates were up in March I brought certain matters to his attention in connection with a boat named the Klekane, and he told me that he
Supply-National Revenue

would look into the matter. I wrote the minister on March 13 setting out all the particulars, and so far I have not had the courtesy of a reply. The matter is a serious one. It is a very important case, and there are many similar cases. I think I ought to have received a reply from the minister as to whether a boat registered in the United States can go back and forth between the United States and Canada, operating in United States waters one month and in Canadian waters the next. I have all the particulars here and I can give them now if the minister wishes.


Robert Charles Matthews: The last time the estimate was under consideration the hon. member for New Westminster made some reference to payment for overtime. I have that information here. In regard to the boat he mentions I have not the information here, but I shall 'be glad to get it and send it to him.


Thomas Reid: It is very strange, Mr. Chairman. I sent a letter to the minister about the matter on March 13 last, and I have received no answer as yet. The letter gave full particulars of the case. I have a copy of the letter here which I will read. I was wondering why I did not get any reply. I thought it was 'because the minister was investigating the matter. The letter is dated Ottawa, March 13, 1034, and reads:
Dear Mr. Matthews:-	_
You will no doubt remember my asking you on the floor of the house regarding the matter of whether a vessel entering Canada from another country has to pay customs dues on the valuation of the ship and engine in the event of the vessel being registered in the United' States and coming to Canada to be used for profit here.	_
The matter I have in mind is in connection with a fishing boat named Klekane whose owners operated part time in Canada and part time in the United States, moving back and forth according to the fishing.
It is owned by two brothers; one lives in the States and the other lives in Vancouver.
It is registered in the State of Washington as a United States vessel and operates in Canadian waters as a Canadian one. and I was informed that on account of the fact that it paid customs duties away back in 1919, I believe, it has a right thereafter to go and come as a Canadian vessel. Surely this is not correct. The vessel cannot be registered in both countries at the same time. In my opinion, at least, if a vessel is registered in Canada it remains so until it registers in another country and having done bo loses Canadian registry and takes on the registry of the other country.
A great many protests have been sent to me regarding this matter and I understand that this is not the only vessel that is allowed to go and come in this manner.

I would be pleased if you would have this looked into and a ruling given, and may say in closing that I am of the strong opinion that no vessel can be registered in two countries at one and' the same time.


Robert Charles Matthews: I have no recollection of receiving that letter. It may have come to the department, of course, but I do not recollect having seen it. I shall certainly see that my hon. friend gets a reply.


George Gibson Coote: May I ask the minister how many employees have been laid off under the first item of this vote?


Robert Charles Matthews: The number of employees in 1933-34 was 3,863, and in 1934-35, 3,606, a reduction of 257.


George Gibson Coote: How many ports have been closed? I see there is a reduction of $524,000.


Robert Charles Matthews: There have been fifty-one ports closed since 1930.


George Gibson Coote: How many have been closed in the last year?


Robert Charles Matthews: The number closed in the last year is eleven.


George Gibson Coote: It is a little hard to understand how the department can lay off enough men to get a reduction of $524,000 in one year when only eleven ports have been closed in that period. Has it been the policy to cut down the number of employees in different ports of entry in Canada?


Robert Charles Matthews: I am informed that
the vote this year is down to the minimum. In other years there was perhaps a certain amount of leeway and in some measure that accounts for the reduction.


George Gibson Coote: How much of this first item of six million dollars odd is for salaries?


Peter John Veniot: Has the minister the statement of how much he has saved by cutting down overtime?


Robert Charles Matthews: For 1934-35 the salaries are $5,412,083.


George Gibson Coote: I asked for the number of
employees paid from that vote.


Robert Charles Matthews: The number of employees is 3,606.


Thomas Reid: A few moments ago the minister said he had a statement to make in reply to the question concerning overtime which I brought up; is he prepared to give that now?

Foreign Insurance


Robert Charles Matthews: The hon. member for
New Westminster (Mr. Reid) asked concerning overtime, referring particularly to the payment of overtime to full time officers while temporary men were allowed to go. There is no doubt the temporary men were what are known as seasonal officers who are taken on at a number of frontier points during the season of heavy highway traffic. Both regular and seasonal men have to be on duty Sundays and holidays, and when they cannot be compensated by being given time off they are paid the regular overtime rate of seventy-five cents per hour less the ten per cent deduction. It would not be possible to eliminate entirely the payment of overtime as there are a number of places where the additional services required' do not warrant additions to the staff; therefore it is more economical to pay overtime. There has been a considerable reduction in the expenditure under this head during the past year or so, and I can assure hon. gentlemen that every effort is being made to reduce expenditures still further.


Thomas Reid: I asked this question because
of complaints which were made to me last year and I think the year before that seasonal men had been cut down while more overtime had been paid to those regularly employed. It did seem rather hard that those who were engaged the whole year should be taken out to these boundary points and thus deprive the seasonal men of work. I should like the minister to look into this with the idea of permitting these seasonal men to earn a little more money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 50, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act-Mr. Rhodes-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 3-Statement of condition and affairs.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the same constitutional question arise here as arose in connection with Lloyd's and the other companies?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in the same way,
as the hon. gentleman will see as we proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This amendment is for
the purpose of clarifying the section. The new section will read:
Expressly authorize such attorney to receive from the minister and the superintendent all notices which under the laws of the Dominion of Canada are required to be given or which it is thought advisable to give.
This is to make it perfectly clear that there is no impingement upon the rights of the provinces with respect to matters of this kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this a government or a departmental bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are some portions in which the government must assume responsibility through the superintendent of insurance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the superintendent of insurance in favour of the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My understanding is that the superintendent of insurance may differ from the law officers of the crown, shall I put it that way, with respect to the respective jurisdiction of provincial legislatures and the federal parliament. With respect to some features of the bill I do not think perhaps that is a proper question to ask me. I think there is a difference of opinion.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will these amendments make insurance any dearer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know, no.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Assets to be maintained in Canada by other companies.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is simply a change
in numbering; the previous section was improperly numbered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On section 12-Inquiries to company and replies.
Charles Gavan Power: Why the words " or
officer "?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Foreign Insurance
the declaration. I am not always able to understand just why such a clear distinction is made, but this is to meet the difficulty that has been experienced.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Classes of hazards covered by fire certificate.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is there
any change in this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Instead of amending the
section it is repealed and a new section with very slight changes is substituted. It is no longer subject to the provisions of the subsection of the act; it is complete in itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
On section 22-Withdrawal of certificate for deficiency of assets-fraternal benefit societies.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the change here?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This provision has in
terms been present always in these statutes, but in the renumbering last year some mistake was made with respect to these sections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
On section 24.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is
the change ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an entirely new
section. There is a slight difference between the two but they are substantially the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 25 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
On section 30-Penalty for non-compliance with act, etc., not otherwise provided for.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I notice that the
penalty is the same, but the wide difference between the minimum and the maximum is so great that I think we should have an explanation. The range is from $20 to $5,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will realize that there are some offences which, if committed by a company, should subject it to very drastic penalties, whereas a slight offence by an individual should subject him to a slight penalty only; and in order that each specific offence should not be described ind the penalty provided, the statute en-

deavours to provide a minimum which in the discretion of the court may be applicable to a slight violation of the provisions of the statute. In the case of an offence by a company on a large scale there is provision for a penalty as great as $5,000.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is this covered by any
provincial law? It would strike the ordinary layman that there is quite a wide margin. I realize, as the Prime Minister says, that there is a great difference between offences, but this seems to leave considerable leeway and it might be open to criticism.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The nature of the offence would in all probability govern the exercise of discretion by the magistrate or court before whom the charge was tried. There must in the very nature of things be a very heavy penalty against some of the offences mentioned in the statute. There is no change except in the form in which it is put.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 31 to 33 inclusive agreed to. _
On section 34.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is
the meaning of the words "which were vested in trust"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The language used is
for the purpose of more adequately conveying the meaning which parliament had in respect of it. This applies to foreign companies that are vested in trust instead of being owned in the country. This is to overcome the difficulty that arises in this country by reason of foreign companies not being literally owned but vested in trust.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
Bill reported.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Smith, Cumberland):: When shall the bill be read
the third time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some members who are not present might desire to make some observations, and if the bill stands for third reading they can ask to have it referred back, so I will let the third reading stand till the next sitting. I was going to go on with the second reading of the other insurance bill but it contains some matters that may give rise to considerable discussion, so I shall not proceed with it to-night.

Questions



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: I promised the leader of the opposition that I would indicate to-night what the view was as to whether we should sit on the twenty-fourth, and the view apparently is that it would suit better if we did not sit on that day. On Monday I shall put a motion on the order paper accordingly.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Monday, May 21, 1934