1934-03-12

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) asked me a question which I confused with another when I replied that there was no correspondence. I was in erroT for I find that the return had just been completed and sent to the Secretary of State. It is now tabled.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 31, to amend the Naturalization Act.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on the motion for leave to introduce I wish to state that I have had the opportunity of reading the terms of this bill and there will be no objection to its going to a second reading for consideration, but the terms of the bill are such that in view of our gelations with the United Kingdom and other dominions, and in view of pending intema

jtional action, I do not think the government or this house should accept it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BOURGEOIS:: Were there any negotiations between the federal government and the government of Quebec, regarding the contribution of each in

connection with the celebration of the third centenary of the foundation of the city of Three Rivers?
2.	If so, wras there an understanding and was a proportion arrived at as to the share of each government?
3.	Has the government received official notice of the motion passed by the legislature of the province of Quebec authorizing the lieutenant governor in council to approve a grant of $100,000 to assure the success of the festivals of the third centenary of the foundation of the city of Three Rivers, providing the federal government contribute an equal amount to the one mentioned above?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	The answer is no, but at a meeting held in Montreal at which the premier of Quebec was present and other gentlemen regarding the .Jacques 'Cartier celebration, the premier of Quebec stated that he proposed to make a grant to Three Rivers of 8100,000, and subsequently he said that that was dependent upon the federal government making a like contribution.
2.	There was no understanding for there had been no negotiations and no discussion of the matter until it was mentioned as above.
3.	So far as I am at present advised no formal or official communication of the passing of that legislation by the legislature of Quebec has been received.


POST OFFICE BUILDINGS
Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	What is the total investment of the federal government in post office buildings throughout the dominion?
2.	What rent, if any, does the Post Office Department pay for the use of these buildings?
3.	What rent is paid by departments, other than the post office, for post office buildings not publicly owned ?
4.	What amount is paid by the Department of Public Works for fuel, light, water, janitor service, and other expenses (not including rent) on public buildings used for post office purposes ?
5.	What revenue is lost to the Post Office Department through the carrying of government or franked mail, free?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: To obtain the information asked for in this question would take a great deal of time and research, and it may not be possible to give the hon. gentleman the information that he desires after all that labour has been undertaken. I would suggest that he allow the question to stand and discuss the matter with myself and the officials of the department with a view to seeing whether we can meet his desires in a reasonable time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question stands.

Questions


APPOINTMENT OF TRANSLATORS
Mr. GHEVRIER:: 1.	Has the government, or the Civil Service Commission appointed any permanent or temporary translator or translators, during the past six months, up to date?
2.	If so, for what department, commission or bureau have these translators been appointed; what are their names, age and salaries?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the answer to this question was given on February 14 last, at page 613 of Hansard, in reply to an inquiry from the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). If that information is not satisfactory the hon. gentleman will perhaps state exactly the additional particulars he requires.


CHAMBLY CANAL REPAIRS
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Was the cost of the work done at Chambly canal, last fall, by the federal government, paid out of the unemployment relief funds?
2.	How many workmen were employed on the said work?
3.	How many hours per day and at what rate per hour?
4.	What was the place of residence of each employee ?
5.	On whose recommendation were they appointed?
6.	Was the cost of the work done recently on the locks at St. John by the federal government paid out of the unemployment relief funds?
7.	How many workmen were employed on the said work?
8.	What was the place of residence of each workman ?
9.	How many hours per day and at what rate per hour ?


Mr. MANION:: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that neither of these works was done as unemployment relief work. It was work done in the ordinary course of repairs. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow the question to drop with that information, and if he wishes further information in regard to my answer and will ask for it in another form I shall be glad to supply it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


NORTH BAY FEDERAL OFFICE
Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence, aviation branch, an office in North Bay, Ontario?
2.	If so, when did it start to function and what are the main functions of that office?
3.	How many are employed in that office, and what are the names, duties and salary of each?
4.	What was the former address and occupation of each employee at the said office?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1 and 2. There is no office of the aviation branch of the Department of National Defence at North Bay. The establishment at North Bay is an office for the general administration of unemployment relief projects between Reay and Tudhope. This office commenced to function on the 14th June, 1933.
3 and 4.
Name	Allowances*	Duties	Former address	Former occupationG. L. McGee	S100 per month	Superintendent	Toronto	Construction Supt.,E. A. Hanley	S50 per month	Accountant	Ottawa	Civil Engineer Bank ManagerLt. Col. J. Larkin.	S60 per month	Stores Officer	Ottawa	Military OfficerA. B. Holand	$40 per month	Draughtsman	Toronto	Civil EngineerN. Allen	S60 per month	Surveyor	Ingersoll	Civil EngineerG. W. Smith	$40 per month	Supply & transport	Weston	Civil EngineerJ. C. Lemieux....	.$40 per month	Chief Clerk	Haileybury	ElectricianS. Hines	$40 per month	Cook, Class "B"	North Bay	CookA. Poland 	$30 per month	Storeman	Cobalt	MechanicR. G. Middleton..	$30 per month	Storeman	Toronto	SalesmanR. Gagne	$20 per month	Clerk	North Bay	ClerkN. V. Peltier	$20 per month	Clerk	North Bay	ClerkE. Smith 	20 cents per day	Labourer	North Bay	Truck DriverP. Sniderhan ....	20 cents per day	Labourer	North Bay	LabourerW. Hines	20 cents per day	Labourer	North Bay	ClerkV. Poland	20 cents per day	Labourer	Prescott	Draughtsman
* Accommodation, subsistence, clothing and medical care in kind, and the undermentioned amounts in cash.
Questions


SEED LABORATORY ANALYSTS
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	What number of analysts of the female sex were employed in each seed laboratory in Canada during February of the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?
2.	Has the fedora! Department of Agriculture such seed laboratories and how many of these laboratories are there in each province of the dominion?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort) :: 1.	1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
Saokville	
0	4	3	2	2Montreal	
6	6	5	6	4Ottawa	
7	7	7	7	5Toronto	
9	10	10	10	8Winnipeg	
8	8	7	7	7Saskatoon	
4	6	6	6	5Calgary	
7	8	6	7	72.	Yes. One at each point listed in question 1.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-FEDERAL LOANS
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	What amounts of money has the province
of British Columbia received as direct loans from the federal government for each of the following months:	November and December,
1933, and January and February, 1934?
2.	What amounts of money lias the province of British Columbia received for unemployment relief from the federal government for each of the following months: November and December, 1933, and January and February, 1934?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	November, nil; December, $435,000; January, $1,000,000; February, nil.
2.	The dominion has paid to the province of British Columbia $48,943.37 with respect to unemployment relief expenditures made by the province and municipalities during the month of November, 1933, and $666.97 with respect to unemployment relief expenditures made by the province and municipalities during the month of December, 1933. There have been no accounts received from the province as yet covering unemployment relief expenditures for the months of January and February, 1934.


ENGLISH POUND
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	What was the average value of the British pound in each month from October 1. 1931, to June 1, 1933, when expressed in Canadian money ?
2.	What was the total value of Canadian exports to Great Britain during each month from October 1, 1931, to June 1, 1933?
lMr. Sutherland,]


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	The average value of the British pound in each month from October 1, 1931, to June 1, 1933, in Canadian currency, was:
Months	
October			 $4-3823
November		
December			 4-0923
1932-	
January		.. .. 4-0280
February			 3-9588
March			 4-0638
April			 4-1732
May			 4-1570
June			 4-2050
July			 4-0755
August			 3-9749
September			 3-8472
October			 3-7228
November			 3-7596
December			 3-7866
1933-	
January			 3-8466
February				 4-0994
March		. . .. 4-1345
April		.... 4-2340
May			 4-4979
2.	The total value of Canadian exports to United Kingdom each month from October 1, 1931, to June 1, 1933, was:
Months	
October			$20,355,212
November		
December. .. .		 16,605,019
1932-	
January			 9,871.271
February			 10,238.056
March			 10,755,324
April			 7,275,569
May			 12,172,302
June			 11,371.590
July			 16,088,350
August			 17.454,056
September..		 19,492,417
October			 26,886,091
November			 19,232,731
December			 17,333,923
1933-	
January		. .. 12.626,028
February		,. .. 10,262,214
March			 14,165,748
April		.. .. 5.975,013
May			 17,876,891

Questions as Orders for Returns


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-ROAD BUILDING
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Has the federal government contributed to the work done on highway No. 1 in the village of Disraeli from 1930 to 1934, inclusive?
2.	If so, what amount has it paid?


Mr. GORDON:: 1 and 2. In accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into between the dominion and the province of Quebec respecting unemployment relief, the province submitted the following schedule of proposed works which received federal approval on December 28, 1933:
Wolfe county-Highway No. 1, parish of Disraeli, blasting of rock in order to straighten and widen the road near the village of Disraeli, and other improvements-To remedy unemployment at Disraeli village and parish.
Total estimated cost, $5,000.
Total estimated labour cost, $4,000.
Man-days work provided by project, 2,500.
Basis of contribution, 50 cents per man-day.
Dominion proportion, $1,250.
No accounts have as yet been received from the province with respect to the works provided by the schedule above referred to.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-RICHMOND-WOLFE
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Has the federal government contributed a certain amount for the work done during the month of November, 1933; December. 1933. and January, 1934. in Beaulac and Garthby villages, Wolfe county?
2.	If so, what is this amount?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	No.
2.	See reply to No. 1.	.


COUNTERVAILING DUTIES-SUGAR
Mr. MERCTER (St. Henri):: 1.	Has clause 80, in Bill 95, providing for countervailing duties on the sugar content of imported confectionery to offset the effect of the sugar tax. ever been enforced by the Department of Customs and Excise?
2.	If not, why?
3.	How many pounds of confectionery have been imported since Bill 95 was passed: (a) from the United Kingdom; (b) from all other countries?
4.	What has been the percentage of increase or decrease against the same months in 1932, in the weight of confectionery imports from the United Kingdom for the months from March to December, 1933, inclusive'
5.	What has been the percentage of increase or decrease for the month of January, 1934, against January, 1933?
G. What uas the average price for import of imported confectionery in January, 1933, and also in January, 1934?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1. Regulation issued March the eighth, nineteen thirty-four, effective March twelfth, nineteen thirty-four.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Imports of confectionery coated with or containing chocolate; sugar candy and confectionery, n.o.p.; candied popcorn, candied nuts and sweetmeats, entered for consumption in Canada, April 1, 1933, to February 28 1934:
pounds
(a)	From United Kingdom.. .. 2,740,253
(b)	From all other countries.. 264,223
4.	Imports as above from United Kingdom, April 1 to December 31, 1932 and 1933, and percentage increase in 1933:
pounds
April to December, 1932	 2,111,502
April to December, 1933	 2,415,225
Percentage increase in 1933, 14-4 per cent.
5.	Imports as above from United Kingdom, months of January, 1933 and 1934, and percentage increase in January, 1934:
pounds
January, 1933	 59,098
January, 1934	 169,675
Percentage increase, January, 1934, 187-1 per cent.
6.	Average price of imports as above from United Kingdom, months of January, 1933, and January, 1934:
cents per pound
January, 1933	 14-6
January, 1934	 11-4



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. SANDERSON:: 1.	What amount of treasury bills were sold by the federal government in the following years: 1918-19-20-21-22-23-24 ?
2.	To whom were they sold in each year?
3.	What rate of interest did they carry in each year?


FEDERAL LOANS
Mr. SANDERSON:: 1.	What was the amount of loans sold by the federal government in the following years: 1918-19-20-21-22-23-24?
2.	What was the price of issue in each year?
3.	What was the rate of interest in each year?
4.	What was the yield to the investor in each year?
5.	What was the cost of flotation in each year ?


DUTY ON CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What is the custom tariff on mixed chemical fertilizers imported from the United Kingdom and the United' States?
2.	What is the custom tariff on non-mixed chemical fertilizers imported from the United Kingdom and the United States?
Motions for Papers

3.	What is the quantity of non-mixed chemical fertilizers imported from the United Kingdom ?
4.	What is the quantity of mixed chemical fertilizers imported from either the United States or the United Kingdom?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Return tabled herewith.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	How many volumes, pamphlets, bulletins, circulars, folios, etc., were published for distribution, in the English language, during the fiscal or calendar year 1933, by the following departments: (a) Department of Immigration; (b) Department of Mines; (c) Department of Colonization; (d) Labour department; (e) Department of Agriculture; (f) Finance Department; (g) Public Works Department; (h) Department of Justice; (i) Department of External Affairs; (j) Department of Pensions and National Health; (k) Department of National Defence; (1) Department of Solicitor General; (m) Department of Secretary of State; (n) Department of Marine; (o) Department of Fisheries; (p) Department of Railways and Canals; (q) Post Office Department; (r) Department of National Revenue; (s) Department of Interior; (t) Department of Indian Affairs; (u) Auditor General's Department; (v) Department of Trade and Commerce; (w) different commissions. such as Radio, Civil Service, Railways, Tariff, etc.?
2.	How many volumes, pamphlets, bulletins, circulars, folios, etc., were published for distribution in the French language, during the year 1933, in the departments and commissions mentioned in question No. 1?



RAILWAY PASSES

Mr. ARTHURS:: Referring to answer to a question of Mr. Duff, pages 696-7, Hansard: Total passes issued in 1930 were 744,480. Passes issued to dependents of members, senators, government employees and .press were given as 11,078.
1.	What was the number issued to each of the four classes mentioned immediately above by each railway company in 1930?
2.	How many passes were issued to the same classes by each railway in 1933?
3.	How many passes under the classification "other trip passes," mainly to railway employees and dependents were issued in 1933?
4.	Do applications for dependents' passes have to be filled in in a form similar to that required for members and senators?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) (for Mr. Ralston):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and memoranda since January 1, 1933, between the Canadian Legion and the Board' of Pension Commissioners or the Canadian Pension Commission, respecting action taken or to be taken in connection with review of pensions or deductions from or suspensions

of pensions to recover alleged overpayments of pension, claimed to have resulted from alleged illegal marriages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and memoranda since January 1, 1933, between the Canadian Legion and the Minister of Pensions and National Health, respecting action taken or to be taken in connection with reviews of pensions or deductions from or suspensions of pensions to recover alleged overpayment of pensions claimed to have resulted from alleged illegal marriages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and .memoranda since January 1, 1933, between the Minister of Pensions and National Health and the Board of Pension Commissioners or the Canadian Pension Commission, respecting action taken or to foe taken m connection with review of pensions or deductions from or suspensions o.f pension to recover alleged overpayments of pension claimed to have resulted from alleged illegal marriages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. LARUE moved:: For a statement showing:

1.	The periods of time during which Mr. Roland Gamache, of Sayabec, worked on the Canadian National Railways from December, 1920, until 1927.
2.	The salary received during each of these periods.
3.	For a copy of all correspondence between the Canadian National Railways authorities at Campbellton, and Mr. Didace Gamache, in connection with Mr. Roland Gamache, during the years 1923-24-25-26.
4.	For a copy of all correspondence between the Canadian National Railways authorities at Moncton and Campbellton, and Mr. Roland Gamache, during the years 1920 to 1933.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I have no
objection to the order passing but I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that as the railway consistently refuses to give information of this kind I cannot see that there is any advantage in having the order passed. I have not consulted the railway with respect to this particular matter but I know very well that they have refused on several occasions to give such information.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-STEEL RAILS

Mr. HOWARD:: For a copy of order in council P.C. 1285, dated July 28, 1933, and order in council

Tariff Board
P.C. 126, dated July 27. 1933, guaranteeing certain advances to the Algoma Steel Corporation re manufacture of steel rails for Canadian National Railways.


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) has made an error ini his motion. The date of the first order in council should be June 28, 1933, instead of July, and the number of the second order in council referred to should be 1526 instead of 126. With these changes being made, there is no objection to the motion.
Motion as amended agreed to.


Charles Benjamin Howard: For a copy of order in council P.C. 1229, dated July 28, 1933, covering grant of $13,439.28 to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, re interest on cost of steel rails for Canadian National Railways.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion should be
amended to read June 28, 1933, instead of July 28.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-ADVANCES OF $60,000,000

Charles Benjamin Howard: For a copy of order in council P.G. 1076, dated July 2, 1933, guaranteeing advances to the bank to the extent of sixty million dollars, on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the house that this order in council has been not only filed but embodied in Hansard. It was placed there by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) on January 30, and will be found at page 99 of Hansard. Under these circumstances 1 trust that the motion will be dropped.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This order in council was not fully embodied in Hansard of January 30, and so far as I have been able to ascertain it has never been filed. I made inquiries in this connection on Thursday last.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no objection to
producing a copy but the officials advise me that it has been fully embodied in Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the Department of Marine or any other department of the government of Canada, the Alberta wheat pool, the pool central selling agency, J. I. McFarland, or any officials of the above companies and the Vancouver harbour commissioners or any of their officials, relative to the re-leasing of harbour board No. 2 grain elevator for the crop year 1933-34.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. BROWN:: For a copy of all letters or communeations, passing between the Minister of the Interior, or any of his officials, and any member of the Manitoba government or the Manitoba liquor commission, with reference to the granting of a licence for selling beer in the riding of mountain park.
He said:	There is evidently an error in
the printing of this motion; it should read Riding Mountain park instead of the Riding of Mountain Park.
Motion as amended agreed to.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) based upon an article which appears in this morning's papers. The article states that it is the intention of the government to make a reference to the supreme court with regard to the jurisdiction of the tariff board in connection with dumping duties on goods imported under the British preference, and I should like to know whether this report is accurate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This matter arises out of an appeal
taken to the privy council with respect to the matter, the judgment in which has not yet been given.



WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, on one or two occasions during this session the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has made a partial statement regarding the wheat agreement entered into by Canada at the recent wheat conference. This statement was always made with the understanding that at some other time he would make a more complete and final statement. I wonder if he is prepared to make that statement at this time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am at present advised and as I indicated the other day to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), the present condition is that it is the intention of the three legislatures to introduce tomorrow bills covering this matter and in the event of that being done, I propose to make a statement with the permission of the house.
Technical Education Act



DEATH OF LORD ABERDEEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, apparently the observations made in this house with respect to the Marquis of Aberdeen appeared dn the British press and I consider it my duty to indicate to the house the following message which was received from the Marchioness of Aberdeen:
Deeply sensible of your tribute to Lord Aberdeen.
Convey grateful thanks to House of Commons.



TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Technical Education Act be amended to provide that any balance of the ten million dollars appropriated under the act, unexpended on the 31st March, 1934, shall remain available during any one or more of the five succeeding fiscal years, but no portion thereof shall be paid to any province after the 31st day of March, 1939.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to know just what act is referred to in this resolution. The Technical Education Act was passed in 1919 and was amended in 1929. There was another act, known as the Vocational Education Act, which was passed in 1931, after the present administration came into office. As I understand it, the act of 1931 has never been put into force and I should like to know if it is the act of 1919 that is referred to.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The right hon. gentleman is correct in his statement. The Technical Education Act was passed in 1919 and provided for an appropriation of $10,000,000 to be divided among the provinces as indicated in the act. Six of the provinces have spent their appropriations but three have not. In 1929 the act was amended to extend its provisions until the end of the fiscal year, 1934 and this bill contemplates a further extension until 1939 in order that the moneys unexpended by the three provinces may still be available to them. It has no reference to the Vocational Act which was passed in 1931.


Mr. HEENAN:: Have any payments been made out of the 1931 Vocational Act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Peter Heenan: I rise at this juncture not to object at all to the extension of this bill, because I think I can say for those on this side of the house that we are thoroughly in accord with the minister and the government in extending the Technical Education Act another five years. But in order that the house may understand what progress has been made in the direction of assisting technical eduction I wish for a moment or two to review what has transpired in this house and this parliament with respect to contributing to the progress of technical education. In 1910 a commission was appointed by the government of the day on the recommendation of the then Minister of Labour who is now leader of the opposition. The commission was formally appointed on June 22, 1910 and finally reported on May 31, 1913. The commission recommended at that time that there should be an appropriation of $3,000,000 per year over a period of approximately ten years, or $30,000,000 altogether. Notwithstanding that fact the government of the day took no action on the recommendation of the report until 1919, and instead of accepting the report of the commission, recommending $3,000,000 a year, the government then appropriated $1,000,000 a year, or $10,000,000 for a ten year period. The agreements under these contracts lapsed in 1929, and 1 had the honour as Minister of Labour of that day of introducing a bill to extend the act a further five years so as to enable the provinces that had not earned their portion of the grant to do so. At that time there had been, lapsed and unexpended, a total of $2,602,286.51. That would represent amounts to which the various provinces were entitled as follows: Prince Edward Island, $133,000 in round figures; Nova Scotia, $381,000; New Brunswick, $119,000; Quebec, $498,000; Ontario, nil, because Ontario had earned her proportion of the $10,000,000; Manitoba, $537,000; Saskatchewan, $705,000; Alberta, $73,000; and British Columbia, $153,000.
That was the way the matter stood when we introduced the bill to extend assistance to technical education in 1929. I did not catch what the minister said, but it appears that now there is one province that has earned the total amount. Did I understand him rightly?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Three.


Peter Heenan: Three have earned the whole amount?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Three of the provinces have not yet expended the moneys voted for them.

Technical Education Act
Mr. HEENAlN: Then six of the provinces have earned their total amount. What I want to point out to the government is this. During the election of 1930 this was one of the specific promises that were made by this government to the electors of the country; they undertook, if elected, to carry on assistance to the provinces in connection with technical education. I can remember well that in my own riding the Conservative candidate promised that there would be technical education in almost every village or hamlet in the district. The government, after the election in 1930, introduced a measure known as 21-22 George V, chap. 59. That act was assented to on August 3, 1931, and now we are informed by the government that not one penny has been paid to the provinces under the act.
I wonder whether the government imagine that they can continue indefinitely this method of deceiving the people in this country. Had the government, after passing this act in 1931, in order to carry out the agreements, made the appropriations that should have been made for three years alone, they would owe the provinces at the present time $2,602,000; but instead of giving them that, instead of carrying out their election promises made in 1930, they are now extending the act another five years in order to give only three more provinces the opportunity of earning their share of the $10,000,000 appropriated in 1919.
That is all I rise to say. I say to the minister and the government that we on this side of the house are in full accord with the extension of this Technical Education Act; but speaking for myself-I do not know what other hon. members will say-I deplore the continued method of deceiving the people as was done by passing an act in 1931 and not giving them one penny under it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apropos of
the Vocational Education Act, which is allied to this one, how does the government justify the position of leaving the act on the statutes and not presenting a report to parliament under its provisions, as required by the act itself, or making any payments under the act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the report of the Labour department makes reference to the report required to be tabled under the act; I think it does, but I am not sure. But it is not information to the members of the house to know that no moneys have been voted nor spent under the Vocational Education Act. It is purely a question of finance, and I think
there are few members of this house who would not unreservedly say that this is legislation, both the Technical Education Act and the Vocational Education Act, which should receive a considerable measure of support from all members; although I believe that in the past when these measures were before this house certain mild criticism was offered as to the method of devoting federal moneys towards matters that seemed to be strictly provincial in character. For many years I have been interested in technical education and the people in the part of Canada from which I come have taken advantage of the help granted by the province and the dominion in so far as help was granted through the medium of that legislation, to as great an extent as has 'been done in any other part of Canada. As a result we have there, apart from the universities, three of the finest technical mining schools that there are on this continent.
Again answering the right hon. gentleman, I can admit frankly that the operation of The Vocational Education Act so far as expenditure of money under it is concerned, has been purely a matter of finance and certainly has not been due to any lack of interest on the part of the government.
Before I sit down I should like, for the benefit of members who may be interested, to place upon Hansard the figures. The original amount was $10,000,000. The provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have completely appropriated the money to which they were entitled. The balances due the other provinces as of December 31, 1933, as are follows:
Nova Scotia	$130,561	45Manitoba	
356,312	59Saskatchewan	
166,088	75


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
the minister is not familiar with the report of his department, because if he looks into it he will find that it has no reference to the Vocational Education Act. I took occasion to look at the report very carefully to see whether there was any mention of the act and there being none, I took the opportunity to look at the act itself to see what it said with respect to a report to parliament. The provision in the act was that an annual report should be made to parliament. The act was passed in 1931 and we have had no report to parliament from that time to this, but we now have this particular resolution introduced to make it appear that the government is really continuing to aid technical education. The minister says that this is simply because
13S0
Technical Education Act

of the financial difficulties of the time, but he will recall that when the Vocational Education Act was before parliament, we on this side pointed out very strongly that that was not the time to introduce a technical education or vocational education act, which amounts to the same thing, and that the government would be better advised to discover what they had available in the way of finances for assisting the provinces before asking parliament to enact the legislation. I think the protest that was made at that time about proceeding with undue haste in the exactment of that particular measure has been proven to be amiply justified. The Vocational Education Act contains the following provision:
The minister shall make an annual report on or before the thirty-first day of March on the work done under the provisions of this act, containing such information and particulars as the governor in council may prescribe, and such report shall be submitted to both houses of parliament by the minister within fifteen days of the presentation of the report, if parliament be then sitting, and if not, then within fifteen days after the opening of the next session of parliament.
That is section 7 of chapter 59, 21-22 George V, an act for the promotion of vocational education in Canada. The minister has not presented a single report to parliament under that act since it was passed and the reason is that the government has done nothing whatever under the Act. But to-day the government comes forward with this resolution apparently wishing it to appear that it really wants to do something for technical education in Canada. All the government is doing is to renew what remains of a renewal that was made by the late administration in 1929 of an act which was passed in 1919.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: What was Manitoba's proportion of the1 $10,000,000 provided for in the act that was passed in 1919?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The amount paid Manitoba was $363,433.97 and there was a balance due as of December 31, 1933, $356,312.59. The amount would be the total of those two sums.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I think the total amount for Manitoba under the 1919 act would be around $700,000 and during the last twleve or fifteen years all Manitoba has been able to expend would be about $363,000, leaving a balance of about $356,000. Manitoba was in a far better position to spend the first $363,000 than she will be from now on. That province is entitled to that amount and I think all the provinces are entitled to their proportionate amounts according to papulation. The

majority of the provinces have spent their appropriations. Manitoba-and I am speaking of it because I know it best-finds itself in a position where it is hard to keep its primary schools open and for the next four or five years will not be able to take advantage of the extension of this act. In many districts the primary school situation is rather difficult; taxes are not coming in and yet the young people must get a certain amount of education. Is there no possible way whereby the minister could allow Manitoba to use a proportion or the whole of the amount that is due to help that province to carry on its primary education. Technical education is a very fine thing. I am in favour of technical education, but when you cannot get that kind of education, you certainly should have some primary schooling. Therefore I ask the minister who knows conditions existing to-day in western Canada, whether there is any possibility of allowing Manitoba that has probably the largest amount coming to it under the act of 1919, the privilege of using that money or part of it for primary school education.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Manitoba, like the other provinces, becomes entitled to the money when it conforms to the terms of the act. I quite agree with the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat that technical education is rather a comprehensive term, but it is interpreted in the act and if Manitoba can conform to what the act intended, of course there would be no hesitancy, so far as the government is concerned, in making the money available.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If Manitoba and these
other provinces have not been able to conform to the provisions of the act which was passed in 1919, amended in 1929 and that will again be amended after the legislation founded on this resolution passes, so as to spend their full allotted amounts, surely the minister must a.dimit that it will be much harder for them under present conditions to conform to the provisions of the act. The point I am trying to make is that when the act of 1919 was passed, I understand the amount allotted to each province was pro rata the population. The other provinces that the minister has mentioned have spent their full amounts. The people of the whole dominion contributed $10,000,000, under this act but certain of the provinces have not been able to spend their allotted proportion in accordance with the provisions of the act, and will not be able to do so. But why should they be deprived of the amount which was allotted to them, and to-

Technical Education Act
wards which all the people of Canada contributed, when they find themselves in the position to-day that they are unable to keep their primary schools going? I think they are entitled to that money, and that the minister should make some provision whereby they may spend it where it is more needed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: As I understand it, the present item has to do with the extension of the time during which the provinces may take advantage of the federal arrangements. Speaking as a representative of one of the Manitoba constituencies I feel that we must express our appreciation of the action of the government in taking action along that line. There can be no doubt it is a good move. I could not in this corner catch very clearly the remarks of the leader of the opposition; however I would say that it seems to me that especially at this time of unemployment, some more vigorous policy might be expected from the dominion government with regard to vocational work. Very many of our young people are being forced out of public schools at an early age, a gTeat many of them cannot get beyond the public school, some never get even as far as the high school, and when they go out from school they find no opportunity to secure work. There is the hope that within a year or two there may be some little improvement in that situation, but in the meantime what are we to do with all these young people? I should think that the Labour department might very well put forth some effort to provide for them to secure a better education so that when employment does present itself they will be able to take advantage of the opportunity, and be prepared for a higher grade of employment than they can fit themselves for at present. If these young people are allowed to drift out on the streets in all probability they will contract bad habits, some of them will become criminals, in any case their ability to work will steadily deteriorate. It would seem to me that the relief measures that are in vogue to-day might be supplemented or replaced by a grant for vocational work. I have known in my own city of unemployed boys being gathered together in some of the schools and trained in the evenings in manual work, and during the summer time instructed in managing little garden plots and that kind of thing. This was done by school principals who had the welfare of the boys at heart. Unfortunately the school boards were not in a financial position to give much help, so these efforts 'have gradually petered out. It would seem to me that it
would be wise for the federal government to extend these grants at this time under this act and make it possible for boys to continue in school for another year or two and thus be better equipped when opportunities for work return.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: The hon.
member fo.r Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) is absolutely wrong when he says that the province of Saskatchewan and other provinces do not know how to spend this money and cannot spend it. Give us the money and. we will spend it. The facts are that this act was passed in 1919. I happened to be in the house at the time. I remember it quite well; we all supported the idea of establishing technical schools throughout Canada. Coming to the province of Saskatchewan however, we found this difficulty, and it happened in other provinces; they held that in a rural community there is no opportunity for a technical school to succeed, and for several years the local government, which was a Liberal government, could not be prevailed upon to take advantage of this act. I know that I, as a member of a collegiate board, was one of a deputation which waited on the premier, and he told us definitely that if we could educate the sons of farmers in farming he would support us. This was several years after we had passed this bill. But we could not prevail upon the government to adopt it then. Subsequently they did adopt it, but we had lost several years, and that was all due to Liberal listlessness, nothing else. Had they accepted the offer of the Union government of that time we would not have been $200,000 behind to-day. I believe they now owe $200,000. I know that in Regina the finest building and the finest institution is what is commonly known as the " Tech." attended now by hundreds of young people; you could not prevail upon Regina to do without the Tech.
As far as we are concerned we want that money. We want it, and we shall spend it according to law. We want our allotment in common with the rest of the dominion. If my hon. friends can prevail upon the house to have the privileges of this act extended it will be the first time I ever have agreed with them. I say without hesitation that we have sent too many of our young men and women into the common labour market through lack of adequate training for more skilled work. Therefore I say that we should get the money, and in particular that Saskatchewan should be given the money that is coming to it, and which will be spent.
Technical Education Act


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I think my hon. friend from Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) misunderstood me. I cast no reflection upon the province of Saskatchewan. I do not want to get into any controversy with my hon. friend-


Walter Davy Cowan: You had
better not.
Mr .BEAUBIEN:	My intention was to
help Saskatchewan, not do it harm. What I am trying to urge upon the minister is to permit the provinces to extend technical education in some other form. In the province of Manitoba we have a very fine agricultural college, but it is very hard for the province, with its present population and the subjects taught in that college, to keep up that institution. What I am urging is that Manitoba and the other provinces that have not spent their money under the 1919 act should get their full share and be able to spend it in 1934-35.
Mr. GERSlHAW: It has been pointed out here that the primary schools in many cases can hardly get enough support to keep going. We from the west know that that is the situation. A great number of young people at this time, having gone through the schools, find there is no opening for them in useful occupations. Therefore I think we should urge the minister to make some change in the present regulations. Regulations which may have been quite suitable in 1919 do not accord with the situation as it is now. There have been many changes. At that time it may have been quite possible for senior pupils to move from their homes in outlying parts of the province and attend a technical school in some centre, but now such a thing is far beyond the means of many. I would like to inquire of the minister if there is a possibility of so changing the act that those in the more remote parts may be enabled to take advantage of this grant, and that the provinces may have this money to assist them in their educational work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall review the act,
particularly with respect to the interpretation of technical education, and get in touch with the authorities of the various provinces which have not spent their moneys, with a view to seeing if these moneys can be applied as the act contemplates.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Did I understand
that Alberta has already spent its share under the act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Michael Luchkovich: How much did that
amount to?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: $678,524.40.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister just how the government finds it possible to suspend the operation of the act of 1931 from year to year without getting the approval of parliament so to do? The act is there; it is an act of parliament. How does the minister manage to evade carrying out the provisions of the act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I thought I made it clear
a few moments ago, when I told the right hon. gentleman that the reason the moneys have not been provided under the act was purely a matter of finance. We have passed through some rather difficult times since that act was passed, and that is the sole reason why the moneys were not provided.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I quite understand that, but that does not answer my question. As I understand it, under this act the government is not given power to say when the act is to come into operation. According to its provisions the act was to come into operation the moment it was passed. If the funds were found inadequate it seems to me the government would have to repeal the measure, but so long as the statute is there it is the business of the government to carry it out. In other words, the ministry is not superior to parliament in the matter of saying whether or not an act shall be carried out simply because they have not as much in the way of funds as they would like to have.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In answer to my right
hon. friend perhaps I had better turn to the act of 1931. Section 3 sets out the amount appropriated and section 4 states:
The payments to be made to any province shall be conditional upon an agreement being entered into between the minister and the government of the province as to the terms, conditions and purposes on and for which the payments are to be made and applied, and such agreements shall be subject in all cases to the approval of the governor in council.
Then the act goes on to say that the payments shall be in proportion to population, and section 5 outlines the regulations which may be passed by the governor in council defining vocational education and so on. So far as I am aware, and I believe my information is -correct, no province has applied to the government under the terms of this act. No agreement has been entered into; nothing has been done. It may easily be that the prov-

Mounted Police Act
inces have recognized the difficulty in which they together with the federal government have found themselves since this act was passed, but at all events, as I said a moment ago, no agreements have been entered into and so far as I am aware no advances have been made by the provinces asking that an agreement be entered into.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
says that no province has made application and that no agreement has been entered into and he would lead the house to believe that this was because the provinces were in some way indifferent or were unwilling to enter into an agreement. May I ask the minister if it is not a fact that as soon as the act was passed he or his predecessor in office, whoever was Minister of Labour, directed that a circular should be sent to all the provinces saying the government had decided that they would not enter into any agreements with the provinces under the provisions of the act at the present time? I may say to the minister that I have seen that circular.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: il am not aware of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite apparent that this is one more matter concerning his department of which the minister is not aware. I want to point out that this circular should have been presented to parliament in a report such as is called for under the provisions of this act. Section 3 states:
A sum is hereby appropriated from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars per annum, for a period of fifteen years, from which payments may be made annually to the government of any province for the purpose of promoting and assisting vocational education.
The last section of the act, which I read a few moments ago, states that the minister shall lay before parliament, within fifteen days after it meets, a report of what has been done under the act. The minister's department sent a circular as soon as the act was passed telling all the provinces that the government had decided that, because there were so many demands on the treasury at that time, they would not enter into any agreements. Now the minister says that no province has applied and no agreement has been entered into, that perhaps the provinces did not think it worth while or realized that times were hard. The fact of the matter is that the present government told the provinces that they would not enter into any agreements 74726-88
under the act. No agreements have been entered into under it, and to conceal their action in the matter the government have made no report whatever to parliament. So they have violated another provision of the act in not presenting such a report.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gordon -thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 32 to amend the Technical Education Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Cotnam in the chair.
On section 1-Definition.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: When this bill was in
the committee certain questions were asked which I was not able to answer at the time, and I promised to obtain the information and have it available when the committee went into committee again. The first question was by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), who inquired if anyone is specially charged with the administration of the marine section in the province of Quebec. I have secured the following information in reply to that question:
The administration of the marine section in the province of Quebec, west of cape Chat, is under the command of the Officer Commanding, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Montreal, who has a commissioned officer at Quebec, P.Q., to carry out his instructions. East of cape Chat, the marine section operating in the province of Quebec is under the command of Assistant Commissioner C-Junget, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Halifax. The land forces of the preventive service who operate in the province of Quebec and who cooperate with the marine section are under the command of the Officer Commanding, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Montreal, and the Officer Commanding, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Fredericton.
My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Mackenzie) asked for information in regard to the increase in the personnel of the force

Mounted Police Act

during the last number of years. I have obtained that information for the hon. member, and it is as follows:
No. of officers and men
1925..
1926..
1927..
1928..
1929..
1930.. 1931. .
1932.. 1933. .
963
1,004
1,087
1,199
1,245
1,351
2.348
2,515


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection
with the figures just given, when was it that the dominion took over some of the work of policing the provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: We took over Saskatchewan in the year 1928, and the other five provinces in 1932.
There was a further question asked by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) in regard to the amount of pension for members of the mounted police who were formerly members of the protective service. The answer to that question is that all members of the Canadian Mounted Police are granted pensions based upon their mounted police pay. As a general rule the pensions for former members of the preventive service will be higher under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act than under the Civil Service Superannuation Act because under the police act the pension is based on both pay and allowances.


Mr. VENIOT:: Referring to the province
of New Brunswick, under whose jurisdiction are the land forces and the sea forces? I think the sea forces are under Mr. Junget.


Hugh Guthrie: The smaller vessels and
the land forces in New Brunswick are under Superintendent Salt at Fredericton. The larger vessels and those equipped with wireless which ply the waters adjacent to Nova Scotia are under the control of the officer commanding at Halifax.


Peter John Veniot: 
Hugh Guthrie: I am very much obliged for the information which the hon. member has just given in regard to the situation in the Baie des Chaleurs, but I must say that his information is not quite in accord with the information that has been supplied to me just now.


Peter John Veniot: I can substantiate what I say.


Hugh Guthrie: I will be very much obliged if in some instance my hon. friend could give the dates on which the preventive boats were tied up at the wharf as he describes, because each boat has to maintain a

Mounted Police Act
log and we could very easily ascertain just where each of them was at any particular time. There is no doubt that in rough weather there are occasions when these boats will be tied up in the harbour. They are small boats and are not too seaworthy. It must also be remembered that these boats have jurisdiction so far as smuggling is concerned only up to what we call the three-mile limit. Any boats other than Canadian boats cannot be interfered with beyond the three-mile limit.


Peter John Veniot: I know that.


Hugh Guthrie: Another bit of information which was given to me is that we maintain in the Baie des Ohaleurs three boats of the customs preventive service whereas formerly there was only one. According to my information these boats are actively engaged in the prevention of smuggling. In recent years there have been many more seizures than formerly. The records are what I have to go by in making that statement.


Peter John Veniot: Produce the records.


Hugh Guthrie: When the mounted police estimates are before the committee I shall be very glad to produce the records and other details. If my hon. friend can give me any further information with regard to the boats which he claims have been, laid up at the wharf when they should have been out looking for smugglers, I shall be glad to have it. I can then verify his information with the records of the department and lay the results before the committee when the estimates are up for consideration.


Peter John Veniot: It would be very difficult
to give the dates but I do know that in the mouth of July last year and in the months of July and August the year before these boats were laid up in Bathurst harbour. There are three boats patrolling Baie des Ohaleurs and at one time two of them were laid up in Bathurst harbour. The sailors were parading the streets of Bathurst having a good time while smuggled liquor was landed right at my own back door.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: My property goes down
to and into the sea for 250 feet.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is worse still.


Peter John Veniot: There -is a landing place
and liquor was brought into the harbour and landed on the shore during the night while these vessels were lying at the wharf. These are the facts and I am prepared to substan-74726-88J
tiate them under oath. I do not care what the log books may show, these boats were laid up during those months and the days I have mentioned. My eyesight is good and I can tell when they are laid up and1 when they are not. All I need to do is to look out of my bedroom window to see these sailors parading the streets of Bathurst night and day and having a good time while liquor is being smuggled and landed at my own back door.


Mr. GOTT:: If, as the hon. member says, these boats are idle I should like to suggest to the minister that one should be put on patrol work in lake Erie to be officered by Royal Canadian Mounted Police men. American fishermen are continuously crossing the line from the beginning to end of the season. Around Pelee island they come over to such an extent that Canadian fishermen fear to go out to lift their own nets. I hope the minister will accept this as a constructive suggestion and if there is no need for these boats down where the hon. member lives, he might transfer one of them to lake Erie.


William Daum Euler: Has the customs cruiser
Margaret been disposed of?


Hugh Guthrie: She was put out of
commission and sold by public competition. She was considered to be too expensive for the purpose.


Mr. MARCIL:: I understand that there is divided jurisdiction in Quebec in connection with the excise service. Montreal has jurisdiction down to Cap Chat in the county of Gaspe; Halifax takes over jurisdiction at that point and covers the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure to the centre of Baie des Chaleurs while Fredericton takes over jurisdiction on the other side to the south. Gaspe is a long way from Halifax and I think the jurisdiction over this district should have its headquarters at a point nearer than Halifax.


Hugh Guthrie: Fredericton has jurisdiction over Gaspe, over the sea as well as the land forces.


Charles Marcil: Could the minister give me some idea as to what is being done in connection with smuggling in the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure? I agree with what the former minister has said as to this practice demoralizing the fishermen. These boats stay out in the open and exchange liquor with the fishing boats and I know of a number of cases where it has had a most disastrous effect. I should like to know to what extent smuggling is being controlled in
Mounted Police Act

these counties. If the minister is not prepared to give this information to-day, perhaps he could let me have it when the other estimates are being considered.


Hugh Guthrie: Every reasonable effort is being made to stop the smuggling which undoubtedly has gone on on this coast for a great many years. Perhaps there will always be some smuggling but in recent times more seizures have been made than at any time in the past. Seven seizures have been made in the last few months on that particular coast involving over 500 individuals. Informations have been laid at the city of Quebec in a great many cases, a large number of prosecutions have taken place and many convictions have been obtained. This incident probably involves the largest seizure that the force has been able to make so far. There is no doubt that the ramifications of the smuggling ring are very intricate but it is felt that the backbone of the institution has been broken at last and that it will not be as difficult in the future to control the situation. We are preparing an improved marine service for preventive work. It has been found that the boats previously engaged in the prevention of smuggling have not been large enough or speedy enough to perform satisfactory service. The craft of the bootleggers have been able to out-distance us time and time again but we have under way a program for the construction of a speedier type of vessel. By the opening of spring or at least by midsummer we hope to have boats in these waters which will be quite as speedy as, if not speedier than, the smugglers' craft. In this way it is hoped that we shall be able to control the situation much better in the future than has been the case in the past.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How will these new boats be apportioned between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that the
present program is to use all the new boats on the Atlantic coast.


William Daum Euler: Is any use made of the aeroplane service?


Hugh Guthrie: We cooperate with that service and it has been found to be very valuable. An aeroplane flying over smugglers' row seems to have a very excellent effect but the largest benefit is derived from the information which this service transmits as to the location of the various suspected vessels.


William Daum Euler: Is that a constant service?


Hugh Guthrie: For eight months in the year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who is in charge of that branch?


Hugh Guthrie: Squadron Leader Higgins of the air force.


William Daum Euler: I should like to inquire as
to the system of moieties under which officers are rewarded through the payment of a percentage of the value of the seizure. I understand that that system has been changed. What is the present arrangement?


Hugh Guthrie: The old system of moieties, with respect to anyone effecting a seizure or giving information resulting in a seizure, has been modified to a very large extent. The individual does not now profit as a result of the fine or of the seizure, but the money which formerly went to the individual is now pooled and goes into a trust fund for the benefit of the force.


William Daum Euler: Including officers of headquarters staff?


Hugh Guthrie: Including all members
of the force; that is under the authority of an act passed last session.


Charles Marcil: The impression of the
people in my part of the country is that the Way to do away with smuggling is to reduce the duty on liquor, thus making smuggling unprofitable. The United States by the repeal of prohibition have discouraged smuggling, and I would point out to the minister that if smuggling were not profitable it would disappear overnight. I am old enough to remember the time on the Gaspe coast when fishermen would go to St. Pierre-Miquelon and come back with the odd bottle, sometimes a dozen, and no one would bother about it. It was in 1897 under the late William Paterson that steps began to be taken actively against smuggling in the lower St. Lawrence. Now St. Pierre-Miquelon has gone out of business. The distillers and those interested in the trade in Ontario and Quebec have switched off from St. Pierre-Miquelon; they do not go there any more. There would be no smuggling in Gaspe and Bonaventure if it were made unprofitable, so that instead of spending large sums of money to fight smuggling, if the minister would use his influence to have measures adopted to make smuggling unprofitable he would put an end to the practice.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no doubt that
our high taxes are very conducive to smuggling, and the situation may become aggravated

Mounted Police Act
with the low taxes which the United States government has proposed in connection with liquors. It may be that the result of that legislation will be rather to increase smuggling in Canada than to reduce it. There is no doubt that if the suggestion of my hon. friend from Bonaventure were put into effect a large amount of smuggling in liquor might vanish, but on the other hand a large amount of revenue would vanish likewise from the treasury of the dominion.


Mr. HEAPS:: Earlier in the discussion the
minister gave the number of members of the mounted police force for last year. How many members of the old provincial police force are included in the numbers he gave?


Hugh Guthrie: About 90 per cent of the former provincial police forces were taken on the strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when the agreements were made with the various provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was that number?


Hugh Guthrie: At the moment I cannot
give the number. This bill does not relate to matters of that kind, but when the estimates come up a few days hence I shall be very glad to have information in detail in regard to all the provinces. Just now I have before me only the totals.


Mr. SPENCER:: The minister said that
90 per cent of the provincial forces had been taken on the new force. Are the other ten per cent taken care of largely by pensions?


Hugh Guthrie: Those who were not
absorbed into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were provided for by the provinces in which they had formerly served. No grant was made from this force.


William Daum Euler: What proportion of the old
preventive force, when it was under the direction of the Department of National Revenue, was absorbed into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hugh Guthrie: About 90 per cent were
taken on the new force.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Appointment of deputy commissioner, etc.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is
the alteration in this section?


Hugh Guthrie: The only change is to
recognize the rank of detective inspectors, which we never had before, and also two assistant veterinary surgeons, one at Regina and one at Ottawa.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Will these assist,
ant detective inspectors be appointed to the preventive force while they remain in the mounted police?


Hugh Guthrie: No; they are for general service in the force. They may not be on preventive work.


Eugène Fiset: Will the non-commissioned officers employed at present in the protective service be entitled to the rank of assistant inspector?


Hugh Guthrie: They will be entitled to it; there is no increase in pay in connection with it.


Eugène Fiset: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to the situation in the Rimouski district. In charge of that very large and most important district is a noncommissioned officer who, in the exercise of his duties, has succeeded in winning the respect of the local population to such an extent that II should like to pay him the compliment of acknowledging here that he has done his work in a most excellent manner. Unfor-tortunately he is only a non-commissioned officer and for this reason is rather badly handicapped in dealing with local judges, magistrates, the mayor and other important citizens in the district. The very fact that he has not a commission is, I say, rather a handicap, and I strongly commend to the minister the meritorious service of this man. I think his name is Sergeant Brunet. I have heard from his superior officers, from the officer administering the local land force in Quebec, Captain Gagnon, and others who speak extremely highly of him, and I have letters of commendation on his behalf from the local clergy and from the municipal and judicial authorities. I take this opportunity therefore of bringing his case to the attention of the minister.


Hugh Guthrie: I am very glad indeed
to have my hon. friend's commendation of the work of the force in his district. In regard to Sergeant Brunet, I think my hon. friend is well aware that he has recently been promoted to the rank of sergeant in the force in recognition of the excellent service he has rendered.


William Daum Euler: Is that portion of the
mounted police having to do with preventive work under the Department of National Revenue in connection with smuggling segregated from the rest of the force? Do the men in that particular branch always operate in preventive work, or are the various members of the force interchangeable?
13S8
Mounted Police Act


Hugh Guthrie: The great majority of the former preventive force is retained in that particular work, though some of them have been removed or they are engaged in the general work of the force.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-appointments of constables, trumpeters and buglers, etc.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the minister decided what the new ranks in the marine section shall be?


Hugh Guthrie: The new ranks will be decided by the governor in council and I believe the matter is already befoi'e the governor in council for that purpose.
Mr. MITCHElLlL: The new section reads:
Boys not less than fourteen years of age.
Are any boys engaged in the preventive service?


Hugh Guthrie: No. The minimum for ordinary service in the force is twenty-one years of age; men will not be accepted under that age, but I believe trumpeters are accepted at fourteen. There are no trumpeters in the preventive service.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Is there any difference in ranks and ratings between the preventive service and the regular police force?


Hugh Guthrie: In the marine section they will all have naval ranks. In the land section there are the ordinary ranks applicable to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Powers and duties of force.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister kindly explain subsection (2) of section 4? There is an exception made for the Yukon territory in regard to duties under or in connection with any municipal bylaws, unless authorized by the governor in council.


Hugh Guthrie: At the present time we have authority to execute the local laws in the Yukon, but this is not the case in the other territories of Canada and unless authority is specially granted for that purpose we do not propose to undertake that work. If authorized by the governor in council, we may be enabled to perform that service in other parts of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under what conditions would the minister suggest the governor in council could authorize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to exercise their police power within one of the ordinary municipalities, say in British Columbia?


Hugh Guthrie: In any province in which we have taken over the police work, where the province should request us to operate, for instance, in regard to municipal bylaws.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will be overriding the ordinary city police force of the municipality.


Hugh Guthrie: Only on the request of the local government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only on the request of the attorney general of the province will they interfere?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Offences by others than commissioned officers.
Hugh Guthrie: That covers offences within the force.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister inform the committee whether officers of the mounted police force are permitted to apply to persons who are confined in prison, what is commonly known as the third degree?


Hugh Guthrie: The third degree is not recognized in any way in any court or under any conditions in Canada, so far as I am aware, but nothing in connection with that matter arises in this bill.


Peter John Veniot: This section defines certain things which it is not considered the duty of members of the force to do and that is the reason I am bringing this up. I know of a case where an officer of the force visited a prison in which there was a prisoner incarcerated for a crime and he put that prisoner through a category of very strict questions and even threats in connection with another crime of which he suspected the prisoner might have some knowledge. That took place lately in the county gaol of the county of Gloucester and it was done by one of the officers of the force. I shall not reveal the name publicly, but if the minister or the commissioner wishes to have it, I am prepared to give it to him at any time. The case is one in which the officer enters a prison cell, with the consent of the sheriff, takes the prisoner to a private room and puts him under a very severe cross examination in connection with another crime with which the prisoner is not charged, but with the intention of obtaining from him evidence against somebody else. This has been done not only on one occasion but on several

Mounted Police Act
and under the protest of the lawyer who in the first instance defended the prisoner when he was accused of a crime not connected with that to which I am now referring. I want to know if that sort of thing is to be tolerated under the jurisdiction, of the mounted police of 'Canada.
Mr. 'GUTHRIE:	I would certainly say
that it is not to be tolerated and1 if my hon. friend will write me a letter making the complaint, I shall have an investigation made into the circumstances. But I may tell the committee I have had many complaints of this nature from many parts of Canada and I have had occasion to read the evidence m very serious cases which have been tried in the criminal courts of the country. I have read the evidence of accused men in regard to the treatment they have been accorded at the hands of the mounted police. One could hardly imagine stories such as have been told in regard to maltreatment, threats, buffeting and assaults which have gone on in the gaol for the purpose of obtaining confessions and the like. But when those matters have been investigated in court during the hearing of a case where judges and juries have passed upon them, they have gone out of their way to commend the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to state there was no truth whatever in the charges. I know the charges are commonly made, but I doubt very much if they actually exist except perhaps in extremely isolated cases.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: Is there any regulation to prevent members of the force from marrying?
Mr. 'GUTHRIE:	There is a regulation
against marriage until a constable has served six years or a non-commissioned officer five years in the force.


Mr. YBNIOT:: There is another point to
which I wish to direct the attention of the minister with regard to the administration of the law by the mounted .police. Is it not their duty rather to prevent an infraction of the law than to wait until its commission in order to make arrests?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the first principle of police work.


Peter John Veniot: It might be worth while
to look carefully into the method adopted in certain sections of Canada, especially in New Brunswick, in that respect. For instance, let me give a case in point. Here are two. young boys of tender years, say ten or twelve, who at a time when smelt-fishing is prohibited,
start out with what is commonly known as a dip net for catching smelts out of season. A police officer administering provincial laws -in New Brunswick these laws are now administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-sees these boys making for a place where they can use this net, and he waits until they are making use of it; he does not reprimand them or point out that it is a violation of the law, but arrests them and incarcerates them in prison. Is it not rather his duty to prevent them going to the spot with the utensil they have for violation of the law; to warn them rather than wait until they have, perhaps innocently, violated the law and then take them and throw them into gaol with ordinary criminals? Yet that has been done to my personal knowledge. I draw attention to this not in the way of criticism of the minister but in order that the department may become cognizant of these things and bring about a better condition of affairs in having the law respected.


William Daum Euler: Might I revert to a question asked by an hon. member on the other side regarding the prohibition of marriage on the part of these officers until they have served for six years? To me that is rather an amazing rule. I am wondering whether the thought is that these men shall become accustomed to obedience before they enter the state of matrimony. But I think there should be some explanation, it seems to me an unfair rule.


Hugh Guthrie: The most forcible objection to allowing marriage at will is the cost to the force. As soon as a constable or officer becomes married he is entitled, as a married man, to allowances for his wife, and children as they come. I think in every army there is restraint on marriage for the same reason. Men as a rule join the mounted police at twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and it is not considered unreasonable that for six years they may not marry without permission, or five years in the case of non-commissioned officers. It used to be twelve years until two or three years ago when we changed it.


William Daum Euler: In other words the country
refuses to pay a living wage.


Mr. YOUNG:: We pay good wages.


William Daum Euler: It really comes to that, because it seems to me that when a man has attained the age of maturity, twenty-one, he has the right, if he so desires, to take on the duties of citizenship-


Hugh Guthrie: Well, he knows that
regulation when he enlists of course.
Mounted Police Act


William Daum Euler: -especially in the province of Quebec. It seems to me there is an injustice there, I do not see why these men should not have the same rights and privileges as other citizens.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: I would point out that there are many who are already married. I know one instance of a lady who was superintendent of a hospital, she left her position and was married to a police officer last year, and two weeks after the marriage he was dismissed from the service.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be for marrying without permission. If they defy the regulations in that way I think we have to discipline them.


Edward James Young: I understand that as the
regulations are no married man will be taken on, and any man who gets married without permission-


Hugh Guthrie: Within six years.


Edward James Young: -will be dismissed. I am told by the officials that a primary reason for that is that a force composed of single men is more mobile.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is one important reason.


Edward James Young: That reason would apply
more in the old days when the work of the mounted police was chiefly in the wilder parts of the country and a man might be ordered to go a thousand miles into the wilderness; he of course could not take his wife and family with him. But now the work of the force is changing, much of it is done in the cities, and it seems to me it would be the part of wisdom to take married men on the force or allow them to get married when they like, for a married man will be found more reliable than a single man.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask
if it is still the custom in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon for trials to be taken before deputy superintendents?


Hugh Guthrie: As my hon. friend knows, the officers of the police are by statute justices of the peace. In remote parts where no other officials are available to take informations and the like, they do act, but it is only in isolated oases. Wherever possible the ordinary authorities are applied to for all judicial proceedings.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it is a practice that should be stopped everywhere. In the earlier days, even in the provinces, we had serious complaint about this practice. It does seem unfair that the man who arrests

should also try the person he has arrested. It is an objection I have taken before. I assume it is *ot being done now within any of the provinces, where magistrates are available. But it seems to me that at least in cases where arrest is necessary the prisoner should be kept until some independent party can try him, rather than that the individual who makes the arrest, "runs him down" as we frequently call it in the Northwest Territories, should also try him.


Hugh Guthrie: The grievance is not a
very marked one, because in the last two and a half years there has only been one case where the officer making the arrest has tried a charge, and that was away up in Great Bear lake district.


Charles A. Stewart: But Great
Bear lake is becoming a very important centre.


Hugh Guthrie: It is now, but it was not so until recently.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Time served with provincial police force included for pension purposes.
Charles A. Stewart: This may
not be the place to ask, but there are one or two cases of men who retired from the mounted police in the city of Edmonton, and have since joined the civil service. They are making application that the time served in the police force, for which they received no pension, might be added to their time of service for superannuation purposes in the civil service.


Hugh Guthrie: At present where an officer has been transferred into the civil service the time served in the police force does not count for superannuation. But the reverse of that is the law now, a man who has served in the civil service and subsequently becomes attached to the police can count on his time for pension the time which he served in the civil service. The other question raised by my hon. friend from West Edmonton is now under consideration; we have had it up on one or two occasions. I do not think there are very many involved.


Charles A. Stewart: I think about a half dozen now.


Hugh Guthrie: There are a few, and recently a long report was made by the commissioner in regard to that question, but as yet I cannot say what action if any will be taken.

Mounted Police Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask if negotiations are still proceeding with the government of British Columbia in regard to taking over the provincial police of that province?


Hugh Guthrie: The negotiations were somewhat indefinite; I think they only consisted of a call by the commissioner on either the premier or the attorney general for the purpose of discussing it. I do not think the matter proceeded very far, but an intimation was given that the provincial government would consider the matter when an opportunity offered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-pension to widow and allowance to children.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Does the word " officer " mean any man in the ranks or just those of higher ranks?


Hugh Guthrie: In the Pension Act the distinction is maintained between officers and other ranks, and the object of these amendments, in order to bring them into conformity with the present provisions of the Pension Act, is to carry out those distinctions as between the two.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The point I wanted to make was this: If a man in the ranks is killed, irrespective of whether or not he may be only a beginner, will the widow and children be looked after?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, they will be looked after under this bill, but they were not looked after heretofore. Up to the present when a man was killed in the performance of his duty it was necessary to come to parliament and have a special vote included in the estimates; every year there were votes of that kind in the estimates. In order to avoid that necessity and to make the procedure definite and permanent these sections have been prepared, so that the widow and children of any man who loses his life in the performance of his duty will be pensioned.


Peter Heenan: In introducing the resolution I think the minister made some reference to twenty years service.


Hugh Guthrie: Not in the case of a man killed.


Peter Heenan: Has the minister made an estimate of what one-half the retiring allowance would amount to, on the average?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes; my hon. friend asked that question previously, and I have figures here. I find that in the case of a man with the rank of corporal the widow would receive about $765 per annum, and in addition there would be $60 for each child.


Peter Heenan: Up to the age of sixteen?


Hugh Guthrie: Sixteen in the ease of a girl and eighteen in the case of a boy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
would be the figure in the case of an ordinary constable?


Hugh Guthrie: Between $600 and S650.


Peter Heenan: I only want to point out to the minister that under the workmen's compensation acts in the different provinces the widows of men killed receive about $40 a month and there is an allowance of $10 a month for each child up to sixteen years of age. Surely if a constable is killed while performing his duties for the state his dependents should receive as much consideration as is shown the dependents of those killed in industry.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we give a little more consideration.


Peter Heenan: Not according to these figures.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it will be a little more than $480 a year for the widow, but it will be $5 a month instead of $10 for the children.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11, 12 and 13 agreed to.
On section 14-pensions to widows and compassionate allowances to children.
Hugh Guthrie: This makes the same provision for the men as is made for the officers.
Mr. V.ALLANCE: Will this legislation be retroactive?


Hugh Guthrie: No, because all the widows who have lost their husbands by reason of service already have been pensioned by means of annual grants made by this parliament. This measure will only take effect when the bill is passed.


Peter Heenan: The minister mentioned the figure of $760. Is that the retiring allowance of the corporal?


Hugh Guthrie: That is half the pay and allowances per annum.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
1392	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Joint use of Tracks


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, to ratify and confirm the agreement respecting the joint use by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company of certain tracks and premises of His Majesty at Saint John, N.B.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement ratified.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this just continuing the provisions of the present agreement or is it a new agreement?


Robert James Manion: So far as I know there are no changes whatsoever. Any agreement that is for a term longer than twenty-one years has to be ratified by this house. This agreement was made in 1927, and the present bill is to change it from a twenty-one year agreement to a ninety-nine year agreement. The agreement is a long and complicated one, and frankly I do not know the details, but it is satisfactory to both railway companies.


Peter Heenan: Is there any particular reason why the agreement should be for ninety-nine years?


Robert James Manion: I know of no particular reason except that the railways prefer a longer arrangement to a shorter one. They have done it in connection with these three bills. One bill makes some slight alteration in the present agreement, but frankly I do not know which it is, and only by a study of the agreements could I find out. I did not know that these bills were coming up this afternoon. This bill is merely to continue the agreement which was made in 1927. The agreement under the next bill was made in 1915 and the other agreement in 1912, and so they are all very old agreements.


Charles A. Stewart: I suppose
this is a sort of joint terminal arrangement, is it not?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of Bill No. 24, to ratify and confirm an agreement between the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1

Agreement ratified.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) Which are the other railway companies referred in section 1, and what is the necessity for this long lease of 999 years?
Robert James Manion: I am a little curious myself to know why they make it 999 years in these times. I said to my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) when the bill was up before that I thought it was long enough. I will read the memo to the committee giving the details briefly:
This agreement, dated the 1st May, 1912, provides for the joint use of tracks together with the passenger station and passenger facilities of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway, and lands occupied thereby at Belleville, Ontario.
In addition, the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway agreed to sell to the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company certain lands together with lines of railway and telegraph lines constructed thereon.
The lines of railway involved are the old Canadian Northern main line through Belleville and the main line of the Canadian Pacific between Montreal and Toronto.
The term of the agreement is for a period of twenty years from the 1st June, 1914, and, if ratified and confirmed by parliament, is to be effective for nine hundred and ninety-nine (999) years from the 1st June, 1914.
If the committee wants any particular details I shall be glad to give them on the third reading.


Charles A. Stewart: Is not this bill really confirming the purchase of a property?
Mr. MANIOlN:	No, it is an agreement.
If it were a purchase and were government railway property it would have to be ratified by order in council. This is not a purchase but an agreement for running rights over these lines.

C.N.R.-Agreements with Railways


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the board of railway commissioners any jurisdiction?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these railways subsidiaries of any other company?


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I cannot
answer definitely at the moment, but nearly all the railways in that section of the country which used to be independent are now subsidiaries of either the Canadian Northern, now a part of the Canadian National, or the Canadian Pacific. There are probably no independent railways in that section of the country at the present time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these railways subsidiaries of the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific?


Robert James Manion: The Canadian Northern
is now a part of the Canadian National. I cannot answer offhand as to the other railway mentioned in the 'bill, but I can look it up for my hon. friend. I do not know, however, that it really matters, because it is an agreement made by the two railway companies and has been in effect since 1914.


Mr. MUNN:: Mr. Chairman, 999 years is
an awfully long time.


Robert James Manion: I do not know that my
hon. friend or I need worry about the end of that period.


Albert Edward Munn: Would the minister in his
own business recommend a lease of 999 years? Does he not think it is ridiculous on the face of it?


Robert James Manion: Not necessarily, because
it is satisfactory to both railways. They are fixing it practically for all time, making a permanent arrangement.


Albert Edward Munn: I would suggest that the term be cut down to a reasonable length. It is ridiculous to make it for 999 years. As a business man you would not do it in your own business.


Robert James Manion: I think that is a fairly
reasonable attitude, and if the committee wishes to cut it down to 99 years I have no objection. One term is about as certain for this committee as the other.


Albert Edward Munn: But 99 years is not quite
so ridiculous as 999 years, in the eyes of the public.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend wants
to make a motion to change it to 99 years-


Albert Edward Munn: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the term be changed to 99 years from 999 years.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Mr. 'GUTHRIE:	I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is an agreement signed by the various parties interested, and if we vary the agreement that they have signed we may find ourselves in trouble. The term of 999 years is not uncommon particularly in English conveyancing where the titles to English property are often on a 999 year lease. The object of that is to prevent an absolute sale and transfer and to retain the control which the landlord has over the tenant. That is no doubt the object in making this particular lease for 999 years. I do not think we should change it. We might hold up the bill and see if the parties would agree to the change, but to change a signed agreement renders the whole thing nugatory.
Charles A. Stewart: It does look ridiculous to make it 999 years.


Hugh Guthrie: It is a perpetual agreement.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
quite true, but I see from a cursory glance at the bill that the sum involved is not very large and 99 years would seem to be a reasonable term for an agreement of that kind to run.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the bill had better stand in committee to see if the companies will agree to the change.


Robert James Manion: In view of the legal
opinion given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), perhaps this bill could be allowed to stand. I do not think there will be any difficulty in getting the two railways to agree to 99 years instead of 999.


Albert Edward Munn: If the minister will recommend that it be made 999 years, I will withdraw my objection. Will he go on record to that effect?


Hugh Guthrie: In my opinion the agreement should stand for 999 years.
Amendment (Mr. Munn) withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
1394	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Joint use of Tracks

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, to ratify and confirm an agreement respecting the joint use by His Majesty and the commissioners of the Transcontinental railway of certain tracks and premises of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Quebec.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement and supplementary agreement ratified.
Robert James Manion: This bill is merely to confirm an arrangement which has been in existence since 1915 between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways. The two railways jointly use the terminal and this bill is to carry on the agreement for 99 years.


Mr. POWER:: Would the minister have
any objection to postponing the consideration of this bill until such time as the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is in his place? I know he has something to say on it and in all probability I shall have some objections to make. I might point out to the minister that I think he was mistaken a few days ago when he said the former agreement was for 999 years.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that; I
said that the previous bill, the one with which we have just been dealing, was for 999 years.


Charles Gavan Power: I took it from Hansard
where the minister said that the former agreement was for 999 years. He then made a correction in Hansard to the same effect.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is wrong.
We were dealing with the three bills in the same order as we dealt with them to-day. When we came to this bill my hon. friend asked me if it was for 99 years. I said yes, and that the previous one was for 999 years. I said that that should be long enough, but Hansard put it in as 99 years and made the statement appear foolish. I wanted to correct the statement and make it clear that I was referring to the previous bill, not the previous agreement.


Charles Gavan Power: The original agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Transcontinental Railway was made in 1915. The Transcontinental was represented by the late Hon. Frank Cochrane, but I cannot find

out just at present who represented the Canadian Pacific. Considerable discussion took place in Quebec at that time, as it was understood that the Transcontinental would have a passenger terminus of its own. This agreement came rather as a surprise to the people of Quebec. I notice the new agreement was dated January 1, 1930, yet it appears to have been signed at a much later date. One of the signatories is R. J. Manion, who was not Minister of Railways in January, 1930. Apparently this agreement was left on his doorstep, so to speak.


Robert James Manion: I should like my hon.
friend to let me know what other lines he would like information upon. Each one of these agreements comprise thirty or more pages and naturally I cannot familiarize myself with all the details. Generally speaking, in dealing with bills of this sort I take the attitude that the two railways have come to a decision satisfactory to both and are merely asking parliament to ratify the agreement because the law says that that must be done. If my hon. friend has any other suggestions to make I should like to hear them and then I can move that the bill stand.


Charles Gavan Power: Who are the commissioners
of the Transcontinental railway at the present time? I see the minister signs as commissioner.


Robert James Manion: I am the commissioner.


Charles Gavan Power: Are there any others?


Robert James Manion: No.


Charles Gavan Power: When the minister entered
into this agreement did he do so on the advice of the Canadian National Railways or did he do so as commissioner of the Transcontinental railway?


Robert James Manion: The Canadian National
Railways handles the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental railways. As minister, I act as commissioner in place of the old commissioners of the earlier days. I act on the advice of the Canadian National and sign as commissioner of the National Transcontinental.


Charles Gavan Power: Was this agreement submitted to the officers of the Canadian National Railways?
Mr. MANION; Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: And the minister signed on
the advice of those officers?


Robert James Manion: Yes.

Supply-Fisheries


Charles Gavan Power: The former agreement signed by the Hon. Mr. Cochrane was made on behalf of the crown. At that time the Canadian National Railways was operated directly by the Minister of Railways; if I may express it so, he was acting in a political capacity whereas at the present time he acts merely as a figure head for the railway.


Robert James Manion: That is correct. At the present time the minister acts entirely on the advice of the management of the Canadian National Railways who operate the National Transcontinental on behalf of the government as part of the national system. I am associated with this in no way except merely to act as commissioner on the advice of the management.


Charles Gavan Power: Pool trains are being run
out of Quebec over the Canadian Pacific tracks only. There will be very few if any Canadian National passenger trains running from this station. This agreement was made in 1930, at which time there were at least three Canadian National passenger trains running out of this station and using the facilities, the tracks and so on. I have not had an opportunity of going into the details of the agreement, but it appears to me that perhaps it might be advisable to modify the agreement so that the burden of the Canadian National Railways would not be quite so heavy.


Robert James Manion: Of course the Canadian
National had every opportunity to advise me that they wished some modification, but apparently they did not.


Charles Gavan Power: The pool trains started on
March 11.


Robert James Manion: I appreciate that the agreement was made! some time ago. In the absence of my hon. friend a few days ago the hon. member for Quebec East asked a question in regard to the pool trains.


Charles Gavan Power: I was in the house; I heard it.


Robert James Manion: Well, that explains the pooling from the standpoint of the Canadian National Railways. However, in view of my hon. friend's remarks I shall gladly put his side of the question before the Canadian National, because I think, had they desired the changes, they should have advised me inasmuch as these bills, they knew, were still in the preliminary stages. Before the bill comes up again I will place before them the suggestions made by my hon. friend, and I shall be glad if he will tell me of any further suggestions he has to offer.


Charles Gavan Power: I have none at the moment, but if aDy occur to me I will inform the minister.


Robert James Manion: I shall be glad to have the information. In the meantime I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OP FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bury in the chair.
Fisheries

building fishways and clearing rivers, $6,000.
Mr. BOUCHARD:: Where was this money spent?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: It was spent in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Since the building of the St. Andrews locks on the Red river in Manitoba the people have been unable to catch fish. The Red river runs practically north, in the opposite direction to most of the rivers in that part of the country, and in the early days we were able to catch catfish, goldeyes, pickerel and various other kinds of fish. This meant a good deal to the people living along the Red river, but since the building of the locks the fish do not come up the river to spawn. I would ask the minister to take this matter up with his officials to ascertain whether the fishways are really modern, so as to allow the passage of fish up the river to spawn. I understand that the fish caught in the Red river are lazy; they do not go up these fishways. The minister might find out whether it is possible to improve these fishways to facilitate the passage of the fish up the river.


Alfred Duranleau: The fisheries being administered by the provincial authorities in Manitoba, I suggest that the hon. gentleman get in touch with the provincial government, who would in turn communicate with the Department of Railways and Canals, and require from that department the construction of fishways and ladders. Nevertheless I shall be pleased to look into the matter and see what the exact situation is.
Supply-Fisheries


Mr. BRADETTE:: I would call the attention of the minister to an anomaly that exists in our section of the country. Three large newsprint and sulphite mills are operating on the Abitibi, the Ground Hog and the Metagami rivers, and apparently the chemicals discharged from these mills poison the waters in these rivers. Formerly there was an enormous catch of sturgeon, and there was an excellent market in the United States for caviar from the district, but that is lost because the fish cannot survive in these waters. I do not know whether this is under federal or provincial jurisdiction


Alfred Duranleau: It is under provincial jurisdiction.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then I will leave it at that. These rivers are partly navigable and I understand that under this item the clearing of rivers can be taken care of. It is a matter of making the water fit for the survival of fish. This is a considerable industry in our section of the country.


Alfred Duranleau: If these were tidal waters this matter would be under the jurisdiction of my department.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They are partly tidal.


Alfred Duranleau: The tidal part will no doubt come under my department. Has the hon. gentleman ever taken the matter up with the provincial authorities? As regards the part that comes within the jurisdiction of my department, I will make inquiries to see whether the situation can be remedied, because it is undesirable that the waters of rivers should be poisoned in that way.


Mr. NEILL:: This vote has been cut down by two-thirds, which is a very considerable reduction, greater than in any other item. As there is need for the work, I think the minister should explain the reduction.


Alfred Duranleau: It is due to the fact that the expenses for such works have been greatly reduced within the last few years. As a matter of fact during this fiscal year, up to December 31 last, we expended only 11,379. Of course these expenditures cannot always be calculated exactly in advance, because sometimes we are called upon to remove obstructions when we did not expect to have to do so, but from the expenditures we made last year, we believe $6,000 will be ample to meet the requirements for next year.


Alan Webster Neill: The explanation is contradictory to the announced policy of the department. When I have applied for work to be done in connection with matters of this

character such as clearing streams or building fishways, I have been tbld that the greatest economy had' to be practised because the money was not available. It now appears that $18,000 was available and only around $1,000 spent. Parsimony wholly unjustifed has been shown by the department. I have, if not willingly, at least acquiesced when I have been told that no money was available, whereas it now appears that ample -money was available but the department neglected the work to which I called attention.


Mr. DUFF:: The minister says that expenditures last year amount to $1,300. How many applications did he have for spending money in building new fishways or clearing streams?


Alfred Duranleau: We have investigated every case reported to the department, but as my hon. friend knows, fishways are built by the owners themselves and not by the department. The department contributes only in certain cases, and as a rule the construction of fishways is done at the expense of the owners themselves. The principal work of the department is to remove obstructions when we are called upon to do so. As a matter of fact we have answered any call that has been made uipon us and we have given satisfaction at that little expense.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I protest; that is not correct.


William Duff: I quite agree that the building of new fishways is something which the owner of the dam is supposed to look after, but the minister admits the department can help to build new dams or arrange to tear down old ones. The minister of course has not answered my question. I should like to know how many applications the department had last year for work of this character. The minister says that all they spent was $1,300. The department might have had applications necessitating the expenditure of $1,000,000. I am simply using round figures as I do not know the amount. How -many applications had the department and what did it do with them? Did it turn them down flat and spend only $1,300 because it wanted to act against the wishes of the persons applying for work to be done?


Alfred Duranleau: ' My information is that the department investigated every application that was made to it and when it was found advisable to do the work, it was done.

Supply-Fisheries-C onservation


William Duff: How many applications were made to the department?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the records under my hand. I have a large list covering work we have done in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia.


William Duff: There cannot have been very much done if the department spent only $1,300.


Alfred Duranleau: As the hon. member knows, the work of removing obstructions is not very expensive. As will be seen from the amounts expended, it is not very large. On the Tusfcet river, Yarmouth county, we made an expenditure of $568. On the Clyde river, Shelburne county, we made an expenditure of $25.20; on the Mersey river, Queens county, $46.20 and on the Gaspereau river, Kings county, $89.51. I am informed that we have done what was reasonable. If my hon. friend can supply me with the name of any place where we should have done something which was not done, I shall be pleased to inquire and to do what is reasonable under the circumstances.


William Duff: I am afraid, instead of my
writing the minister and suggesting certain work should be done at a certain place, my experience is that the only way to get work done by the department is to protest against it. If I reported that certain work should not be done in a certain river, the minister and his officials would likely have that work done, so while I appreciate the minister's solicitude in regard to my giving him information, I am afraid I cannot take advantage of his generosity. The minister has not yet answered my question. What I asked was this: In addition to the work done at an expenditure of $1,300, how many applications were made and from whom were they received?


Alfred Duranleau: I have already told
my hon. friend that I cannot give the information because I have not all the files with me.


William Duff: I would suggest then that
the item stand until we get the information.


Alfred Duranleau: Let the item stand.
Item stands.
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $85,000.


Peter John Veniot: What is the meaning of
the expression " the demand for fish"? Is that to assist in marketing?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, to increase the
demand.


William Duff: How much was spent last
year?


Alfred Duranleau: During the present
fiscal year prior to December 31, last we spent $46,411 and prior to the end of February we had spent around $50,000.


Peter John Veniot: To secure better markets, I mean?


Alfred Duranleau: No, on the whole
item.


Peter John Veniot: Can the minister divide
that and tell us how much was spent for securing better markets?


Alfred Duranleau: The expenditure made to increase the demand for fish has not been very large. As my hon. friend knows, we have used the services of Mrs. Spencer, an outstanding specialist in cooking fish. She has been going all over the country the year round and has done a splendid work. In parts of the country where the population was mostly French wre had an interpreter working in cooperation with Mrs. Spencer.


Peter John Veniot: I am prepared to commend the work done by the lady in question, but that is directed to increasing the use of fish at home. Was any of this sum expended for the opening of markets abroad, and if so, how much?


Alfred Duranleau: That would pertain to another department, that of Trade and Commerce. All over the country we are trying to improve the quality of our fish so that the fish sent to markets abroad shall be of first class quality. We think that is the best means of increasing our exports of fish.


William Duff: How is the minister trying to improve the quality of fish for shipment to foreign markets? Would he also give a detailed statement of how the $46,000 was spent last year?


Alfred Duranleau: We seek by educational work and by the enforcement of rigid regulations to ensure that the fish shall be properly packed and canned and sent abroad in first class condition. The fisheries inspectors are being qualified to give instruction in methods, and it has been found necessary to have a thoroughly qualified man devote his whole time to such work, one who can be available to help the fishery officers if needed. We have a special officer known as the promoter of proper fish curing who has done valuable work in that respect.


William Duff: What is his name?

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation


Alfred Duranleau: George Earl, and he has assistants.


William Duff: I have heard of this gentleman, but I have never come in contact with him. Where is he? What does he do? How does he earn his salary? What is the minister paying him for? What are the officials in Ottawa telling him to do?


Alfred Duranleau: During the season of 1933-34 this man worked chiefly in Prince Edward Island, Guysborough and Richmond counties in Nova Scotia, and the Magdalen islands. Six assistants were employed at times to help him. This class of work is proving highly beneficial, and the department is finding it difficult to keep up with the requests for his services from different localities.


Alan Webster Neill: Did he ever get out to British Columbia?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


William Duff: Who are the assistants, and how are they appointed?


Alfred Duranleau: They are all appointed by the civil service commission. Does my hon. friend desire the names? The promoter's name is G. R. Earl, at a salary of $2,520, less ten per cent of course.


William Duff: That is too bad.


Alfred Duranleau: His assistants are
P. Mercier, William Mercier, W. H. Casiboom, Earle McRae, A. Wilson and B. Latham, at a salary of $4.50 per day each.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In this item is mentioned the development of deep sea fisheries. The minister has just told the committee he spent $46,000 last year for the advertising of fish and so on. I assume under this item some money should have been spent during the last two years in the investigation of fishing possibilities in Hudson bay and James bay, but if my information is correct the department has not made any move in that direction, although the present Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of Marine and fisheries, almost promised the committee to enlarge on the inquiry that was made in the summer of 1930. In our section we are not satisfied with the results of that inquiry. As far as the work done in 1930 is concerned, we believe it was well done but we think it should have been enlarged. Only a few days were spent in the whole Hudson bay area, comprising nearly 700,000 square miles of water, after which the statement was made that there were no salt water fish in all that great expanse. The minister was not very

definite, but at any rate he created the impression that further investigation would be made. I am not going to read the report of the investigation made by the 1930 expedition, but I state frankly that that report is not satisfactory to the people interested in that section of the country. We maintain that there are salt water fish in those waters. It is true that in the estuaries of the rivers running into Hudson bay there are fresh water fish, which at certain times of the year migrate into Hudson bay and James bay. Perhaps the minister will say that on such a question they cannot carry the investigation further, but I know from reports received from people familiar with the situation in that area that there are salt water fish in Hudson bay and James bay. To corroborate my statement I will read part of a good report that was made by W. R. Maher, an engineer of the T. & N.O. Railway who knows well that northern part of Ontario and Quebec including James bay and Hudson bay. This report was published in the North Bay Nugget of October 26, 1932. He says:
From a tourist standpoint the east coast offers adventure, exploration, new fishing grounds and bird life in abundance for gun and camera. Charlton island could be made a desirable base for canoe or motor boat trips along the coast which could be made under the protection of islands. Sea trout are found in such numbers and of such excellence as to alone establish the James bay as one of the leading fishing resorts of the continent.
That statement comes from a man well versed in all that pertains to those northern waters. I believe he is known to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Railways. Mr. Maher would not have made that report unless he was sure of his statement from personal inquiry on the ground.
A little further on in the report, describing a trip he made in James bay and Hudson bay waters, he says:
Hundreds of seals were seen swimming and resting on the ice. Gulls, guillemots and terns were evidently feeding, but only jellyfish were seen.
Anyone familiar with salt water fishing knows that there would be no seals unless there were salt water fish. Seals would not come all the way down to James bay to feed on the fresh water fish; they would get most of their feeding on salt water fish. Only, a few days ago I was talking with Captain Bernier, who is known in every section of Canada for his voyages of exploration in Canadian Arctic waters. He tells me that every summer quite a number of Scandinavian schooners spend the whole fishing season in the Hudson strait and the Ungava

Supply-F isheries-C onservation
section fishing for cod, although he tells me there are no banks, but on the eastern side of Hudson bay there would be good grounds for cod fishing. Again Mr. Maher says:
On entering the river a school of white whales, several hundred in number, were seen playing about at the end of Manitunuk sound.
That would seem to prove that there must be some salt water fish in that great expanse of water. I do not know how true it is, but in our section it is said that the government do not want to develop our fishing industry because it will provide very keen competition for the fisheries of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We do not want to believe that, but that is what is being said. Geographically speaking, we are in the centre of Canada, and with the extension of the railway to salt water we are in a position to give a thirty-six hour service for fresh and salt water fish to such markets as Toronto and Montreal, and even the United States. We do not want to attribute ulterior motives to other sections of the country, but I am firmly convinced that the government would be well advised to continue the investigation which was started in 1930. I need not refer further to that inquiry, but the fact remains that they only actually fished in the Hudson bay for less than one day, and any man familiar with that expanse of water will readily understand that it was impossible in that time to cover the territory properly. We maintain that a trawler or schooner should remain there for the winter months in order to have a whole season in which to investigate the situation the following year.
I have here a report which was made following investigations into the fisheries of Hudson and James bays and tributary waters in 1914 by C. B. Melvill, A. R. M. Lower and N. A. Comeau. I believe this report will corroborate what I have said with regard to the fisheries of Hudson bay. With reference to codfish, at page 24 the report states:
Cod are known to occur in Hudson bay. A few schooners from St. Johns fish in Hudson straits and Ungava bay every year. There would apparently be, therefore, no reason why these fish should not exist in larger quantities than have yet been found.
The investigation of 1930 was not lengthy enough to cover the fisheries of Hudson bay very thoroughly. Speaking of the different species of fish that have been found on the west coast of Hudson bay, the report goes on to say:
The other species of the west coast are not of a great deal of economic importance; rock-cod occur in the bay and it is said that the true cod does also-
The true cod does exist also, but no investigation of the west coast was made in 1930.
-but there is no record of a single specimen of either of them ever having been found on the west coast.
That would corroborate the statement I made a few moments ago, that the east coast of Hudson bay should have been thoroughly investigated, and I believe the investigation should be continued. The report goes on to say:
Besides the strictly fish wealth, there are other forms of marine life possessed of considerable value: one such as the white whale, another is the seal. The former occurs in great numbers and as he is quite valuable for his oil-of which he yields 100 gallons each, it may be expected that an industry founded on his products will develop as soon as the market is brought near enough to the place of production. The seal is not the fur seal but its hide makes extraordinary waterproof bags, hoots, gun covers, and so on.
Further on in this report they touch on the question of the whitefish that exists in the estuaries of these rivers. I need not name the great rivers that pour their waters into Hudson bay; I believe the names are familiar to every member of this house. Everyone is familiar with the wonderful quality of whitefish, and I believe an industry could 'be built up comparable to the goldeye industry in Manitoba. It is a well known fact that in these estuaries there are unlimited numbers of whitefish during several months of the year, as well as in James bay and Hudson bay. In this report they have this to say with regard to transportation:
When the Hudson bay railway is opened, it will be possible to get the products of the smaller bay out to the cities of the west in the course of a few days, and then we shall expect to see greater use made of them. Such a traffic will require substantial fishing tugs, quite independent of wind and tide, for these latter are the great bugbear of all traffic carried on with the old fashioned craft.
That statement applies even more forcibly at the present time for the very good reason that now the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway has been extended to tidewater at James bay, and we are in a position to give wonderful service in the distribution of fish not only to central Canada but also to the United States.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that I have built up a strong case, and I fervently hope the government will find it possible under this item of 855,000, of which only 846,000 is spent in connection with the advertising of fish in this country, to carry on that investigation into the fisheries of Hudson bay and James

Supply-Interior

bay. In our part of the country we are quite willing to go half way at all times; I believe we have shown in the past that we are not critical of advances made in other sections of Canada, but I repeat that we are not satisfied with the investigation that was carried on in 1930. We were satisfied with the work actually accomplished, but we were not satisfied with the small amount of work done. I hope the minister will be in a position to tell the committee that under this item, and not later than the year 1935, his department will find it possible to make a very thorough inquiry that will satisfy our people.


William Duff: May I ask if the minister is
going on with these estimates after eight o'clock?


Alfred Duranleau: I think so.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: Item 154
had been called but had not been disposed of when we took recess.


Hugh Guthrie: That item might stand
and we will go into the Interior department.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Stage Direction]
Expenses connected with the Dominion observatory at Ottawa, $38,200.
Mr. MacLEAN:: What is the number of
employees at the Dominion Observatory at Ottawa, and how many have been let out during the present year?


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: At the Dominion Observatory at Ottawa there are now thirty-five employees, and eight at the astrophysical observatory at Victoria. Five employees have been retired from the Dominion Observatory at Ottawa during the past year.
Mr. M-aoLEAN:	Would the minister give
the names of those who have been retired, and say if anyone has been appointed in their place?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The five retirements from the Dominion Observatory at Ottawa were: S. Gold, Dr. F. C. P. Henroteau, W. A. Dier, W. G. Hughson, S. I. Saxby.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Who is the head of the observatory at Ottawa?
[Mr. BradetteJ


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Doctor Meldrum Stewart.


Peter John Veniot: What were the reasons
given for the retirements?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The retirements were in the interest of economy in the public service.


Peter John Veniot: Any replacements?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What is the reason for
the decrease in this item and in the next item for the astrophysical observatory?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The economy at Ottawa
was effected solely by the retirements.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: To complete the record,
how was the decrease of $1,300 in the vote for the dominion astrophysical observatory at Victoria effected?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The economy at Victoria
was effected by a reduction in the general expenses of the institution.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Topographical and Air Survey Bureau-
From topographical and air surveys, compiling, drawing, printing and distributing, geographical base maps for all purposes, issuing technical instructions for air photography and reconnaissance, under supervision of committee on air surveys and base maps; land and mining claim surveys of all remaining Dominion lands (Northwest Territories, Dominion parks, ordnance lands); preparing electoral district maps; maintaining central office for indexing, filing and recording of survey notes and plans, and the distribution of maps, etc., $100,000.
Amount required to pay the fees of the board of examiners for D.L.S., of the secretary and of the sub-examiners and for travelling expenses, stationery, printing, rent of room and furniture, etc. (the fees of Messrs. F. H. Peters, W. M. Tobey, and Harry Parry, members of the board and J. A. Cote, secretary, are to be paid out of this sum), $900.
Cameron Ross McIntosh: Are these topographical
surveys carried on generally throughout northern Canada or are they confined to certain of the northern portions of the dominion?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The greater part of the
work carried on in the last few years has been in the Northwest Territories where there is considerable mining development, but the surveys extend over the whole of Canada. The survey work that is carried on include the general mapping service for the dominion.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Just what part of the
picture concerns northern Saskatchewan?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: During the past year there was very little survey work carried on in tie dominion, either in the older settled parts or in the territories, but we had considerable

Supply-Interior
data in the survey from which maps were being made. The provinces have been cooperating with the topographical survey in furnishing the ground control which enables us to make maps after the aerial photographs have been taken by the Department of National Defence.


Mr. FAFARD:: How many employees have been dismissed in the last two years?


Mr. MURPHT :: During 1933-34 there were 26 retired.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Can the minister tell us how this 8100,000 will be distributed?


Charles Murphy: In the Northwest Territories, Mackenzie district, $1,300; Northwest Territories, Mackenzie district, $9,500; Northwest Territories, Mackenzie district, $1,300; Nova Scotia, $4,200; Quebec, $600; British Columbia, Vancouver district, $3,800; Northwest Territories, Mackenzie district, $912.


Mr. DONNELLY:: How many aeroplanes are engaged in making this survey?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We have not had complete details of the distribution of this $100,000; we have had the details of only about $20,000.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Twenty-one thousand dollars odd will be utilized for surveying in the field and the balance of the vote is for the salaries of the staff.


Air. STITT (Nelson):: Is any surveying and topographical work done in northern Manitoba in the God's lake district? This is one of the largest undeveloped and unexplored areas in the world and there is urgent need for maps to assist the prospectors who are going into that country. I refer particularly to the area east of Sipiwesk lake, where large developments are taking place. I would appreciate it if the minister would endeavour to have some of this vote expended in this district.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Our work is closely connected with the work of the Department of National Defence, which takes the aerial photographs from which the maps are made. I have no item for survey work in the district to which the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) refers, but, as I explained a few moments ago, we work in close cooperation with the provinces which frequently give us the ground control. If the Department of National Defence is able to do the flying work necessary in that district during this season we may be able to complete the sheet map of the area in which the hon. member is interested.
74726-89J


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What degree of cooperation exists between the dominion and Saskatchewan governments with regard to work of this kind carried on in the northern part of the province?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The government of Saskatchewan works in close cooperation with us in that regard.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Have there been any negotiations between the Ontario government and the Dominion government in connection with the jurisdiction over the islands in Hudson and James bays? I referred to this matter a few years ago as well as last year and believe there has been some activity on the part of the Ontario government through Mr. Finlayson, the Minister of Lands and Forests for Ontario. The provincial government is endeavouring to have some of these islands placed under provincial jurisdiction. I do not think I need elaborate this matter outside of saying that there has been some stoppage of development of natural resources on some of these islands because of the uncertainty of jurisdiction.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Certain correspondence has passed between the Department of the Interior and the department concerned in Ontario in connection with this matter. The jurisdiction over certain islands can be determined only by surveying and until such a survey is completed we will not be in a position to deal with the matter. Legislation will have to be introduced in the dominion and provincial houses, and until that is done the question of jurisdiction cannot be settled finally.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the minister refer to the Belcher islands?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There is no question of jurisdiction in connection with those islands. As the hon. member knows, they lie well out in Hudson bay. The islands to which I refer lie in the mouths of the rivers, and it is a matter of surveying to decide whether they fall under provincial or dominion jurisdiction.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If I understood the minister rightly, he implied that the islands which really belong geographically to the province would be placed under provincial jurisdiction. Has the province of Ontario asked for full jurisdiction over all the islands in James bay within the boundaries of the province?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have no official communication in which the province of Ontario has asked for jurisdiction over such islands as may
Supply-Interior

or may not be now within the jurisdiction of the dominion. I think the hon. member is slightly in error in his understanding of what I said two years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, I said that that part of an island which might lie within an imaginary line drawn from headland to headland at the mouth of a river would come under the jurisdiction of the province concerned, whether Ontario or Quebec, but that an island or the portion of an island which might lie outside that imaginary line would come under the jurisdiction of the dominion.


James J. Donnelly: A few moments ago I asked the minister to give me the number of aeroplanes engaged in this survey work.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: As I have explained, that will depend to a certain extent upon the amount of money available for the purpose. We estimate that there will be eight or ten, possibly more.


James J. Donnelly: How much of this money is spent outside and how much is spent inside the provinces? As I understand it, most of the provinces have their own natural resources and I would assume that it would be up to them to do their own surveying.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The surveying done by the department at the present time, outside of the subdivision surveying in the Northwest Territories, is purely for the purpose of map making, which is a dominion function. The only surveying which we do within the provinces is to establish the ground control, that is, the longtitude and latitude, in order that maps may be correctly completed from the aerial photographs.


James J. Donnelly: I understood the minister to say that something like $4,000 of this vote is to be spent in Nova Scotia; to what part of the province does he refer?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The district lies to the
northeast of Halifax, between Sherbrooke and Truro, and the information is required to make use of aerial photographs which have already been taken of that area.


James J. Donnelly: What is the reason for taking them in this district?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: These photographs were
taken at the request of the provincial government because in that district there are large areas of crown timber lands.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Many aerial photographs
have been taken and the work has been properly done, but maps cannot be drawn without the ground control. I think the

government would save money by spending more on ground control to enable the department to use these aerial photographs that have already been taken.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Not only has the money
spent on ground control been curtailed, but there has been a considerable curtailment also in the amount spent on aerial flights and also in the services of the technical officers. With the hon. member, I hope the time will soon come when we shall be able to spend more money on this service, which I consider essential to the well-being of Canada.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: There are already in the
department many aerial photographs taken in the last three or four years, and if we do not spend any money on ground control that expenditure becomes futile.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geodetic Survey of Canada-
Primary triangulation, geodetic astronomy, precise levelling and investigation-for the charting of sea coasts, water areas, and forming a basis for the foundation of all engineering projects, and for pursuing investigations of the earth's crust and the determination of the curvature of the surface and eventually of the figure and dimensions of the earth. The above form the basis of operations for federal and' provincial departments, municipal authorities and engineering projects over the whole country, $116,500.
To recoup the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission in connection with their claim for injury to John Hedin, $240.
Mr. GIROUARD:: This amount is pretty
large and I notice that among other things the money is required for the purpose of pursuing investigations of the earth's crust and the determination of the curvature of the surface and eventually of the figure and dimensions of the earth. Does not the minister think that in these times this work could easily be suspended?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In my humble opinion,
the geodetic survey is one of the most important services performed, from the scientific point of view. It is the survey on which all other surveys are or should be based. It determines the actual points of longitude and latitude on which all other surveys should be based, whether hydrographic, topographical or subdivisional surveys. The hon. gentleman is no doubt well aware of the very great importance that attaches to a service of this kind. Indeed, if the economic conditions were as we should like them to be, I think the dominion would be well advised to spend more money on this service.

Supply-Interior


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Following that statement, will the minister indicate the major and minor expeditures involved in this large amount, giving the committee an amplified statement showing how the money is spent.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: These are the details:
Precise levelling $4,264.50; triangulation, $3,200; general expenses, $6,894.50; salaries, $102,141.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: What is the amount spent in the United States on geodetic survey? I do not think there should be any decrease in these estimates. As the minister has said, this is the most important branch in his department and I do think that the government should do something to keep the men of experience whom they have already in this branch.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The hon. member wishes
to know the amount spent in the United States on this service. I am informed that during the last year it was about $2,000,000 in round figures, and during the coming year it is something over $6,000,000.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I notice that part of this vote is for investigating engineering projects. Is there a staff available for investigating such a question as a possible irrigation system or work of that kind?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is a duty of the
provincial governments.


Charles A. Stewart: How many
parties does the minister propose dropping from the staff this year?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: We will have three parties in the field.


Charles A. Stewart: Where will
most of the field work be done?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The greater part of it
will be done in Ontario in the vicinity of Bruce peninsula.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the work pretty well completed along the St. Lawrence in Quebec?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am informed that in the gulf of St. Lawrence and along the straits of Belle Isle there is considerable work yet to be done.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In what sections of
Canada will the money be spent this year?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I gave the figures a moment ago.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My question was as to where this work was done, not what was done. I think the minister misunderstood me.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In British Columbia, $3,264.50 will be spent in carrying on precise levelling work in the vicinity of Kootenay river; in Alberta, $1,000 will be spent in scientific investigation at Frank, and in Ontario, there will be triangulation work to the amount of $3,200. This party will be operating in the vicinity of Bruce peninsula.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government of the Northwest Territories-
Salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the Northwest Territories Act and ordnances. Northwest Game Act and regulations, Eskimo affairs, Wood Buffalo park, reindeer industry, game preserves and sanctuaries, wolf and coyote bounties, exploration, investigation and development of natural resources, fire protection, construction and maintenance of buildings, schools, hospitals and roads, relief to destitute, maintenance and transportation of prisoners and insane patients, equipment and supplies, contingencies, etc, $195,500.
Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will the minister explain how this decrease has come about?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: As the committee will observe, there is a net decrease of $22,500 which is accounted for by certain increases and certain decreases. I shall give the decreases first, as follows:
Decreases
Head office administration	$ 1,428
Schools	 7 800
District office at Mackenzie	 84
Administration of Wood Buffalo park. 364
Wolf and coyote bounties	 26,000
Vital statistics	 i00
Fur export tax ordinance	 300
Investigator's salary and maintenance. 10
Then there are the following increases:
Increases
Hospitals	$1,500
Medical services	3,798
Reindeer station	1340
Relief to the destitute	61)48


Albert Joseph Brown: Is this the appropriation to take care of the movement of reindeer from Alaska over to the Mackenzie?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes.


Albert Joseph Brown: Could the minister give us a statement of the position of affairs in connection with that movement?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The herd at the present time is on the western shore of the mouth of the Mackenzie river. We had expected they would cross the delta this winter, but owing to a very severe blizzard which occurred during the season and to glare ice which the

Supply-Interior
deer encountered, they stampeded and returned to about the point from which they had started almost a year ago. Consequently we do not anticipate that they will reach their destination until the lapse of another year.


Albert Joseph Brown: How many years is it since they started?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In 1929 from Alaska.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Has the number increased or decreased in the journey?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: According to information recently received, the numbers have decreased.


Mr McINTOSH:: How many are there in the herd now?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It is estimated about 2,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely the minister has not been reducing the wolf bounties?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: They have been discontinued.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
minister think that is good business?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I may say that the wolf bounty has been discontinued also in the provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not surprised at that.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: But the hon. member is surprised at this.


Charles A. Stewart: I am surprised at the action of the minister. I am not at all surprised that the provinces should reduce the bounties because they are reducing everything. If the game are to be preserved, something will have to be paid for the extermination of the wolves. The tendency at present is for the wolves to keep southward so that the menace from the wolves that the trappers will not poison and kill in the provinces will not be so great in the north. But I honestly think it is a mistake for the department to discontinue these bounties.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The hon. member may be correct; I suppose time will answer that question, but may I say that the provinces took this action first and the hon. member will, I think, be aware of the great temptation there would be to those who were hunting and trapping, say in the northern parts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, having slain a number of wolves and coyotes, to take 
them over into the territories and collect the bounty from the Dominion government. Further, as the hon. member is well aware, formerly we paid the bounty and the government retained the fur. The hunters and trappers will now have the sale of their furs, and the prices, I am glad to say, of all furs have advanced considerably. The question of decreasing the numbers will rest now, as it did before, with the individual trapper, and if he can secure for his fur as great an amount as he used to receive in bounty from the Dominion government, I think the objection of the hon. member will be met.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
be, but the Dominion government under both parties has gone to considerable expense in trying to exterminate wolves. It is a great thing they have been exterminated around Ottawa, but they are a growing menace in the northwest and I am afraid that the minister will find them getting into his parks. If the provinces discontinue the bounty, we shall have the same trouble as we had in the past. The wolf family seems to increase very fast and there is no doubt that they play the very mischief with deer. The result will be that throughout the whole northern section deer will be exterminated. While I agree with the minister that the price of fur has increased, it is rather difficult, as he knows, to trap a wolf. A trapper can make much more money by trapping other kinds of game than by trapping wolves, and the fact that he had the assurance of $20 per pelt was some incentive to him to get busy to try to exterminate them. Therefore I regret that the government have changed their policy in regard to the bounty on wolves, and I may say that I think the provinces have also made a veiy serious mistake.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Like the hon. member
who has just taken his seat, I am well aware of the value of wild life to the dominion, especially that which inhabits our great national parks. Special and very strict instructions were sent out to our wardens during this past year to destroy the predatory animals in the parks, and I receive monthly reports in regard to the numbers killed. I am happy to tell the committee that there are no evidences this year of any great number of predatory animals in our national parks. I feel that the objection of the hon. member is met by the fact that owing to the increase in the price of fur those who formerly received the bounty will now receive as much from the sale of fur as they received

Supply-Interior
from the bounty. As a matter of fact complaints reached us that we were not paying enough by way of bounty-that they could get more out of the sale of the fur.


Albert Joseph Brown: There is a feature that I think has been overlooked here, as it was in the province of Manitoba. When Manitoba was paying bounty for the destruction of coyotes the Indians would go out in the spring and hunt up the dens and kill the pups, because the young pups brought them as much bounty as the mature animal. I speak with special relation to the sheep industry:	I have good reason to know the
damage that wolves may do in a flock of sheep; for I think I can say without exaggeration that I lost about S200 worth of lambs last summer from wolves. The fact that the Indians got $2 for destroying the pups was a great incentive to hunt them. We must remember that a wolf may do a tremendous amount of damage between the time it is a pup and the time it is mature enough to be trapped for its fur. I know that in Manitoba the bounty was discontinued, without an understanding of that fact. At our United Farmers' convention we had occasion to bring it to the notice of some of those who had advised the Manitoba government in the matter, and they evidently were not aware of the situation. I know that in my own district, and I presume it is the same wherever there are Indians and wolves, the Indians would hunt the young ones and kill them before they had a chance to do any damage. So the fact that the price of fur has gone up sufficiently to increase the incentive to trap the mature animals does not by any means meet the situation.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I was dealing with the
situation as it exists in the Northwest Territories. The complaint of the hon. member is, I think, well taken, but it applies to the provincial jurisdiction, not to that of the dominion. I was merely replying to the objections raised by the former Minister of the Interior in regard to the situation in the Northwest Territories, where, as I think the hon. member knows, there are no domestic animals.


Albert Joseph Brown: But the same argument will apply where there are young deer and other game as well as where there are sheep.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In regard to the taking of the animals when they are young, I agree with the hon. member that such might be the case, but as a matter of fact and of record the bounty was practically all paid on mature animals. The wolves and coyotes
were taken at the time of year when the ordinary hunting operations were going on and other fur-bearing animals were taken as well. I am well aware of the very great damage which can be done to a flock of sheep by either wolves, coyotes or the domestic dog, which is just as bad as the wolf when it takes to predatory habits.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There is mention in another item of Wood Buffalo park. Will the minister explain where this park is situated, when it was established, its size, the extent of its development, and the use to which it has been put during the last four years?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: While my official is looking up part of the information asked for I shall say that Wood Buffalo park lies partly in the Northwest Territories and partly in Alberta, the greater part being in the province. The main purpose it serves is that of a game sanctuary. To the best of our information, it is inhabited by some thousands of wood buffalo as well as fur bearing animals, beaver and all other fur bearers that are indigenous to the northern part of Alberta and the territories. I have not information at hand as to the year in which it was established, but I may be able to get it in a moment.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: While that informatioi is being looked up, what is the total Eskimo population of Canada?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In the Northwest Terri tories, 4.670. In addition to that there woulc be a certain number in the northern part ol the province of Quebec.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Can the minister explain the rate of increase among these people? I am told on this side of the house that they just about hold their own, in other words they have arrived at the stage of what may be termed a natural equilibrium.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The estimated populatior in 1930 was 7,103. That included all Canadian Eskimos, but was only an estimate. The latest census, that of 1931, which we feel is quite accurate, showed 4,670, but that does not include those living in the northern part of Quebec.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They are about as slow as some political parties we know.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope the minister is not reducing the number of wardens patrolling the buffalo park. Has he the same number of men there?
Supply-Interior


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There are at present ten wardens, which I believe is an increase over the number of a few years ago.


James J. Donnelly: I understand that a year or two ago there was a herd of buffalo driven up north. Can the minister tell us what became of them?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No buffalo have been taken north within the last three years.


James J. Donnelly: Are those that have been taken up becoming acclimatized?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Between 1925 and 1928
there were 6,673 of the animals taken from Wainwright to the Wood buffalo park, and at that time there were approximately 1,500 at that point.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Are experiments
being continued in the crossing of buffalo with domestic cattle?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I believe that experiment
was carried on by the Department of Agriculture. I speak subject to correction, but I do not think it is being continued.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has the minister now
the information for which I asked?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have not the date of
the establishment of the park, but if the hon. gentleman will repeat his questions I will give him the rest of the information.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My questions were as
to the exact location of Wood buffalo park, when it was established, its size, its development and the use to which it has been put during the last four years.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: As I explained a few
moments ago, Mr. Chairman, the park lies principally within the province of Alberta, with a small portion in the Mackenzie district of the northwest territories. It contains 17.300 square miles, of which 3,625 are in the northwest territories, the remainder being in Alberta. The sole purpose for which it is used is that of a buffalo preserve and a game sanctuary, with the exception that Indians and halfbreeds are allowed, under permit, to carry on hunting and trapping of fur bearing animals in that area.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister has given
me all the information with the exception of when the park was established, and perhaps he can bring that down some other time.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I shall be glad to furnish
the information.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister made some
reference to an increase of $6,000 in the amount expended for the relief of the destitute. Would he tell us the total sum spent under that heading last year, and what particular category of destitute were benefited?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There is an increase of
$6,948 in this item this year. I have not the amount that has been actually expended up to the present time during this fiscal year, but the actual amount voted was $23,106. This year we are asking for $30,108, but the increase is more apparent than real. The hon. member will observe that in the item for schools there is a decrease of $7,800, so these two items really balance each other. We are charging to this item the amount formerly charged to schools for the education and care of orphan and destitute children, but taking the two items together it practically amounts to the same thing.


Charles Gavan Power: Did I understand the minister to say that this $23,000 goes to destitute children?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No.


Charles Gavan Power: To whom does it go?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: To all the destitute in
the northwest territories except the Indians, who are provided for by the Indian department.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister any idea
how many families benefit by this vote?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am sorry I have not
that information with me, but I shall be very glad to get it for the hon. gentleman.


Charles Gavan Power: This is a form of relief, is
it not? Are they required to work, or is this for direct relief?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I can give the items to
my hon. friend. Rations for white and halfbreed persons declared destitute by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $1,000; transportation expenses, clothing and so on-


Charles Gavan Power: The minister need not
bother giving the items; I just wanted to know to whom this money went, and I now understand that it goes to the destitute people living in .the Northwest Territories.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Other than Indians?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, other than Indians.


Charles A. Stewart: Are all the
Indian agents in the territories medical men now?

Supply-Interior


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No, but I hope they will be very shortly.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is just a question I should like to ask; it has to do with the constituency of Pontiac. I do not see the hon. member who represents that riding here, but I am his neighbour and I should like to bring it up. This has to do with some Indians who are in the parish of Timiskaming, on the Quebec side. I believe representations have been made to the minister to the effect that quite a number of Indians occupy a large area of land which is very well suited for agriculture. I have personal knowledge that very few of those Indians are interested in agriculture; in fact only two or three of them cultivate a very small acreage. I am informed that the federal government has to supply those Indians with wood during the summer and winter months, because there is hardly a stick of wood left there. A good many people interested in that section of the country desire to have that land given or sold to the province of Quebec in order that white people may settle there. Let me repeat that these Indians are not interested in agriculture.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will permit me to interrupt. He will realize that we are now dealing with the Department of the Interior; I shall be pleased to take up the matter when the estimates of the Indian department are under consideration.


James J. Donnelly: I notice some of this
money is for the maintenance of hospitals. How many hospitals are there, and how many medical men are maintained?


Mr.   MLTRPHY@: There are eight hospitals, one at Fort Smith, one at Fort Resolution, one at Hay River, one at Fort Simpson, two at Aklavik, one at Chesterfield and one at Pangnirtung, which is situated in Baffin Land.


James J. Donnelly: With one medical man at each place?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Paid either entirely by the Department of the Interior or jointly with the Indian Department.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I notice that part of this money is to be used for the exploration, investigation and development of natural resources. In view of the mining development that is taking place in Canada, this part of the appropriation will serve a very useful purpose. May I ask approximately what part of this S195,000 is to be used for this purpose?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There is an item in the estimates of $23,300 which is appropriated for the annual trip of a boat sailing from Montreal or Sydney, Nova Scotia, to the northern latitudes, and carrying supplies for our hospitals and the personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police located at various posts in the territories. We endeavour to send on that expedition as many scientific men as we can, and frequently the other departments cooperate with us to that end. It takes the boat about three months to make the trip, calling at various points in Baffin Land and on the shores of the Hudson bay, and at certain islands in the Arctic. In addition to that, valuable exploratory work is carried on by the geological survey of the Mines department. In connection with the maps which we were discussing under the vote for the topographical survey a few moments ago, the aerial photographic work is carried on by the Department of National Defence.
May I digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to say that if members of the committee can spare the time for a visit to the topographical survey, they will find an inspection of the aerial photographs and maps of that area in the Northwest Territories in which mineral development has been so great in the last two years well worth their while, and I am sure they will agree that their time was well spent. Immense strides have been made in the last few years in the taking of aerial photographs and, perhaps more important still, in the interpretation of those photographs by men who have made a scientific study of that subject. Again I recommend that the members of the committee visit the photographic library of the topographical survey.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the minister for the information that he has given to the committee. He has spoken of scientists going north once a year. Do those scientists come from different departments of the government, and do the universities cooperate in that work?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Macdonald College cooperated with the department last year and sent a man. We also secure the services of government scientists when they can be spared from their work in the departments, notably in the Department of Mines, which has worked very closely with the Department of the Interior in our efforts to investigate the resources of that northern country.


Mr. STANLEY:: I think this is the proper item, Mr. Chairman, upon which to say a few words with regard to the wild fowl of this country and the possibility of encouraging the
Supply-Interior

establishment of sanctuaries for them in the west. Those who are informed on the question advise me that our wild duck and geese are decreasing at the rate of ten per cent a year. If that is so, these wild fowl will disappear within ten years. This is not a question of importance merely to the sportsman; for these wild fowl are of considerable importance as food to the natives of the far north, who shoot them and have their own refrigerating system for keeping them during the winter until the following spring. Just on the edge of the city of Calgary we have a fairly large bird sanctuary which is maintained by private donations and by the Calgary fish and game association. The expense of maintaining the sanctuary is becoming greater each year, and it has got to the point where private donations will no longer sustain it. We have had the assistance of the minister through his departmental officials in extending the protected area, and very real assistance has been given to the work of the association. However, if the fowl are to be protected by sanctuaries, the encouragement of this means of protection might well be given consideration by the department, with a view' to seeing what measure of assistance can be given to those now actually in existence, and what should be done in establishing new sanctuaries.
The question of maintaining the fowl in the northlands during the winter months is one upon which there are decided differences of opinion. I am sorry to say that our provincial authorities are averse to doing anything to keep the wild fowl from going south. But if no international agreement can be made, and we do not seem to be succeeding very well in that direction, the fact remains that if the estimate of a decrease at the rate of ten per cent a year is correct-and I believe these people know what they are talking about-we are facing a serious problem in regard to our wild fowl. The only thing we can do under the circumstances is to establish sanctuaries of our own, and encourage and assist those now in existence so that we may keep our wild fowl in our owrn land.
In addition to what I have already said, the feed which is used in our sanctuary in Calgary is purchased from the large elevators and contains many weed seeds which have been sent out from the elevators to the farms for purposes of feed for stock, thereby spreading weeds far and wide. So that by using this feed from our grain elevators, our sanctuaries are helping to eradicate one of the great scourges of our western land. I bring this matter before the minister for his consideration because it is one of considerable

importance not only to our fish and game association but also to those living in the far north whose welfare is a matter of concern to the department over which the minister presides.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The hon. member has
opened up a large question, one in which I take a deep personal interest. The matter could, however, be more properly discussed under the item which includes an amount for the administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. I will read the hon. member's remarks in Hansard to-morrow, and when this item is before the committee I shall be pleased to discuss the matter.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does this vote cover the natural resources branch, or is this branch now non-existent.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: This is not the vote.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there any item which covers that branch? It has done splendid work in the past and I should like to know if it has been moved to some other department, or if it is non-existent.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I think the hon. member refers to the national development bureau. This branch has been discontinued as part of the Department of the Interior, but some of the work which it carried on is now being performed by the departments of Mines, Trade and Commerce, and Interior.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the past this branch did much work of great value. It never received the public credit to which it was entitled. It was small, but its contact with the industrial development boards of the various cities resulted in great improvement in many sections of the country. If this branch is not in the minister's department there is no use in my discussing it at this time. I have not been able to find out in just what department the branch is located, but if the minister will tell me when the item comes up I shall be prepared to say something on it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Annuities Act, $85,000.
Peter Heenan: Why the increase in this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This is caused by the increased sale of annuities. The sales this year were the highest in the history of the branch, amounting to S5,039,912.	Last year they amounted to
$3,580,176.21; in 1923-24 they were only $1,458,818.92.

Supply-Labour-Annuities Act


Mr. IRVINE:: Is any advertising done in connection with these annuities?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not very much. Annuities are sold through the agency of the postmasters throughout Canada. Representatives are appointed in various cities where the postmasters are on salary. I think we should feel gratified that there has been such an increase in the purchase of the annuities. Such an increase was the hope of the government when the act was passed in 1908. It indicates that thousands of people with very small incomes are providing against misadventure in their later years.


William Irvine: Are notices put up in the post offices?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe so, but the
amount provided for advertising is very small.


Albert Joseph Brown: Is this vote for the administration of the act, or for the payment of annuities?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Just for administration.


Albert Joseph Brown: What amount is being paid out annually?	,


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not that information, but it can be readily obtained in the report of the Department of Labour which has been tabled.


William Irvine: What was the total amount of premiums collected last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Last year the receipts on account of annuities purchased amounted to 85,039,900.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the total value of the annuities outstanding?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The contracts issued to
December 31, 1933, numbered 18,161, and the total receipts to the same date totalled $41,253,950.79.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What are the annual receipts?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They vary. I have the figures from 1923-24 to 1933-34. In 1923-24 the receipts were $1,458,818.92, and in the first nine months of 1933-34 they were 85,039,912. I have not before me the figures prior to the fiscal year 1923-24.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister tell us the total amount of annuities involved?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is reflected in the total receipts amounting to 841,253,950.79.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That does not tell us exactly the value of the annuities.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, that would not tell it exactly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister that information?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: One would have to go into the tables to determine what the obligation of the government was. I have not those figures before me.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this fund periodically examined on an actuarial basis?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes; the fund is audited by the auditor general's department every quarter.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That does not quite answer the question. I wish to know whether on an actuarial basis the annuities are in a sound condition.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are conflicting views with regard to the question whether or not one can describe these annuities as being on a sound basis. All governments since the act was passed in 1908 have taken the attitude, and I am inclined to think properly so, that these annuities should be sold on the basis of the government absorbing the cost of administration, because the annuities themselves are limited to $1,200, and the legislation was designed primarily to give an opportunity to those of modest income to take advantage of the annuities during the years when they were able to save something. I have heard the question discussed both ways by actuaries representing the annuities branch and by actuaries of companies as to whether these annuities were sold at a more favourable or a less favourable rate than those sold by private companies. I am not an actuary, but I am inclined to think, after listening to both sides, that they are sold at a slightly more favourable rate than the annuities sold by private companies.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: How does the cost of writing this business compare with that of the best insurance companies for the same amount of money?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The actuaries of the department contend that the cost is almost in equation. They will not go so far as to say that it is completely in equation with the best annuity companies. I think that both sides rather rely upon their expertness with figures, but I am inclined to the view that these annuities are sold at a lower cost than the annuities sold by some of the better private companies.


Humphrey Mitchell: How is the business collected? Is a commission paid or is it done by the permanent officials of the department?

Supply-Labour-Annuities Act


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member means, how are the commissions paid?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, if any.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, and appropriate entries are made into the annuities fund to take care of them from time to time.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the basis of the commissions?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member will forgive me if I am unable to go into details in matters that have to do with higher mathematics, because it is a good many years since I had to struggle with such questions. On an immediate, single payment deferred annuity- that is, one deferred, from one to five years -the commission is one per cent; deferred more than five years, two per cent. The maximum commission payable in respect of an application or applications for the purchase of immediate or single payment deferred annuity or annuities received from any one purchaser shall be $100; that is to say, it is limited to that amount. On deferred annual payment annuities, where payment is to be completed in one year, the commission is one per cent; where payment is to be completed in two years, two per cent for two years; where payment is to be completed in three years, three per cent for two years; where payment is to be completed in four years, four per cent for two years. There is a maximum commission payable in respect of an application for the purchase of a deferred annual payment annuity or annuities received from any one purchaser, of $125, and I am told by the officers of the department-and I believe it to be correct-that there is a higher maximum paid by the best private companies than is paid by the department to its commission agents.


Peter Heenan: Will the minister tell us the receipts from 1926 to 1933 inclusive?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The following are the amounts and the years:
Fiscal year-	Amount
1925-	26	
$1,938,921	171926-	27	
1,894,885	291927-	28	
3,843,087	961928-	29	
4,272,418	871929-	30	
3,156.475	241930-	31	
3,612,233	881931-	32	
4,194,383	811932-	33	
3,580,576	211933-	34 to Dec. 31	
5,039,912	00


Peter Heenan: Is any of this money being spent on advertising?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Does the hon. member
want the advertising cost for the different years?


Peter Heenan: The last few years.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The advertising cost is as follows:
Year-	Advertising cost
1930-	31	
$27,388	121931-	32	
129	261932-	33	
836	851933-	34 (Nine months) .. . .	1,937	43


Peter Heenan: I agree with the minister
that the act is one of the best that has been put on the statute books for the benefit of the low wage earners, and I congratulate him on the improvement shown, especially in the last year. But in my opinion the minister is not advertising enough. It is true that the sale of annuities is increasing, but it is doing so only because of moneys that have been spent in previous years in advertising, bringing the matter before the people. If the minister will notice the first figure he gave, I think for 1925, the sale of annuities amounted to a little over $1,000,000 and it has jumped to $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 and now to $5,000,000. That was due to advertising bringing the matter of these annuities to the public notice. I am satisfied that the minister ought to spend more money in advertising than he is doing at present, in order to keep the value of these annuities before the public. Do I understand that part of this $85,000 will be paid for commissions?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, the commissions
come out of that appropriation.


Peter Heenan: Are there any retroactive
commissions to be paid, for which we were short of money last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In two years it was found that sufficient money was not provided for commissions. In the fiscal year 1928-29 the account was overdrawn $15,000. It will be noted that in that year the sale of annuities was very large, amounting to $4,250,000. In the fiscal year 1933-34 to the end of December the sale of annuities, the largest in the history of the branch, amounted to oyer $5,000,000, and there is a shortage of about $30,000 which will be the subject of a vote in the supplementary estimates.
Mr. MoINTOSH: In the history of Canadian annuities, what is the greatest amount spent on advertising and also the minimum amount and what were the years?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have before me the
figures for advertising only beginning with the

Supply-Labour-Annuities Act
fiscal year 1923-24, and in that year $21,915.65 was spent in advertising. Then the amount spent on advertising dropped until in the fiscal year 1925-26, only $60 was spent. The amount spent in advertising gradually increased in 1926-27 to $9,361.00; in 1927-28, $8,529.00; in 1928-29, $5,203.91; and in that year annuities were sold to the amount of $4,272,000, or more than were sold in any year prior to that time. In 1929-30 the amount spent in advertising jumped to $19,359.18, but the sale of annuities fell over a million dollars. In 1930-31, the amount spent in advertising again jumped to $27,388.12, which is the largest sum spent to that date, and the sale of annuities in that year amount to $3,612,000. For the succeeding years the figures are as follows:
Amount spent Year-	in advertising
1931-	32. ...	$ 129 261932-	33. ...	836 851933-	34. . . .	1,937 43
(nine months)
Sale of annuities $4,194,383 81 3,580,176 21 5,039,900 12
The last figure is for nine months. Therefore there is in fact, on a review of the figures, very little relationship between the amount spent on advertising and the amount of annuities sold. But I have no doubt it is desirable and, I believe, necessary to do such advertising as will acquaint people of small means with the security offered by investment in these annuities and I will bear in mind in that regard the observations made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the minister for the information he has given to the committee with regard to the question I asked. I think there is a direct relation between the amount of money, every dollar the department ever spent on advertising, and the amount of annuities sold to the Canadian people. I believe, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has just said, the department is now reaping the benefit of constructive advertising in past years. I am sure we all know the statement in the Good Book: "Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days." That is exactly the situation we have in this case. The hard publicity work was done in past years and the department is reaping the benefit from year to year. If the best work is to be done in the future and the postmasters of Canada are to sell the amount of annuities expected of them, this publicity must be carried on. Might I ask the minister what his policy with regard to this publicity is to be? Has he made up his mind as to what it will be next year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes; the government's
policy with respect to advertising is to carry on such well directed advertising as is required to bring before those who may be interested in the small annuities the plain facts and the benefits that will flow from the investment of their money during the time they are capable of earning to take care of them in the misfortunes and misadventures that may come to them in the twilight of their lives. That is the policy.


Frederick William Gershaw: In view of the fact that annuities seem to be sold by the government cheaper than by private companies, does the minister expect to increase the selling price of government annuities?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If my memory serves me correctly, the annuities bill was first introduced in the Senate in 1908 by the late Sir Richard Cartwright and subsequently sponsored in this house by the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding. While I have not had opportunity for many years to read their statements and remarks at that time, I believe that the principle upon which the then government embarked on the sale of annuities was primarily to provide small annuities for people of very modest means, to encourage them in thrift and the adoption of a course calculated to build up for themselves a reserve fund for their later life. Having that in view I believe it was the opinion of those men, with which I do not quarrel, that it was desirable that the government should absorb the cost of administration, which in connection with annuities issued by private companies of course is borne by the annuitant, together with some profit. I think perhaps there is no better activity in which the government can be engaged than that of devoting some money from the consolidated revenue fund to making measurably attractive this sort of investment for people who have not too much of this world's goods and who are earnestly striving in a thrifty way to make provision for their future years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister spoke of
an annuity being a first class investment for a citizen to have in the twilight of life. Can he give the committee the age limit at which an annuity investment is most profitable, considering all circumstances?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Those matters are worked out on a strictly actuarial basis. Any observation I might make would not be helpful; I am not an actuary, and it is entirely beyond

Supply-Labour-Conciliation Act
me to advise anyone at what age they should start to save for old age. But from my limited experience in finance I would say, start to save money at as early an age as possible.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And keep right on at it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: And keep right on at it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Conciliation and Labour Act, $32,000.
Peter Heenan: There is a reduction of
$3,000 in this item. Does the minister not expect that he will have to increase his activities in connection with conciliation this year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The estimate is based on
the actual expenditures of last year, and I do not anticipate that there will be any necessity-I hope there will not-for greater activity this year than there was last year under this act. The conciliation officers, I think, did very fine work, and in many cases prevented the loss that invariably follows too hasty action on the part of employers or employees.


Peter Heenan: How much of that vote
was spent last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: For the nine months to
December 31, 1933, the total amount spent was $17,940.60.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: How many conciliation
boards came into existence last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No conciliation boards as
described in the act have come into existence for many years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to raise a question under this item which perhaps has not been raised here for some time. I have no doubt that many hon. members have been amazed and shocked at the revelations brought out by the * committee dealing with mass buying and price spreads. The low wages which have been paid in too many industries show that the government ought to attempt, in connection with its contracts, to see that fair wage provisions are properly lived up to. In calling the attention of the minister to this matter I do' not want him to feel that I am attempting any personal reflection, but it has come to my knowledge that contracts which have been entered into by the government have been sublet and then sublet again, and the goods manufactured under the worst possible conditions right here in Canada. I realize that when the government let con-

tracts they include some kind of fair wage clause, and if there is not a fair wage clause I suppose they provide for the going rates of pay in the district in which the goods are to be produced. I have in mind one contract let by the government which was subsequently sublet and then sublet again to a third and possibly a fourth party, and the girls working on this contract were earning, I am told by reliable people, $2 or $3 a week-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I may tell him that purchases made now by this government have included in the contract a clause plainly stipulating that the laws with respect to wages in effect in the province in which the contract is to be carried out must be observed, and the eight hour day. I do not want the hon. member to feel that I am taking an attitude calculated to close off discussion of this most important matter, but I would draw the attention of the chair to the fact that the topic to which the hon. member is addressing himself is now being reviewed by a select committee of this house, of which I believe the hon. gentleman is himself a member. While I confess that my knowledge of the rules is perhaps not as comprehensive as it should be, I believe there is a rule that when a matter is under consideration by such a committee it should not be the subject of argument and review in the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As to the point of order raised by the minister, I am now dealing with a question relating to the enforcement of fair wages by the Department of Labour. I am not attempting to discuss a question that is before the committee, but am trying to find out what action the Department of Labour has taken to see that the fair wage clause in government contracts is properly observed. I do not think there is any relation between the matter referred to by the minister and that which I am now discussing. I do not know whether the minister wants to press his point of order, but I shall not pursue the matter much further because the minister has now given the assurance that the matter is being properly looked after by the Department of Labour. May I ask the minister this question? Supposing it is found that these regulations have been violated by contractors or subcontractors; what action is taken by the department?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If it were shown that a contractor was guilty of a breach of the contract and was not complying with its terms the government would have two courses open

Supply-Labour-Conciliation Act
to it. One would be to cancel the contract; the other would be to have the conciliation and fair wage officers investigate the situation. If it were found, as in the hypothetical case to which the hon. member has made reference, that fair wages were not being paid, then without hesitation the Department of Labour would notify the other department concerned and ask that the money due that contractor be withheld until the terms of the contract were carried out and fair wages paid.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The case to which I am referring is not hypothetical by any means; I am quite prepared to give the names and details in full. Supposing a contract is let by the government; the contractor sublets that contract and the subcontractor lets it to a third party. Who is to be held responsible for the enforcement of the contract as it was entered into between the government and the first contractor?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I assume the hon. member means who will be held responsible by the government. In the absence of anything of a special nature to the contrary the legal position would be that the government was dealing only with the first contractor. Obviously there is no obligation on the government to follow it through afterwards, but if it is made to appear that the main contractor, either himself or through the agency of subcontractors, has been guilty of procuring a breach of a contract, the position does not give rise to any very serious difficulty, because the money can be held back upon the facts being made known.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then may I just pursue the matter a little further. Where there are no fair wTage laws, as in the part of the country I have in mind, the prevailing rates apply, and of course these vary. There are some districts where they are probably all sweatshop rates, or the contract may be let in a small place that has only one factory, which may pay extremely low wages. Those wages may amount to only one half or one quarter of the minimum rate in similar lines of industry elsewhere. I think the government should be a model employer of labour and should insist in the contracts it lets for government supplies that proper rates of wages should be paid. I know that under some contracts it is easy for the contractor to get out of paying fair wages by paying the going rate in the district concerned; that may be only $3, $4 or $5 a week, while if the goods were produced under decent conditions the wages might be from $12 to $15 a week. I hope the government intend to clean up this class of sweatshop, in
view of the fact that lately they have come into such prominence, but I think the government should give a lead by seeing that goods produced under government contracts are produced under the best possible conditions.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wonder if my hon. friend would allow the minister to give his viewpoint on the question I have raised.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can only repeat the
point I raised a short time ago, with respect to this whole matter being before a special committee of this house. No one in this chamber knows better than my hon. friend the difficulties that confront the federal government in connection with wages paid in sweat shops and so on. I have told my hon. friend of the attitude taken by this government with respect to contracts that have been let; at least it gives some leadership to the various provinces letting similar government contracts, but [DOT] of course that does not indicate the full extent of the influence exerted by this government. In this way it indicates, at least, to industry, to manufacturers, wholesale buyers and others, the viewpoint of this government, and I hope the viewpoint of all provincial governments. But again I say that the hon. gentleman should not ask me to anticipate what action this government will or may take when I am sure every hon. member in this chamber, whether or not he is a supporter of the government, would prefer to have the benefit of the conclusions and recommendations arrived at by the committee now sitting, of which the hon. gentleman is a member. Certainly I should like to have them before I make any observations, and I think it would be entirely unfair to that committee and perhaps just as unfair to myself to ask me to make any such statement now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot agree with the minister. We are now discussing the policy of the government and this comes up on the estimates. The prevailing rate of wages in an industry may be only two or three dollars a week, as my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has said. In my judgv ment the government has a distinct responsibility in connection with the wages paid under contracts let by the government. The minister has said the government has cancelled contracts, but I should like the minister to tell us of any contracts that have been cancelled. Frankly I think the policy of the government is absolutely wrong; it is

Supply-Labour-Conciliation Act
similar to the policy that has been followed by the minimum wage board in Ontario. They sit back and wait until complaints are made, without taking into consideration the dangers which confront the employees if they make complaints. The function of this department is to go out and insist that the conditions of labour under contracts let by the government should be fair and equitable. It is altogether wrong that a member of this house should be able to give instances of sweatshop conditions existing in industry arising out of contracts let by this government.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the federal government has a direct responsibility, which does not cease when they say the prevailing rate of wages is 'being paid. They should insist that a living rate of wages be paid, and when I say a living rate I mean a rate in conformity with living conditions as we understand them in Canada. In the past the policy of the Department of Labour has been absolutely negative in connection with the low wages paid under contracts let by the government. They have sat back and waited until complaints were made. Since they have some knowledge of labour conditions in this country, they must know that unless an organization exists it is well nigh impossible for the employees to make any complaint. In connection with the subletting of these contracts the government should insist that when a contractor tenders it should not be possible for him to sublet the work to another contractor and then have that work sublet to still a third man. The responsibility rests with the government to insist that fair rates of wages be paid in the industry which is concerned with the contract. Arising out of the minister's observations I would ask him if he has knowledge of any contract being cancelled during the past year because the rate of wages did not conform with the regulations of his department.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have no information, Mr. Chairman, with respect to any contracts that have been absolutely cancelled, but there is, however, a long list of contracts wherein the officers of the department have investigated, both after complaints and on their own initiative, situations that have come to their notice which in their judgment and in my judgment required investigation. In some instances it was found that there was nothing to support the complaints that were made. In other instances, and there was quite a number of them, adjustments were made where it was found that the contractor was not paying, for instance, the current rate of wages. Those are

matters that are constantly before the officers of the federal department. I can only say to both the hon. members who have just spoken that so far as federal contracts are concerned the federal government will take every possible means to see that in the work carried out for each department of government, living and fair wages are paid. So far as the wage earner is concerned, if he or she is not paid a fair and living wage by manufacturers or by others, wholesalers or anybody else, unless both the employer and the employee happen to be in the same state of financial difficulty at the same time, then I will say that the employer has very little justification for trying to carry on at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We are very glad to have
that statement from the minister,


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: A few minutes ago the
Minister of Labour, speaking of the decrease in the item, said that he hoped less would be spent this year. I hope that his wish will be fulfilled, because it would mean that we would have less labour trouble in Canada. The minister is well aware that there were two or three bushmen's strikes last fall in northern Ontario, and that there is one on even now.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not now?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is one at Chapleau at the present moment. As I stated in my remarks in the debate on the address, there might have been objections to some of the leaders but I certainly am not in a position to state that the leaders were radical or bolshevik or anything of that kind. There is this one fact that Canada should be seized of, and that is that there were many anomalies in the conditions under which the bushmen and settlers cutting pulpwood were working in Ontario and Quebec, and both provincial governments have seen fit to devise new labour regulations. Where there is smoke there is often fire. The strikes that took place last fall were to a very large extent warranted. I was among the strikers for a number of weeks and I know the conditions. Not later than last week the province of Quebec passed statutes dealing wholly with bushmen and with men engaged in lumbering operations. I have not yet had time to study that legislation, but I have no doubt that it was designed to remedy some of the anomalies that have existed in the past. What is true of northern Quebec is true of northern Ontario.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that great credit must be given to the strike leaders, because so far as I know the strikers in places like Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls and

Supply-Labour-Conciliation Act
Smooth Rock Falls were absolutely well behaved and had the wholehearted support of the citizens in those towns and localities. So after all these leaders must have been good, practical labour men. I know for a positive fact that some of these men belonged to the national and international unions, and in corroboration of what I say let me add that the sulphite and newsprint workers in the big mills at Iroquois Falls and Smooth Rock Falls and Kapuskasing each gave one hour's pay for the upkeep of the strike. If there had been too much radicalism in the leading of the strike it would not have been supported by the national and international laboijr unions. A great amount of good has come from having the situation thus brought so forcibly before the public. But I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Labour department should take the initiative in a strike of that kind.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can tell the hon. member that the Labour department, acting in conjunction with the department in Ontario, sent out officers to places like Kapuskasing where it was possible to effect conciliation. The hon. member for Ivenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) well knows from his experience how desirable it is that when conciliation officers go into places like that, they should be given the opportunity by those in dispute to bring both parties together. That is the essence of conciliation. Our officers were in places where it was possible to do that. My references the other day were to places in northern Ontario where certain elements were at work which argued and advised and cajoled and did everything possible to keep employer and employee apart, giving no chance to the conciliation officers to operate. The whole basis of efficient conciliation work in industry or anywhere else where there is more than one person concerned, where there are conflcting interests, is to give the opportunity for conciliation to smooth out the difficulties and get everyone as nearly satisfied as humans can be. Our officers were in those places where conciliation was possible, and my reference the other day was to places where, by reason of the activities of certain elements, the efforts of the conciliation officers were rendered impossible.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I greatly appreciate the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Labour. I am aware of the fact that officers of the federal Department of Labour were endeavouring to bring about a settlement of the dispute, and I have never criticized the work which they did. But I still maintain that it is the prerogative of the Labour department, whether of the federal
or the provincial government, to take the initiative, and if the provincial department fails to take it, the federal department should step in. The initiative was taken in the Kapuskasing strike, and the result was that that strike was settled early. I hope the day will soon come, Mr. Chairman, and I am speaking as a citizen who knows something of labour unions and the situation of labour, when we shall find it possible to have one Labour department for all Canada. I am convinced that the Minister of Labour personally wants to bring about conciliation in these strikes, and last fall I found myself in the same position, though on a smaller scale, that he has just described, because the company and the strikers did not appear willing to accept my services in conciliation, taking the view that the settlement of the strike was primarily a provincial matter.
With reference to the minister's allusions on February 26 to the effect that some of the leaders in the Chapleau strike were radicals, I want to say that even if some of the strikers might be inclined to be radical, a lot of credit is due to their leaders for bringing to the attention of the public the anomalies that existed, and some of which still exist in some of these lumbering camps in northern Ontario. Talk of sweatshops and of people being underpaid! I say, Mr. Chairman, that one of the things that should be investigated by the committee on price spreads is the lumbering industry and operating conditions in that industry throughout Canada. They will find real sweatshop conditions; they will find men working to the utmost of their physical ability and receiving only a few cents remuneration. These conditions do not exist in all sections but they are to be found in most. There were reasons for the strike last fall; the men were smarting under injustices. In many cases the settlers were not receiving justice but through their leaders these men were able to bring their case before the Canadian public and legislation is now being enacted which will secure them better treatment.
I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the statement made by the Minister of Labour on January 26. I have in my hand a letter containing nineteen pages. It is very well written and I do not know but I should read it to the committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it as read.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Some hon. members
may object, but these men have been suffering. They do not know just where to find a solution for their problem. It is stated in



Supply-Labour-Conciliation Act
this letter that certain camps are absolutely filthy and not fit for human habitation. I know that no hon. member would live in them for even half a day.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Were there not conferences with regard to these camps?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Conferences were held
and it is hoped that the situation will be improved. I believe that this committee should realize the situation. The provincial and federal governments should attempt to remedy these conditions. After all, a lumberman, an axeman or a settler is a human being who is just as much entitled to a good living as any hon. member or other citizen of this country. I hope the minister will make it a point to consider this letter and give it the attention it deserves. The gentleman who writes it was one of the leaders in the Chap-Ieau strike. He is not a red; he was bom in Canada. I should like to read one paragraph in which he makes allusion to himself, as follows:
Personally I am a Canadian citizen of British pioneer stock, born, reared and schooled in Bromley township, Renfrew county till January 1. 1927, when I came to the unorganized districts in the vicinity of Chapleau, where I have made my living since as bushman, track worker, sawmill hand, river driver, trapper and prospector. At present I am a property holder in Sudbury district as holding a number of mining claims in the Swayze gold area near here.
This man claims he has nothing to do with radicalism or communism. It is always easy to attempt to throw a smoke-screen around strike activities and give them a bad name, but the fact remains that some of these men are suffering. They realize that the government can remedy the situation. The legislation passed only a few days ago in the province of Quebec will help to remedy the injustices which have existed in that province. I can speak as a labouring man and as an axeman, and I really believe the situation to-day is not much better than it was twenty years ago. What applies to the province of Quebec applies just as forcibly to the province of Ontario.
Last fall I visited some of these lumbering camps. I found some of them to be all right but others were not. In certain camps a human being should not be allowed to live much less to sleep. There seemed to be no attempt at cleanliness, in fact, filthiness seemed to reign supreme. These camps I refer to are not even in my riding but I make a sincere appeal on behalf of the men. The strikes which occurred in my own riding

were settled and I would not like to see a repetition of what happened there. Hon. members in this parliament or members of the provincial legislature should not be willing to see such conditions exist in Canada; they are not worthy of our great country and our great natural resources, and they certainly are not worthy of our provincial and federal governments. I know the minister understands the language I am speaking and I think he wants to improve the situation. As he said a few moments ago, he took the initiative in settling the strikes which occurred in our own section, but conditions are still unsettled around Chapleau. Regardless of what some may say, that strike is not settled. A number of strikers have been kept on direct relief for the last five, six or seven weeks by the provincial and federal governments. These men are Canadians, both natural born and naturalized, and they deserve as much consideration as any other citizens.
I make this appeal to the minister because I know it is within the powers of the government to remedy the present situation. The citizens of Canada should realize the situation which exists in these lumbering camps. I listened to the two previous speakers and I think they realize just as I do that this government should have power to relieve the situation. These lumbermen are worthy citizens; they have helped and will keep on helping to build up the prosperity of Canada.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Under item 165 I asked the minister whether any boards had been established, and I think he said that that matter would come under item 168. I understand that this vote is used largely to get the employer and employee together to investigate, discuss, confer and bring about satisfactory labour conditions. In view of the conditions which existed throughout Canada last year, how does the minister explain the decrease in this vote? How could there be a decrease if the amount of conciliation work which ought to have been done was not done?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In my estimation these conciliation officers did very fine work last year. While there were some unfortunate strikes, comparatively speaking they were very few. The conciliation officer now does the work which the conciliation boards were set up to do years ago. There have been no new boards set up, nor have any of the old ones functioned for many years. The conciliation officer tries to settle disputes by conciliation thereby doing away with the necessity of

Supply-Labour-Conciliation Act
setting up boards under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. If a strike can be settled or a dispute smoothed out, there is no necessity of going further.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The adjustment is done by an individual rather than a board?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Peter Heenan: I realize the difficulty a federal minister of labour would have in connection with a complaint such as that made by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). Our federal laws hardly cover such a matter, inasmuch as the natural resources come within the jurisdiction of the Drovinees. Our Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is not framed to deal with matters of the kind. The great difficulty which I believe the minister finds in northern Ontario, as I found when I had the honour of being minister of labour, is the lack of cooperation by the provincial governments, and especially by the Minister of Lands and Forests and the Minister of Labour of the province of Ontario. The Minister of Labour for Ontario had full authority. He had at his command the provincial laws with which to deal with troubles in the lumber camps in northern Ontario; and when the outbreak started, instead of sending in someone to investigate, what did he do? He sent the provincial police in to find out whether any of the lumber workers were violating the laws of the province or of the dominion. I remember well that when one of his own fellow party men, the mayor of Fort William, wired the Minister of Lands and Forests that he ought to make an investigation because the lumber operators claimed that it was the lumbermen and the radicals who were causing the strike-lie claimed that the radicals were blaming the lumber operators-his reply to the mayor of Fort William was, "We have already had the matter investigated by the provincial police and we have not found up to the present time anyone violating the law." In other words, a minister of the provincial government, with the authority of the law at his command, started to treat Canadians the way I am sure people would not be treated in chat much discussed country, Russia. We find a labour dispute in Ontario, the banner province of this dominion, and a minister of the government of that province sends a wire to the mayor of Fort William, "We have already had the matter investigated by the provincial police and we have not yet found anyone violating the law." That is the method by which the Minister of Lands and
Forests undertakes to investigate labour disputes in Ontario, and I can well understand the federal Minister of Labour being handicapped by reason of the fact that he had no authority. And that is evidence that he had no cooperation from the province. I had to make a speech in order to bring to the attention of the Minister of Lands and Forests the fact that he had authority but had not exercised it-authority embodied in legislation passed unanimously by the legislature in 1924, after being amended by the Hon. Mr. Ferguson, then premier. He had that authority to deal with labour disputes in any industries that were using the natural resources. He had the right to investigate whether the men were receiving living wages or not. He had the right to find out whether the operators were paying these living wages, and he had the right to adjust the price of timber, the raw material in the bush, so as to permit these men to obtain a living wage. I wrote him once myself, calling his attention to the fact that he had this authority, and I pointed out to him that there was this resolution. What do you think his answer was? I want to direct the attention of the next premier of Ontario to his answer. He said, "I understood that this was a pious resolution passed by the Ontario legislature." In other words, he was going to take no notice of a resolution passed by the Ontario legislature; he thought it was a pious resolution that meant nothing. Anyhow, he acted upon it, because when the newspaper men went to him and asked him about it he said, "We are still considering it"-that is to say, they were still considering, in 1933,. taking action on a resolution passed unanimously by the legislature in 1924. Finally he called in the lumber operators and reduced their dues from $1.80 to $1 a cord. Now,-the complaint made by my hon. friend from Timiskaming is this-I have just read his letter-that when Chapleau's timber was reduced from $1.80 to $1 a cord the operator got the full value of the $1.80 and not the men referred to by the hon. gentleman.
That is the sort of treatment we get in northern Ontario, and when anyone complains of injustice the cry goes up, "Radicalism, communism, reds", and a few men are sent to penitentiary and made martyrs. That is what is taking place in northern Ontario. I am not going to refer to the strike in Stratford.
I know the Minister of Labour had nothing to do with it:	I hope at least he had not. I
hope he was not responsible for sending a regiment of soldiers with tanks and machine guns to subdue a few girls on strike in Strat-
1418	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Conciliation Act
ford. But the Ontario government ordered out troops, who went there with machine guns and tanks and paraded up and down the streets. That is the way they practise conciliation in Ontario. I do not think they shot any of these girls. The girls were on strike there because they were being paid two cents a chicken for plucking chickens, and one can imagine young Canadian women being compelled to strike in order to get one cent more per chicken. But when they sought to get a reasonable wage the Ontario government ordered out the troops, respectable troops, men who should command the respect of the people; they were ordered out with their tanks and rifles and machine guns.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: But they did it at the
request of the mayor of the town, did they not?


Peter Heenan: It matters not who requested it. If they had made the request of the Minister of Labour would he have ordered out machine guns to meet these girls just because the mayor or an alderman or one of the ministers of the Ontario government had requested it? The Ontario government were responsible for it, and they will be held responsible. I hope the federal Minister of Labour had nothing to do with it, because he is responsible for enough now. But that is the method adopted in Ontario. I can recall when there was a strike in Kapuskasing in the Spruce Falls Pulp and Paper Company. It happened during my term of office. The men were dismissed because they belonged to a union. On a Sunday afternoon the heads of the union were elected, president, secretary, Secretary-treasurer and so on, and at night, about midnight, the foreman went round and touched them in bed and gave them their time check and told them to get out because they belonged to a union. It was Sir Robert Borden who signed the treaty of Versailles which contained section 13 giving the right of freedom of association in this country; yet the present Minister of Mines and Forests, Mr. Finlayson, in the then Ferguson government of Ontario, allowed men to be dismissed who were doing work in connection with the natural resources of that province. I telegraphed the then premier of Ontario, the same as the present Minister of Labour might do, to ask for cooperation from the provincial government. I told him of the situation after I had investigated and ascertained that the men were in the right, found out the truth. What does the committee think was the reply I received? It was that as long as the company was carrying out its agreement with the

crown, they had no desire to interfere with its internal affairs. In other words, as long as the company paid the province of Ontario so much for stumpage and so much per horse power for the water it was using, they did not care whether it sacrificed the men, or whether it violated the treaty of Versailles and its provisions or anything else; they had no concern whatever in the matter. The situation was the same this year in northern Ontario- a government sitting in Toronto without any conception of decency for the working men and the working women and girls of the province either in Stratford or in the northern section. I have an affidavit from two men, a young Frenchman and a Scotchman who were sent from Winnipeg to the 'head of the lakes.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Were they communists?


Peter Heenan: No, they were just as good citizens as any who are sitting in the house at the present time. There is always somebody over there who wants to get on Hansard and who is afraid to stand up and let us know who he is.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I asked that question
and I am not afraid to stand up and ask it.


Peter Heenan: All right; the hon. gentleman is a manly fellow. These two young men were sent down to work with a lumber company at the head of the lakes. They were teamsters and they worked by the day for twenty-eight days. They were awakened between three and four o'clock in the morning to get their teams ready to go out for a load before breakfast. Then they had to go into the bush for a load after supper. They had to put their teams up at night and it was ten o'clock at night before they got through with their work. At the end of twenty-eight days one had $1 coming to him and the other had $1.15. Their railroad fare and the few things they had purchased in the camp had been deducted out of their pay. The result was that they were left stranded at the head of the lakes about $7.50 short of paying their fare home to Winnipeg. I suppose if they had started to sing the Internationale they would have been arrested as communists. What would you expect of men who had been treated like that in this banner province of Ontario, as our friends opposite so glibly call it? I sympathize with the federal Minister of Labour when he has to be questioned on the floor of the house about the settlement of strikes in northern Ontario or any other section under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government, because I am satisfied,

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
nowithstanding what he may say in regard to the matter, neither was he solicitous of getting nor would he get any cooperation from the present provincial government even if he had solicited it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration, Employment Offices Coordination Act, $8,000.
Humphrey Mitchell: What is the reason for the reduction in this vote, and by how much has it been reduced since the present government came into power?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This vote has been pretty well discussed on the two previous items. It covers merely the administration of the offices under the Employment Offices Coordination Act and deals with travelling expenses, telephone, telegraph, printing and stationery, repairs to equipment and sundries. The total amount spent last year to December 31, 1933, was just S3,228.49, so there is really no necessity for voting more money than one has to spend. Of course, if I wanted to spend money I think I could go ahead and do it, but when it is not necessary I do not feel like doing it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I asked that question
because if it is the intention of the present government to introduce a scheme of unemployment insurance, it will be necessary that they avail themselves of these employment offices; that is, if they are going to follow the policy adopted by the British government in that regard. Perhaps this might be the time to ask the minister how far the government has gone in the formulation of a policy in connection with unemployment insurance. I would ask the minister that question now.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It will be noted that this
vote does not interfere with the one which follows later on, the one which is authorized by the revised statutes of 1927, chapter 57,
S150,000,	and refers only to the items which I have mentioned.
With respect to unemployment insurance, I am not prepared to-night to outline any course which the government may take. The subject is a very large and baffling one and anyone who hurries into it without being fully equipped with the information and the consequences that might follow from failure, would not be adopting the course of wisdom.


Humphrey Mitchell: From the remarks of the minister am I to understand that it is not the intention of the government at any time during this session to bring before the house a policy in connection with unemployment insurance. I am not unmindful of the acute
problems arising out of the adoption of such legislation in this country, or of the declarations made by responsible ministers of the present government in connection with such a scheme. But I think the house and the country, in view of those declarations, have a right to know whether it is the intention of the government this session to make a concrete announcement of policy in regard to the introduction of a scheme of unemployment insurance.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No one knows better than does the hon. member that in matters of government policy such as the one to which he has referred I should not be called upon to indicate nor shall I indicate what course the government may take when it sees fit to adopt one. At the present time I am not in a position to indicate to the members of the committee what course the government may take.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say very frankly that
I think that in the course of a depression such as that through which we have been passing, the Department of Labour should be the outstanding department of the government.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon.
member's question is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Humphrey Mitchell: It may be awkward,
but I think it is not out of order.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It is
irrelevant to the subject matter now under debate, which is the question of "Administration, Employment Offices Coordination Act."


Humphrey Mitchell: I would point out,
from some knowledge of the procedure in the adoption of unemployment insurance in other countries, that if you look to the British precedent, which this country has largely followed, you will find that unemployment insurance has been largely built up around the establishment of what are known there as employment exchanges, which correspond to the employment offices we have in this country. Under this vote I took the opportunity, which I think is my prerogative, of asking the question I did, in view of the reduction in expenditure in connection with these exchanges, and having in mind that possibly the government were economizing in a direction contrary to the declaration of federal ministers in connection with the adoption of an unemployment insurance scheme. Arising out of that I think it is a perfectly fair
1420	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
observation for me to make at this time that insufficient attention has been paid to the Department of Labour by this government in view of the present depression. I think that department is one of the most important under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I say this in a kindly way; I think the present minister is overburdened. The functions of the Department of Immigration are enough in themselves to occupy fully the time of one minister, in view of the many decisions he has to make in connection with the work of that department. We are confronted, I understand, with an enormous building program in this country, and we have the oft repeated promises that the government are going to bring down an unemployment insurance measure. I think under this vote we have a right to question the intentions of the government in that regard. It would be different if the government in its judgment had led the people to believe that they were opposed to the principle of unemployment insurance.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon.
member is out of order on that point. The question of the advisability of the government's bringing in an unemployment insurance measure is set down for discussion under public bills and orders, and has been already the subject of a debate which is not yet concluded. Further, in my opinion the hon. member has no right to ask the Minister of Labour what the government's policy is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I take
issue with you, Mr. Chairman. Under the estimates we are entitled to ask the administration any question about any matter of government policy whatever. I submit that the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) is quite within his rights.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Not in
asking as to the future policy of the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I beg
pardon; this is the only opportunity we have, under the estimates. When we are spending public money it is the well known right of parliament to ask any responsible minister about any feature of government policy. The hon. member for East Hamilton has demonstrated that these employment offices may well come into a scheme of unemployment insurance. I certainly resent any restriction of the discussion.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: First may I remind the hon. member that he has no right to lecture the chair.
IMr. Mitchell.]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say with all due deference that the chair has no right to lecture me.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: In the
second place, while hon. members have the right to discuss the actions or the past policy of the government, in my opinion they have no right in committee to ask a minister to forecast the future proposals of the government in regard to any particular matter of policy.


Edward James Young: Where is the rule?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It is not raised in the matter before the committee, and it is out of order under the rule which says that where a matter is under debate in the house it cannot be discussed here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask you to quote the rule?


William Richard Motherwell: The rule is that the Prime Minister answers for them all.


An hon. MEMBER:: His master's voice.


John Vallance: Surely if the matter is before the house and not disposed of we may discuss it here?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The subject of unemployment insurance is not before the committee.


John Vallance: It has not been disposed of, and as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) points out, it is the prerogative of this committee to discuss any matter of public policy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask you to quote the rule?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am geb-ting it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
about time you got it, I think.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Send for the Prime Minister.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Standing order 41, paragraph 293, section (d) reads:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(a) anticipate discussion on a motion set down for future consideration;
Which is the motion that is on the order paper-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We agree with you, but that is not the point.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: -and the debate on which has not yet been concluded.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: May I suggest, then, that the item be allowed to stand, if we cannot discuss the subject because there is something already on the order paper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which will never come up again this session.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely before voting money we have the right to discuss the question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out that the discussion in regard to unemployment insurance is not likely to come up again this session, because next Wednesday is likely to be the last private members' day.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Hon. members cannot get away from the rule by an anticipation of what in their judgment may or may not happen on account of the state of the order paper. Once a matter is down on the order paper for discussion and the discussion has not been concluded, it is not proper for an hon. member to say that because it is in a certain position on the order paper it is not likely to come up.
There is another reason why I think the matter is out of order, namely that unemployment insurance, while it may be a side issue of the particular vote now before the committee, is not really relevant to the vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is for us to find out, I think. The vote in question is " Administration, Employment Offices Coordination Act." A question was raised by the hon. member for East Hamilton, who asked the Minister of Labour if it was the intention of himself and the administration to bring in a plan of unemployment insurance this year which might involve expenditure under this item. I suggest that this committee is entitled in all fairness to ask any question of a responsible minister in regard to any matter that arises as a result of the vote under discussion. I suggest that the question of the hon. member is quite in order.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I have already ruled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then I am appealing from your ruling.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is a different matter.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the chairman's ruling is absolutely right, on the ground first
that the question of unemployment insurance is already on the order paper. I recall that a preceding government, when Mr. Speaker Lemieux was in the chair, kept a question on the order paper for months for the purpose of preventing discussion. It was held that we could not discuss it, on account of the rule under which hon. members may not anticipate in any discussion a matter that appears on the order paper. That rule should be maintained. I see no objection to the question asked by the hon. member for East Hamilton; that is one thing. But I see a great deal of objection to the discussion upon which he is entering on the subject of unemployment insurance. Let him ask his question and the minister will answer it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did ask it, and the minister did not answer it.


Hugh Guthrie: But he is not content with that; he has entered on an elaborate discussion of the whole problem of unemployment insurance. I submit he is not entitled to do that.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to point out, as I was the author of the resolution that is being talked about, that it has a different bearing from that now given to it by the hon. Minister of Justice and by you, sir. The motion I proposed reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the most effective way to ensure protection during periods of unemployment, which unemployment insurance should provide, is to make such legislation national in its scope.
That does not necessarily involve the policy of the government with regard to unemployment insurance; I may have spoken of that, but perhaps I was out of order. The actual fact recorded in the resolution is that such protection should be national in its scope, and we might have agreed on that without getting very much closer to the policy of the government with regard to unemployment insurance. There is a distinction here. As long as the hon. member keeps away from the question whether or not unemployment insurance should be national in its scope, it does not appear to me that he would come within the terms of this resolution.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
Peter Heenan: I can easily see where the question is quite relevant to the vote now before the house. This item is for the administration of the Employment Offices Coordination Act, and it shows a reduction of $4,000. The hon. member for East Hamilton asks, and I think rightly, if it is not a fact that if there is going to be such a thing as an unemployment insurance scheme this vote would require to be enlarged. That is where the relevancy comes in, and I think the question is quite proper.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I must take issue with
the hon. member. The vote that possibly might be affected would be that under the revised statutes of 1927, chapter 57, organization and coordination of employment offices. That might have to be enlarged, but I cannot link this item up with the question of unemployment insurance.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether I am out of order, of course, but if the minister has made any study of unemployment insurance he must know that the scheme in Great Britain was built around the employment exchanges in that country. The first thing you must have in a scheme of unemployment insurance is the development of labour exchanges from one end of this dominion to the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the item
inder consideration.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Prime Minister
says that is not the item, but this item provides for the administration of these employment offices. I wondered whether the government had given up the idea, for this session at least, of introducing a scheme of unemployment insurance, and I merely asked the question because I think the country has a right to know, in view of the recent conference in connection with this matter, whether it is the intention of the government to go forward with a policy of this kind during the present session of parliament.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I thought I answered that question a while ago, when I told the hon.

member that the policy of the government with respect to unemployment insurance would be made known when that policy was decided upon, but that policy has not been decided upon by the government as yet.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When is it going to be
decided upon?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I think the hon. member would have been quite in order had he asked the minister whether this item contained any provision for unemployment insurance, and he would have been answered in the negative, as he has been answered. I think he was out of order, when he got beyond that and asked the minister to forecast the future legislative program of the government with regard to unemployment insurance.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are merely assuming what is in the back of your mind.


John Vallance: When the minister says no, is there no opportunity for us to discuss the possibility of unemployment insurance?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Not under this vote.


John Vallance: Then may I direct your attention to the statement made by the minister that the vote which might be affected was authorized under chapter 57 of the revised statutes, 1927. This is authorized by statute, so are we to take it that we must amend the statute in order to consider this question? How are we going to do it?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The question could be considered by the house in a number of ways, but it cannot be considered under this vote when the minister has stated that the government has not decided on its program with regard to unemployment insurance, and that this vote does not contain any provision for it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then may I ask to what extent the government has set the machinery in motion with the idea of bringing in a system of unemployment insurance?


John Vallance: Have we to take your
word that the government has no policy regarding unemployment insurance? You just made the statement.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The minister has already given his answer.


John Vallance: I do not think that is
true; you just made the statement as chairman of this committee.

Wheat Agreement-Mr. Bennett


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would
ask the hon. member to take his seat. The minister has made his statement on that point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are
not satisfied with the statement.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 13, 1934