1934-03-02

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons debates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 2, 1934

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that at adjournment last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said that he understood there was an arrangement that we should continue to-day with the debate on Bill No. 4, respecting the bureau for translations, after which we would take up the bill to incorporate the Bank of Canada. The arrangement to which my right hon. friend referred is possibly one which he may have had with his own Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), but as I understand it, there has been no arrangement between the two sides of the house. In connection with the bill to incorporate the Bank of Canada I did tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) that if it were agreeable we would be prepared to proceed this afternoon, but nothing was said with respect to the other legislation.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is quite right. When I indicated that Bill No. 4 would be taken up, I did so because it had been discussed previously and given precedence in the early part of the week. As I indicated, I thought it was the understanding that it would be proceeded with again to-day. The right hon. gentleman is quite correct in saying that there was no arrangement with the opposition to this effect. I understand that he will not be here on Monday and possibly on Tuesday, and it is not probable that I shall be here on one of those days. If he desires, the Bank of Canada bill can stand until Thursday. We could then proceed this afternoon with the discussion as indicated last night. I do not think we could take a division to-night as so many members are away, but possibly at nine o'clock or before we could take up some items in supply. I desire to suit the convenience of the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The translations bill is one which affects in a very special way hon. members from the province of Quebec. My right hon. friend knows that Friday is not a very good day for the discussion of measures which affect particularly members from that province. I think there is a recognition of that fact between the different sides of the house. For this reason it was a bit of a surprise to us to find that this particular bill was mentioned for discussion today. I think it would meet with the approval of hon. members on this side of the house if it could stand over, but we leave ourselves in the hands of the government. As to the bill to incorporate the Bank of Canada, if it is agreeable to hon. members in other parts of the house to proceed at once, we are quite leady to do so. If not, I think perhaps it would be advisable that it should not come up on a day when the Prime Minister and I, myself, might both be away, although it is not absolutely necessary that it should not. However, I would prefer to be here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We desire to accommodate ourselves to the wishes of the house in a matter of this kind. Perhaps the same consideration would obtain with respect to the Bank of Canada bill as with respect to the translations bill, as I understand an amendment is to be moved to the former. Under the circumstances, we would prefer not to proceed to-day. Might I suggest that we go on with the translations bill until six o'clock and not proceed further. One hon. gentleman is in the middle of his speech and I notice others present who are vitally affected.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank the
Prime Minister for endeavouring to accommodate us, but perhaps it would be better if it were understood that we proceed with the translations biil until such time as it may be desirable to adjourn.
Mr. BENhiETT:	We will do that if it
meets with the approval of the house. We

1112	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Bouchard
shall proceed with Bill No. 4 until such time as the debate may be adjourned and then take up an item in supply.



BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Oahan for the second reading of Bill No. 4, respecting the bureau for translations, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Chevrier.
Mr. GEORGES BOUCHARD (Kamour-aska):: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. L. DUBOIS (Nicolet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it may, perhaps, be thought that I am somewhat out of my element in taking part in a debate which pertains more to the sphere of legal men. Like my good friend the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I have not the privilege of being a lawyer. However, I have the honour of representing a rural constituency which is interested in having translation done efficiently. Our farmers often require publications which pertain to branches or divisions such as those of the dairy industry, seed grain, livestock, eggs, poultry, fruit, vegetables and markets, etc., I, therefore, feel authorized to express my views on the
present bill which is being discussed by the house. I shall do so without wounding the feelings of any one so that I rely on the good will of my hon. colleagues. It might perhaps be that in the course of my remarks, I may not quite agree with the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), I may also cause him some regret, although I have had, for a long time, much esteem for him. Shall I wound the susceptibility of the hon. member for Labelle? However, inwardly, I feel the necessity of expressing my views on this bill. I frankly confess that it is one of the few occasions that I find it difficult to fulfil my duty.
Before broaching the subject matter under discussion and seeing that it is the first time that I have the opportunity of addressing the house, this session, I wish to strongly protest against the statement made by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) with reference to the university of Montreal. I regret that such an unfortunate statement should have fallen from the lips of one of my fellow farmers. Because, we, who belong to the soil, have long understood the importance of an education for our people and, especially, the importance of our universities. Again, I state that I regret that my hon. friend used such insulting words towards this institution which has rendered, is rendering and will, in the future, render great services to the farming class.
Bill No. 4, which we are asked to consider has for its object: first, efficiency in the translation of the various documents of this house and governmental departments; secondly, to economize. In perusing the bill, I asked myself: Who prompted this measure? Who invented this new system? In what surrounding was this bill concocted?
There was an inquiry held in December, 1932, by a committee of representatives of the various departments who studied a number of questions dealing with a more efficient control of the expenditure of the administration. The committee was composed of Messrs. Watson Sellar, Roberts, Cook, Coolican, etc. They represented the various departments. I eagerly read the report of this committee. After sitting for quite a time the committee came to the following conclusion. All the high officials who were members of this committee, all without exception, most strongly opposed any scheme of centralization. Two principal reasons were given: First, the inconvenience which would result in the efficient administration of departments; secondly, the necessity of having in departments a bureau for translation where, without delay and fear

Translations Bureau-Mr. Dubois
of indiscretion, correspondence and confidential documents would continue to be well translated.
Moreover, in the report of the committee making tihe inquiry, under the chairmanship of Mr. Sellar, one may find in section 21, the following comments and findings:
The committee has received no complaints concerning the quality of the matter translated. They found that decentralization is general in all departments. This system was adopted following the investigation made on this question, in 1910, after the report of Mr. Aehille Frechette, who, on an order of Internal Economy Committee of the House of Commons, visited Belgium and Switzerland to observe the systems in those countries. According to the information furnished to the committee, the departments are, in general, in favour of maintaining the statu quo.
I need not state, sir, that it is unnecessary to insist on the importance of such findings. If the present system is not perfect, if it requires timely improvements, there seems to be only one conclusion which we can arrive at from the impartial findings of the committee: the condemnation, without appeal, of the desire for centralization. Two persons were also consulted with reference to this bill No. 4, Mr. Bland and Mr. Beauchesne, however, their suggestions are considered as confidential. I wonder whether it is owing .to such suggestions that the hon. Secretary of State thought fit to propose the centralization of translation?
I can almost assert, without gainsay, that Bill No. 4 did not take birth in the brains of the hon. Secretary of State. I think there exist hidden instigators who are the authors of this act. It is, to say the least, most untimely. It strikes me that the house at present has enough serious and important questions to settle without having to raise a discussion on such a controversial subject as that of translation. I am willing to believe that the hon. Secretary of State, who has accepted the sponsorship of this bill, is well intentioned. He has perhaps in mind the efficiency of translation and economy of public moneys. However, I am bound to state, from a farmer's viewpoint, that this gilded piece of legislation tells me nothing. I rather feel perplexed. I have my doubts as to the efficiency of the measure we are asked to approve. To prove this, I shall examine the two reasons invoked to induce us to support bill No. 4.
The hon. Secretary of State contends in his explanatory notes:
It is desirable in the interest of efficiency and economy that it should now be organized and the work of translating so distributed' that no translator shall be idle or overworked, underpaid or overpaid.

This viewpoint was discussed with wit and pertinently by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). The economic question was also discussed in a masterly way by my hon. friend. I regret that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) thought fit to express entirely opposite views from those held by the hon. member for Ottawa. The hon. member for Labelle is better qualified than I am to speak in this house. I have nothing to teach him. However, I represent the county of Nicolet while he represents the county of Labelle. Notwithstanding all the esteem and regard I have for him, I deem it my duty to openly and clearly express my views on this legislation. I regret to disagree with him;
I more so regret it because he was one of those who exerted the strongest influence over my youthful ideas and fired my enthusiasm of twenty years ago. I thought I could as a young member look to him as a guide for future years; however, there is too much incoherence in his way of looking at this bill to induce me to place any trust in the statements he made the other day here in the house, and to accept his principles. I hope he will not bear me any grudge. He is broadminded and his heart is in the right place. He will forgive me for having my elbow' room with him. The hon. member for Labelle endorsed what he considered the efficiency of bill No. 4.
May I, sir, submit to the consideration of the house an excerpt which an eminent journalist wrote recently:
Translating is not commonplace, a task; or an easy one to perform. To succeed one must have a sufficient knowledge of one language to be certain of the sense and the exact meaning of the text; one must also have a sufficient knowledge of another language to be certain of transcribing in a clear and precise way, with new expressions, this sense clearly unravelled. All those who have tried their hand recognize that it is a difficult task, even if it be an ordinary text which deals with current events. One may perfectly understand in reading, the sense of a document without being able to translate it properly in one's own language.
When it is a question of a technical subject, the problem, often, becomes extremely difficult. An entirely new' vocabulary must be acquired and infinite details must be verified. With the decentralization system, which assigns a few translators to such and such a department, you have there individuals who have a particular interest in studying the vocabulary of their specialty. Bye and bye, that goes without saying, they will be in a position to perform their task in a shorter time and with less difficulty. It becomes a real hobby among a number of them. They collect dictionaries and technical reviews and when they make some discovery, it is classified on cards. It is an acquired wealth which will become useful in the future. This desire of always wanting to

Translations Bureau-Mr. Dubois
improve was even responsible for the founding of a society which endeavours to improve the technological vocabulary.
If this organization is destroyed, if the translations are placed in one large office where all will be required, at times, to translate any kind' of translation, is it not to be feared that this desire to improve will be sapped at its very foundation?
As matters stand, the translator in the Mines branch may hope to master the vocabulary of that industry. This is not out of reach of an intelligent man, possessing a general and proper preparation. He is aware that once he has attained this goal, his work will become easier, and at the same time, much improved. If he is placed in a large office, will he be able, will he even attempt to acquire this ability? He will have to become specialized in all subjects: that is impossible, and he will not put his heart in a task which is above human attainment.
The final result will be the grouping of persons who will have a superficial knowledge but, on the whole, no thorough knowledge of any subject. We mentioned "final" because centralization, if it decreases the desire and means of improving, will not deprive the present specialists of their worth and we can foresee that their help will be continuously in demand. Why then drag them away from the surroundings where they are in the habit of working, where they are given all the means to improve, and further increase their worth.
The specialization of translators would, in a short time, disappear. It could hardly maintain itself until the retirement or disappearance of the present generation of specialized translators.
It is not necessary to be well informed to understand that a translator who is in the habit of translating in the Department of Agriculture, who has specialized on such subjects as, seeding, aviculture or various chemical fertilizers, cannot become an expert if he is transferred to the Mines branch or Engineering branch.
The hon. member for Labelle complained, the other day, that in translation bureaus a number of employees do not work continuously. He even stated to support his arguments, that such a translator had translated 149 pages in a year, while another, during the same period, had translated a thousand and a few pages, etc.
I wish to first state that the figures he quoted do not appear to me to be correct. I am anxious to see the report of the committee which is to inquire as to the practical application of this bill. I even feel convinced that certain figures were falsified, not by the hon. member for Labelle, because, to my mind he is a very conscientious man, but by those who supplied him with such figures. I find the proof in this fact: that the person who was able to translate 1,076 pages, in one year, is an employee of the Bureau of Statistics, Department of Trade and Commerce. It is unfair to compare the work of a translator in the Bureau of Statistics with a translator of the Mines branch. The former is often called upon to translate but figures, and figures whether ini English or French are similar. One need not be very clever to know that tariff items, from No. 1 to No. 1,200, are translated in English by 1 to 1,200, without even having to look up the dictionary. While the translator employed in the Mines branch must make use of technical terms; his work is far more complicated and difficult, often he ihas to make researches. Furthermore, I shall again avail myself of an argument of the hon. member for Labelle: Did he not state, himself, that when he translated his speeches, he, at times, pondered two hours on one term to find the corresponding word? How do we know that the translators of the various departments are not obliged to devote sometimes two hours per day, to translate the exact meaning of a text? What happens when it is a case of translating documents of a constitutional order, constitutional law or international law? The translator must make researches, pore, hour after hour, over dictionaries so as to find out the thought of the author before translating it. And we expect that the translator, who is obliged to carry out long and careful researches to translate the thought of an author from the text which he is given, will translate the same number of pages as the one who has but figures to translate? That would be unfair.
I think that if we centralize translation, translation will suffer by it, because we smother individual effort. Although that is not the object of the hon. Secretary of State, since he denies that he intends to interfere with the translation of documents; we cannot, however, simply take the word of the hon. Secretary of State on this matter. If his statement was embodied in bill No. 4; if the interpretation given by the hon. member for Labelle was inserted in the bill, I would feel less skeptic and probably support the measure. If, to-day, in the house, the hon. Secretary of State, openly gave me his assurance that he would take special care not to smother the individual effort, to have all required documents translated, I would, to some extent, show myself more amenable to his views.
Another consideration. I may be mistaken, but, it was stated, that this bill No. 4 would help to improve translation. It is an instrument, a tool, states the Secretary of State. I cannot see clearly the necessity for such a tool at present. The decentralization sys-
1116	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Dubois
tern has given its proofs in the departments where the chiefs were broadminded and used common sense. This proof for instance is to be found in the Department of Trade and Commerce. With the present system we can have at the same time, the publication of the trade bulletin both in English and French. There is great improvement in the publication of the Year Book. Why should this not be in the departments complained of? If the Minister of Trade and Commerce is able to make a success of translation in his department without the help of Bill No. 4, why not the Minister of Agriculture, why not the Prime Minister, why not the Secretary of State himself?
Another reason why I am opposed to this bill and shall vote in favour of the amendment of my hon. friend for Ottawa, it is, as I stated at the outset, this gilded measure tells me nothing. There is nothing in the bill which safeguards the rights of the French language and there is nothing which would constitute an official recognition of that language, so far as translation is concerned.
Mr. ST-BERE (Translation): That is a fact.


Lucien Dubois: To any observing mind, the past is there to prove it. Not always have we had, in a wide measure, what we had a right to expect. I feel convinced, in spite of the good will of the hon. Secretary of State, we shall still not be able to make a success of Bill No. 4. As long as he holds that portfolio, perhaps-I have so much esteem for him, I have heard of him for ever so long; but the hon. Secretary of State shall not always occupy the post he has, he shall be replaced. Will the superintendent of this translation bureau be a broadminded man, will he interpret the law, Art. 133 of the British North America Act with an open mind? Experience has taught us, that when we leave it to the government to interpret an act, often, the letter of the law is applied rather than the spirit. Therefore, sir, with such apprehension, I am forced to vote against bill No. 4, unless the hon. Secretary of State wishes to state to the house that this bill is a clearer recognition of the official statute dealing with the French language in the debates. If the hon. Secretary of State would publicly state that it is a greater guarantee for the French language, I could be more lenient towards the measure under consideration.
According to this bill, it is simply a centralization of the translators, and we find in clause 3 a formula which gives me some concern:
LMr. Dubois.l
3. (1) There shall be a bureau under the minister, to be called the Bureau for Translations, the duties and function of which shall be to collaborate with and act for all departments of the public service, and both houses of the parliament of Canada and all bureaus, branches, commissions and agencies created or appointed by act of parliament, or by order of the governor in council, in making and revising all translations from one language into another of all departmental and' other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.
There is a long enumeration, but it is not stipulated whether this bill will specially provide for the French language. Moreover in paragraph 2 of clause 4:
(2) The minister may from time to time designate such translators or other employees in the public service or in any department or branch of the public service as he may deem necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of this act, and the governor in council may, from time to time, transfer to the bureau any of the said translators, or other employees so designated.
This is another matter of apprehension. Let us take as an example a qualified translator in the Department of Agriculture, who happens to be a French Canadian. Far be it from my thought, the idea that some one will take advantage of this bill to openly persecute my compatriots. That is not the point. However, what would happen if we were dealing with a narrow-minded man, as this has sometimes happened? Let us suppose, therefore, a French Canadian translator in the Department of Agriculture, whose turn has come for a promotion which might perhaps interfere with the promotion of translators belonging to another nationality. Perhaps, means would be found to transfer this competent translator-finding some excuse -from the Department of Agriculture where he might continue to be in the way of one more influent than himself, to the bureau for translations under the plea that his services are specially required in the latter place.
My hon. friend the member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere) expressed such an apprehension while a number of my colleagues entertain similar fears in this respect. Are we not justified, sir, in having some apprehension to vote in favour of this measure? In no way does it embody all the guarantees necessary so far as translation efficiency is concerned; and-I speak on my behalf-as to the safeguarding of our rights to the French language.
I can also give another reason for my apprehension. You are aware, sir, that in 50 per cent of the departments of the government for translation there is no bilingualism. We note that, in many departments, we have not been dealt with fairly. I have

Supply-Secretary oj State
here, as one example, the names of officials of the National Revenue Department, it will prove that we have reason to have apprehensions when our interests are at stake.
I shall quote the names of the principal officials of the National Revenue Department. Let us see whether we find one French Canadian name. The hon. minister who is in charge of the department is the Hon Mr. Matthews; his private secretary is Mr. Code; the Commissioner of Customs, Mr. Scully; the Commissioner of Excise, Mr. Sim; the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mr Elliott; the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mr. Blair; the Assistant to the General Executive, Mr. Ide. I hold no animosity against those who do not belong to my race-


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: And Mr. Gaboury?


Lucien Dubois: Among the
English speaking members as well as among the English speaking employees there are qualified, intelligent, straightforward and conscientious men who are fair in the distribution of work and if they had to settle the present question, would not fear to do justice to our compatriots who could ably fill posts in the public service or elsewhere.
The hon. Secretary of State still persists in having this Bill No. 4 enacted, notwithstanding the press campaign carried on against it throughout the country. It is true that the hon. member for Labelle designated as little scraps of paper the petitions that were signed and articles that were published in newspapers, such as the " Devoir," the " Droit," " l'Action Catholique," and " Le Canada." He designated as little scraps of paper the warning of our national associations. But it was public opinion that spoke. The hon. Secretary of State is sufficiently wise, open-minded to realize the injustice this bill is doing us. With the broad-mindedness I know he has, I think *the Secretary of State should not insist further, he should even drop the bill so as not to force us to vote against it.
Mr. DESLAURIERS moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Chief electoral officer-salaries and contingencies of office, $14,724.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: This is the usual vote for the chief electoral
officer. There is no change in salaries or in contingencies in that office in these estimates as compared with the estimates for the previous year.


Mr. MARCIL:: Is the minister in a position to give us the number of returning officers who have been dismissed since the last general election?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information. If he will ask for a return, however, I will see that it is brought down. I stand in a peculiar position in regard to the chief electoral officer; he is an independent officer of this house, but he formally approaches the house in connection with his estimates through the Secretary of State. I do not control his dismissals or appointments in any way, and since I have been in office he has never consulted me in respect to either dismissals or new appointments.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Do I understand the Secretary of State to say that the chief electoral officer is independent of this house, or independent of the ministry?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, he is an independent officer of the house, independent of the Secretary of State. I simply represent this officer, nominally, in presenting his estimates to the house, and any instructions the house has to give usually go through the Secretary of State. The chief electoral officer is an officer over whom I have no control; whose office I do not supervise, and v"ho has never consulted me with regard to dismissals, if dismissals have been made, or in regard to appointments. I am simply asking for this vote for the chief electoral officer for the present year.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I should like to be informed as to whether the chief electoral officer is responsible to anyone or whether he has any superior officer. How is he appointed?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He is appointed under a
statute of the houses of parliament. He is not responsible to any superior officer; he is responsible to parliament.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Is he actually appointed by statute or is he appointed by order in council?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He is not appointed by order in council; he is appointed by parliament as provided by statute.


Charles Marcil: I should like to say a word with regard to the dismissal of the returning officer in my constituency, and I am sorry
Supply-Secretary oj State

the chief electoral officer is not represented on the floor of this house so that he might defend his actions.
At my request the chief electoral officer went to my constituency and held an investigation, after which he came to the conclusion that this man should be dismissed, and he was dismissed. Complaints had been made by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion); the electoral officer held an investigation under oath, and came to the conclusion that this man should be dismissed. I submitted the evidence to a learned counsel in Montreal, Mr. John G. Ahern, who came to the conclusion that the returning officer had carried out his duties, but of course as between these two gentlemen the chief electoral officer carried the day and this man was dismissed. Mr. Verge is the son of the former registrar of Bonaventure county, who was returning officer himself for overy twenty years. This younger Mr. Verge was practically brought up in the work, and he was most competent.. On the day of the general election he received a telephone message at Carleton to come down to Paspebiac a large parish in the county, to see that no obstruction was put in the way of people voting. He visited a couple of polls and reported that everything was satisfactory. On his way home he was told that some objections had been made at the poll called Thivierge, in Bonaventure county, to the effect that three or four young people who had been away from home but who had returned were unable to vote. The deputy returning officer, who has since died, was of the opinion that to vote in a federal election the person named must be on the list. That is the procedure followed in provincial elections in Quebec; if your name is not on the list you cannot vote, but in the federal election there is a means provided, if your name is not on the list, by which you can vote if you take the oath and so on. Mr. Verge seems to have explained the law to the deputy returning officer and to have left the matter at that, according to his declaration. After his departure three young men and two young women who were employed in Montreal and Quebec but who had returned to their homes in Bonaventure for a vacation, voted at that poll. For that reason the chief electoral officer dismissed Mr. Verge.
I do not imagine that Mr. Verge's reputation in the constituency will be very much affected, because unfortunately it is looked upon merely as a political dismissal; everyone is satisfied that he fulfilled his duties, but in justice to Mr. Verge I am making these
/Mr. MarciJ.]
remarks, without passing any reflection at all upon the chief electoral officer who is not here to defend himself. Mr. Verge fulfilled his duties to the best of his ability; his actions have been supported by a learned king's counsel of Montreal who is very familiar with the law, and his dismissal is looked upon merely as a political matter in the county. I desire to make this statement in fairness to Mr. Verge.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend's statement now is a matter of record in Hansard. If the hon. gentleman thinks that the chief electoral officer did not act in accordance with his duties, there is always a remedy open, because such a matter is within the jurisdiction of the committee on privileges and elections. If hon. members wish to complain about this parliamentary officer, they will have a full opportunity before that committee. The. chief electoral officer could attend for examination.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I suppose the minister has not any idea of how many changes there have been in the returning officers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not the slightest idea.


Charles A. Stewart: We shall ask the question at a later time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the question is asked in the house I shall see that an answer is given, by return.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent record, $35,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The patent record is published by the patent branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. By international agreement we are obliged to publish such a record, and by giving information with respect to patents granted by the Canadian office the record serves a very useful purpose. I am endeavouring if possible, to cut down the cost, and during the ensuing year shall endeavour to reduce the expenditure from $42,000 to $35,000.


Mr. BROWN:: What is the revenue from that publication?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will say to the hon. member that there is some revenue, but it does not cover the cost. Unfortunately with respect to all branches of the Department of Secretary of State revenue does not come to the department, but goes into the consolidated revenue fund. So that while in several

Supply-Secretary of State
branches of my department we pay our way several times over, the consolidated revenue fund receives the advantage.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the preparation of the publication done by the printing bureau?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The copy is prepared by the patent branch and the publication is made by the printing bureau.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is the Secretary of State in a position to give the house the total revenue received from the patent office?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I probably can.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If the Secretary of State will give the information later, I shall be satisfied.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Receipts from the patent and copyright branch for the past year amounted to $539,340.64. That is an increase of $14,092.22 over the previous year. The total expenditures for the same year amounted to $205,293.70, which was a decrease in expenditure of $40,969.40. The decrease occurred in civil government, contingencies, and in the cost of printing the patent office record. Surplus of receipts over expenditures amounted to $334,046.94. In addition to that there was a profit on foreign exchange, that is on cheques sent from foreign countries to the patent office in payment of fees, amounting to $8,033.75.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Has the minister or his department any control over so-called patent attorneys? One or two oases have come to my notice in which patent attorneys have accepted large fees for doing very little work.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The only control over
patent attorneys which the minister has-and I am speaking subject to correction-is, that in case of dishonesty, fraud, or other bad practice being proven against an attorney, his name may be removed from the list of attorneys practising before the patent office. That is my understanding, and I believe it is a fact.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Does this item cover
copyright, also?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, we are now discussing
an item concerning the patent record.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I understand copyright
information is published in the same periodical.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the patent record there
may be some reference to copj'right records,
published as a matter of information. This vote, however, provides for printing the record from month to month.


Mr. FAFARD:: May I ask the minister if
the hon. member for Compton applied for a copyright on his last speech?


Mr. GOBEIL:: That is wise, isn't it?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International office for the protection of industrial property, international copyright union office and union for the protection of literary and artistic works, $2,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This vote refers to the
international office at Berne. It is necessary for us, under international conventions to which we are a party, to make this contribution. We pay $2,000 a year. No change is made in this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses under the Naturalization Act, $11,700.
Mr. RINFRET:: I notice that there is a
considerable decrease in this item. I suppose it is an indication that the requests have diminished.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The chief reduction arises
in this way: Owing to an amendment to the Naturalization Act, dealing with the status of married women, it became necessary to reprint the forms which we had used for a number of years. For instance, a man in Canada may now apply for naturalization, but the naturalization certificate granted to him does not cover his wife, unless she makes an independent application for naturalization. The result -was that last year we had to change a very considerable number of forms, due to the amendment to the Naturalization Act. This expenditure is not necessary in the ensuing year. On the other hand, we expect that during the ensuing year there, will be a reduction in the number of applications.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Last year the expenditure was abnormal.


Charles Marcil: How many were naturalized last year and the year before?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I made a full statement a
few days ago in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), and this information is on record.


Mr. BRADETTE:: There are a large number of people in my section of the country' who were born in Europe and have resided in Canada long enough to qualify for naturalization. However, many of these people are on direct relief and find it impossible to pay the
Supply-Secretary oj State

nominal sum required. Would it be possible to have papers issued free of cost to these people? I have one case in mind where if the man were naturalized he could qualify for the old age pension.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am afraid it is not within the power of the Secretary of State to provide that applicants for naturalization shall be exempt from paying the fee of $5. This amount is not received wholly by the consolidated revenue fund through the Department of the Secretary of State; it covers in part the fees of the clerk of the court to which the application is made and the certificate granted.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I should like to have
some information in connection with a case in the town of Transcona. This man originally came from southern Europe; he was naturalized and raised a family, his boys now being all young men. He returned to the old country but is not now able to come back to this country. I should like to know why a naturalized citizen is prevented from coming back to this country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have fairly complete
records of all naturalization certificates granted in this country. We have complete records since the Naturalization Act of 1914 and, with a few exceptions, we have the records of those granted by the courts under the old naturalization acts. When we took over in 1914 there had been one or two courthouses destroyed by fire and the records were not available, but otherwise they are complete. These records are available within an hour or two.


John Power Howden: May I interrupt for a
moment? I applied to the office here in Ottawa and obtained this man's record and number, but still he is not permitted to return to this country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If he has been absent from Canada for seven years or over without being in the employ of the Canadian government or an office or agency of that government or in the employ of some Canadian company or person doing business abroad, he loses his naturalization rights.


John Power Howden: He has been away only
three years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman will
give me his name I shall have a complete examination made and give him a definite reply.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Just before I left for the east two cases were brought to my attention. These parties had lost their

naturalization papers and I should like to know the procedure and cost of obtaining new papers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the person affected was
naturalized under one of the old acts before 1914 his remedy would be to apply for a certificate under the new act. Prior to 1914 the naturalization granted in Canada made the individual a British subject while in Canada but such status was not recognized when he went beyond the three-mile limit. It became very important that those who had received their certificates prior to 1914 should apply for certificates under the new act. If the individual has been naturalized under the new act and the officer is satisfied that the application for a new certificate is made in good faith, a duplicate certificate is issued. We have found that we must exercise great care in this respect, especially on the Pacific coast. We have found that naturalization certificates have been traded in for certain fraudulent purposes. In certain cases applications have been made for new certificates on the ground that the old ones had been lost, but it was found that they had not been lost but fraudulently sold or transferred to persons who could not obtain naturalization. We have to be very careful but I am sure that the assurance of my hon. friend as to his knowledge of the particular facts would go a long way to satisfying the department in these particular cases.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What would be the position of an individual who had taken out naturalization papers in some other part of the empire and who was absent from Canada for seven or more years? I take it that he would- have difficulty in getting back into Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So far as the department
of the Secretary of State is concerned he certainly would have no difficulty, but I could not answer as to what action might be taken by the Department of Immigration-. Particular considerations might arise. Careful reports are made from time to time as to the conduct abroad of naturalized Canadian citizens. We have received complaints in the past which would seem to indicate that apparently certain aliens -have been naturalized in this country in order to obtain a certificate of good character with which to go abroad and commit crime. We rely upon Scotland Yard and other sources of information in England as to the criminal conduct of naturalized subjects. If an individual has been found by a court to be guilty of crime, the Secretary of State may apply to the

Supply-Secretary of State
governor in council to have his certificate cancelled. Such applications are made from time to time and even from week to week. Notice of such cancellation is sent to all foreign countries interested. The same procedure is followed in the granting of naturalization certificates.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Is it not a fact that where a foreigner becomes naturalized, having been out of the country for two or three years and is living, say, in the United States, if he does not report once a year to the British consular officer he loses his domicile and cannot return?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact, it is provided in the law that one who is naturalized in Canada and goes abroad to live shall report to a British consular officer once a year with respect to his intention to return to Canada. My hon. friend from St. James can speak regarding the practice when he was in office, but speaking for myself I have not made a practice of attempting to cancel certificates because this annual declaration has not been made, because I find it would often work grave hardships. The fact is that many naturalized citizens of Canada go abroad, remaining away for over a year, with the clear and positive intention of returning and assuming Canadian domicile, and their default in reporting is due to ignorance. In such cases I think we should make very considerable allowances, and I have not attempted any rigid enforcement of the rule with regard to notification of intention to resume Canadian domicile. But in almost every instance, as regards those who are abroad for more than seven years, when that is proved satisfactorily, and after the person has been notified and has had personal service of notice to which he can reply and give his excuses, I apply to the governor in council for revocation. There are however exceptional cases. A very sad case came under my notice not long ago. I received from a district in Manchuria the Canadian passport and Canadian certificate of naturalization of a well known missionary priest from Quebec. He had come from France to this country with his family and had been educated in the institutions of Quebec, being later sent abroad to Manchuria as a missionary. He had his Canadian passport and Canadian certificate of naturalization. When British subjects were being rounded up in Manchuria in order that they might receive the protection of the British government, it was ascertained that this reverend father had been absent from Canada for over seven years and had not travelled a distance of some six
or seven hundred miles to get in touch with a consular officer to report. He had been attending to his duties as a priest. They took up the certificate and the passport and it was sent on to the office of the Secretary ol State, and soon after there came a letter from this priest

a very touching letter. He said that he was a Canadian though born abroad, and that the one hope of his life had been to return to Canada to spend his last days among his family and friends. You may be sure that within twenty-four hours I returned the certificate and passport so that he could come back. Exceptions must be made in individual cases.


Albert Joseph Brown: I only wish that many other men who have to do with these matters exercised the same judgment as the Secretary of State.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I must say for my predecessor that I think he was as careful and assiduous.


Albert Joseph Brown: I am not speaking of either the minister or his predecessor. The fact is however that many men on both sides of the boundary line are absolutely callous. They enforce the law according to the strict letter, exercising no sort of discretion. The minister is to be congratulated on having acted as he has done.


Mr. POWER:: Some time last fall the newspapers brought to the attention of the Canadian public the somewhat anomalous position of Canadian diplomatic representatives abroad. It appeared from an article which I read at the time that the children of, let us say, the Canadian representative at Geneva, born in Geneva, would not be regarded as Canadian nationals, and that if perchance later in life they returned to Canada and came under the disqualification of a person who was on relief they might be subject to deportation. I cannot conceive of a worse position than that. I have in mind certain representatives of Canada overseas, of French Canadian origin, whose children were born there. It might very well happen that later in life these children would come to Canada and if they became public charges they would be subject to deportation-that is, if the article which I read in this paper accurately represents the situation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no doubt in my mind that the children of Canadian nationals born abroad should be deemed Canadian nationals. Two years ago, at the request of one of flip missionary societies of the Catholic church, and on representations made through
Supply-Secretary oj State

the missionary societies of the United church, the Presbyterian church and the Church of England in Canada, I prepared an amendment to the nationality act. It came before the house for discussion. Some objections were made and that bill was retired. Now, I am giving my personal opinion-


Charles Gavan Power: I am soriy to say I believe I opposed that bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, there was considerable opposition, and I thought it was a matter that should be dealt with by general consent rather than as a party measure and so I did not push the bill. But I think it must be dealt with. I remember the case to which the hon. gentleman refers, but no difficulty was encountered when the son of the Canadian agent at Geneva did return with his mother to Canada. I believe that due consideration is given in all such cases, but we might well consider an amendment to the law which would admit return as a matter of right.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand the Secretary of State to say that as a matter of fact, under the legislation as we have it at the present time, the children of Canadian officials born abroad are not Canadian nationals, though he agrees that they should be?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think that under the law- I am now referring to the immigration law, in which I am not an expert-it is not absolutely clear that as a matter of right they may return, though it is clear that they have the right to return to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and do return there very often rather than run the risk of being rejected by the immigration authorities here.


Charles Gavan Power: Strictly speaking, the Department of the Secretary of State for Canada would not have jurisidiction to grant them a passport?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


Charles Gavan Power: They would be obliged to
obtain a passport from the office in Great Britain?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Passports are granted by
our own Department of External Affairs in Ottawa; to those who are abroad they are granted by consular officers of the United Kingdom who act on behalf of the Department of External Affairs. For example, when I was in Geneva a little over a year ago I came across a peculiar case. One day one of the young women employed as a stenographer in the Canadian office in that city

came back to the office very much embarrassed because she had been told by the British consul there that she had no right to return to Canada. It appears, as she explained the circumstances to me, that her parents were English and came to Montreal when she was a little girl two or three years of age, I have forgotten the exact age. The family continued their residence in Montreal. She grew up, was educated in the schools of that city, became quite an expert in stenography and was appointed to and employed in the Canadian office in Geneva. She had gone to Geneva with a Canadian passport. Some family affair necessitated her signing some documents and she went before the consular official to make this signature and some declaration in connection with it, when the consular official asked her how long she had been in Geneva. I think she said: About two years. He drew her attention to the fact that she had not reported to him in the meantime; that her passport showed that she had actually been born in Great Britain, and he told her that in his opinion she had no longer a right to Canadian nationality and a Canadian passport because she had not reported to him before the expiration of twelve months of her first term of sojourn in Geneva. Of course the young lady was great!}' distressed because she wanted to return to her parents in Canada. So on her behalf I wrote to the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs and I believe he took the matter up with the Immigration department with the result that assurance was given that the young lady could return to this country. Cases of that kind arise from time to time, I believe these rights should be clearly established by law and possibly after I have passed away, some successor, I hope, will have better success than I have had in attempting to clarify the situation.


Charles Marcil: The minister was kind
enough to refer to the numerous men and women who during the last few years have been going as missionaries from Canada to the orient, some from the Church of England, others from the United Church of Canada, others from the Roman Catholic Church and so forth. Apparently, Canada is no longer a missionary field and we are sending missionaries abroad. Every year we see quite a number of men and women leaving Montreal to go to the foreign field. Have these people going abroad, especially to distressed parts such as the orient, been instructed, warned or notified by the department or have the heads of their churches been notified,

Supply-Secretary oj State
that they should be. naturalized or have something in their possession to show their nationality when they reach those foreign countries, because our present nationality is different from what it was in the old days. In those days we used to claim our British nationality. In 1910 I remember when I crossed over to France I wanted to rent an apartment, so I went to the police department and put down my nationality as French Canadian. The Frenchman struck that out and said to me: "You are English." That is the way in which the thing worked in those days. I said to him: "You do not encourage French Canadians in America by telling me I am English." I should like to know from the minister, in view of the large number of Canadians going into the foreign missionary fields, whether any steps are taken under our law to protect them?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot speak altogether
for the Department of External Affairs, but it is a fact that the great majority of those missionaries who go abroad representing the different Canadian churches, are natural born British subjects, born in Canada and therefore do not need naturalization. In the case of French Canadian missionaries abroad, if a missionary happened to have been born in France, coming to Canada later in life, particular pains are usually taken before he goes abroad to secure for him a certificate of naturalization and therefore a Canadian passport. In respect of Manchuria and China I think every effort has been made during these troublesome times to communicate to Canadian nationals such advice as may prove helpful for the protection of themselves and their families.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I should like to ask a question of a different nature from those that have preceded mine. May I draw the attention of the minister to the Naturalization Act which states that any applicant must live in this country for five years and must also be able to understand either the French or the English language. In this country there is a very desirable class of people who have come here in middle age and who are unable to learn either French or English well enough to qualify themselves for citizenship. It oftens happens that some of these older applicants are refused certificates of naturalization on the ground that they cannot speak either language. They have all the virtues; they are industrious farmers or labourers and in every respect outside the fact that they cannot speak either English or French, they would make very desirable citizens of this country. On the other hand,
we have the applicant who can speak English almost as well as Shakespeare did, but who in all other respects would not make a very desirable citizen. I have been wondering whether some mitigating provision might not be afforded so far as the first type of applicants is concerned, because I believe they would make good citizens apart from the language qualification.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I notice from the returns
which we receive from the courts of the provinces of the middle west that when these cases come before the judges, the latter sometimes exercise a certain leniency in giving their decisions whether the applicant is versed in English or French. From the reports I notice that if they can understand French or English sufficiently to know what is said to them and to make some reply in the ordinary way, the judges are quite lenient; but to change the law would require a substantive enactment of the parliament of Canada.


Michael Luchkovich: Supposing somebody got on a judge's nerves and he refused to exercise that leniency?


Mr. HEAPS:: A very important point has
been raised by the hon. member for Vegre-ville. Cases have come to my attention of people who have been in the country twenty-five or thirty years, have attained the age of forty-five or fifty, but have lived in scattered districts where it has been practically impossible for them to become familiar with either the French or the English language. When they reach the age of seventy, without having obtained naturalization papers, and make applications for old age pensions, because of their inability to speak English they are practically barred from the benefits of the Old Age Pensions Act. These people have given good service to the country, and through no fault of their own find themselves unable to obtain naturalization. I wonder if it would not be possible in such instances, where a person has been a good citizen and has all the other qualifications to receive old age pension, that some discretionary powers might be vested in the minister whereby such people could become Canadian citizens and eligible for old age pension.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not for me to
decide. I confess that one is moved to leniency in certain cases, but one is dealing with a substantive enactment of the law of this country. If my hon. friend will introduce an amendment along the lines he is now sug-
Supply-Secretary oj State

gesting it will receive the consideration of the house, but I cannot promise action will be taken.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am afraid of introducing
any amendment to any act of parliament; I have been rather unfortunate in regard to any bill I have tried to introduce. I feel as the minister felt a moment ago when he spoke of the leniency that a magistrate might show towards applicants for naturalization. My own understanding is that as a rule magistrates have been fairly strict in their interpretation of the law, and where a person, even of the age of seventy, who may have raised a large family in the country, has been unable to comply with the strict letter of the law, he has failed to obtain naturalization. This means considerable hardship in old age when they find themselves ineligible for old age pension. If the magistrate had some discretionary powers such cases might be dealt with considerately, but I find that as a rule magistrates claim they have no discretion, that the law is rigid. I feel that there should be some discretion vested somewhere to meet such situations.


Michael Luchkovich: I think in the case
of elderly citizens such as I have referred to, who want to get naturalization papers, if their community or municipality, through the Secretary or councilmen, could show by letter or affidavit that the applicant was a desirable citizen even though he does not understand French or English, such a recommendation should have some weight with the judge who is hearing the application.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think if it were left to
the municipality it would be found in many cases that their position would be adverse to the applicant, because our office has received during the last three years many protests from municipalities against granting certificates of naturalization to those who do not understand well either the English or the French language. They insist that the granting of a certificate of naturalization imposes a heavier burden upon the municipality in respect of providing relief, which it is not prepared to meet. Therefore they have in many cases protested very strongly against making any concession to the alien who does not understand French or English.


Michael Luchkovich: If the alien is able
to pay his taxes I do not see how it would be a burden on the municipality.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The alien who is competent to earn his way and pay his taxes and has lived in this country thirty or forty years without finding any inconvenience through
[Mr. Cahan.l
not having a certificate of naturalization is caused very little trouble. But in the case of an alien who, after reaching a certain age, suddenly finds it necessary to apply for public relief, who sometimes frankly states in his application that he is applying solely in order that he may be put on relief-some are very frank and state that-in such case if it were left to the municipality, even your western municipalities, I am afraid the decision would be adverse.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I suppose that is only in the case of aliens who have been in the country a period of five years, which enables them to comply with the laws of the country as far as naturalization is concerned?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will mention a case that
is before my department now, of an alien, an American, who has been in this country thirty or forty years. He has led a good life, he is recommended by those who know him, but he insisted that he was going to live and die an American citizen, did not wish to assume British nationality. The other day he applied for naturalization, stating that he was applying, not because he wished to become a British subject, but solely that he might be put on relief in the town where he lived. If that case were left to the municipality I am afraid the certificate would not be granted.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not see what difference the granting of a certificate would make in that particular instance. I understand if an alien has been in this country more than five years he is not subject to deportation proceedings, so whether he becomes a Canadian citizen or not makes very little difference.


Charles A. Stewart: But if he goes on relief?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The instances I tried to bring to the attention of the committee are of people who have made their home here for twenty or thirty years, have reached the age of seventy and require naturalization papers to be eligible for old age pension, which will take them off relief.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I admit frankly that cases of great hardship are brought to my attention where certificates have not been granted. But to remedy that situation would require a substantive amendment to the Naturalization Act.


Michael Luchkovich: Suppose the case of an applicant who is refused citizenship papers on the ground that he had not sufficient knowledge of English or French, and the

Supply-Secretary of State
municipality did intercede on his behalf, recommending that he receive citizenship papers, would the minister take that into consideration?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can give no promise. One has to deal with individual cases. Where you have about twenty thousand of these application coming in every year, the correspondence averaging nearly a thousand letters a week, one has to endeavour to exercise reasonable discretion, and that I do. If the hon. gentleman brings a particular case to my personal attention I will see if I can find some way to satisfy his wishes. But I can give no definite promises.


Mr. HAY:: The Naturalization Act as it exists at the present time does work a great hardship on many people born in foreign countries who have come to Canada and lived here many years:	I have had hundreds of
these cases brought to my notice in the past five or six years. I would suggest that some change be made which would enable these people to obtain their citizenship papers. I know many cases of sons and daughters of people who are not British citizens who have obtained their papers, yet their fathers and mothers are unable to become naturalized because they are unable to read or write English or French. I have known many cases where the sons of these people have served overseas, yet the parents are unable to become naturalized because they are unable to comply with the law as it exists at the present time. Many of these people are splendid types yet because, as one other hon. member explained, they have lived in districts remote from English speaking settlers, they have been unable to acquire the English language and are unable to become naturalized. Very often the judge before [DOT]whom these people appear adheres strictly to the letter of the law, and as a result these people are deprived of the opportunity of becoming citizens. I would strongly urge that some change be made in the law or the regulations in order to permit these people to become citizens of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public archives, $63,024.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am instructed by the
clerk that I was mistaken in my impression tlfat this item had passed.
Mr. R1NFRET:	I see a slight decrease
this year, and I should like to ask if this means a lessening of the activities of the
department outside of Ottawa or whether it is a saving in the expenditures of the department in Ottawa.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not the records here, but we have had a number of deaths in the department, which may account for the reduction. As a matter of fact one lady retired, I do not know whether or not to get married, and there was one death and perhaps two. Since 1930 I have made no new appointments at all in the public archives to fill vacancies caused by death or resignation. I quite agree that public archives must be maintained, but for the present we are maintaining the department with a somewhat reduced staff. It is possible that the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of making the nominations for these vacancies some time in the future.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Do I understand that
this item includes salaries? If my hon. friend will look up item 23 he will find that it covers the salaries in Ottawa. I believe the item we are considering covers the expenditures of the department outside of Ottawa, and my question was whether the outside activities of the department have been diminished in any way. If the minister has not the information I shall be quite prepared to seek it on another occasion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend is perfectly
right; this item is to provide for the salaries of the permanent staff outside of Ottawa; for temporary services; for travelling expenses of representatives outside of Ottawa, and for the purchase of books and manuscripts outside of Ottawa. The money for the salaries in Ottawa is provided under item 23. I think outside of Ottawa there have been one or two retirements, though there has been no forcible retirement of any kind, even under the age limit. There are several employees who come within the age limit, and in order that they might be kept on I have now an application before the treasury board asking that their services be retained for another year. The reduction which appears here must be due to some voluntary retirements, I should think.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I suppose this also covers he expenditures in London and Paris?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand that work
has not been discontinued there and that it is not contemplated that it be discontinued. I believe the department also has a correspondent in Rome.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is true, and he is a
very worthy man indeed.
Supply-Secretary oj State


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand there is no
intention of discontinuing that work either. If I am informed correctly, the work done in these European capitals has been exceedingly advantageous to the archives.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact I think
the reverend father who has been at work in the archives in Rome for many years, a very able man indeed, has reached the age limit and can be kept on only by special order in council. I believe I made application the other day in this connection. In Paris there is one man who, according to the age limit, should have been retired a year ago. I am sorry I have not my papers here, but he was employed on some very special work in reproducing some maps which w'ere regarded by those interested in the public archives in this country as very important. Although he had reached the age limit a year ago I applied to have his services retained for another year, and recently I made a second application in his behalf. These people have been working for very small salaries and have not been able to save very much, and I have hoped to keep them on for special work as long as possible.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I should like to commend the minister for doing so. I think it will be agreed that an archivist can be kept at work longer than the average man in other activities. Unless he is so very old that he cannot carry on the work properly I think age only adds to his experience and ability in his work. I think the minister should be commended for keeping on these men whom we employ abroad, who are very excellent men, and for not being too strict in the application of the age limit. In this kind of work, as I have said, experience and age add to the value of the work done.


Albert Joseph Brown: I just wish to support the
sentiments expressed by the hon. member for St. James. In my view the department of the archives is one of the most important, and the men engaged in it are, of necessity, men who have made a special study of their work. It has become a hobby with them. I can believe that men who have given their lives to this kind of work are more competent to carry on, despite the fact that they have passed the age limit. The minister should be commended for having taken the stand he has, and returning these men to service.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So far, if I remember correctly, we have not retired any person in the archives branch because of age. Of course,

there are a certain number of temporary employees, young women who come and go, but they are on a monthly wage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public printing and stationery-salaries, $37,602; contingencies, $10,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In this item there is a reduction, due to the fact that under the age limit provision we have retired a considerable number who were employed in the public printing and stationery branch. The reduction in salaries this year amounts to $12,888.
Mr. RINFRET; I should like the committee to realize that the detail of this item, appearing at page 91 of the estimates, shows only a very small portion of that which really constitutes the staff of the printing office.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: While I acted as Secretary of State proposals were made by hon. members then sitting on this side of the house to change the system in the printing office. I shall not blame nor shall I criticize the present government for not doing so, because such a change would be a most involved and intricate matter. I should like however to say that the list of salaries appearing at page 91 covers but a very small proportion of what really constitutes the staff of the printing office, because the main group of employees at that point work at prevailing rates of salaries, and the expenditure necessary to meet those wages, combined with those of the printing officer proper, are charged to the different departments under an item for printing. If hon. members will go through the estimates they will find that in connection with every department there is an item for printing and stationery, including not only the material but also the work. The larger group of employees in the printing office are not included in the estimate now before us, but are spread through several items. At least, that was the system prevailing some years ago, and it as obvious that it is still maintained.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The annual report of the
Department of Public Printing and Stationery gives the details to which my hon. friend has referred. The present item includes salaries of official heads of that department. On March 1, last year, there were 694 employees, all told, in the department, although that figure has been somewhat reduced since. They are paid out of the king's printer advance account. Their salaries, which last year amounted to $1,700,000, are arranged according to the prevailing rates in neighbour-

Supply-Secretary oj State
ing cities, and are charged to the cost of departmental and other reports furnished to various departments for which the printing is supplied.


Charles A. Stewart: In this
instance the funds do not go through the treasury; they are reserved for payment. That is, the votes go directly to the department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: This is somewhat different.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is the king's printer advance account, made by the treasury, supervised by the accountants of the comptroller of the treasury, and audited by the auditor general. Those accounts are paid from day to day and from week to week.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That includes labour?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, I am dealing with labour. No change has been made in the system.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Service Commission-salaries, $182,898; contingencies, $25,000.
Mr. GAiHAN: As hon. members know, this is the usual vote for the Civil Service Commission. It is a branch over which I have no control, and in connection with appointments to the commission I have never made a single request or suggestion. I have been as independent as the commission are. The vote for salaries has been reduced from $196,020 to $182,898. That is due to the fact that there have been some retirements and one or two appointments. I have particulars, but I do mot think they would be of interest to hon. gentlemen.
Mr. VENIOT:: Is it the intention of the government to effect a complete reorganization of that commission? For instance, may I refer to the chairman of the commission. I see by the press it is rumoured that he is considering retirement. Perhaps the minister could give the committee some information as to when he is due to retire.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I believe it is clearly understood that the Hon. W. J. Roche, has reached the age limit, and will retire at an early date. Although I cannot speak authoritatively, I have no doubt that upon his retirement the vacancy will be filled by a new appointment. I believe the view generally expressed last year before the committee on civil service was that it might be advisable to retain his services for some months, during reor-
7472ft-72
ganization, in view of the fact that he had had such long experience in the details of that organization. His knowledge of these details was most useful to the new appointees and it is solely on these grounds that he is being retained for a short time.


Peter John Veniot: Is it not true that the committee of parliament which investigated the workings of the Civil Service Commission recommended that the services of the chairman and his two associates be dispensed with forthwith?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot speak definitely
from memory, but I do not think that was the recommendation. As the hon. gentleman knows, Mr. Adrien Potvin, who was formerly one of the translators in the Senate, was appointed as a civil sendee commissioner. The fact that that commission would have the advantage of his intimate knowledge of translation methods was one of the reasons for the favourable consideration of placing the entire translating branch under the commission in a more definite way than has existed heretofore.


Mr. YENIOT:: The Civil Service Commission would have nothing to do with translations, they would have to do only with the appointment of translators.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There would be the matter of organization.


Peter John Veniot: If this gentleman has to do with translations I hope he will be more up to his work than he was when he acted as translator in the Senate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have never met the gentleman and, therefore, I cannot make a reply to my hon. friend.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: The position of head
examiner and translator was abolished on December 1. Does the minister intend to abolish this position permanently or is it to be just temporary? Will it become as permanent as the temporary cut in salaries?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As the minister representing the Civil Service Commission I can give no assurance as to whether or not vacancies will be filled. I have no voice, directly or indirectly, in connection with appointments or retirements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $351,000.
Charles A. Stewart: There is a reduction of $198,300 in this vote. Naturally

Supply-Trade-Statistics

we are all pleased to see reductions made but this is a very important service and I understand that the duties of this department are increasing all the time.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: A substantial part of the reduction is due to the letting out of the staff engaged for the census.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: How many of that
staff have been retained in the service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were 292 still in
the service last year but I think a further reduction is to be made this month and some of that number will not be kept on for the coming year.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will that whole staff
be eventually abolished or will some of them be retained in the service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: By the time the supplementary estimates are brought down I shall know definitely. It is possible that due to the growth of the work it may be thought desirable to retain the services of some of those who have received special training in census work during the past three years. I can give no decision to-day on this matter but I Shall be able to make a definite statement before the end of the session.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I notice that certain items
of public printing and stationery were not dealt with, and I ask my hon. friend if he would permit these to be taken up at this time. I do not think there will be any discussion thereon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would have to move
that this item stands.
Item stands.	.
Public Printing and Stationery-printing, binding, et cetera, the annual statutes, $8,500.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The reduction of SI ,500 in
this vote has been made possible by a decrease in the cost of paper.


Peter John Veniot: As a matter of economy,
has the minister given any consideration to the quality of the paper used for envelopes and correspondence?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A thorough research has been made in this regard. Certain suggestions have been made to the departments with regard to future orderings of supplies. If these are carried out it is expected a considerable saving will be made.


Peter John Veniot: I believe it would save considerably. There is another matter to which I

would direct attention, that is, the poor sticking qualities of the envelopes with which we are supplied. Take the six or seven inch envelopes. It is practically impossible to get them to stick without the use of mucilage. I do not think members should 'be expected to send out correspondence in an envelope with the flap in such a condition that anyone could open it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall make special representations to the department as to this matter.


Mr. POULIOT:: 
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: The
lion, gentleman is out of order in discussing carpets when we are speaking of statutes.


Mr.   C AIIA A@: The matters of which the
hon. gentleman complains have nothing to do with my department or with this vote; they are entirely under the supervision of the internal economy committee of this house, which is composed of his own fellow members.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to tell the minister that I am not putting the blame on him at all. In reply to the chairman I will only say this: I was not speaking of general merchandise or rugs as such but by way of comparison, and I am saying that it is more expensive to buy a rug for $480 than to supply members of this house with bound Hansards in both languages.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Distribution of official documents, $39,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This vote has been cut down from $42,500, a reduction of $3,500, owing to the fact that we have made a careful revision of the official lists of documents being sent out. As a result of deaths and from other causes the list has been reduced.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $42,750.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is money that comes
back into the treasuiy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $351,000.
Joseph Georges Bouchard: Reading the bulletins
that are issued, one is apt to conclude that we are getting out of the crisis very quickly, that we are on the upgrade, and one is apt to take a very optimistic view of conditions in Canada. I do not object to that at all, but I am wondering whether that is part of the policy of statistical makebelieve, designed to make a good showdng. I should like to see the statistics a little more, I will not say accurate but more in keeping with the actual facts. Is it the decided policy of the department to publish only such statistics as make a good showing?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The statistics are published accurately and strictly in accordance with the facts, and there is a large number of publications on various subjects which are put out as regularly as clockwork monthly and even weekly in some cases. These are 74726-72 i
very voluminous. The bulletin is a summarization of them for the convenience chiefly of the press.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I am referring more
particularly to the bulletin; I will not make any observations on the statistics in general. I am wondering whether the bulletin shows the facts exactly as they are or whether it is intended to give people abroad the idea that everything is on the upgrade and that everything is all right with Canada-on the eve of an election, though I would not blame the minister for taking that precaution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A survey of all issues of
this kind, such as Irving Fisher's and the American Bureau, the London Economist's publications and all standard publications, shows that in about 80 per cent of them there is indicated a general tendency to rise. I do not think it is pretended by anyone that the rise is rapid, but there is a general indication, purely statistical, of a slight and continuous upward curve; and in our publication we are following as closely and accurately as we can the daj

to-day or week-to-week statistical record.


Mr. NEILL:: I must confess that I formed an opinion somewhat similar to that expressed by my hon friend (Mr. Bouchard). It seemed to me that the selection of the items in that bulletin was calculated to form good propaganda for the coming election, to put it bluntly. I wish to refer to the subject that was discussed the last time the minister's estimates were under consideration. I complained that the information given in one of the minister's publications differed considerably from the information given in another one or in others, and I instanced three cases of the export of canned salmon. I gave the quarter ending in June, the quarter ending in September and the record for nine months ending September, and I showed that there was a discrepancy, not trivial but running as high as 60 per cent. That was on the 24th, and on the 27th, on the orders of the day, the minister brought the matter up and was allowed nearly two pages of Hansard to explain the situation and to show that I was mistaken. I wonder if I would have been allowed to use two pages on the orders of the day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was doing it at the request of the hon. gentleman, he will note.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, he said that, but I could not find" where I had made a request in the matter. I made a statement.
Supply-Trade-Statistics


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend asked me
to take notice of it and make an explanation, which I did at the earliest possible opportunity out of courtesy to him.


Alan Webster Neill: Asking him to take notice is hardly a question. However, that is of little importance. Now, to my mind-and I suppose I am stupid-the explanation made the situation rather worse. It was threefold. First, it was explained-and I presume it is to a certain extent correct-that one record was taken from exports from Canada and the other from imports into Great Britain, but not, mark you, from the British but from the Canadian records.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is wrong
there. He will pardon me for interrupting him, but I think it would be very unfortunate were an impression to go abroad that the bureau of statistics was in any way inaccurate. The figures of imports into the United Kingdom are the United Kingdom figures. Will my hon. friend please accept my word on that?-because the reputation and honour of the Dominion Statistician are being questioned in this matter and I am indeed sorry that that should be the case.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not attacking the
reputation and honour of the statistician; I am saying that the man who prepares these bulletins and who turns out 3,000,000 words for $6.20, as the minister himself said the other day, hurriedly selecting the material as the stuff went past, did not do the work as accurately as he might.
Mr .STEVENS: I made no such statement.


Alan Webster Neill: About the bulletin?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No such statement.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, let us refer to Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well; refer to it.


Alan Webster Neill: It will be found that the
minister said that this was a selection; that as the items were passed in review, somebody picked it out; that the system was rapid and the material was picked out in that way.
As regards the point whether the information comes from Britain, I have no access to the British records, and I took it from the bulletin prepared by the minister and from the Commercial Intelligence Journal, which the minister will certainly admit is under his authority. I did not take it from the British records. The Commercial Intelligence Journal does not say that they are British records, but I shall take the minister's statement that they are.

I understood the minister to say that if some of the shipments of salmon from British Columbia were shipped by water, it would be a considerable time before they arrived at their destination, and consequently some of them would appear in a different quarter of imports into Britain from that in which they were recorded as having left Canada. That is quite true and would be a good explanation as to the discrepancy in one quarter if it showed a smaller amount received in Britain than had been exported from Canada. But that will hold only once. The next quarter it will not apply, because the hangover from the previous quarter would be in the second and the one should more or less balance the other, whereas it does not do so. In the June quarter the shortage was 9,000 hundredweight. In the September quarter it got worse; it was 23,000 hundredweight, and for the nine months ending September, it was 32,000, so it was cumulatively worse. I admit that it will apply to one quarter, but it does not seem to be borne out by the records of three quarters or of the nine months period.
The second explanation the minister gave was that the figure for the exports from Canada was reckoned on 100 pounds to the hundredweight while the figure for what was received in Great Britain was on the basis of 112 pounds to the hundredweight. The answer to that is that at the very most it would make a difference of only 12 per cent, and not of 40 or 60 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no such difference. I ask my hon. friend to pardon me for interrupting him. I am not asking any favours for myself as minister, but I certainly am jealous of the reputation of the bureau of statistics as one of the outstanding institutions of this country. My hon. friend is making statements which, by the very page of Hansard which he was quoting a moment ago, are shown clearly not to be so. My hon. friend need not give me any quarter at all; about that I do not care twopence, but I ask him to be fair in regard to one of our institutions of which hon. members on both sides of the house are justly proud.


Alan Webster Neill: Really this lecture is very severe and all that, but the minister has not proven anything.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not a lecture; it is simply an interruption in the interests of accuracy. I protest against allowing to go out to the world statements such as my hon. friend has made. In order to make the point I wish, I shall take the opportunity now of giving the committee the facts. In the ex-

Supply-Trade-Statistics
port figures of the Dominion of Canada for the year 1933 as given on page 978 of Hansard will be found this: the number of pounds of exports of canned salmon to the United Kingdom is 11.151.8C0. Then the United Kingdom figures of imports for the same twelve months are 11,397,680 pounds, or a difference roughly of about 240,000 pounds.
The other day I explained that there are bound to be and always are discrepancies between figures of exports to a country and those of imports into it, for two or three reasons. First, these goods move from the Pacific coast to Great Britain and it is more than likely that at the end of the year some might be in transit which were not entered in the returns for that year, and at the commencement of the year the same thing would apply, so there is bound to be a discrepancy. The second reason is that many cargoes going from Canada to Liverpool, Falmouth or other ports in England-and this applies particularly to wheat-are often diverted at some point in midocean to continental ports. My hon. friends who are in the wheat business know that. There is no possibility of our knowing where such shipments from Canada may be diverted but every effort is made among the statisticians of Canada, Great Britain, the United States, European and other countries to keep their whole system as accurate and as uniform as they can. This is a difficult, intricate and complex task, but it is a most remarkable instance of reasonably accurate comparison. Let me again say that the total figure of Canada's exports of canned salmon to the United Kingdom for the twelve months of 1933 was 11,151,800 pounds while the British figure of our imports into the United Kingdom for the same period amounted to 11,397,680. Does such a slight discrepancy as that justify a serious indictment of the bureau and its accuracy?


Alan Webster Neill: The minister is talking about something utterly remote from what I was speaking about when he interrupted me. He says that I am unfair and unjust and that the honour of so-and-so is at stake, but he has not replied as to the particular item about which I was talking when he interrupted me. I still fail to see any unfairness in what I was saying. Let me quote the minister himself as reported on page 977 of Hansard; never mind about page 978; I shall come to that later. He said:
In the second place the imports in Great Britain are set forth in hundredweights of 112 pounds while exports from Canada are set forth in the Canadian standard of 100 pounds.
Hansard will show that those were exact words I was using when the minister interrupted me. Is there anything unfair in. that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not what I objected to, and the hon. gentleman knows it.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, that was what I was talking about when he interrupted me and said that I was unfair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Alan Webster Neill: I shall leave it in the judgment of the house and Hansard whether that was what I was talking about when I was interrupted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member had
better read Hansard to-morrow.


Alan Webster Neill: We can read it now if he
likes. When I came to the second explanation of the minister I said that part of the discrepancy could be accounted for by the fact that 100 pounds to the hundredweight was used in the one case and 112 pounds in the other, and that is true; that was his own language. To draw a picture of what took place as reported on the next page of Hansard is beside the point. I said that that would make a difference of only 12 per cent. It was at that point the minister interrupted; there is nothing w'rong there. For instance, in the June quota instead of a discrepancy of 9,000 hundredweight it would still show a discrepancy of 7,144, and in the nine months ending September, after allowance for the difference, it would still leave a discrepancy of over a million pounds, which certainly requires explanation. But even supposing that was correct, who is to blame for putting into his journals two contradictory things, hundredweights of 100 pounds and of 112 pounds, without telling people? Certainly it was the duty of the department to let us know. I am not blaming the minister personally, but an explanation should have been given so that the ordinary business man w'ould not be putting hundredweights of 112 pounds against hundredweights of 100 pounds for purposes of comparison. That is an inaccuracy and a lack of attention that should not have occurred. If that is the cause of the inaccuracy, and the minister suggested it as being one, then the department is to blame. Now I did not get this from the British papers, I got it either from his own departmental bulletin or the Commercial Intelligence Journal.
Then again I complained of three items, the June and the September quarters and the nine months ending September. The ex-
Supply-Trade-Statistics

planation about the difference in regard to shipments from British Columbia would do for one quarter but not for three consecutive quarters. The minister explains that one set of figures was based on hundredweights of 100 pounds instead of 112, but that would only make a trivial difference. He goes further and says: Well, look at these other figures, and he draws a pretty picture of another bunch of figures-


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I did not.


Alan Webster Neill: -drawing a herring across
the trail. I never said anything about the year's figures because I have not got them. The minister has access to the figures, but at the time that I spoke I had not access to them. He says: "Never mind about the June quarter, and there is something wrong with the September quarter; but look at these-they are lovely; they fit all right."


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made no such statement about there being something wrong with the quarterly figures.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister made the inference that there was something wrong because he tried to explain the difference by referring to hundredweights of 100 pounds and 112 pounds. He gets around the thing by such well known methods as he is rather fond of. He says: "Yes, but look at this other picture; isn't it nice, and doesn't it fit?" I do not know if it does, because I have not got the figures; therefore I am not talking about it.
We will go a stage further and take the minister's own figures as set forth so extensively on these two pages of Hansard. There are even discrepancies in that. This is the latest thing, fixed up to show the thing is all right. It shows the total for the year as 101,765 hundredweight, while his own Commercial Intelligence Journal of February 24, says that the imports of canned salmon for the year 1933 were 100,988 hundredweight. That is another discrepancy to be accounted for.
Take another error in these same revised figures. On the page referred to, 978, he gives the imports for the year. I have taken them for the nine months, because that is all of which I have knowledge. I added the March quarter, 18,958; the June quarter, 8,360 and the September figure, 27,189, which makes a total of 54,507. Remember those are British hundredweights; there is no doubt about that, because it is specifically so stated. But the Commercial Intelligence Journal of November 24 gives the number of canned salmon in the

same nine months as 53,688 hundredweight, a discrepancy of 819 hundredweight, or 91,922 pounds. That is the latest; the minister has had time to consult and get the thing all ready, yet his own figures show these discrepancies.
However, I have not laboured in vain, because the very day we were talking about this there was laid on my desk a correction in the bulletin; it says the export figures for January, 1934, were incorrectly given in hundredweights instead of pounds in connection with concentrated milk production, a difference of well over a million pounds. So it shows there has been in the preparation of that bulletin carelessness and slackness. I am not attacking anyone's integrity, but I say the compiler of that bulletin has been careless and slack in presenting those returns. If they do these things in the green tree what shall be done in the dry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it is most unfortunate that the hon. member should persist in arguing this point. I thought that by submitting an explanatory statement as I did the other day my hon. friend would have understood it. But he still persists in the contention that in particular quarters referred to there is a discrepancy. I have explained about three times that there is bound to be a discrepancy where there is movement of goods. He takes the quarter comprising the months of July, August and September. The Canadian figures show an export of 30,000 hundredweight in August and 18.COO in September. The British figures for August and September are much lower. But the British figures for October greatly exceed the Canadian figures of October exports, showing clearly that the goods were in transit. My hon. friend knows better than any member of the house that the major movement of the salmon pack from British Columbia is in the months of September, October and November. It is perfectly clear, if one wishes to be fair in the matter, as clear as the nose on the hon. member's face.
Then he takes me to task for giving the year's figures. I gave them for the purpose of showing-keeping in mind the movement of the goods and the time that must elapse between their leaving the Pacific coast and arriving in the United Kingdom,-that the figures were remarkably close.
The hon. gentleman takes to task the officials of the bureau for drawing attention to an inaccuracy in a previous report. In the mass of figures issued there are bound to be inaccuracies, but they are carefully checked

Supply-Trade-Statistics
and the moment differences are found notice is given in the same periodical of such inaccuracy and the correction made. Surely no reasonable person will complain about officials who so quickly and promptly correct any inaccuracy.
There is much more that one would be inclined to say, but I think it would be wasting the time of the committee to indulge in any further reply to such statements the hon. member has made.
At six o'clock the speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Go'beil in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $351,000.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: This afternoon the minister gave us some information with regard to those employed in connection with the census, and I understand that those temporary employees have an opportunity to obtain permanent employment under the Civil Service Commission. This afternoon the minister said that some of these temporary employees would become permanent, and I should like to know how the department selects those wiho are to become permanent. Is it a question of merit or is it carried out under the Civil Service Commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They can be appointed only in conformity with and under the terms of the Civil Service Act, in the usual way.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: How is the selection
made as to who shall remain in the service? At first we had quite a number of these temporary employees in connection with the census, but now that this work is completed most of these employees have been dispensed with. The minister, however, said some would be kept in the service permanently.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. Those now employed by the bureau of statistics in connection with census work will gradually disappear; I may say that the number of these temporary employees at the moment is 272. A number of those employees will be retired on April 1; a further number will be retired on June 1, while still more will retire in August, and I
think by about October the services of practically all these temporary employees will be dispensed with. A few will be retained in connection with the completion of the ten volumes that will comprise the census work in its finished form; these few will be retained for some months longer, I do not know exactly how long. Then I told my hon. friend that possibly a few, I do not know how many, might have such special training that it would be desirable to retain them. In that case they will be brought into the service under the Civil Service Act, if they qualify; if they do not, the only other way to bring them in is by way of an estimate passed by this house, but no decision has been made in the matter as yet.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: As to those few who may be retained, will that be because their special qualifications are known to the department or to the Civil Service Commission or to the minister?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will be done by examination, under the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I suppose the very large decrease in this item, amounting to almost $200,000, is due to the retirement of so many temporary employees?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, the census staff.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In that regard may I ask what is the normal expenditure on this bureau during periods between the taking of the census?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year the vote for the regular work of the bureau was $156,000, and this year we are asking for $148,000 for that regular work. I can run over the figures for the last five years. Last year the regular vote was $156,000; the year before it was $153,000, and for the three previous years it was $189,000, $127,000 and $114,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: From these figures I am glad to see that apparently there is some realization of the great importance of the work done by this bureau. In my opinion it is one of the most, if not the most important instruments with which to make information available to the state, and is one of the finest sources of information by means of which members of this house and the government itself can be governed in relation to matters both social and economic. I should regret very much if any government were to attempt to curtail the activities of this department or the services which it renders, which are not only of inestimable value to
Supply-Trade-Statistics

the members of this house when it is in session but are constantly being drawn upon from every quarter erf Canada whether the house is in session or not.
I have in mind some of the work that might be done by the bureau but which is not done at present, and which so far as I can ascertain is not in contemplation at the present time. For example, we have no complete figures on credit and currency matters going right back to confederation. It is true that in recent years the exigencies of monetary problems have brought about a realization in the bureau, as well as in the department itself, of the importance of accurate figures in these matters, and there has been a marked improvement in this regard, but still we have to analyze the information further back in order to have the record complete. Then there is another matter which I know is very dear to the heart of the minister, that of trade between this country and the United Kingdom. The minister will realize that even at this moment there is no means by which we may estimate correctly the total volume and the balance of trade as between the two countries. A few years ago, when I made a close study of this subject, I found that if adequate corrections were made to ascertain the actual destination of shipments of grain from Canada, it would be -found that our figures did not tally in any respect with the British figures as to the reception of Canadian grain. If the allowances were made which were justified by the British figures, we would find that instead of Great Britain buying, according to the popular expression of that time, nearly twice as much from us as we bought from her, the actual position was that she was buying approximately the same amount.
I wonder if that question has been gone into further and whether the department is in a position to designate the destination of the trade movements from Canada and so enable us to reach more accurate judgments as to trade movements and balances as between nations. In my opinion, which I am sure the minister shares, it is essential that the information we acquire in matters of this kind should be as accurate as it is humanly possible to get it, and I hope this matter is not being overlooked. Doubtless there are other questions involved in the work of the bureau, but at this stage I will content myself with paying my personal tribute to the efficiency of the head of that bureau and the active cooperation I have always received from him and from the staff. I hope that at no time, either under this or under any subsequent 
government, will any attempt be made to curtail these activities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the two
main problems to which my hon. friend has referred are very difficult and very complex; they are engaging the attention not only of the bureau of statistics and its experts in Canada, but also of the statisticians of European countries, and in fact of all the leading countries of the world. Measurable progress has been and is being made towards the harmonizing of these trade figures. Let me take the first item to which my hon. friend refers, namely, the production of statistics which will give a correct view of the economic relations between, we will say, this country and Great Britain. That involves, of course, the question of actual goods shipped from the one to the other, both ways, the amount paid for services in, we will say, freight and cargo rates, the amount involved in interest on investments in this country, and possibly a few the other way; the question of insurance and the question of tourist expenditures pro and con. These are the main factors. There are some other invisibles of smaller and lesser importance. The statisticians of both countries have, I believe, a fairly accurate concept of the value of the services and the invisibles which enter into these calculations. There are no definite records. For instance, as regards shipping it is not disclosed what is paid for British shipping or Norwegian shipping and so on. These things are not reduced to their precise dimensions. But there are yardsticks which are commonly used by statisticians the world over for bases of estimates which are adopted and accepted, and these I believe are used with fair accuracy by our bureau. I believe last session I gave the house a picture of the statistical relations of Canada with the United Kingdom.
In regard to the second question, that is the movement of goods, chiefly grain, I think we might say that the balance of the goods moved is really not a serious matter. In connection with grain, however, it is serious. Cargoes are cleared from Canada nominally for the United Kingdom and, so far as our records show, they are exported to that country. We do know definitely however, that a very substantial portion of these shipments and cargoes are diverted to other ports. We can only estimate, and we do that by various means. Of course the chief source of our knowledge is the British import information by which we are able to get fairly accurate statistics. I believe it was about four years ago I personally made an analysis of these figures, and found that Canada was

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
credited with exporting to the United Kingdom a quantity of grain in excess of the total amount imported by Great Britain. But adjustments can be made and are made in estimating the diversion. Then, of course, as a cross check we have the British import figures, which are usually fairly satisfactory, although there again is a difficulty because frequently grain which is moved, we will say, through Buffalo and New York is entered in the British figures as American grain, and conversely grain which is moved from the middle west of the United States through Montreal is entered as Canadian grain. In the British figures those shipments are not segregated. However, we are able to ascertain with fair accuracy the quantities of grain which are moved.
I am glad the hon. member brought the matter up for discussion. May I say to him that the whole subject is engaging the attention and study not only of Canadian statisticians and students in the bureau and in the universities, but also of statisticians of the League of Nations, in Great Britain, the United States and other European countries.


Peter John Veniot: Does not the same apply
to certain imports into Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, quite so. For instance, large quantities of goods moved from central Europe find as a port of exit, we will say, a German port. They are entered in our import records as coming from Germany, having been merchandised in Hamburg, we will say, which is a great free city. It may be merchandised there, and there may be a bona fide clearing for Canada, but the origin of the goods might be Czechoslovakia.


Peter John Veniot: What about tea and
coffee?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A great deal of tea in
years gone by has moved through Great Britain. However in regard to that commodity I believe we are able pretty well to ascertain the country of origin.


Peter John Veniot: Through the United States?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some comes through the
United States, but that is largely transshipped.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
MAIL SUBSIDIES AND STEAMSHIP SUBVENTIONS Atlantic Ocean
Canada and the United' Kingdom, on the Atlantic, service between, $500,000.
Canada and South Africa, service between, $112,500.
Pacific Ocean
British Columbia and Australia and/or China, service between, $118,800.
British Columbia and South Africa, service between, $84,000.	_
Canada, China and Japan, service between. $600,000. ^
Canada and New Zealand, on the Pacific, service between, $100,000.
Prince Rupert, B.C. and Queen Charlotte islands, service between, $12,000.
Vancouver and the British West Indies, service between, $36,000.
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, service between, $18,000.
Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skagway, service between, $12,000.
Victoria and west coast Vancouver island, service between, $10,000
Local Services
Badd'eck and Iona, service between, $5,000.
Charlottetown and Pictou, service between,
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown, Victoria and Holliday's wharf, service between, $4,600.
Grand Manan and the mainland, service between, $24,750.
Halifax and bay St. Lawrence, service between, $2,000.
Halifax, Canso and Guysboro, service between, $6,750.
Halifax and Sherbrooke, service between, $000.
Halifax, South Cape Breton and Bras d'Or lake ports, service between, $3,500.
Halifax, Spry Bay and Cape Breton ports, service between, $4,000.
Halifax and west coast of Cape Breton, service between, $4,000.
Mulgrave, Arichat and Canso, service between, $30,000.
Mulgrave and Guysboro, calling at intermediate ports, service between, $9,500.
Murray Bay and north shore, winter service between, $40,000.
Parrstboro. Kingsport and Wolfville, service between, $2,000.	_
Pelee island and the mainland, service between, $8,250.
Pictou, Mulgrave and Cheticamp, service between, $9,000.
Pictou, Souris and the Magdalen islands, service between, $37,500.
Quebec, Natashquan and Harrington, service between, $76,500.
Quebec, or Montreal, and Gaspe, calling at way ports, service between, $54,000.
Rimouski and Matane, and points on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, service between, $37,500.
Riviere du Loup and Tadoussac, and other north shore ports, service between, $9,000.
St. Catherine's bay and Tadoussac, service between, $2,500.
Saint John, Bear river, Annapolis and Granville, and other way ports, service between, $2,000.
Saint John and Bridgetown, service between, $800.
Saint John and Margaretville, and other ports on the bay of Fundy, service between, $2,800.
Saint John and Minas Basin ports, service between, $3,500.
Supply-T rade-Subsidies
[Stage Direction]
Saint John and St, Andrews, calling at way ports, service between, $3,000.
Saint John, Westport and Yarmouth, and other way ports, service between, $13,000.
Saint John and Weymouth, service between, $500.
Summerville, Burlington and Windsor, N.S., service between, $750.
Sydney and bay St. Lawrence, calling at way ports, service between. $18,000.
Sydney and Bras d'Or lake ports, and west coast of Cape Breton, and Prince Edward island, service between, $20,000.
Sydney and Whycocomagh, service between,
[Stage Direction]
Inspection of subsidized steamship services, $4,700.
Peter John Veniot: Under this item I should
like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that in the estimates for the year 1934, $1,000 was voted for the service between the islands in the gulf of St. Lawrence and the baie des Cihaleurs, and the mainland. I refer to the service between Miscou and Shippigan and the mainland. I notice that in the estimates for this year the vote is dropped. May we have the reason?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Frankly, we found that
the service had dropped down to a point where in the last year it carried only 166 passengers. I was impressed with the fact that it was a service which, not being used to any extent, did not warrant a subsidy.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister permit
me to call attention to the use to which this service is put? It was established some years ago to enable the people on the two islands of Shippigan and Miscou to have connection with the mainland. When it was first established the boat ran from Miscou harbour to Lameque, on the island of Shippigan, and from there to Shippigan and Caraquet. At that time they were receiving a subsidy of $2,000. Later on the boat they were using, on account of old age and some damage which she suffered, was put out of commission. The company operating the service was a private company of fishermen and farmers of the two islands I have mentioned. About eight or nine years ago they had to build a new boat to carry on the service. I suggest that the utility of the service should not be judged by the number of passengers carried. It is used generally for the transfer of freight and fishermen's supplies, especially in the fall of the year before the winter season sets in. If this boat is not subsidized, as she was in the past, she will likely have to be put out of commission. I know there is not enough traffic to pay for the service, hence the application for st subsidy. Some 3,000 people are being deprived of a service which for the last fifteen 
years, and perhaps longer, they have enjoyed, and the result is a great hardship to them. It is about the only service of the kind in the maritime provinces which is not being taken care of this year. I appeal to the minister to consider repeating the vote given last year in the supplementary estimates so that the service hitherto given may be continued. The Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), who was down through this country last summer, must have passed Miscou and Shippigan islands on his way to visit the different ports and must have noted the isolation of these people; I hope he will join with me in appealing to the government to renew this subsidy of 1,000. I know that if it is not granted the boat will have to be taken out of service and great hardship will result to the 3,000 people living on these islands.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall take the suggestion of my hon. friend into consideration, but I should like to make one observation; last year 162 trips were made and the average freight carried each trip was only one and three-quarter tons.


Peter John Veniot: All the more reason why a subsidy should be granted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A consideration which
must be borne in mind is the extent to which a service is used. However, there are sometimes extenuating circumstances and I shall give the matter careful consideration.


Mr. DUFF:: Mr. Chairman, I notice in
this long list of mail subsidies and steamship subventions that in nearly every case there has been a reduction except in one instance in the minister's own province. Under the heading, " British Columbia and Australia and/or China, service between " the vote has been increased from $96,000 to $118,800. I do not object very strenuously to a minister looking after the interests of bis own province, but a minister representing a great department should not be so parochial, especially in view of the fact that this service does not concern his own constituency. I cannot understand why one service in perhaps forty or fifty should be picked out to be increased by $22,800. The government say that although they have turned the comer, these are still times of stress and strain. They have reduced every other item in these mail subsidies and steamship subventions, yet the minister, deliberately or otherwise, increases a subsidy in his own province by $22,800.
I should like to direct the attention of the committee to some other items. My under-

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
standing is that contracts exist in connection with some of these services. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), who is in his seat, has always been a great advocate of the sanctity of contracts. When he was on this side of the house and since, he has stated in very serious tones that a contract should not be disturbed, whether it was one in connection with tariffs or one in connection with something else to satisfy the special interests of this country. My understanding is that contracts have been entered into with different steamship companies throughout this country for a period of five or ten years at specified prices, yet the votes have been reduced for all the services except one in British Columbia. I do not know whether this has been done by the statistical branch of the minister's department, which he was so anxious to protect this afternoon, or by some other official, but the fact is that reductions have been made. If these steamship companies have a contract with the government I should like to know why these votes have been reduced.
Let me give two or three instances. I see sitting across from me two very prominent members of the house, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) and the hon. member f.or Pietou (Mr. Cantley). I am delighted to see that the hon. member for Queens has moved up so that he can hear what I have to say. I notice that the item in connection with the service between Charlottetown and Pietou has been reduced from $30,000 to $20,000. I think the hon. members for Queens and Pietou will agree that this is a very important service between the mainland of Nova Scotia and the garden of the gulf, Prince Edward Island. Not only has this vote been reduced from $30,000 to $20,000, but if my memory serves me aright, and I have a pretty good one-again I refer the Prime Minister to his remarks on the sanctity of contracts-a contract was entered into either by this or by the last government for a ten year service between Pietou and Charlottetown, not for $20,000 a year, not for $30,000 a year, but for $40,000 a year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If parliament voted the money.


William Duff: I thank thee, O Jew, for that word. That is just exactly the trap I would expect someone to fall into "if parliament voted the money." The minister is quite right but only up to a certain point. What is that point? As I say, the contract was for $40,000. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) had put an item in the
estimates for $40,000 and the hon. member for Queens moved to reduce it to $20,000 and was sustained by the committee, then the Prime Minister would be right. But a contract has been entered into and the government does not wait for this committee to reduce the amount; in spite of the contract and in spite of the sanctity of that contract, the government reduces the amount from $40,000 to $20,000. Now where is the Prime Minister's argument that this is correct? We have not been asked to vote $40,000 in the case of this Pictou-Charlottetown service; we have been asked to vote only $20,000. I say to the Prime Minister that if he will increase this vote to the amount of the contract, $40,000 and the committee decides that it will vote only $20,000, then it will be time enough for him to say that the government can pay only what parliament votes. We cannot move to increase a vote, and with a contract still outstanding, this particular vote should never have been decreased. The Prime Minister says that all the government can do is to pay the money voted by parliament, but I think he knows better than that. He is a great constitutional lawyer and he knows that if the government decided to increase this vote to $100,000, it could be put through the house with the government's present majority. Yet the Prime Minister tells us that all they can pay is the $20,000. Having entered into a solemn contract to pay a steamship company a certain amount of money, that company having bought a steamship for the purpose of carrying out that contract, and having fitted up that ship, this government has no right to reduce the subsidy to that steamship company by fifty per cent. It is not fair, it is not decent and, what is more, it is not good business.
I notice there is also an amount for a service between Mulgrave and Ariohat and Canso. I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will lend his support in connection with this item, because Ariohat happens to be in his constituency, a constituency that did him the honour of electing him by acclamation. I 'had to fight for my seat in this house but the Minister of Finance came here without a contest, and I dare to say that I had1 something to do with it; they consulted me as to whether they should oppose him or not and I told) them not to do it. The Minister of Finance ought therefore to be sympathetic towards me; I am sure I shall have his sympathy. Well, what do we find here? What do we find in this great and important constituency represented by my hon. friend? I do not like to make
Supply-Trade-Subsidies

any distinction between members of the cabinet, but perhaps the members of the cabinet will agree with me when I say that next to the Prime Minister the Minister of Finance is the most important member of the council. Yet here is a constituency, represented as I say by the minister second in importance in the cabinet, treated in this way by the Minister of Trade and Commerce; for what has the Minister of Trade and Commerce done in this connection? In spite of the fact that a contract was entered into with a good Tory, a nice fellow and a personal friend of mine-he does not help me in election time bu.t that doesn't matter-we find this service reduced by S3,750.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no contract there except a year to year contract.


William Duff: Well, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the contractor was consulted before the amount was reduced and whether or not the contractor agreed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The contract for the
$33,750 is the current contract which expires shortly. No new contract has been entered into.


William Duff: How can the Minister of Trade and Commerce either through the statistical department or by any other means, arrive at this arbitrary sum of $30,000? How does he know that my good friend, the good Conservative who owns the boat, will accept if?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He may not.


William Duff: And I suppose the minister
does not care whether he does or not. But I care, and the Minister of Finance cares, though that gentleman cannot get up on the floor and criticize his brother minister. I hope, however, that he will do it in council to-morrow morning after he hears what I have to say to-night. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce: Is this sort of thing fair to his colleague the Minister of Finance, the gentleman who is carrying the financial burden of this country and who is trying to bring in a new Bank Act? Is it fair to that minister to make this reduction without consulting him? Without consulting the Minister of Finance or the contractor he deliberately reduces this contract by $3,750, not knowing, as he has just admitted, whether the contractor will accept it or not. And suppose, for the sake of argument, that the contractor does not accept it; what will happen? What will happen in the county represented by the Minister of Finance and

in my own constituency, one of the most important parts of the province of Nova Scotia, where this service goes on? In the light of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has increased the subsidy in his own province to $22,800, is he going to throw out of gear the whole maritime problem as it affects my own constituency and that of the Minister of Finance, without consulting either the Minister of Finance or poor little me? Surely that is not fair; it is not good business for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make this reduction deliberately with a view to balancing the budget-because that is the whole game. And after all it is only balancing the budget on paper; you may reduce the estimates as much as you like, or put in anything you like, but you will not balance your budget unless you get the revenue. Yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for some reason best known to himself, deliberately jeopardises the position of the Minister of Finance and my position in our two counties by reducing this subsidy by $3,750. Oh, yes. But that does not satisfy this Cassius-is that a good word?-in the person of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
There must be some Scotch in the English Minister of Trade and Commerce because he is not satisfied with deliberately going out of his way to reduce the subsidy in the county represented by my good friend the Minister of Finance and in my own county as well, but he takes another crack at my constituency. Here is the service between Mulgrave and Guysborough, calling at intermediate ports, reduced from $10,500 to $9,500-a very important service. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was one of those who sat around the council board when my hon. friend from Pictou, before he was a member, came at his own expense to Ottawa and urged that a railway be built through part of his county and part of mine in order that the people might have railway accommodation-and I thank the hon. gentleman for having done it. But it was deliberately decided not to go on with the building of that railway, so that the only communication the people have is this water transportation between Mulgrave and Guysborough.


Mr. CANTLEY:: They are shipping lumber over my end of it now.


William Duff: My hon. friend is stronger
than I thought he was. The only means of communication the people have there in the winter time, especially when the roads are blocked with snow and ice, is by steamer be-

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
tween Guysborough and Mulgrave. They have no railway communication, notwithstanding that the people of Guysborough pay their share of interest on railway indebtedness, and paid their share of rights of way in Nova Scotia and other parts of the dominion. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the face of that, reduces the subsidy this year, and he cannot say that there is no contract in this instance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The present one will be
completed out of the vote of this year and no new contract will be entered into after the end of the fiscal year.


William Duff: In other words, he is paying
$10,500 up to the end of this month and, without consulting the owners of the steamer or the Guysborough board of trade, without consulting the people of Mulgrave or the town council or anyone else, he arbitrarily decides that all that this government will pay for the service is $9,500.


Mr. ERNST:: Does the hon. member know what happened-whether that service was making a profit or otherwise? I am anxious to know whether it has operated at a profit or a loss. Will it have to go into debt to be able to continue?


William Duff: I am delighted that my hon.
friend has interjected that question, and for two reasons. First, I notice in these estimates for subsidies and even in last year's estimates for subsidies-


William Gordon Ernst: There is none for Lunenburg.


William Duff: There is no subsidy for a service between Halifax and La Have. When I was member for the constituency of Lunenburg, the federal government paid $6,000 for a service between Halifax and La Have. Ever since the present government has been in power, with the hon. member opposite representing that constituency supporting the administration, the subsidy has been cut out. Did the hon. member ask that the subsidy be cut off because the service did not pay?


William Gordon Ernst: It did not pay; it has been taken off and I have ever since been asking the minister to restore the subsidy.


William Duff: The hon. member may have been urging the minister, but his urging does not amount to very much. He deliberately got himself into this argument and I am delighted to join him in advocating this particular subsidy. He asked me if this Guysborough service is paying. Of course I have not the books of the company and I do not
know, but the owners of the steamship company have told me that, in view of the fact that the government reduced the subsidy last year, they were compelled to take the cook off the boat, so that if, for instance, the boat got stuck in the ice as it is at present in the strait of Canso, and was held up over night in the lee of Bear island or Sand point, there is no food on board and no cook to boil the kettle. I thank the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg for asking whether the steamer was paying. Hon. members know the saying about somebody stepping in where angels fear to tread. But because the government reduced the subsidy from $10,500 to $9,500, the steamship company was compelled to 'take off the cook and the stewardess so that the passengers aboard cannot get a meal and the crew have to wait until they reach Mulgrave or Guysborough to get something to eat. Surely the hon. member will realize that when a steamer cannot have a cook or a stewardess or food aboard, the company is not making very much money. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce it is not right or fair that the people Who put boats on those services and in some cases purchased ships for the special purpose of carrying on a service, should, without being consulted, find, as I said before, that the government in order to make a good showing has reduced the subsidy. This is especially true in the case of my good friend the member for Queens-Lunenburg. I am just as much interested as he is in that service between Halifax and La Have which has been cut out with the result that the people of that important district have now to haul their freight twelve, fourteen or sixteen miles from the town of Bridgewater to La Have or to the town of Riverport. Just because this government are penurious or because they cannot govern properly and collect sufficient revenues, they have to cut out the steamship service between La Have and Halifax.


Peter John Veniot: Can the minister inform me as to the number of passengers and the quantity of freight carried on the service between Charlottetown, Victoria and Halliday's wharf.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The vessel made 211 trips and carried 3,580 passengers, 10,000 barrels of freight and 184 head of live stock.


Peter John Veniot: What is the distance?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The service is rather
irregular, but the longest distance is twenty-six miles.
Supply-Trade-Subsidies


Mr. REID:: What are the names of the companies receiving subsidies on the Pacific coast?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The China service0


Thomas Reid: All of them. I would like to know particularly what the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific get for the coastwise service there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are a number of
ihem, as follows:
The China Service: British Canadian Steamships, Limited.
South African Service: Java Pacific Line.
Mail Service to China and' Japan: Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Service to New Zealand and Australia: Canadian Australasian Line.
Service to Prince Rupert and Queen Charlotte Islands:	Canadian National Steamship
Service.
Service to Victoria and the West Indies: Canadian Transport Company, Limited.
Service to Vancouver and northern British Columbia ports: Union Steamships, Limited.
Victoria, Vancouver and Skagway Service: Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
West Coast, Vancouver Island Service: Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Thomas Reid: The minister will perhaps remember that last year I discussed with him the question of the government taking steps to endeavour to have the companies use quite a proportion of white labour. Have any efforts been made along those lines? I think the minister said that negotiations would proceed after the house rose.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know that I can add much to what was said last year. As regards the service between the coast of British Columbia and the orient, the main service is, of course, the very fine Trans-Pacific mail service by the Canadian Pacific Steamships, and the company states very frankly, handicapped as they are in competition with two large Japanese lines and a long list, which I have among my notes somewhere, of United States lines, all of which are subsidized two or three times as heavily as are the Canadian companies, it would be impossible for the Canadian Pacific to compete with these other services and pay the high rates of wages that would be paid to an entirely white crew. That is one reason. It must be remembered, of course, that these matters are not under our control except in so far as we contribute something for the mail carriage in that class of ship. Second, these ships run to Hongkong as the terminal point in the orient which is a British Chinese area, and the Chinese residents of Hongkong, who claim to be British subjects, claim the right of service on these 
ships just as well as anyone else, and I do not know that they can be denied. The third reason is that these ships travel a substantial portion of the distance in tropical or semitropical waters. All these reasons lend themselves to the use in part of oriental crews. 1 am well aware of the views entertained by residents of British Columbia that they should have the exclusive right of employment on these ships, but I think a survey of the situation must convince any reasonable person that to adopt that rule would simply mean the elimination of that service from the Pacific ocean.
I do not know that I can add anything to these observations. I fully appreciate and sympathize with the laudable desire of residents, in Vancouver and Victoria chiefly, to be given this employment; but there is reason in all things, and I fear one could not with reason sustain the demand that only white crews should be carried.


Mr. RALSTON:: Will the minister tell me if any services are omitted this year that were carried on last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That between the mainland, Miscou and Sbippigan.


William Gordon Ernst: That was discontinued two
years ago, not this year.


James Layton Ralston: Have I an answer from
the minister?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the answer-the
service between the mainland and Shippigan.


William Duff: It is usual when a member
asks questions for the minister to answer. In my case either silence gave consent or the minister has nothing to say. I would like to get back for the moment to the Prime Minister's idea of the sanctity of contracts. I notice he is not in his seat; perhaps he has gone to look up the constitutional law on the subject. I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of the fact that the government and the people of Canada have a contract with the steamship company that has been plying between Piclou and Charlottetown at $40,000 a year, what position the people of this country are in if that steamship company should take action against the government? Would we employ Peter White, or Newton Wesley Rowell, at a large expense, $100 or $200 a day, to defend the government, or what is the real position? I would like the minister to tell the committee whether the government can violate a solemn contract by

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
reducing the amount payable, first from $40,000 to $30,000. and now, by another $10,000. Is there a contract or what is the situation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am pleased to be able
to answer my hon. friend. I listened with great interest to all his remarks, and I intend to give careful thought and consideration to what he has said. In regard to the contracts to which he refers, I may say that with very few exceptions these subvention contracts are yearly contracts. That is, parliament will vote a certain sum of mone}'; in some instances tenders are called for and contracts let as a result of the tenders, but where a service has been carried on from year to year by the same person or company or boat, the practice usually is that the contract is renewed by entering into another contract. In the case of the one particularly mentioned by my hon. friend, the service between Charlottetown and Pictou, there was a contract entered into originally in 1924 for five years, and at the expiration of that term another contract was entered into for a further period of five years at $10,000 per year. In all these contracts there is a clause making it subject to the amount being voted by parliament. It is also covenanted that the contractor will accept the amount so voted by parliament. Now the hon. gentleman a little while ago argued quite earnestly this point: is the government discharging its obligation as a party to the contract by submitting to parliament a figure other than the figure stated in the contract? The advice I have received on that point- it is one to which I gave careful consideration -is that it is quite competent for the government in submitting its estimates to submit whatever sum it may see fit in regard to these matters. The government having submitted an estimate to parliament, and parliament accepting it, that constitutes a fulfilment of the contract as far as the government is concerned. Or putting it another way, there is no recourse against the government for taking that procedure. I have given some thought to the point raised by my hon. friend, and I think perhaps it could be argued the other way, but I am definitely assured that there would be no chance of recovery by contractors who might take tire action he has suggested in that regard.
But there is something more to this. I do not wish to criticize or reflect upon any services, but some of the services which were entered into in buoyant periods are not justified to-day. There has been in many instances a contraction in the use of the services. In some cases highways which have
been developed have taken much of the traffic.
My duty in studying these matters is to try to bring the amounts to be paid within reasonable bounds. I well know that there is always local feeling, always a demand for further amounts. But one must exercise his best judgment in such matters. I do not blame my hon. friend or one or two hon. members on this side who have pressed their claims very vigorously; I appreciate their viewpoint and their difficulties. I assure my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough that it would be pleasant indeed if I were able to respond to all these demands, but I have felt it my duty in some measure to restrict the expediture on this account. I have tried to do so keeping in mind the merits amd the value of the services.
One of the commonest arguments advanced for the continuance of these subsidies is that we have had them in the past. I think hon. gentlemen will recognize that while such an argument may be acceptable in buoyant times when revenues are coming in freely, in difficult times when every dollar of expenditure must be examined with care the argument is not a very sound one. The result is that we have lessened in some respects the subventions for these services.
Then my hon. friend appeared to be a little disturbed because there was an increase in the British Columbia-Australia and China service. The reason for that increase is this: we pay so much a trip on that service, and additional trips were made. The increase in the cargoes carried was very substantial, and the value to the Dominion of Canada-it is not a question of British Columbia only-was such that we felt warranted in the payment of the additional amount for the additional number of trips. It is not an increase in the value of the subsidy but rather the value of the trans-Pacific trips that will be made.


Thomas Reid: Would the minister mind giving the amount per trip?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is $4,950. If the trips are not made this subvention will not be paid. Therefore it does not follow that the whole amount will be paid, but we must provide for it in anticipation of the trips that will be made.


William Duff: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's special pleading, and I can understand that if the freight and passenger traffic went over the highways instead of by these steamers that might be a reason for the reduction of these
Supply-Trade-Subsidies

subsidies. I do not know how much geography the minister knows, but surely he does not suggest that there is a highway between Pictou and Charlottetown.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Duff: The minister's answer was that the subsidy was decreased because in the last few years the people had started to use the highways instead of the old water route. That certainly does not apply to the service between Pictou and Charlottetown, where the only highway is the broad Northumberland strait which sometimes gets pretty rough.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course there was the introduction of the car ferry, which carries a good deal of the traffic, and which was installed after this original contract was entered into.


William Duff: The minister is wrong there; the car ferry has been in service for a great many years. It is true that under the Liberal government a specially equipped ferry was built and put in service between Cape Tormen-tine and Borden, but this contract for the service between Pictou and Charlottetown was entered into in solemn form between the owner of the steamship and His Majesty the King represented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the government agreed to pay a certain amount of money for a certain specific service between Pictou and Charlottetown.
Let me say to the minister that this is a most important service. The service from Cape Tormentine to Borden does not take care of the traffic from Pictou to Charlottetown, which is the traffic from eastern Nova Scotia and Halifax, including the mail. So the minister cannot argue that he has reduced these subsidies because a new system of transportation has been adopted, or because of the car ferry service between Cape Tormentine and Borden.
The minister said something about the sanctity of contracts, and he went on to state that in these contracts there is a clause which states that if parliament does not vote the money an action cannot be brought against the government. That is quite so, but the minister did not go far enough. There is no clause in the contract which states that the contractor cannot sue the government if the minister deliberately reduces the amount from 840,000 to $20,000. That is a different matter altogether; that is a deliberate breach of contract on the part of the government. I can understand that if this high court of parliament were asked to vote $40,000; if someone
[Mr. Duif.l moved to reduce the amount to $20,000 and parliament voted only $20,000, then the skirts of the minister and the government would be clear and the contractor could not sue the government for the difference. I repeat, however, that there is no clause in the contract which permits this government deliberately and maliciously to reduce the amount payable under this contract by $20,000 without first submitting the original amount to parliament.
The minister says that these subsidies have been reduced because conditions have changed and there are other methods of transportation. Again I want to say a good word for the county of Richmond, so let us take the service between Mulgrave, Arichat and Canso. This boat leaves Canso in the morning and crosses Chedabucto bay into Arichat, and where is Arichat? I am specific in my remarks because I want to try to show the minister where he is wrong and where his departmental officials perhaps have advised him wrongly in connection with the reduction of these subsidies. This service goes to Madame island in the strait of Canso; it does not go to the mainland. Arichat is the principal port of that island and Petit de Grat is one of the principal villages; this is in the constituency represented by the Minister of Finance. It is true there is a highway, but it is not a main highway. Arichat is at least fifteen or twenty miles from the main highway from Hawkesbury to Sydney, yet my hon. friend tries to tell this committee that the reason this amount is reduced is because there are new means of transportation. There is absolutely nothing in that argument. Does my hon. friend want a passenger or a bale of goods coming from Halifax to go to Mulgrave, then cross the strait of Canso to Point Tupper and then go by highway to Grande Anse, and from that point on the main highway to Arichat, or is he going to let the people of Isle Madame go direct from Mulgrave to Arichat by steamer?
This service is in the constituency of the Minister of Finance, so there is no particular reason why I should be anxious about it except that I am interested in business in that part of Nova Scotia. The people on Isle Madame are fishermen; they have to ship all their fish from Petite de Grat or Arichat to Mulgrave. Does the minister want to tell me that it is fair or reasonable to expect the people of Petite de Grat or Arichat to send their fresh fish by truck-not even by motor truck, because there are only one or two cars there, but by horse and cart-from Arichat or Petite de Grat to Grande Anse and then either by the railway to Point Tupper or the whole distance by road? Does the minister

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
expect that to be done? It is no wonder the fisheries in that part of Nova Scotia are in such a deplorable condition when their only real means of transportation, which is the service between Canso, Arichat and Mulgrave, is cut down by the minister to the extent of S3,750 without-and I say it in all kindness-knowing the circumstances in connection with the matter.
This service touches at Canso, one of the most important fishing points on the coast of Nova Scotia, and the landing point for both commercial cables and the Western Union cable. Suppose this contractor refuses to accept the reduction. If a contract is a sacred thing, can the minister compel this contractor to accept this amount? Of course he cannot. I suppose the minister is working on the idea of this mass buying business-sweat shops, Loblaws, Eatons and Simpsons. Oh, it is a terrible thing for them to do mass buying, but the minister is trying to do mass buying by starving out cooks and stewardesses on the M estport; that is the kind of mass buying he is doing so far as Nova Scotia is concerned. He is cutting down service, and he is deliberately starving service.
The same applies to my own town of Guysborough. The only service they have- they are forty miles away from a railway- from the first of September to the middle of March, yes, even the first of May, is a little boat which runs from Guysborough to Queens-port, and then on to Mulgrave. Well, the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the exercise of his penny wise and pound foolish policy is compelling the fish buyers to say: "No, we cannot take more fish from you, because when winter comes the boat will not be running and we will have no means of transportation." They cannot go out and get mackerel or herring, because this parsimonious government, this Tory government, has reduced the subsidy to $9,500. No wonder the trade of the country is in its present terrible condition. The minister is responsible, more than anyone else, so far as his department is concerned, for the statistics with regard to trade. No wonder the trade of this country has fallen off by almost two-thirds of its [DOT]volume when the minister of a great department, one who should do everything possible to increase the trade of the country, deliberately and for the sake of saving a few lousy and measly dollars reduces the subsidy.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like to refer the minister to a report issued recently by the Canadian Association of Seamen in reference to subsidized Canadian shipping from Vancouver and Victoria to the Asiatic ports. The
report states that on Canadian ships there are 2,574 oriental workers, and that on all foreign ships, particularly Danish, Norwegian, American, French and German, entering Vancouver and Victoria harbours the sailors are the nationals of those respective countries. I should like to ask the minister if he can state whether or not that statement is correct, namely that all other ships entering our western harbours employ their own nationals? Then, in view of the fact that Canada gives to the Canadian ships plying between our western ports and Asiatic ports approximately $900,000 per year, and owing to the fact that on board these ships there are 2,574 orientals working, which means the displacement of that number of Canadian sailors, etc., is there anything the government can do to see that Canadian seamen are employed on board Canadian ships receiving subsidies from Canada ?


William Duff: Before the minister replies
may I say this: How would it be for the hon. member to suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he should get a Chinese cook for the Westport between Mulgrave and Guysborough?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I gave a full answer only a few moments ago to the question asked by the hon. member.


Thomas Reid: Perhaps this question does not come within the minister's department, but I should like to ask if any criticisms have been made to him regarding allegations in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company bringing engineers from the old country.
I wonder if the minister has any information on that point? Strong representations in that regard have been made to almost every member from the province of British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The statement is denied, absolutely. There may be cases where the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which operates a large fleet of ships on both oceans, might promote a man from a junior position on one of its Atlantic steamships to a position on the Pacific. The reverse often obtains, where a man is promoted from the Pacific to the Atlantic; for instance, I know some of the captains running on the larger ships on the Atlantic were formerly captains on the Pacific. It is quite true that a number of these men are Scotchmen, particularly the engineers. I am quite sure my hon. friend would not criticize the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for using Scotch engineers. They were not imported for that purpose. A Scotchman, or, like myself, an Englishman,

Supply-Trade-Subsidies

might come to this country, become a good Canadian citizen and be entitled to all the privileges of Canadian citizenship. That is precisely what happened in these cases. They are not imported in the sense in which that word has been used.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	When I entered the
chamber a short time ago the minister was answering a question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster in regard to the employment of Asiatics on some of the ships running out of Vancouver. We discussed this matter last year. Although I heard the minister's reply to the hon. member I am not satisfied. Here we have a situation where the government are giving assistance, and where they give such assistance they usually stipulate fair wages and proper working conditions. I do not know whether the minister is aware of this-I believe he is-that so far as the paying of low wages and maintaining poor working conditions are concerned possibly the shipping industries are greater offenders than any other industry in the Dominion of Canada. When the government subsidizes to the extent of over 82,000,000 per year I maintain that some stipulation should be made as to the wages paid to the men on those ships, and also the conditions under which they work. I am not particularly concerned as to whether they employ Asiatics, Canadians or white help of any nationality, but I am convinced that if fair wages and fair working conditions were stipulated by the government, before paying subsidies, there would be sufficient inducement to these companies to employ white help. I have had many complaints, as, no doubt, have the hon. member for New Westminster and the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself. Probably the minister receives more of these complaints than any other hon. member from British Columbia. I am convinced that something should be done to rectify this condition. Last year the minister promised that he would look into the matter. I do not know whether or not he has done so-I know he has had a busy year-but I am suggesting it is a matter which should be thoroughly investigated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I believe I have already covered the question. As I said a minute ago, I have nothing to add. There was one further point raised, and I might say this: Apart from the complaints of those who desire to replace the Chinese in crews with British Columbia citizens, we have had no complaints from any source regarding the

rate of wages or conditions of labour on these ships. I have made inquiries, and I cannot find anything of the kind.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	I have had any number
of complaints as to the wages paid on ships plying from Vancouver. I have also had complaints in connection with ships on the Atlantic coast and on some of the local services. Only to-day I received a complaint in connection with the Clarke Steamship Company, which company, I am told, is one of the worst offenders so far as paying low wages is concerned. I have no doubt that white help is employed on these local services, particularly in the east, but before these subsidies are paid I think the government should take steps to find out what are the wages paid and the working conditions of the men.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend was referring previously to the Pacific coast. We have received a complaint regarding the Clarke Steamship Company and I understand negotiations are being carried on between the representatives of the company and the seamen's association or union. This matter is under advisement in the department.


James Layton Ralston: Could the minister tell
me what boat is now running between Bad-deck and Iona?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
James Layton Ralston: Is that the boat that has been, in the service right along?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For some time, yes.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any agreement
between the owners and the government as to this reduction of fifty per cent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They signed a contract
for 1933.


James Layton Ralston: In reply to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) the minister stated that he had advice as to the non-liability of the department in the case of a reduction in subsidies, due to the fact that there was a clause in the contracts 'making a subsidy subject to vote by parliament. Circumstances may be different now-I do not think they are-but I should like to direct the attention of the minister to what occurred in 1930. When the minister made that statement I recalled a discussion which took place in 1930 between the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), then leader of the opposition, and the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). The then Minister of Trade-

and Commerce was taken severely to task for stating that the payments under the contract were always subject to a vote of parliament. I should like to quote from page 2862 of Hansard of May 29, 1930, as follows:
Mi. Bennett: You cannot do these things by order m council; there must be legislative authority to do it. The government get over it by saying: We do not bind ourselves for more than one year, but we fill in ten years or whatever sounds good to the person exploiting the subsidy.
Mr. Malcolm: My hon. friend knows parliamentary procedure better than I do. But how could we do it if -we did not pass an order m council ?
Mr. Bennett: By coming to this parliament. Mr. Malcolm:	We do.
Mr Bennett: No, only a year after. Suppose something happens to the government9
Mr Malcolm: Well, if my hon. friend does
not vote the money next year__
Mi. Bennett: Then there is an action in the exchequer court for damages.
Mr. Malcolm: There is a clause in the contract to that effect. It has been going on for years.	6 s
The present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) then moved that the item be struck out. The present Prime Minister was very positive at that time that there would be grounds for an action for damages. I just mention this to the minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not presume to put my opinion on legal matters against the opinion either of the Prime Minister or of my hon. friend.


William Duff: What about my opinion?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have profound respect tor my hon. friend as a sea lawyer.


James Layton Ralston: I am expressing no
opinion; I am simply calling my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the present Prime Minister expressed an opposite opinion to what I understood he said he had been advised.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I note what my hon. friend has said.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the total amount paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company by way of mail subsidies and steamship subventions?
__________Supply-Trade-Subsidies


Charles Gavan Power: Is that all the Oanadian Pacific Railway Company receives?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, there are some local services. For the service between Victoria and west coast of Vancouver island they receive $10,000, and for the service between Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skag-way, they receive $12,000.


Charles Gavan Power: A little over a million dollars?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. These subsidies provide for the carrying of all mails which were previously paid for by the ton.


Charles Gavan Power: Is this paid on a trip basis or is it just a lump sum?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is on an annual basis with a guarantee of regular sailings. My hon. friend knows the general run of their services. Previously we paid for the carriage of the mails but now vre do not; it is within the ambit of this contract.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the Canada, China and Japan service on a yeariy basis?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A yearly basis with a guarantee of certain sailings.


Mr POWER:: Am I to understand that the Canadian Pacific would put on a new boat on this service such as the Empress of Japan without having some guarantee from the government that they were to receive a subsidy over a term of years? Is there not something m the contract or in the arrangement between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the government under which if the money is voted by parliament it will continue to be paid over a period of years?


Mr STEVENS:: There is nothing; it is voted from year to year.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there any with the Canadian Pacific?
arrangement


Mr STEVENS :: Nothing that is not disclosed m the estimates.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no long term contract with the Canadian Pacific in connection with the China and Japan service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For the service between Canada and the United Kingdom on the Atlantic it is $500,000.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that all Canadian Pacific?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. For the service
between Canada, China and Japan the vote is $600,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is made from year to year.


Charles Gavan Power: No undertaking was entered into either by this or by the former government that this subsidy would continue over a period of years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot speak for the
former government, but my officials advise

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
me that there was no such undertaking. As far as this government is concerned I can speak, and 1 say, no.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there any clause in this
contract to provide that in consideration of the subsidy of $600,000, fair, reasonable and equitable wages will be paid?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Such a clause has never
been included in any subvention since they were first given.


Charles Gavan Power: Since the minister has become the apostle of fairly high wages in this country, does he not think that he in his administrative capacity and his department should endeavour to see that something better than slave wages are paid on vessels operating under subventions paid by this government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: First, I thank my hon.
friend for the apostolic suggestion. Second,
I shall take his suggestion into earnest consideration.


Charles Gavan Power: Thank you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I mean it.
Mr, POWER:	If the minister means it,
I thank him twice.


Mr. MacINNIS:: What company is paid
a subsidy for the Vancouver-British West Indies service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I gave that information
a short time ago; it is the Canadian Transport Company.


Angus MacInnis: Do not the boats of this
company go from the West Indies to British ports where they discharge most of their cargoes?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is what we call an outward contract.	Such a contract is not
uncommon to Canada. Certain sailings are guaranteed by the steamship companies, in this case one a month, but there is no obligation for a corresponding return service. The main reason for this subsidy is to provide the West Indies with fodder, such as oats and ha}', as well as with fish and other important products such as lumber. Those are probably the four main products involved, and it was largely to facilitate their movement that this service was inaugurated.


Alan Webster Neill: Did I understand the minister to say that in the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the system had been abandoned of paying them anything for the carriage of mail, and that it was all included in the subsidy for the service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Particularly as regards the
service on the west coast of Vancouver island?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was referring to the
Atlantic and trans-Pacific service when I made that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: And it does not refer to Vancouver island?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They carry the mail free of charge also.


Alan Webster Neill: Some months ago I had
occasion to ask for a little extension of the postal service on the west coast of Vancouver island1, and the postal people-not the Canadian Pacific Railway-replied that it would be a matter of expense, because they would have to be paid fifteen cents a mile.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend did not do me the courtesy of bringing it to my attention and I cannot answer for the Post Office Department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade and Commerce-salaries, $548,766; contingencies, $40,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the ordinary civil government vote.


William Duff: This vote I understand is subject to the ten per cent reduction?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Duff: Do I understand that we pass the vote subject to the same consideration as the others affecting salaries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely.


William Duff: Can the minister tell us
whether the government has considered paying 'the full amount instead of ninety per cent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is still under consideration. It will be decided very shortly and the house advised.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Is there anything in the estimates for cable service, transatlantic or otherwise?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
London, salaries and expenses of the office of tlie High Commissioner for Canada, including $1,800 additional salary for the High Commissioner to that authorized by chap. 15, K.&.O., $121,160.

Supply-External Affairs
Richard Bedford Bennett: If the committee is prepared to take up the items of External Affairs I will leave one item open in order that the fullest discussion may take place with respect to all items, so that we may put them through according to the usual custom. The item that I would leave would probably be .198, which is .the Tokyo vote, about which the hon. member for Bow River desired to make some observations, and I believe the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay also. If the committee prefers, any one of the succeeding items can be left, but I thought that it might be best to leave the Tokyo item, it being understood that the whole appropriation may be discussed on that one item.


Charles Gavan Power: There would be no objection to discussing the League of Nations vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that you leave
200.


Charles A. Stewart: There is an item of $600,000 for the High Commissioner in London for advertising and publicity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not in this item. It has to do with the Department of Trade and Commerce, miscellaneous, and refers to advertising in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe. It is not chargeable against the high commissioner's office but is under his direction. I think I had better leave item 198 open, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Bow River asked some questions yesterday, but in addition to that I shall leave item 200 open. I shall call item 199.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the establishment of a trust * fund of $25,000, as an expression of the friendly interest of Canada in the celebration in 1930 of the 1,000th anniversary of the establishment of the Icelandic parliament, $25,000.
Charles Gavan Power: It seems that we voted this S25,000 two years ago and it has never been paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By arrangement with
the government of Iceland the amount was not paid, but interest on it was paid pending the completion of the trust. That having now been completed to our satisfaction, the payment is to be made. This represents an amount agreed upon by both parties in connection with the celebration of the one-thousandth anniversary of the Icelandic parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's contribution to the expenses of the International Commission for Air Navigation for 1934, $2,150.
Charles A. Stewart: This is for air navigation. Can the Prime Minister give us some information ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows that before this government came into power there was organized an international air commission dealing with problems common to all nations, and contributions have been made from time to time for the purpose of enabling the commission to function. Our contribution is $2,150. I am speaking from memory, but I think that is a correct statement of the situation.


Peter John Veniot: I do not know if I am
right in asking this question, but I shall submit it in connection with this item. Has anything been decided as to international or transatlantic air navigation, or bow far has the matter pioceeded?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For Obvious reasons I
am not in a position to make known the extent to which the discussions have gone, but representatives from Great Britain and of United States interests have conferred with representatives of Canadian interests. All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that the question is the subject matter of conversations and discussions, but no conclusions have yet been reached.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of the Wheat Advisory Committee for 1934, Canada's assessment, $1,955.
Mr. YOUNG:: Earlier in the week the
Prime Minister told us that by the end of the week he would probably be in a position to give us a detailed statement as to the true situation in regard to the wheat agreement. Can he do so to-night?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the true situation,
but to make a more extended statement. I intended, when the orders of the day were called this afternoon, to have said that I would not be in possession of the information until after Monday. I had a telephone message to-day stating that the gentleman who went from my office to the west will be back on Monday. I shall not be here on that day, bub on. the first day after my return I shall make a statement.
This item refers to our contribution to the maintenance of the advisory board in London which is presided over, as is known, by a Canadian, Mr. Cairns, who used to live in western Canada.

Supply-Miscellaneous


Edward James Young: When the Prime Minister
gives the statement of which he speaks, will there be an opportunity for the house to debate the matter, or would it be better to allow this item to stand so that we may debate it later?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see no reason that an
opportunity should not be afforded, while the estimates are under discussion, for any debate that may be desired, and if it is felt that this item will afford a suitable opportunity for that purpose, it may stand.
Item stands.
Canada's portion of expenditure of the Imperial economic committee, the Imperial shipping committee, and the executive council of the Imperial Agricultural Bureaux for 1934, $18,690.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the committee
has some knowledge of the circumstances out of which this arises. When the representatives of the dominions met in London with the representatives of the British government and decided to discontinue the operations of the marketing board, there were certain obligations which the dominions undertook to discharge, one of them being in connection with the Imperial Economic committee, which renders valuable service to the dominion; another with respect to the Imperial Shipping committee, which renders invaluable service to us in connection with insurance rates and matters of the kind of which perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite are as well aware as I am; and another dealing with the agricultural bureaux. I cannot recall the entire amount of the expenditures for 1934, but our contribution was $18,690.


Charles A. Stewart: Are all the
dominions contributing a like amount?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They fix the amounts of their contributions by mutual arrangement. My memory at the moment is this: ours is of course, because of our population, the largest contribution other than that of Great Britain. The Free State, 1 think, is making some contribution but it is the smallest of all. I do not think there is anything about the matter that calls for a more elaborate statement than what I have indicated as to how it came into being, but if the committee feels it desires further information I shall be glad to see that it is furnished.


Charles Gavan Power: I suppose we may assume
that this will be a more or less continuing item to which we are committed for years to come?
[Mr. Bennett.!


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no commitment for any length of time. But the service rendered by the Imperial Shipping committee which is presided over by Sir Halford MacKinder and which has had largely to do with insurance rates is of great importance.
Mr. STEW'ART (Edmonton):	It is very
important.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not say that
there is any commitment that extends into years; it is just from year to year.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the nature of the activities of the agricultural bureaux?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just as its name indicates, it is for the purpose of supplying information that will-shall I put it in this way-make for an increase in the sale of our commodities, for instance, our wheat as one commodity, its quality and matters of that kind. The bureaux deal with that and collect statistics. I suppose it is known to the committee that for the last twenty-five or thirty years we have been making contributions to what is called the International Institute of Agriculture that meets at Rome. The other is confined to the empire alone, doing somewhat the same service, only perhaps in a little more intensive manner than that given by the institute at Rome.


Charles A. Stewart: I was
wondering whether this is supplementary. We are not discontinuing the services of the institute at Rome which gives a world service. Is this confined to the empire?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edward James Young: How many of these bureaux are there? I see it is plural.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I speak solely from
memory now; it will be corrected if I am in error. The question of these bureaux is one that various parliaments and legislatures have had to deal with, as the hon. gentleman knows. For instance there was one agricultural bureau, so-called, that dealt with standards of wool at Leeds; I think the hon. gentleman knows something of that. Another dealt with dairy products. These various bureaux are supposed-I put it so in deference to the hon. gentleman-to collect such information as is of value to the departments of agriculture in various parts of the empire. I think that is the shortest way I can put it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-M iscellaneous
Advertising and publicity in the United Kingdom and Europe to be administered by the High Commissioner, $200,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. member for West Edmon/ton like to have this item stand?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I would prefer to have it stand to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 1 think in view of the sparse attendance and the desire indicated by several hon. members to speak about it, the matter may stand. It is one about which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is more completely informed than I. But I should like to say that during the discussions I had with the high commissioner in London with respect to our advertising he .pointed out to me the extent to which other parts of the empire are advertising in London. For instance on the hoardings Australian products are largely advertised. I dare say hon. gentlemen will recall seeing the advertisements of Australian and New Zealand products. It was thought that we have not sufficiently availed ourselves of the opportunities available to make known the merits of Canadian products. The same applies to Europe, where the amount expended is much less. After careful investigation we believe that the best interests of all would be served by placing the high commissioner in charge of the whole expenditure, as contemplated by the High Commissioner's Act. This amount represents a smaller sum than is expended by many of the dominions in London alone, but we felt that under existing financial conditions it is as large as we could ask for at the present time. The item will stand, and fuller explanation will be given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has the particulars.


Charles A. Stewart: I am glad the Prime Minister allows the item to stand.
I am not finding fault with the amount; indeed it is an expenditure I have advocated for a number of years and pressed on the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the late government. But I question the advisability of having it spent under the supervision of the high commissioner, because I have some knowledge of the efficient manner in which the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce have been carrying on this work. The sole difficulty was that money was not furnished them to do it properly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I should say to
the hon. gentleman that the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and
other departments in Canada cooperate with the gentleman in charge of publicity, who by the way was appointed by the late administration in London for the purpose of making effective our advertising in England and on the continent. The services of those interested in publicity for the Department of Trade and Commerce will of course be utilized to the fullest extent. I satisfied myself from personal investigation that the services that would be thus rendered to the country, which would include the cost of advertising in English journals and of advertising promoted from this end in that country and on the continent, would be best directed by the director of publicity who is in the high commissioner's office. I think his name is Mr. Gerhaty, and with him is associated a young man named Spence. Mr. Gerhaty, went from here, I think, in 1928 or 1929. I cannot say exactly how long Mr. Spence has been with the department, but they are both very efficient young men and have had experience that enables them by reason of their relations to British papers to render a very considerable service to this country in the way of what I call reading matter advertising, for which no payment is made.
Item stands.
Grant in aid of the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association, $9,000.


Charles A. Stewart: I notice
there has been a cut here. Is that in deference to the objections raised by the hon. member for Southeast Grey?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is uniform,
meaning by that not the uniform they wear but the uniform cut.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Dominion Council of the Girl Guides, $4,860.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is reduced ten per cent also.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses in connection with the negotiation of treaties, $9,000.
Charles A. Stewart: Is that for your treaties?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I thought probably from the standpoint of the opposition they would be considered ten per cent less efficient. But in reality it is thought that the sum of S9,000 will in all probability be sufficient to meet any expense that may be incurred in that direction.
Supply-Miscellaneous


Charles A. Stewart: Apparently
the Prime Minister does not intend to negotiate many treaties this year. I would rather see this item increased, if he would proceed to negotiate the treaties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is wonderful what you can do in the way of economy when you try. Nine thousand dollars will go a long way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Montreal Association for the Blind', $4,050.
Grant to lTnstitut Nazareth de Montreal to assist in work with the blind, $4,050.
Richard Bedford Bennett: These are items for the blind that have appeared from year to year, less ten per cent. I am sorry we had to make the ten per cent cut.


Charles A. Stewart: I think this is one reduction that the Prime Minister might have considered a little more seriously. I have always felt that our grants to the blind are not nearly sufficient.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is right.


Charles A. Stewart: Great difficulty is experienced in carrying on this work in the various provinces in which institutions for the blind are situated. I feel that the grants have been reduced almost to the breaking point as far as they are concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is quite correct. Representatives of the societies for the blind waited on us and explained their position. It is really a very difficult one. A delegation met me also at Winnipeg; their position is most difficult. However, it will be observed that these grants are payable to the two associations which carry on, shall I say, general operations in Montreal. In view of the representations made by all these bodies, the government felt impelled at the moment to make the ten per cent of general application. We so advised them at the time. I am afraid that not to apply it in one case, where I will admit there is perhaps a stronger claim than in others, is only to invite difficulty and continuous correspondence in which it would be urged that we did not reduce this and did reduce that. Personally I would prefer to see it $10,000 rather than the amount it is.


Charles A. Stewart: I always felt that it would be much better to forego altogether the two preceding votes, to the Royal Society of Canada and the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, and give die money to the blind. However, this is not

new as far as I am concerned; I merely reiterate what I said in the past when we were responsible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to make this observation without being misunderstood: Great as are the claims of the blind and the suffering, merely because we are passing through an abnormal condition of depression we must not overlook entirely the cultural side of the life of the country. Those two items to which the hon. gentleman refers mean the continuance or the discontinuance of the operations of the royal society and the academy of arts.


Charles A. Stewart: It gives
them a much better chance to be supported by private subscription.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are largely supported in that way, but this means the difference between their being able to carry on and ceasing to function. As the hon. gentleman knows, the royal society came into being in the days of the late Marquis of 'Lome, and I think it has discharged a rather fine service to this dominion. Numbered among its presidents are most distinguished scholars, scientists and men of letters, and it has become well and favourably known in every part of the world. One recalls that the royal society in Great Britain occupies a position of outstanding importance and has been maintained with great difficulty since the days of Newton. This society of ours is now half a century old, and its maintenance, I think, is important from the point of view ' of the cultural life of the dominion. It brings together scholars, thinkers, mathematicians and scientists, and when one looks through the volume of their papers one is impressed with the extent of their knowledge, the wide scope of their learning and the real contribution they are making to the national life.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I should like to ask if some suggestions have been received to the effect that old age pensions should be paid to blind people before they reach the present minimum age. If such suggestions were adopted by the provinces would the federal government be willing to contribute its share of the cost?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the payment of pensions to the blind has engaged the attention of this house for many years. Prior to the adoption of the Old Age Pensions Act efforts were made, as every hon. member knows who has served in this house for any length of time, to establish the claim of those

Supply-Miscellaneous
who were sightless upon the state for assistance. The hon. gentleman will recall the representations made in this house every year from 1926 to 1933 on behalf of the sightless in Canada. This item does not afford an opportunity to express anything more than I have already said as to the attitude of the government towards the matter. Some of the provinces have enacted legislation- under which they have agreed to undertake their portion of the expenditure incident to the placing of the blind in a position where pensions would be payable to them on the basis of the old age pension provision but beginning at the age of forty. No uniform action as yet has been taken, but f feel that if we make any speedy recovery the time is not far distant when some provision of that sort will be made on behalf of the sightless.


*Mr. STANLEY:: I believe the Canadian National Institute for the Blind carries on some small industry of its own for the manufacture of various commodities. I have specifically in mind the manufacture of rubber mats, and things of the kind. If the different departments of the government could be urged to give special consideration to this organization in the purchase of such supplies it would be a practical way of assisting the individual blind people through their organization.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that an
order in council was passed extending some relief to the blind in connection with some of the provisions of our revenue act. Exactly what the terms of the order in council were I do not recall at the moment.


Charles A. Stewart: There was
some provision in regard to blind soldiers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we passed something with respect to the sales tax, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance suggests. I believe I express the view of every member of this committee when I say that anything that reasonably can be done in an administrative sense on behalf of the blind would be done gladly by any government regardless of its political complexion. But I may just point out that a difficulty arose in one case; this created a form of competition which proved destructive to those with whom it came in contact, and that expresses the other side of the question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide for grants to be made to the provinces of-
Nova Scotia, $875,090.
New Brunswick, $600,000.
Prince Edward Island, $125,000, pending consideration of provincial subsidies.
Alfred Edgar MacLean: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister if any arrangement was agreed upon by the provincial premiers who met here some time ago with regard to increasing the subsidies. This is a provisional subsidy made under the terms of the Duncan report, and this question has been outstanding for some time. I may say that it is a live topic in the maritimes, and especially in Prince Edward Island. We have no way of raising revenue except by direct taxation. We have no mines on which we can collect royalties; we have no timber permits as they have in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Some of our friends think we are simply living on provincial subsidies, but that is not correct. Our taxes are increasing every year, as they are in the other provinces, and our people are waiting and watching, hoping that some day the subsidy question will be gone into and a larger amount agreed upon. I do not wish to refer to any preelection promises; I know the Prime Minister did not make them personally, but I have before me a pamphlet which was published in the newspapers, in which it is stated that if this government came into power the subsidy would be increased by 8700,000 anually. This is the paragraph:
Bennett will fully implement the Duncan award', thereby enriching our province by some $700,000 annually.
I do not hold the Prime Minister responsible for that promise, but someone made it and a certain number of our electors believed it. However, I do hope the time is not far distant when this question, which is engaging the attention of the people of the maritimes, will be thoroughly gone into and satisfactorily settled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At all events it does not appear that a sufficient number of people believed that promise to prevent my hon. friend from being elected. I have not heard that figure before. During the recent visit to Ottawa of the premiers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island they suggested that a commission be appointed for the purpose of dealing with what were alleged to be the unfulfilled recommendations of the Duncan report, and the government concluded that the proper course to follow was to hear representatives of each of the provinces before a committee of the whole cabinet. We have advised the premiers of the three several prov-
Supply-Miscellaneous

inces that we will hear the representations of each before the committee of the whole cabinet as to the points they desire to make concerning those recommendations in the Duncan report to which effect has mot 'been given. That is the position, including the very matter to which attention has just now been directed. The hon. member is quite right in saying that this matter is of long standing. My memory is that we were given the proud privilege of serving this country some time in August, 1930, and it certainly had been a live question for some years prior to that time. We hope that through this opportunity of making representations to a committee of the cabinet the premiers of the provinces, or their counsel, or anyone acting on their behalf, will be in a position to make known to the cabinet the exact points that in their judgment still remain to be dealt with in order that the Duncan report may be fully implemented. When that is done the government will take such action as may be possible, having regard to the representations that are made.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am pleased that the
Prime Minister has given a ray of hope to the people of the maritimes. Without anticipating any representations which might be made by the premiers of the provinces or their counsel, may I say this is one recommendation of the Duncan commission which has not yet been implemented, namely the matter of subsidies or increased allowances to the provinces. It has been carried for some time in the estimates pending final adjustment. So far since the opening of the session we have heard considerable about the claims and the rights of the western people to increased grants and subsidies from the Dominion government. Spokesmen from the maritimes have been very modest, due to the fact that they have faith in the justice of their claims and that they will soon be adjusted. The matter of increased grants and subsidies is one of vital importance to the martime provinces. I do not intend this evening to go into details, but simply to mention the fact that the maritime provinces have not received any material financial assistance through this depression, in comparison with what has been granted other parts of the country.
Some of the provinces, and this particularly applies to New Brunswick, are figuring on an increased subsidy for the next year in order to balance the budget, and it is to be hoped that in some form or another this matter will soon be adjusted and that before the close of the provincial fiscal year, in November, a substantial increase will be made in lieu of

what should have been granted some years ago. These would be increased grants to make up for what these provinces have lost and have given up through joining confederation. The matter certainly will come up at some stage during the session, at which time an opportunity will be given to all maritime representatives to speak. So far, however, I am pleased to note that the matter has advanced one step and that arrangements have been made with the premiers of the provinces to have the claims laid in concrete form before the government.


Charles A. Stewart: This may
not be the proper place to ask the question I have in mind, but I am sure the Prime Minister will not object to answering. Is there anything in the rumour that there is a commission appointed to review the settlement with Saskatchewan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member will
recall that in the agreement made by the late government with the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan provision was made under which a commission was to come into being for the purpose of determining two questions. One question was whether or not Saskatchewan or Alberta were entitled to compensation, and if so in what amount, with respect to lands alienated between the date of the extinction of the Hudson bay title in 1870 and the creation of the new province in 1905. That issue, in the case of Saskatchewan, was referred to the privy council, by express provision in the agreement, which, if my memory serves me correctly, the hon. member himself signed. On reference to the Supreme Court of Canada it was decided that there was no merit in the claim thus made. On appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was confirmed. It therefore left open one question, and one only, that question being, as provided by the agreement: what, if any, compensation the province was entitled to receive arising out of the administration and control of the resources from 1905 until 1930, when the new agreement was made. It is further' provided by the agreement that for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion the commissioners could consider financial matters for the purpose of placing the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta on an equality with the other provinces of confederation.
In the case of Alberta, the statute named the commissioners. It does provide, however, that they could be changed, and the government of Alberta have indicated that they

Supply-External Affairs
desire to modify the provisions contained in the agreement in that regard. In the case of Saskatchewan the Hon. Mr. Justice Dysart has been named, together with the Hon. Mr. Justice Bigelow of Saskatchewan, and Mr. George McDonald, chartered accountant of Montreal. They have been sitting here for some days. Some years ago a commission was set up to deal with the province of Manitoba, that commission being presided over by the Hon. Mr. Justice Turgeon, assisted by the Hon. Thomas Crerar and Mr. Charles M. Bowman of the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada. As a result of their deliberations the sum of $4,000,000 was awarded to the province of Manitoba for the purpose of placing that province on an equality with other provinces of the confederation, the judgment proceeding upon the theory that Manitoba should be placed upon an equality with Alberta and Saskatchewan. The matter now being heard by the commissioners deals only with the question of the administration of the resources. To quote the words of the agreement, it is to deal with " the administration and control of the resources" by the dominion between 1905 and 1930, when, by the agreement entered into, the province became entitled to its resources, together with a continuance of the subsidy which had been accepted in 1905 in lieu of such resources.
The problem now engaging the attention of the commissioners deals solely with these matters, and solely with questions which were provided for in the agreement, which, if my memory serves me correctly, the hon. member as Minister of the Interior signed on behalf of the dominion, together with the then Minister of Justice. That is the only commission that has been set up, and the fact that three or four years have elapsed before its being set up is accounted for by some little delay in submitting the question to the supreme court. The judgment of the privy council in answer to the two questions submitted was delivered only last fall, so the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) informs me.


Peter John Veniot: I think the house adopted the Duncan report in 1928.


Mr. RHODES:: The first vote was in
1927-28.


Peter John Veniot: The year ended March 31, 1928. The Duncan report recommended that these be considered as interim payments to the three provinces. I understand that steps were taken by the Finance department to bring about an accounting between the provinces and the dominion from confederation down in order to see how they stood financially. I wonder if any further progress
has been made in this respect preparatory to the meeting which is to be held with the premiers of the maritime provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is one of the matters
which it is proposed they shall submit to the committee of the cabinet. Much work has been done by the officials from time to time in collecting information as to the extent to which the financial assistance granted to the maritime provinces places them on an equality with the other provinces. I do not say that it has been done in any great detail but additions to the information have been made from time to time. I have in mind one particular official who has been addling to his store of information. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud), who has brought this matter to our attention, suggests that we might discuss it, but in view of the representations to be made by the three provinces to the committee of the cabinet, possibly it might not serve a useful purpose for us to enter into a discussion of the matter until after the presentation has been made by the provinces. Another ground for consideration claimed by the maritime provinces is that Canada having extinguished the title of the Hudson's Bay Company to the northwest territories and the northeast territories, and having secured the money by a loan on credit of the whole Dominion of Canada, of which they paid their share, the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba were enlarged out of that territory, but the maritime provinces, geographically located as they are, were not able to secure any part of it. They claim that they should be placed on terms of equality with the agreement made between Manitoba and the federal government in 1929 and between Alberta and Saskatchewan and the federal government in 1930. They claim that they should receive some compensation in lieu of their not having received any portion of the territory acquired by the dominion on the credit of the whole country.


Peter John Veniot: That is one contention.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not a new claim.


Peter John Veniot: That was one of the claims put up in 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External Affairs-salaries, $83,952; contingencies, $61,800.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The only change in this
item is a slight decrease.
Supply-External Affairs


Charles A. Stewart: Has there
been some recent arrangement as to holding up these items of civil government? I understood the arrangement was that they were not to be gone on with.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not present in the house when that arrangement was made.


Charles A. Stewart: I merely
asked if some other arrangement had been made, because I understood that the civil government items were not to be voted until after the government had decided what they were going to do about salaries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When the Secretary of
State (Mr. Cahan) called his item it was passed without any discussion, but when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) called a similar item the question was put to him as to whether the same statement already made with respect to other items outside of civil government would apply to that particular item, and his answer was in the affirmative. That is the only understanding of which I know.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg my
hon. friend's pardon. A previous item was dropped and the understanding was that civil government items would not be voted until such time as the government decided what action they were going to take with respect to this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is any question
about the matter we will let the item stand.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought
perhaps some arrangement had been made with our leader. If none has been made, I suggest that the item stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is any question
about it, we will let the item stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Monday, March 5, 1934