1934-03-05

PRICE SPREADS AND MASS BUYING

[Stage Direction]
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): My attention has been drawn to an oversight in the report, and in 
the motion adopting the report, regarding the printing from day to day of the evidence of the special committee appointed to inquire into price spreads and mass buying. I give notice to-day that to-morrow I shall move for the amendment of this motion, authorizing the printing from day to day. The present motion refers only to the power to have the proceedings printed, and this will meet the complaint, which had not been brought to my attention before, that copies in French and in English are not promptly distributed. The motion I shall move to-morrow will take care of this situation and I give notice of the motion now.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSCAR iL. BOULANGER (Bellechas-se) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, I wish to lay on the table of the House: petitions forwarded by the municipal councils of St. Etienne de Beaumont, St. Michael de Belle-chasse and St. Damien de Buckland, in the county of Bellechasse, requesting the Government to abstain from levying a tax on leaf tobacco.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce 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, NJ3.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MANION:: The object of this bill is to ratify and confirm an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the joint use of certain tracks and premises belonging to His Majesty at Saint John, New Brunswick, and thus validating the agreement for a full period of 99 years from the first day of January, 1927, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. Neither this bill nor either of the other two that follow has anything to do with last year's legislation; they are bills which date from an earlier period, this one from 1927 and the other two from 1912 and 1915. I mention this in order to clear the air, because I have been asked a number of times w'hether this had to do with last year's legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADIAN NORTHERN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce 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.
He said:	With respect to this bill, perhaps I might say a word that I omitted in regard to the preceding one, namely, that these ratifications are made imperative by the Railway Act, which calls for any joint agreement for a stated period beyond 21 years being ratified by this parliament. It dates back to 1912.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce 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.
Mr. POWER:: Is this a continuation of the agreement of 1912, or are there any changes?


Robert James Manion: This is an agreement of
1915, and so far as I know there are no changes in its terms. This merely extends the time.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it for 99 years?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The last bill was
for 999 years and that should be long enough.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
C.C.F. will be in power.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, respecting fruit.
He said: This bill is a redraft of the 1901 Fruit Act, together with amendments. In addition there are some changes, of which perhaps three of the most important are: that brokers should be bonded; a change in the grading of fruit, making it impossible to offer fruit for sale not fit for consumption; and, third, the addition of honey in grading in this bill. The 1901 Fruit Act was
C.N.R.-Agreements
asked for by producers in the trade, and each regulation and amendment has been submitted to the producers from that time until this. This bill has been before practically all the fruit conventions in Canada during the past year and has been endorsed by them, and any regulations based on it will also be submitted to the trade.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Are there any persons at present at Jordan memorial sanatorium, The Glades, New Brunswick, who are receiving pensions from the Dominion government as a result of military service?
2.	If so, what are the names and amount of pension received by each?
' Mr. MacLAREN:
1.	Yes.
2.	II. Iv. Rartsch, $100 per month; M. T. Blacklock, S110.50 per month; L. Wheaton, $16 per month; Mrs. M. C. Savoie, $60 per month; all members of the staff of the institution.
In addition to the above mentioned there is a non-pensioner, a recipient of war veterans' allowance, who is a patient at the institution, on whose behalf $20 per month is being paid by the War Veterans' allowance committee, $15 of which is applied to his maintenance and $5 is paid him for comforts.


*ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Has the government cabled to London in connection with the matter of precedences at the opening of the present session of parliament ?
2.	If so, what is the text of this cablegram and the text of the answer received?


Mr. CAHAN:: I wish to answer this question orally.
As I have already stated in this house, His Majesty the King, in the exercise of his prerogative right to confer rank or place upon subjects of His Majesty resident in Canada, is advised by His Majesty's government in Canada. This government has not given any advice to nor sought any advice from London in respect to any change in the table of precedence bearing date December 3, 1923, which was established on the advice of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister.	.
Questions

The place of precedence at state functions which was given by courtesy to the Apostolic Delegate of the Holy See by the government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1899, as modified by a decision of the government of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King in 1927, has not been changed by this government.
A question arose before the opening of this session of parliament as to whether a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church was entitled as of right to precedence over the Apostolic Delegate at state functions in Canada. At the request of His Eminence the Cardinal-Areh-hishop of Quebec the decision of this question was held in abeyance.
When the views of the Roman Catholic Church are definitely ascertained, this matter will, in due time, receive further consideration.


*BANK OP CANADA BANK NOTES
Mr. FOURNIER:: Will the bank notes of the future Bank of Canada be bilingual?


Mr. RHODES:: This information is not
and will not be available unless and until the Bank of Canada is established.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the bank notes of the future Bank of Canada have the king's head printed thereon?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer to this question is the same as the one I just gave with respect to the previous question concerning bank notes of the proposed Bank of Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF ACT STATISTICAL REPORTS
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Are monthly statistical reports on the operations under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1933, being prepared?
2.	If so, over what period have such reports been prepared?
3.	If such monthly reports have been prepared have they been published for the information of the members and the general public?
4.	If not, will the government publish such reports monthly in future?


Mr. GORDON:: The report of the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief setting out the federal assistance rendered to provinces and municipalities in their relief efforts, is now in the course of preparation and will be laid as hitherto on the table of the house in conformity with the provisions of the statute as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year.


HORSE CLUB POLICY
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	Has the Dominion government changed, improved, or extended, during the last twelve months, what has been generally known as its "Horse Club Policy," and, if so, what are the changes?
2.	Have any stallions been purchased or
aptions taken under the said scheme, and, if so, give the following information in each (individual) case:	(a) age; (b) price; (c)
breed; (d) from whom bought?
3.	What charge does the government intend to make for the services of these stallions?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes. Date for receiving applications changed from June first to April first. Minimum service fee lowered from $12 to $10 and maximum from $25 to $20. Protest fee from $100 to $50. Number of inspectors for reinspeetion reduced from three to two.
2.	No.
3.	The charge for services of stallions under the club policy must not exceed $20 and must not be less than $10.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF WORK
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	At what date was the Gordon-Francoeur agreement signed, relative to unemployment relief in the province of Quebec?
2.	What were the works recommended for the county of Megantic, according to the list prepared by the Department of Public Works, or Department of Highways of Quebec?
3.	At what date were the said works recommended, and at what dates were they accepted by the federal authorities?
4.	Did the department send an inspector to the district before the acceptance of the program submitted by Quebec for the county of Megantic?
5.	If so, for what reason?
6.	At whose request?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	The agreement entered into by the dominion and the province of Quebec under the provisions of The Relief Act, 1933, was signed on behalf of the dominion by the Hon. W. A. Gordon, and on behalf of the province of Quebec by the Hon. J. N. Fran-coeur, on the 26th of July, 1933.
2 and 3. See statement attached.
4,	5 and 6. In accordance with the policy of the department, inspectors, where practicable, visited the districts wherein it was proposed to carry out works for the relief of unemployment with a view to determining the unemployment situation and the necessity and practicability of the said works as relief measures.

Questions
The following schedules of works proposed to be carried out for the relief of unemployment in the county of Megantic were submitted by the province of Quebec in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into on July 26, 1933, between the dominion and the province respecting unemployment relief:
Schedule No. 3.-Highway No. 49-Black Lake and township of South Ireland, county of Megantic. Relocation, widening, grading and other works preliminary to the construction of a pavement. By day labour. To remedy unemployment in Thetford Mines and Black Lake: Total estimated cost, $10,000; man-days work provided by project, 5,000; basis of contribution 50 cents per man-day, dominion proportion, $2,500; number of unemployed, 140.
The above schedule was received on August
9,	and approved by the dominion on August 16, 1933.
Schedule No. 2.-Township of Thetford south and Sacre-Coeur-de-Marie, county of Megantic. Grading, construction of culverts and gravelling on the road to St. Alphonse, hive miles. By day labour. To remedy unemployment in Thetford Mines: Total estimated cost, $20,000; man-days work provided by project, 10,000; basis of contribution 50 cents per man-day, dominion proportion, $5,000; number of unemployed, 394.
The above schedule was received on August
10,	and approved by the dominion on October 14, 1933.
Schedule No. 4-Highway No. 1-Township of South Ireland and town of Black Lake, county of Megantic. Widening, grading and various improvements. By day labour. To remedy unemployment at Thetford Mines and Black Lake:	Total estimated cost,
$10,000; man-days work provided by project, 10,000; basis of contribution 50 cents per man-day, dominion proportion, $2,500; number of unemployed, 536.
The above schedule was received on August 10, and approved by the dominion on October 14. 1933.
Schedule No. 4A.-Megantic county-Highway No. 1-town of Black Lake, township of South Ireland and Coleraine. Widening, grading and various improvements. By day labour. To remedy unemployment at Black Lake and vicinity. (Above in addition to schedule No. 4 approved by P.C. 2113, dated October 14, 1933, for a dominion contribution not to exceed S2,500): Total estimated cost, $6,000; man-days work provided by project,
3,000; total estimated labour cost, $4,800; basis of contribution 50 cents per man-day, dominion proportion, $1,500; number of unemployed, 536.
The above schedule was received on January 8, 1934, and approved by the dominion on January 24, 1934.
Schedule No. 1.-Township of Inverness and township of Ireland-North, county of Megantic. Grading, levelling, construction of culverts and gravelling on the road to the village of Inverness. By day labour. To remedy unemployment in Thetford Mines: Total estimated cost, $15,000; man-days work provided by project, 7,500; basis of contribution 50 cents per man-day, dominion proportion, $3,750; number of unemployed, 394.
The above schedule was received on August 21, 1933, and approved by the dominion on October 14, 1933.
Schedule No. 238.-Ste. Anastasie de Nelson. Road works through Nelson township, Megantic county. For the needy unemployed in Ste. Anastasie de Nelson township and surrounding district. Undertaking to be carried out by the Department of Colonization: Total estimated cost, $2,700; man-days work provided by project, 1,250; basis of contribution 50 cents per man-day, dominion proportion, $625; number of unemployed, 42.
The above schedule was received on September 11, 1933, and approved by the dominion on October 21, 1933.
Schedule No. 239.-Nelson. Road works through Nelson township. Megantic county. For the needy unemployed in Nelson and surrounding district. Undertaking to be carried out by the Department of Colonization: Total estimated cost, $1,000; man-days work provided by project, 500; basis of contribution 50 cents per man-day, dominion proportion, $250; number of unemployed, 28.
The above schedule was received on September 11, 1933, and approved by the dominion on October 21, 1933.
Schedule No. 237.-St. Octave de Dosquet, Megantic county. Road works through Nelson township. For the needy unemployed at St. Octave de Dosquet and surrounding district. Undertaking to be carried out by the Department of Colonization: Total estimated cost, $1,500; man-days work provided by project, 688; basis of contribution 50 cents per man-day, dominion proportion, $344; number of unemployed, 38.
The above schedule was received on September 13, 1933, and approved by the dominion on October 21, 1933.
Questions


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. HURTTJBISE:: 1.	What amount of money was expended on the Trans-Canada highway in the province of Ontario for the years 1931, 1932, 1933.
2.	What amount was paid by the federal
government in each of the above-mentioned years?	.	,	.	,
3.	How much has been spent m each of the
following divisions during 1931 and each year since:	(a) Pointe Fortune to Ottawa; (b)
Ottawa to Chalk River; (c) Chalk River to North Bay; (d) North Bay to Cochrane; (e) North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie; (f) Sault Ste. Marie to Fort William; (g) Fort William to Manitoba boundary?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	There is no information in the department as to the amount of money expended on the Trans-Canada highway in Ontario during the years 1931, 1932 and 1933, other than that

The above schedule was received on February 12, and recommended to council for approval on February 26, 1934.


QUEBEC ARMOURY BUILDING
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Were tenders asked by the government for the substituting of the metal roof of the armoury building at Quebec?
2.	If so, who were the persons tendering, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	To which of the tenderers was the contract given, and at what price?
4.	Is the work finished, and what was the total amount paid' to the contractor?


Air. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes. (a) Tender for whole work in galvart-ized iron as per specification, (b) Tender for copper in place of galvanized iron.
(a)	(b)
$ 9,095 00	$23,100 00
9,335 00	23,495 00
9.935 00	24,885 00
10,340 00	24,295 00
10,935 42	19,815 42
12,510 18	24,143 60
14,659 20	28,335 27
16,200 00	25,800 00
21,060 00	38,372 00
expended as a relief measure to which the dominion contributed 50 per cent and which was as follows:
1931		 Nil
1932	 85,980.565 56
1933	 273,242 63
Total	 $6,253,808	19
2.1931	 Nil
1932	
$2,990,282	781933	
136,621	32Total	
$3,126,904 10
3. The accounts received from the province do not indicate expenditures by the divisions mentioned.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF WORK-GORDON COLONIZATION PLAN
Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	What amount of money was contributed by the federal government to the province of Ontario for colonization under the Gordon plan, during the last fiscal year?

Questions
2.	How many settlers have benefited from this plan in Ontario?
3.	From what municipalities did they come, and how many from each such municipality?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	820,564.60.
2.	362.
3.	See statement attached.
City of Oshawa, 9; City of London, 6; City of East Windsor, 21; City of Hamilton, 9; Township of East York, 21; City of St. Thomas, 7; City of St. Catharines, 11; Township of North York, 11; Town of New Toronto, 9; City of Windsor, 45; Town of Walker-ville, 9; City of Chatham, 7; City of Fort William, 61; City of Port Arthur, 35; Township of Etobicoke, 2; Town of Orillia, 7; Town of Preston, 2; Township of Scarborough, 14; Township of Stamford, 5; Village of Bolton, 1; Town of Bowmanville, 1; Town of Waterloo, 9; Township of Chisholm, 1; Township of East Gwillimbury, 2; Town of Sandwich, 8; Town of Dundas, 5; Village of Niagara-on-the-Lake, 2; Town of Riverside, 1; City of Stratford, 3; City of Sarnia, 6; Township of Tay, 2; City of Guelph, 9; Town of Eastview, 1; City of Brantford, 3; City of Peterborough, 2; City of Woodstock, 4; Town of Whitby. 1; Township of Clarence, 1; Township of Vaughan, 1; Town of Wallaceburg, 1; Town of Ridgetown, 1; Town of Midland, 1; Township of Teck, 1; Town of Simcoe, 3; Town of Bala, 1.


COLD STORACE STATISTICS
Mr. COOTE:: What was the amount of butter, cheese, beef, lamb and mutton, pork, poultry, in cold storage in Canada on December 31, 1933, or on the last date for which statistics are available?


Mr. STEVENS:: Lbs.
Butter-Creamery	 14,370,551
Daily	 153,441
Cheese	 13,777,917
Beef	 13,771,075
Mutton and lamb	 5,092,846
Pork	 23,719,077
Poultry	 10,713,046
March 1 figures available on March 10.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AUTOMOBILES
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	How many automobiles did the Department of Agriculture buy during the year 1933?
2.	To whom were these automobiles supplied during the year 1933?
3.	Was the Commissioner of Live Stock supplied with an automobile, and, if so, what make of car, what price?
4.	Are the other heads of branches, including the deputies, being similarly supplied?
5.	If a car was supplied' to the Commissioner of Live Stock, what was the expenditure in connection with the operating expenses and upkeep since the date of delivery to December 31, 1933?
0.	If the answer to No. 3 is in the affirmative, and if these automobiles were purchased for field men, why was one supplied to the Commissioner of Live Stock?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Sixty-seven.
2.	Empltyees.
3.	Yes. Dodge. $959.
4.	Yes, where required.
5.	$214.47.
6.	Required in carrying out his duties.


WHEAT EXPORTS TO JAPAN
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	How much wheat did Canada export to Japan in each of the following years, respectively: 192S-29-30-31-32-33?
2.	How much wheat did the United States export to Japan in each of the following years, respectively: 1928-29-30-31-32-33 ?
3.	How much wheat did Australia export to Japan in each of the following years, respectively: 1928-29-30-31-32-33?
M-r. STEVENS:
1. Canada's exports of wheat to Japan for the calendar years 1928 to 1933, were:
Years	Bushels
1928		 16,977,291
1929		 16,258,991
1930		 6,902,391
1931		 6,976,352
1932		 6,425,792
1933		 4,185,005
2.	United States exports of wheat to Japan for the calendar years 1928 to 1933, were:
Years	Bushels
1928		 5,600,033
1929		 7,003,493
1930		 6,403,136
1931		 1,820,016
1932	 218,334
1933	 149,999*
* Eleven months ended November 30,1933.
3.	Australia's exports of wheat to Japan for the years ended June 30, 1928 to 1933, were: Years ended
June 30
Bushels
1928		 3,199,720
1929		 5,626,298
1930		 2,811,142
1931		 17,676,232
1932		 21,463,818
1933		 17,717,053

Questions


WHEAT EXPORTS TO CHINA
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	How much wheat did Canada export to China in each of the following years, respectively: 1928-29-30-31-32-33?
2.	How much wheat did the United States export to China in each of the following years, respectively: 1928-29-30-31-32-33 ?
3.	How much wdieat did Australia export to China in each of the following years, respectively: 1928-29-30-31-32-33?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Canada's exports of wheat to China for the calendar years 1928 to 1933, were:
Years	Bushels
1928		 3,485.644
1929		 7,165,880
1930		 3,506,373
1931		 6,433,081
1932		  6,156,829
1933		 3,468,556
2. United States exports of wheat to China for the calendar years 1928 to 1933, were:
Years	Bushels
1928	 166,665
1929		 1,124,683
1930		 1,523,047
1931		 12,203,061
1932		 2,585,039
1933	 293,611*
Eleven months ended November30,1933.
3.	Australia's exports of wheat to China for the years ended June 30, 1928 to 1933, were:
Years ended	
June 30	Bushels
1928		
1929			 2,668,203
1930		
1931			 24,399,693
1932			 30,990,770
1933			 33,639,715


MR. ALBERT GAGNON
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is Mr. Albert Gagnon in the employ of the government; if so, did he during the month of February last, inquire into the expenditures in connection with unemployment relief at Val-Alain and at Joly in Lotbiniere county?
2.	Was this man authorized to declare that after April 8 next, the federal government will hold for itself the control of the relief to the unemployed', and that the provincial government of Quebec will have nothing more to do with the distribution of relief to the unemployed after that date?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TOTZKE:: 1.	Were tenders called for the supply of door sets to the Dundurn, Saskatchewan, unemployment relief camp?
2.	What was the quantity required?
3.	Who are the tenderers?
4.	What was the price submitted by each tenderer ?
5.	To whom was the contract awarded and at what price?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Return tabled herewith.


FISHERIES STATISTICS
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	What sums were expended annually by the federal government for fisheries since 1900 to 1933, inclusive, excluding the salaries of the federal employees?
2.	In what manner and for what purpose were these different sums expended each year?


RELIEF STATISTICS
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How many persons were there on relief in Canada on January 1, in the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
2.	How many in each province on the same date in each of the above years?


NOVA SCOTIA PUBLIC COLD STORAGE COMPANY
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the Dominion government, through the Halifax Harbour Commission, purchased the plant of the Nova Scotia Public Cold Storage Company?
2.	If so, what amount was paid for said premises and in what way was the amount paid?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DUFF:: For a return showing the expenditures on the public wharf at Isaac's harbour, Nova Scotia, during the years 1932 and 1933, with a copy of accounts, payrolls and other documents.



RURAL ROUTE NO. 2 ST. HYACINTHE

Mr. FONTAINE:: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, reports, memorandums and other documents, in the possession of the Post Office Department or any other federal department, in connection with the carrying of the mails on rural route No. 2, Saint Hyaeinthe, in 1933, includ-

Companies Act
mg the different tenders which the Post Office Department received in connection with this route.



GORDO N-FRANCOEUR AGREEMENT-RELIEF WORK IN MEGANTIC COUNTY

Mr. ROBERGE:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, exchanged between the Department of Labour, Ottawa, or any officer of the department, and the Department of Public Works and Department of Highways of Quebec, or any public board of Megantie county, such as city councils, or municipal councils, or any officer writing for these municipalities, or for himself, regarding work to be done in county of Megantie under the Gordon-Franceour agreement.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT-PORT HOOD ISLAND, N.S., SHORE PROTECTION

Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and reports, between the Department of Public Works and any person in connection with the shore protection work on Port Hood island, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, done in 1931 under the Unemployment Relief Act of that year; also the payroll and the account for the purchase of logs, iron ballast and ballast poles, timber and plank, showing the persons or firms from whom the material was purchased.



DOMINION COMPANIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask the Secretary of State whether any progress has been made in regard to the proposed revision of the Companies Act in accordance with the agreements reached or reported to have been reached at the interprovincial conference ?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member gave me notice of this question and I presume it is asked in view of certain telegrams which have appeared in the press purporting to emanate from the Department of the Attorney General of Quebec. At the meeting of the interprovincial conference in January last, a report was made of the understanding reached at a meeting of the representatives of the attorneys general of the several provinces or their deputies to consider a draft Companies Act which had been prepared at the office of the Secretary of State and submitted to them for their consideration. That reports reads as follows:
The law officers of the several provinces or their deputies met Thursday, January 18th, to consider a draft Companies Act which had been submitted to them by the Secretary of State.
Representatives of several of the provinces suggested that they would probably retain the form of act which has already been adopted
74726-74J
by their respective legislatures, such as incorporation by letters patent, or by memorandum of association or by grant from the crown; but that this would not preclude the acceptance by all the provinces of the material provisions of such a bill as may be agreed upon.
After a general discussion of the scope of the draft bill then presented, the unanimous opinion was expressed by the provincial representatives that the law officers of the several provinces should, on or before March 1 next, send to the Secretary of State suggestions of such amendments or changes in the draft bill as they might deem expedient, and that, thereafter, the Secretary of State should convene at Ottawa such law officers or their representatives as could conveniently attend, for a further discussion of proposed amendments or changes in the draft bill; and that, in the meantime, the draft bill should not be widely distributed nor introduced to the parliament of Canada for public discussion.
That report was unanimously adopted at the conference. A few days later the department of the Secretary of State sent a copy of that report, together with additional copies of the draft bill, to the attorneys general of the several provinces, with a suggestion that on or before March 1 next they should send to the Secretary of State suggestions of such amendments or changes in the draft bill as might be deemed expedient. No suggestions have been received from the department of the attorney general of either of the provinces, and no reply has been received to that letter which was so sent.
This morning there appeared in the public press despatches from Quebec, from one of which appearing in the Gazette this morning. I read as follows:
Chas. Lanctot, K.C., deputy attorney-general, returned here to-day from a conference at 1 oronto with the Hon. W. H. Price, attorney-general, at which conference the draft of the federal legislation was studied, and the decision come to that it did not meet the wishes of the provinces, nor carry out the conception of the provincial authorities at the inter-provmcial conference as to what uniform Companies Act Ottawa had in mind.
It will be recalled that at the 1933 interprovincial conference there was agreement that the time had come to have uniformity in legislation as regards companies, it having been admitted that the disparity as between legislation of the provinces, and of Ottawa, has been of a nature to constitute "bidding" for a compiinies incorporation. The federal authorities m 1933 agreed to draft a uniform act which would apply to all, and this draft was submitted at the inter provincial conference held last January.
Premier Taschereau, speaking in the legislative assembly, following this recent conference, expressed the view that agreement had been reached, that Ottawa would' bring in its legislation this session, and the provinces follow suit. He told the house there were only minor differences to be adjusted.
Motions for Papers

Mr. Lanctot and Hon. Mr. Price, however, found at Toronto this week that the ideas of Ottawa are not suitable in a number of respects and hence decided that there must be further adjustments of the different viewpoints. To this end the intention is that there shall be a committee representing the provincial governments named, and they will discuss by correspondence what should be done, and come to a decision during the course of the present year, and then acquaint Ottawa with their joint viewpoint.
It is pointed out that while the provinces are anxious for uniformity, so that existing evils of company law' may be curbed, if not altogether done away with, that the provinces as regards company law are in an independent position as to Ottawa, their constitutional position being excellent, and if they are willing to agree on legislation common to all the country it is only because of the general welfare.
I wish to add that no representative of the government or of the department of the Secretary of State was notified to attend the meeting alleged to have been held recently in Toronto, and no intimation has been received as to any conclusions reached at that meeting. I, like other hon. members, have simply had the opportunity of reading these statements purporting to issue from the office of the deputy attorney general of Quebec to the effect which I have read.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask the minister if it is not a fact that the draft bill is in the hands of the provincial governments for study?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, and they were to communicate their suggestions to the office of the Secretary of State on or before March 1. None have been received.


Mr. GRAY:: In view of what has been said, will the Secretary of State tell the house whether or not he will proceed with the revision of the Companies Act this session?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think there is some necessity of proceeding with a revision of our own act. As to whether the government will decide to delay it for another year awaiting suggestions from the attorneys general of the various provinces I cannot say now.



JACQUES CARTIER CELEBRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe):: I would like to ask if it is the intention of the government to contribute towards the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the landing in Canada of Jacques Cartier, and if so, what amount?


Mr. HANSON (Yorlc-Sunbury):: Why don't you pay the bill yourself?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think the hon. gentleman will have to put the question on the order paper and await the return of the Prime Minister.



STEAMSHIP LOVAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Brasset: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) aware that the steamship Lovat, with a cargo of provisions bound for the Magdalen Islands is held up in the ice of one of the ports of Prince Edward Island, and, is it the intention of the hon. Minister of Marine to dispatch an icebreaker to clear a way for the Lovat.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker it is the first time that my attention has been drawn to this matter. I shall immediately make inquiries and shall endeavour to give all possible help to the people of the Magdalen Islands.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Agriculture-contributions to empire bureaux, $21,535.
Charles A. Stewart: Will the minister give a short explanation of the purpose of those bureaux?
Hon. .ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) : The purpose of these bureaux is to gather from various research institutes and research workers throughout the empire information on the results of their research work, and to disseminate the same to the various dominions; also the collection of facts and statistics with reference to agriculture and to disseminate that information. Research workers from any part of the dominion visiting the United Kingdom immediately get in touch with these bureaux and are given every assistance to follow any studies and research work they may wish to take up. There were eight in all, established at the beginning in 1929. The term of the agreement ends in the year 1934-35. This year with the dropping out of the activities of the empire marketing board two other bureaux, the imperial bureau of entomology and the imperial bureau of mycology, have been put under the direction of the council o,f the imperial agricultural bureau for administrative purposes.

Supply-Agriculture-Empire Bureaux


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where are these bureaux situated?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: The location of
these different bureaux, with their directors, is as follows:
Bureau-Location-Director of Bureau-
Soil Science, Rothamstead, Sir E. J. Russell,
0.	11.E., D.Sc., F.R.S.
Animal Health, Veterinary Research Laboratory, Weybridge, W. Horner Andrews, D.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.
Animal Nutrition. Rowett Institute, Aberdeen, J. B. Orr, D.S.O., M.O., M.A., M.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.
Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, F. A. E. Crew, M.D., D.Sc., Ph. D., F.R.S.E.
Plant Genetics (other than Herbage), Cambridge, Sir R. H. Biffen, M.A., F.R.S.
Plant Genetics (Herbage), Aberystwyth, R. G. Stapleton, C.B.E., M.A.
Fruit Production, East Mailing, Kent, R. G. Hatton, M.A.
Agricultural Parasitology, St. Albans, R. T. Leiper, M.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.
' Mr. POULIOT: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,
1,	J, K, L, M; the Minister of Agriculture is so bright that he has just quoted the alphabet several times in reading the names of these gentlemen who are high officials of the British Department of Agriculture. It was a joke to listen to the minister quoting all those letters. What does it matter to us if a man has seventy-five thousand letters after his name, if the trade of Canada is going down? The fact is that you cannot take anj'. bloke and put a lot of letters after his name and make him more efficient; in the meantime our trade is going to the dogs and we have a dumb Minister of Agriculture who is proud to get up and give this illuminating information to the committee. He tells us that Sir Somebody, K.B.D.H.Z., is head of something; it must be a high degree ini the Ku Klux Klan. We hear that in the committee, and everyone listens to it and finds it interesting and illuminating. But the farmers cannot get decent prices for their products; the trade of Canada is going to the dogs, and even our trade with Great Britain is decreasing. The minister did not even know that the British trade constitutes only 9 per cent of the world trade; we had to teach him that last year. We are asked to sacrifice our chances in regard to 91 per cent of the world's trade in order to secure a part of the remaining nine per cent.
I am glad to see that my hon. friend, the minister, is in his seat to-day; he was not courageous enough to stay when I was quoting statistics tLe other day during the debate on the address. I am here for information on behalf of the farmers of the east, and I am sure this will also interest the farmers
of the west. We are not to be impressed with humbug of any kind; if my hon. friend over there cackles it will make no impression on me.
Before coming to the figures to which I wish to refer let me go back to that great expert in agriculture, the minister to whom we have been listening. He is impressed with the letters that follow the names of these distinguished gentlemen abroad who are members of the empire marketing board; like his leader, who is more impressed by words than by thoughts, he is more impressed by letters than by facts, and while he describes to us those knights of the British Empire, those gentlemen who put the letters O.B.E. and so forth after their names, those wonderful gentlemen wbo know so much about agriculture and the marketing of agricultural products, our poor farmers cannot get enough from the sale of their products to live decently and bring up their children in due comfort.
Well, Mr. Chairman, let us take those illuminating statistics, and I will ask the hon. gentleman to answer a layman in agriculture, as I am. I do not pretend to be an expert, but the knowledge I have has been obtained from the farmer himself, who has access to my office when he comes to see me. I listen to the farmer, so my knowledge of agriculture comes from the producer himself. I have some knowledge also from the official figures which I have obtained from the bureau of statistics. Let us take item by item, and I will ask the hon. member for South Essex to keep quiet.


Mr. GOTT:: I merely invited my friend
to come in, because he was missing a good speech.


Mr. POULIOT:: If my hon. friend were a
man he would stand by us when we complain about the policies of the government, especially with regard to tobacco.


Eccles James Gott: I will stand by the farmer,
which is more than the hon. gentleman can say.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman talks
in his own county, but he is afraid to speak out in the house,


Eccles James Gott: I will stand by the farmer,
and that is more than the hon. gentleman is doing now.


Jean-François Pouliot: That shows that my hon.
friend does not understand a word of what I have said, and if I spoke to him I would waste my time.
1164	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Evipire Bureaux


Eccles James Gott: All the hon. gentleman's
friends are laughing at him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let the hon. gentleman
learn the alphabet which was recited by the Minister of Agriculture; it would help him, even if it is printed in London. Let us take agricultural products; let us take tobacco.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: Would
the hon. gentleman speak to the item under discussion?


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member had better
speak about something he knows more of than he knows of tobacco.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the item
under discussion is item 50 on page 20, entitled "Contributions to empire bureaux." I will explain my point.


Eccles James Gott: Here is a good cigar, made
from Canadian tobacco, with the compliments of the hon. member for South Essex.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank my hon. friend,
but I wish he would hold it in his mouth when I am speaking so that he will not disturb me.
Now, sir, we are discussing these contributions to empire bureaux, which amount to $21,535. This concerns the marketing of Canadian products; it is of as much interest to the Minister of Agriculture as it is to the Minister of Mines or anj' other minister in charge of a department which has to do with Canadian products. Therefore I believe I am perfectly in order in discussing on this item the sale of tobacco in England, the consumption here and so on. What about tobacco? If we compare the exports of 1933 with the exports of 1930 it will be seen that trade with the British Empire increased by 82,499,203, while trade with foreign countries decreased by 896,529, leaving a net increase of 82,402,674. As to manufactured tobacco, trade with the British Empire increased 88,248, and that with foreign countries increased $2,453. That is a total increase of $2,413,375, and there is also an increase in home consumption. This fact, namely that there is an increase in exports, and also an increase in home consumption looks veiy well. But what is the complaint? The complaint is made by the producer against the go-between, against the intermediary, against the one who takes the whole profit and leaves nothing for the producer. I have seen in that wonderful paper, the Border Cities Star, one of the best papers published in Canada, and probably one of the best published on the North American continent that the tobacco growers of western Ontario are complaining that they are not receiving enough from their tobacco 
sales. They complain that it is the few who get all the profits at the expense of the farmer who on his land is growing the tobacco. That is a very serious matter and is more serious when we realize that tobacco is one. of the very few commodities in connection with which the government can boast surpluses in exports and in consumption. Therefore, if the price of tobacco is good, it is good only for those few wholesalers who, at the expense of the producers, reap huge benefits, while the producer is complaining that he is not being fairly treated.


Eccles James Gott: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: If it is polite I will
answer it.


Eccles James Gott: It will be. The hon. member has mentioned the Border Cities Star. I should like to ask him how it is that he has never mentioned it or complimented it until to-day. Is it because he went into Essex, and they put his picture in the paper? Is that the reason?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, usually praise is wasted in this chamber when hon. members opposite are continually burning incense under the nose of the Prime Minister. I wanted to pay that compliment to the excellent newspaper I have mentioned at the beginning of the sitting when the atmosphere was not vitiated by all this stuff that is usually burnt under the nose of the Prime Minister. I took this opportunity because the Prime Minister is not in the house to-day, and for that reason no incense is being burned. I wanted to pay a well deserved compliment to a paper which is a great credit to the journalism of Canada.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member has not paid me the courtesy of an answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member should not insist upon it, because his picture should be published in that paper with his head up side down. We have a good tobacco business. When I was interrupted I was showing that the exports in tobacco have increased, that the home consumption has increased, but that on the other hand at the expense of the producer the price of tobacco has fallen, and he receives nothing like fair compensation.


Eccles James Gott: On a point of order; I wish to say the consumption of tobacco in Canada has not increased.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not a point of order.

Supply-Agriculture-Empire Bureaux


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask you, sir, as chairman of this house, to see to it that interruptions of that kind are not tolerated when I am speaking on serious matters. I am discussing the tobacco business, an industry which interests many farmers in Ontario, in the province of Quebec and in other parts of Canada. It is a matter of high importance, and I have not discussed it in a frivolous way. At tames I joke with the hon. member for South Essex, but I pay no more attention to him than that. I regret very much that when we are discussing a matter as important as this one, one which is of vital importance to so many farmers, the hon. gentleman should continue making his jokes, sending cigars across the floor of the house, and speaking as if his electors were not interested. I hope, sir, that you will use your authority to make the hon. member keep quiet; otherwise I shall have to ask the assistance of the sergeant at arms to expel him from the house while we are discussing a matter of such concern to his electors. If they were here and saw him making his jokes and interrupting when an hon. member -is speaking concerning a commodity as important as tobacco, and the exports and consumption of that commodity, no one would vote for him at the next election. I am very sorry for him if he cannot understand any better, but I believe his electors should not suffer from that. As he has said that home production did not increase, I shall give the figures supplied by the bureau of statistics.


Eccles James Gott: I said consumption not production.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the year 1932-33 there were 2,217,447 more pounds produced than in 1930-31.


Onésime Gagnon: I should like hon. members on both sides of the house to maintain order.


Eccles James Gott: On a question of privilege, may I say that I did not say production of tobacco in Canada has not increased; I said consumption of tobacco in Canada has not increased. I do not wish to have it twisted by the hon. member for Temisoouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, if the consumption of tobacco has not increased the hon. member may see to it by leaving the chamber and smoking in the lobby the cigar he offered me.


Eccles James Gott: You will not help it.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Mr. LACROIX:: Six lambs.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend from
Beauce says six lambs.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. gentleman does not
know.


Jean-François Pouliot: I try to make it as favourable as I can, but the facts are much more unfavourable than I have indicated, and instead of making jokes in connection with a matter which is so serious to the farmers of the country, the hon. gentleman should listen sympathetically. Well, here we are voting more money-what for? Is the Minister of Agriculture proud of the fact that our exports of butter are four or five hundred thousand more while our exports of cheese are five millions less? We lose ten times more in our exports of cheese than we gain in our exports of butter, and it is on the advice of a distinguished trade expert, Sir So and So, B.D.G., K.F.G., X.Y.Z., and this famous agriculturist known the world over, Sir So and So, Z.Y.X.-it is reversed. The first one was distinguished in trade and the other one was distinguished in agriculture; therefore the former is X.Y.Z. and the latter is Z.Y.X., most distinguished gentlemen who accomplished such marvels. Thanks to their ability, thanks to their genius, we ship butter to England and other places amounting to four or five hundred thousand dollars more. But is it not also due to their great experience, their genius, their high sense of trade markets, that we are exporting cheese
to the extent of five millions less? I say therefore, what is the use of contributing money to that board? My hon. friend is impressed by these advisers. Who are they? Are they responsible or is he responsible? If he is responsible for it he should resign, and if they are responsible we should not vote a cent for that board. This work should be done by Howard Ferguson in London. What is the use of having him there, paying so much money to Howard Ferguson, to give banquets to seven hundred guests in the presence of the Prime Minister, while the farmers here are starving? What is the use of having Howard Ferguson over there if he is good for nothing? What is the use of giving so much money to him while his work is being done by that bureau? Did he give a satisfactory explanation to the Minister of Agriculture? If he did, I should like to hear from the hon. gentleman. Is the minister satisfied that we should be exporting five million dollars less in cheese?


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes and has not come anywhere near touching the subject before the committee. I do not intend to speak forty minutes but only forty seconds; I merely wish to refute what the hon. gentleman said with regard to tobacco and to show him how little he knows about it. The consumption of cigars in Canada is down twenty-five millions and the consumption of cigarettes is down one billion, but the price of tobacco to the consumer is just the same. The price of tobacco to the producer is so discouraging that it will foe difficult for him to raise crops in the years to come. The price of tobacco must go up. I suggest to this house and to the country that there is a combine in the buying of tobacco owing to the fact that the representatives of the British Leaf Tobacco Company, that is the Imperial Tobacco Company of Great Britain, and Ireland, come to Canada and buy through the representatives of the Imperial Tobacco Company of Canada. If there is not a combine, there is a monopoly, which is much worse. I make these remarks merely to show that I have a little more knowledge of tobacco than is contained in the book used by the hon. gentleman.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Is any report of the activities of these empire bureaux available to which the house might have access?
Mr. W'EIR (Melfort): There are a number of reports on each of the subjects I mentioned in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver. The hon. member for
1168	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Empire Bureaux
Temiscouata, in speaking, passed over a couple of items which might be of interest to the committee; that is, why the appropriation was not completely expended last year and why this year there is apparently an increase in it. The money is to 'be paid in sterling and last year, on account of sterling being at a discount, the full amount of the vote was not required. This year, when the estimates were compiled, the fact that sterling was at a premium accounts for the additional sum shown in the appropriation.
There are available reports dealing with soil research, animal health and those I have mentioned, and I shall be only too glad to give copies of those reports to any person who wishes to get them. The whole work of these bureaux is not research; it is not advertising; it is not trade; it is simply the collection of information and the distribution of it. The agreement was entered into in 1029 for five years, expiring in 1934-35.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: One reason there is some criticism of this appropriation is that last Friday the Prime Minister had before the committee, an almost similar item, that appearing on page 54 of the estimates dealing with agricultural bureaux. As it was very meagerly explained and as the Minister of Agriculture has not elaborated, some hon. members do not seem to know what it is all about as there appears to be duplication although I think there is none. This appropriation has been in existence since 1929 and has met with very little criticism because the bureaux is both a clearing house and actually engaged in important research for the information not only for the other parts of the empire but for ourselves. For illustration the investigation into the important question of wheat rust and the animal pathological work conducted in the laboratory at Hull, anybody who would slip over there for half an hour or so and examine what is one of the best equipped laboratories on this continent would know what the present government is doing and what the preceding one did in this respect. These central bureaux in the British Isles act as a clearing house for information from the dominions as to the progress each one has been making in the different branches of research. This enables each part of the empire to know what each other part is doing and what progress it is making in each branch of activity. This is important work and we might, I think, le't this appropriation pass. If I wanted to make a general attack on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, I would prefer to make it on some other item than this and
particularly on one that is being reduced. This is one of the two that are being increased. I would feel like commending the minister for keeping up this work. Are all the other dominions reporting and paying up their quotas?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: That seems to be satisfactory. If I felt justified in making any remarks at this stage as to the general trend of the department in reducing every vote except two at a time when agriculture is out at ithe elbows and down at the heels and needing further instead of reduced help, that would be my criticism, but this does not seem to be the time for it. Therefore I rather feel like supporting the minister in making the slight increase shown in regard to this item which was first introduced for a very commendable purpose.


John Vallance: With all deference to
the ex-Minister of Agriculture and his solicitude for this particular item, there are some questions that can be asked regarding this bureau only at this time. What are the other parts of the empire doing and what are their respective contributions to this bureau?


Robert Weir: 
John Vallance: Is this all based on the pound sterling?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to say in answer to one remark from the minister. He spoke about the jumping of the pound sterling. I admit that the pound sterling has had ups and downs for some time, but on the other hand, at the last world conference which was attended by the Minister of Finance and at which sixty-four nations were represented, the matter of stabilization of money appeared on the agenda. It was therefore intended to be discussed, but it was not considered because the United States did not think it a fit time, and then the sixty-three other nations including Canada and its representatives the hon. member for West Calgary and the Minister of Finance all quit and said: We will wait

MARCH 5, 1934	H69
Supply-Agriculture-Empire Bureaux
until the United States agrees to take the question into consideration before coming together as a whole. Those sixty-three nations had to wait for the United States to have stabilization of money which is essential to world trade. Stabilization was not brought about and because of this I do not see how the Minister of Agriculture can mention the ups and downs of the pound sterling as, if it has affected our trade, this is mostly because the government have had no policy in regard to the matter.
I asked the hon. gentleman several questions. I asked him first whether the vote for this bureau was necessary seeing that we have Howard Ferguson as High Commissioner in London. This is a fair question. If Howard Ferguson is such a genius, such a mixer in trade as well as in politics, we do not need this bureau. It is a waste of money to vote $21,000 and the government should rather give half of it-


Eccles James Gott: On a point of order, we are
on item 50, page 20, and the hon. member has consumed forty minutes of the time of the committee and is now attempting to repeat his speech. Is this permissible on the same item?


Onésime Gagnon: In supply a certain amount of latitude is given to members.


Jean-François Pouliot: I asked my questions in the mildest language. I am just as nice as one can be. As one of the two hundred and forty-five members of this house my only intention is to seek to defend the Canadian exchequer. When I speak now I do not speak for the pleasure of speaking, I speak on behalf of the farmers of my constituency, who have been told that the Prime Minister is a superman and that the Minister of Agriculture is his right hand in matters pertaining to agriculture. It is all very well to tell the farmers to produce more tobacco, produce more hogs, produce more sheep, produce more eggs, produce more butter, but when the time comes to sell them they get no decent price. I am not against trade with Great Britain, I am not against that item in itself, but I find that the result is disastrous, that this government is neglecting our home trade in order to promote an artificial British trade or to justify the silly Ottawa agreements. In the debate on the address their merits were extolled, the hon. gentlemen who proposed and seconded the address in reply both praised the Ottawa agreements very highly. But what have they produced? Our trade has been destroyed, and when I ask information about the work which Howard Ferguson is doing in England with
regard to Canadian trade I receive no answer. Who is responsible for that loss of $5,000,000 in the exports of cheese? Is it the empire bureaux or is it Howard Ferguson or is it this government? Someone must be responsible. We are told it is the pound sterling, but the pound sterling is not drafting the policy of this government with regard to agriculture and marketing.
I also asked another question of the hon. Minister of Agriculture; I will repeat it because he does not seem to have understood my English well. It is not my native language but I speak it with all earnestness and to the best of my ability. Another question that I put to the hon. gentleman, as the hon. members who are here will remember, was this: What was the average price of butter from the year 1922 to July 1 or August 1, 1930, month by month? What was the price in January, February, March, April and so on; and on the other hand what has been the average price of butter in each month of the second period, from July 2 or August 2, 1930 to the present time. I have no answer, yet the hon. gentleman must have that information before him all the time, he must have it with him here in order to answer these questions, which are fair and reasonable. When we hear hon. gentlemen opposite say that the price of butter is higher now, they do not take that earlier period into consideration, but it is most essential to do so.
Therefore my first question will be: Who is destroying the Canadian trade? Is it Howard Ferguson, the empire bureaux or this government? If it is Howard Ferguson, why is he kept there as high commissioner? If it is the empire bureaux why do we have this item in the estimates? If it is the government, why do they not resign? If I repeat a third time the second question I do so in order to be understood clearly; I also hope to have an answer about the average prices of butter in those two periods.
Then I would ask the hon. gentleman, how is it that if the exports of honey have increased the home consumption has decreased by 9.500,000 pounds? Can he explain it to me? Some Conservative members tell me often that I am not an expert in agriculture. I admit it, but I am here to defend the rights of the farmers and make known their grievances to this government; I do that conscientiously, when I ask a question I do not ask it to make trouble, I ask it to get information because my mind is not yet satisfied. I want to get that information. I may be laughed at by those who do not know how to read and write, but sir, I do my work
1170	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Empire Bureaux
conscientiously, in that respect I believe I am above reproach, and when lion, members on the other side of the house treat me fairly they may be assured that I observe the golden rule; but I pay no attention to those who use abusive language or anything of that kind. I am now defending the rights of those who suffer, of those whose interests are entrusted to the Minister of Agriculture, the farmers, and I ask him kindly to give me that information. If he answers me in an appropriate way and to the point it will be much more satisfactory.


Eccles James Gott: They are slippery questions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Slippery for those who are always in the mud.


Robert Weir: I shall be very pleased to furnish the hon. member with the information he has asked for in respect to butter. It has nothing to do with this item, however. It can be very properly and thoroughly discussed under either the live stock item or the dairy item.
Mr. 'POUiLIOT: I thank the hon. gentleman very much, but I understand that the work of the empire bureaux relates to the whole Canadian production. Am I right?


Robert Weir: It relates to research work and information obtained by research workers. It is simply to prevent duplication; instead of each dominion corresponding with every other dominion, it is all passed through this imperial bureau.


Jean-François Pouliot: Finally I would ask the
hon. Minister of Agriculture to teach manners to his colleague.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister has just told us this is a vote that was commenced in 1929, $21,000 appropriated last year, $21,535 this year; and he has given a very satisfactory explanation of the work of the bureau. On Friday we were discussing item 207, miscellaneous, which is a new item this year of $18,690. I want to draw the attention of the minister to the particulars of that item:
Canada's portion of expenditure of the Imperial economic committee, the Imperial shipping committee, and the executive council of the Imperial agricultural bureaux for 1934.
There seems to be some duplication. If the department was getting on with $21,000 from 1929 to the present why is a portion of the new vote of $18,690 applied to payment of the executive council of this bureau?
[Mr. Pouliot.l


Robert Weir: As far as I am aware item 207 has nothing to do with this item at all, because the -cost of the council of the imperial bureau is paid out of this vote. It may be for some special work outside of this, but there has been no Change whatever in the type of work that is being done by this bureau.


Charles A. Stewart: I draw the
attention of the minister to the fact that both items have a similar description; that is under item 207 the executive council of the imperial agricultural bureaux is covered by part of the $18,690 vote, and then here we have, I assume, the usual vote, at least the vote last year and this, $2:1,000. It immediately occurred to me that there must be some overlapping or some mistake in connection with the appropriation, because it covers the executive council and surely, as this is a new item this year, the executive council must have been covered by the previous vote.


Robert Weir: My understanding
is that it is still covered in that way. I shall be glad to look into that matter and let the hon. member have the information.


Mr. McINTOSH:: May I ask the minister
if all the dominions are as one with regard1 to these bureaux? I understand1 that the grants are being .made by the different parts of the empire, but I should like to know if there is complete harmony with regard to these bureaux and with regard to the policy covered by this appropriation.


Robert Weir: Yes, I believe so.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And was this action
taken by the dominions simultaneously, or did one part of the empire lead in this matter?


Robert Weir: I believe it was
the outgrowth of a number of conferences of scientists extending over a period of years. It was felt that it would be a saving of duplication and would avoid a great deal of wastage to have the work handled in this way, and to that everyone agreed.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And back of each empire government was the support of the people in each case?


Robert Weir: Yes, I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Immigration and colonization-empire settlement scheme, including grants authorized by the governor in council, $10,000.
Charles A. Stewart: We would
like some information about this item.

Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement


Mr. VENIOT:: I should like to ask the
minister if this has anything to do with the oft reported attempt of someone in Great Britain to locate British settlers on Canadian farms.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This is an
item that arises out of an agreement entered into between the Canadian Government and the British Empire Settlement Board in 1927. The substance of the agreement was that a number of British boys should be settled in Canada, and the arrangement set out in the agreement was that if the youngster saved $500 he would be entitled to a loan of $1,250 from the British empire settlement board, a further loan from the Canadian government of 81,000, and an additional sum of $250 from the province concerned. No loans have been made under the agreement, but probably there will be applications during the year, and this item is inserted in the estimates so that the department may be in a position to comply with the terms of the agreement.


Mr. LUCAS:: Did the minister say that
to date no loans have been made?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No loans to date.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Could the minister tell us how many have been settled under this scheme, and how many during the past year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the figure of
those who nave been settled under this scheme, but none has been brought out during the last four years, since 1930.


James J. Donnelly: Would the minister tell us how many of the boys brought out previous to 1930 have lived up to their agreements and how many have thrown up their hands and gone back home or migrated to other parts of the country?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the figures as
to how many have returned to Great Britain, but according to my information-though I stand to be corrected in this connection-I do not think any have gone back. As to how many have lived up to the agreement, I think they have done fairly well. My own view was that the agreement was not perhaps as provident as it might have been, because my view is that if a young fellow can save $500-and apparently some of them are doing it-perhaps he would be following the course of wisdom if he did not start in to borrow, but instead saved another S5C0. I would not encourage anyone to expand by borrowing if it is possible to save. That may be a little old fashioned, but I have found that it works out very well in any sort of business.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
ask if any other schemes have been suggested to this government by the British government or by private parties, in reference to settlement?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There have been no direct suggestions to the Canadian government. Various schemes have been talked about, but no definite plan has been suggested by anybody to the government. The Imperial parliament has discussed the matter of empire migration on many occasions, and we are all acquainted with the difficulties that are associated with any plan to distribute the people of the empire throughout the dominions. We know what has happened in a measure in Canada during the last few years, as well as in Australia, from which country a great many more people have returned to Great Britain than migrated. I offer it as a suggestion, whether the outline of any plan comes before me or before anyone who may follow me, that any scheme or plan had better be looked at from very long range and gone into with the utmost care. It has been said on many occasions by men in high places, as well as by others, that we are not attracting British agriculturists to Canada. Well, Mr. Chairman, anyone who makes that statement has little conception of the situation that obtains in the United Kingdom, where perhaps less than seven per cent of the population are agriculturists of a desirable type. It is most difficult to attract from the United Kingdom to Canada an agriculturist who is doing well there; no country wants to give up that type of agriculturist. So I say that any plan for the migration of people, no matter how desirable it may appear, should be examined with the utmost care. No such scheme has been placed before the government, however.


John Vallance: Has the government considered at all the General Hornby scheme to place certain settlements in particular communities throughout western Canada?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have read something
about it in the press but the scheme has not been laid before me. Anything I have seen has been merely in the press.


John Vallance: I do not know whether or not the minister has the information, but I understand that there is already one settlement out at Lashburn, Saskatchewan, in my own constituency.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know of it. If settlers are being placed there, they certainly
1172	COMMONS
Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement
have not brought the scheme before me, and if any such scheme had been on foot I should think it would have been brought before the Department of Immigration.


John Vallance: I think I am not divulging any secrets, because I believe most hon. members of this House of Commons, particularly those from western Canada have been, may I use the word, lobbied by the same gentleman, General Hornby. So, while I do not wish to doubt the minister's word, I cannot conceive of a scheme which has been suggested and has gone so far but has not been drawn to the attention of the government. The gentleman in question has been in this House of Commons and has attended at the offices of hon. members. He visited me, soliciting my cooperation. In addition to that pamphlets have been sent out to all hon. members.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am very glad this question has been raised, because I have been keenly interested in it. Either General Hornby or someone representing him went to the county of Oxford and waited on the county council. Through their instrumentality options at a certain price have been taken on one hundred farms. It seemed to me there was not sufficient authority to warrant so much action being taken, and I was very much interested when General Hornby came to my office to try to explain the scheme. It seemed to me that he, with probably the best intentions in the world, was pretty much of a visionary and was counting on certain action which he expected would be taken by the British parliament. He appeared to think that all the expense was going to be paid by the British parliament, and that it was going to buy farms in this country at some arranged price, so that people could be brought out. I am very glad to hear from the minister that nothing definite has been done, because I believe a great deal of unnecessary unrest has been stirred up throughout the country, and many very deserving people have a wrong idea of the meaning of the scheme.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I have been on my feet four times, Mr. Chairman. Can you not see me?


Mr. MITCHELL:: I think every hon. member in this house-


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member has spoken once.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have not.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe every hon. member in the house received a copy of General Hornby's scheme for overseas settlement in Canada. He goes so far as to say the following:
I am glad to be able to tell you that locations for the first ten settlements under my plan have now been selected in the eastern provinces, namely; two in the province of Quebec; four in the province of Ontario; two in the province of Nova Scotia; and two in the province of New Brunswick. Each settlement is to consist of around one hundred farms -one thousand farms in all, establishing one thousand new British settler families, probably 4,000 or 5,000 persons.
Then he goes on to say:
M.v plan for old country community settlements in Canada was presented to the parliamentary migration committee of the House of Commons at Westminster, and to the overseas settlement department, dominions office, in my memorandum No. 11 of July 14, 1933; its financial side was further explained in my memorandum No. 12 of August 9, 1933. Copies of both of these documents are on record at the overseas settlement department, Caxton House, Tothill Street, London, S.W. 1.
I think it is passing strange that this gentleman should go to the extent of appearing before a committee of the British House of Commons and not inform the government of Canada of his plans. I would assume that should such an extensive immigration policy be launched it would have to have the endorsation of and be acceptable to the dominion government.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So that there may be no misunderstanding, no plan has been placed before me, and I believe I can make the same statement for other members of the government, so far as General Hornby is concerned. I do not however wish to appear to mislead. General Hornby saw me sometime in the early fall, stating that he was going to Great Britain in connection with some scheme- for British settlement. I expressed no opinion about it either one way or the other, because he was by no means clear as to what his plan was. I do not think that he knew himself, exactly, what the plan would be, but rather he was going to Great Britain to interview some people he knew with respect to a scheme which he was evolving in his own mind. As I said a minute ago, a great many press dispatches have appeared in the newspapers discussing the possible plan of General Hornby, but no plan, as such, other than that which I have learned from press dispatches and not more than two interviews with General Hornby, , was submitted. I see that in the British

Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement
House of Commons in December of last year a resolution reading as follows was adopted:
That this house is of opinion that the time lias now come when His Majesty's government should get in touch with the governments of the dominions with a view to putting forward a scheme for the voluntary redistribution of the white peoples of the empire, and the stimulation of shipping and trade under the flag.
A number of observations were made by various members of the British House of Commons, but nothing other than the adoption of the resolution seems to have come of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was it
carried?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The house adopted the
resolution I have read.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did not the government act upon it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, we have received no intimation from the government of the United Kingdom., and I would suggest that if any plan of settlement of the British people throughout the various dominions, as indicated in the resolution, is to be considered, we might well wait until we receive an official communication from the British government, and not depend upon the plans of an individual which may or may not be sound, and which perhaps have small chance of receiving support either in the United Kingdom or here.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman

Air. McI'NTOSH: He saw you at last.


Frederick George Sanderson: I wish to point out
that the remark you made to me a minute ago, namely that I had spoken, was not correct.


Onésime Gagnon: I apologize.


Frederick George Sanderson: And if I had spoken
once I have the privilege of speaking a dozen times more.


Onésime Gagnon: But
three lion, members cannot speak at the same time.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to ask a question. I understood the minister to say that the agreement was entered into in- 1927.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe that is correct.


Frederick George Sanderson: When does it expire?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There has been nothing
done under the agreement since 1930, so far as any further immigration is concerned. While so far as I know the agreement has not been formally cancelled, yet-


Frederick George Sanderson: Is there any definite time in the agreement as to when it terminated?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am not sure about it; I have not itihe agreement before me, but I could quite easily get it.


James J. Donnelly: How many provinces
entered into the agreement?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would have to have the agreement before me in order to say that. I do not carry that information in my memory.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With regard to the Hornby agreement, it seems -to me that the minister has hardly gone as far as this committee might expect. It is very gratifying that the minister has not entered into any arrangements with regard to this matter, but I do not think the situation is quite satisfactory when we find that a private individual is actually obtaining options on lands and is proposing to bring in settlers without having his scheme definitely recognized by this government. I take it that the Immigration department ought to be held responsible for the immigration of people to this country, and when we -consider that for the last year or two the Immigration department has been busy chiefly with deporting people from this country, and further, ithat the government is now entering into a scheme to try to lessen production in this country, I think it -is absolutely absurd to permit the British government or anyone -else to bring more people into Canada. It is not what the British government may desire to do. Surely we have a right to think of things in Canada and of our own people here, to say nothing of the rights of those who may possibly become agricultural settlers in -this country. For years and years past we have been busy in this -house protesting against the bringing of people into the country where conditions do not permit them to make a livelihood, and any of us who has been connected with social work knows of the hardships, and often the very severe hardships, through which people from Great Britain have had to pass before they could get a foothold in this country, and now within -the -last few months we have had the exhibition of large numbers of them, running into tire -tens of thousands, having to be deported because they could not make a go of it. Under those circumstances I think it is cruel to bring anyone into this country, nor is it fair t-o the people who are here to have an added burden put upon t-hem until we change our economic arrangements so that the people here can make a living.
1174	COMMONS
Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement


John Vallance: I do not wish to
enter into a general discussion of the question of immigration or of the policy Canada should adopt, but there are some facts which are being brought to our attention very forcibly from day to day. As to the Hornby scheme, the minister says that the government has not been approached, and probably we should not discuss it. All I have to say of the Hornby scheme I have already said. There is one fact I should like to mention. .1 do not know whether it is because I myself am an immigrant, but I find quite a number of my own countrymen in this city appealing to me from day to day, at least in my office, and I should like to ask the minister to what extent have British immigrants been sent back to the old country within the last two years. A Scotchman called on me the other day, a stone mason, now on relief in this city, and who will have been in Canada five years next July. He has received notice that he is to be deported before the expiration of his five years. I would like to know from the minister how many individuals there are in that position whom the department is contemplating sending back to the old land.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can procure those figures on some other item. There has been a misconception, I think, and perhaps a little loose talking in places as to people who have been returned to their own country. Some have talked of tens of thousands and that sort of thing when the actual figures, which have been tabled in the house, will disclose that that is not the situation. I am relying now upon my memorj', but if those figures are examined, and they were analyzed for me by the officers of the department not so long ago, they will disclose that of those who were returned to their country of origin the percentage of deportees returned as such, that is against their will, was comparatively small. The house must bear in mind that prior to 1930. rightly or wrongly, and I am not complaining against what was done, many hundreds of thousands of people were invited to come to Canada, and in spite of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has said, I think the time will come when this country will again be sufficiently attractive so that many more hundreds of thousands of people will come here from Great Britain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister
think that that time is here?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think, so far as the hon. member is concerned, that that time will ever come.
[Mr. Woodsworth.!


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not an
answer to the question. Does the minister think that that time is now?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, of course it is not
now. There were many people who never had an opportunity to become established. They were not here long enough. They had little if any funds when they landed, and a very large percentage of those returned were sent back to the United Kingdom at their own request. Then there was a considerable percentage who refused to accept employment. There was another percentage who would accept employment but only under conditions as to wages and so forth that were impossible at the present time. But the percentage who *were sent back to Great Britain out of all those who were returned is comparatively small, and before my estimates on the Immigration department are through I shall have those figures available for the committee.


John Vallance: I find that a return
was brought down to an order of the house moved for by my hon. friend from Proven-cher (Mr. Beaubien), appearing at page 589 of Hansard. I was not aware of that fact before. It shows that in the last four years 13,080 have been deported to the British Isles.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Referring to the Hornby
scheme, rightly or wrongly the impression has got abroad through the press that Hornby was encouraged to go to the provincial governments by this government. I should like to know from the minister, if he will give it, exactly what encouragement or suggestions he did give to Hornby when he was here following the meeting of the chamber of commerce.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that I have explained the situation as well as I can. On the two occasions, once last fall and once I think probably a month ago, when General Hornby saw me, my attitude towards his activities was simply that I could hear only representations made from the United Kingdom, and on neither occasion did General Hornby have any plan that I could call a plan to lay before me. I have received no overtures or plan from the British government.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Was Hornby encouraged to
visit the provincial governments?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh no, I did not encourage him one way or the other.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has the minister heard
from any of the provincial governments regarding the scheme?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think not.

Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I might add a
word just to show that the government, so far as other ministers are concerned, took exactly the same attitude as that taken by my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration. Within the last month I received a letter, which I did not mention to the Minister of Immigration but which I did to the Prime Minister, from the management of the Canadian National Railways. General Hornby had asked them for assistance financially for his immigration scheme; he had also asked the same of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they asked our advice about it. My advice was that we should not take any part in this scheme at all. I mention that just because it shows that apparently the government was, from different angles working along exactly the same line, and I think it is hardly fair to suggest, as has been done, that the government was in any way encouraging this scheme.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would ask the minister to be good enough before his items are through to bring down figures of deportations on a racial basis, and also showing the number who were deported for destitution, the commission of crimes, and for other causes under the act. I should like to know definitely the number of requests that have been received from different racial groups for deportation.
I ask for that information because I believe that until this country reaches the stage that has been reached in Great Britain in social legislation in the past twenty-five years immigration is out of the question. It is out of the question to people in the old land where there is unemployment insurance, health insurance, besides widows' pensions and many
other forms of social legislation such as we find there; they cannot be expected to come to a country where they are more or less left to their own resources without protection in case of unemployment and adversity. That point of view quite often is not sufficiently stressed-the lack of desire on the part of the people of Great Britain to leave that country in view of the absence of social legislation here to take care of the hazards that beset people engaged in every walk of life. I was in England this year and I was told that people were returning from different parts of the world at the rate of 1,000 a week. I should like the minister to get that information.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe I can secure the information with fair accuracy. From 1900, say, until 1930, there would be probably 30,000 or 35,000 deported, and from that time on the ratio is greater, though not that number. How far back does the hon. gentleman want me to go?


Humphrey Mitchell: Since the beginning of the depression; from 1929, say.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Beginning with the spring of 1929?


Humphrey Mitchell: In a time of prosperity there is usually emigration to various countries where conditions are good. Suppose people wanted to leave this country; are there any prosperous countries to which they could emigrate?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps I can satisfy the hon. member in part with a statement just handed to me. It covers the years 1932 and 1933.
Immigrants deported as Public Charges during the calendar years 1932 and 1933
-	Applied to department for deportation	Desire for deportation disclosed in Board	Appeal dismissed	Would consider employment but did not appeal	TotalsRefused to consider employment	Demanded impossible wage or working condition	m 09 0) c	Anticipated employment in native country	2,722 810	1,075 893	207 234	314 308	796 274	377 497	87 164	5,578 3,180
Grand totals	 Percentages British Isles									
3,532	1,968	441	622	1,070	874	251	8,75849 20	19 28	4 7	6 10	14 8	7 16	1 5	100% 100%Other countries	
Grand totals	41	23	5	7	12	9	3	100%
Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement
This review for the two years will, I hope, set at rest some very extravagant statements that have been made by those who have not been acquainted with the facts. We all like to face facts, and if they are not pleasant we want to face them anyway; but we do not want to have spread throughout the country extravagant and misleading statements. Nor do we want statements calculated to pour salve on wounds without being helpful.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was in a number of countries in Europe this year, and I wonder how many people wanted to go back, say, to Italy. How many wanted to go back to Germany or to Poland?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We rarely get requests
from people wanting to go back there. I will try to have a definite statement made with regard to the other countries.


Mr. HEENAN:: While the minister is preparing that report, I hope he will also give us information with respect to what kind of employment was refused by these men, and what were the impossible conditions of employment that they demanded and were not given?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would like to make the return this session.


Peter Heenan: I hardly think the minister would countenance the deportation of a Canadian citizen or a man from Canada unless the hon. member had positive proof that conditions of employment offered were such as would afford a Canadian standard of living.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: But a Canadian citizen is never subject to deportation.


Peter Heenan: I said: A man from Canada. I have heard it said by some people, I do not know by whom, that those in opposition are supposed to offer congratulations to the government when they are doing right and to give helpful suggestions. I rise at this time to say to the Acting Minister of Immigration that I am fully in accord with the position he has taken with respect to immigration to Canada. He has, however, suggested that we might wait until such time as a concrete system of immigration is offered to the government. I do not agree there because that might be too late. Inasmuch as gentlemen in another house of parliament, that at Westminster, have, because of their action in carrying a resolution, not hesitated to say to the people of Great Britain and Canada what their views are with respect to emigration from the British isles to this country, this is an opportune time for us in 
Canada to say something as to what we might approve in this country.	_
When I said that I rose, because of being m opposition, to be helpful to the minister, my mind went back to around 1929; it could go back further, but it went back more especially to 1929 when the present Prime Minister sat on this side in opposition and advocated that the more people we brought to Canada, the more work and employment there would be for those who were in this country; when the Minister of Railways said that Canada might be the meoca for the surplus people of the whole world if we had a proper government and a proper fiscal policy; when the organizer of the Conservative party, General McRae, then member for Vancouver North, advocated bringing either 250,000 or 300,000 families to this country at an expense of $300,000,000, or $30,000,000 a year for ten years, and when that glorious old Tory, the Hon. Howard Ferguson, was making a trip through Europe canvassing the various countries there to send their surplus people to this province and criticizing the then government because we were too careful in our selection of the type of immigrant we wanted to come here. I am wondering where that policy has gone. Why the change? There is now in office a government that is satisfactory to the Minister of Railways, a government that, I hope, has a policy that is satisfactory to him; and he said that if we had that policy and that government, this country should be a mecca for the surplus people of the whole world. What is the trouble now? I would say to the Minister of Railways that I am glad he has changed his view. Responsibility is a great thing.


Robert James Manion: So is irresponsibility.


Peter Heenan: For fear I might be
charged with misquoting the Minister of Railways, it will be found that when he was supporting General McRae's proposition, he said this:
We have one of the greatest countries in the world and if it were properly handled it should be the mecca for all the desirable peoples in all the overcrowded portions of the earth.	[DOT]
Again he said:
My complaint is not so much that the number of British immigrants is not larger, as that our immigration of all classes is much too small. The question is often asked how many can we absorb in this country?
Again he said:
I submit that we can take many more immigrants of all kinds.
Again:
I submit that we have a need for people of
all classes.
MARCH 5, 1034	j j
Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement
I am not entirely blaming the Minister of Railways because that was the general view of the Conservative party when they were in opposition. The Conservative press throughout the country lambasted the government of the day, pointing out that we were trying to hold Canada in a narrow channel and to restrict immigration. We have heard the Acting Minister of Immigration this afternoon speak of the proportion of agriculturists to be found in Great Britain. Anyone who knows anything about industrial England is well aware that very few people in that country are engaged in agriculture and that you cannot make an agricultural out of an industrial population. So where are we to get these agriculturists and what were we to do with them when we got them here?
I think the Acting Minister of Immigration and the government should tell General Hornby what we propose to do in this country. Who is financing him? Is it the British government or some select few people who want to get rid of the unemployed population, trafficking in humanity, throwing people from one country to another? Is that the game in which Canada is to be engaged? General Hornby appearing before labour people in the city of Winnipeg has a plan all set out for so many thousand people to be settled in certain communities and all that sort of thing. He has even provision made for their return to Great Britain if they do not make good. How are our Canadian workers to be safeguarded so that these immigrants will return to Great Britain? All these questions must be taken into consideration.
I say again that I congratulate the Acting Minister of Immigration and the Conservative government on their right about face on the immigration question. I think I can congratulate the Conservative press because, since this government came into power, they realized it could not provide work for the people who are here much less for those it might bring in from outside.
In conclusion, I hope the minister will view and continue to view with alarm any proposals that are made by anybody outside Canada.


Robert James Manion: I do not intend to delay
the committee long, but that speech of mine has been quoted so often by my hon. friend and others that I should like to refer to it for a moment. I did speak after General McRae, but my hon. friend is quite incorrect in saying that I supported General McRae's resolution. I remember it very well; he proposed, I think, the bringing in of
74726-75 j
something like 250,000 or 300,000 people to the Peace River territory. My hon. friend will search my speech in vain to find any word of mine supporting that scheme. I did at the same time speak of immigration, and I did say that in those days of great prosperity-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Well, surely my hon.
friends are not finding fault with me for pointing that out. I did say that in those days of prosperity, with the proper policy, this country might well be the mecca for the suitable surplus people of the different parts of the earth. I adhere to that position absolutely. Everyone at that time, I think it was 1929-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May 22, 1929.


Robert James Manion: I think at that time everyone in Canada, Mr. Beatty, Sir Henry Thornton, nearly all the business men and most of the politicians, including my hon. friends who were then in power, were taking the attitude that we should bring immigrants to this country. No one then thought that in the following October the world was going to be overtaken by the greatest depression that had ever occurred, and that it was going to continue for four years. I take the attitude now that when the depression is over, when Canada is once more on the upgrade-it is now to my mind, but not back to normal at all-when it is back to normal I believe Canada will require more immigrants. I do not believe that this country with three and a half million square miles, double the whole area of Europe exclusive of Russia, will continue to limit its population to the ten millions in the country at the present time.
I believe the time will come when, normal conditions being restored, we will again bring immigrants to this country and be able to absorb them. I do not wish now, especially in the discussion of my hon. colleague's estimates, to get into any debate on this subject, but I desire just to point out, as I did yesterday in Montreal, what is my firm conviction. I mentioned also, without criticizing my hon. friends-because I said everyone at that time advocated bringing in immigrants-that my hon. friends in three years during their regime brought in 436,000 immigrants. They were proceeding in accordance with my belief at that time that we should bring immigrants to this country, because conditions were good. During the last three years, in contrast to the 436,000 brought in by my hon. friends opposite in their last three

Settlement
1178	_
Supply-Immigration-Empire
years, my hon. friend the present Minister of Immigration has allowed in only 60,000, and I think quite rightly; because I entirely agree with those in this house who take the attitude that in times like these when we *cannot look after our own Canadian unemployed we should not bring in immigrants. But I get back to where I started, that is, that I believe that when we get back, if ever, to a normal world condition, and Canada'is enjoying deserved prosperity, we will once more be a mecca for good types of immigrants from various parts of the world, and will be glad to get a great many of them.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: In rising, sffi to take part in this debate, I have no intention of delivering a speech which might serve, perhaps, in ten years, when the world will have again settled' down to normal conditions. Under the present circumstances, we should refuse to participate in the colonization policy of the Empire and not encourage it by contributions to send settlers who would certainly become a burden to this country. The government must be aware that, for the last three years, it has been unable to provide for the needs of our unemployed. It behooves the government to place the little money which remains at the disposal of our fellow-citizens and not contribute to again increase the number of unemployed.
That is why I am opposed to this item of $10,000 to participate in this colonization plan. Members on the government side who hail from Quebec and who have, for the last three years, been criticizing, on hustings, the former regime for having fostered immigration in this country, must have been shocked in learning to-day, in the house, that their friends are ready to foster immigration to Canada, even in these times of depression.
I wish to protest, sir, against the expenditure of $10,000 and I request the government to put into practice what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has been preaching for the last three years: "Canada First." Let us endeavour to first help our fellow-citizens to earn a livelihood and let us leave in their own country those who have not the means to settle in Canada.


John Vallance: I rise merely to register a protest against a statement made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainv River in dealing with immigration. He said that only seven per cent of the British people are engaged in agriculture, therefore good agriculturists could not very readily be made out of the other ninety-three per cent. I take exception to that statement; some of the best
[Mr. Manion.l
agriculturists that western Canada has produced came from the industrial centres of Great Britain.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy Raver quoted from the famous speech made on May 22, 1929, by the present Minister of Railways, who says that during the years we were in office we brought in 436,000-


Robert James Manion: The last three calendar
years, I said.


John Vallance: That makes it that much worse'. He now asserts that this government has admitted only 60,000. Let us see how that compares with the statement quoted by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. If the farming country is as prosperous as the Prime Minister and some of his followers claim, we should be able to absorb hundreds of thousands of all classes of immigrants from all countries. Even the 436,000 brought in in those three years were not enough; the Minister of Railways thought we should have brought in hundreds of thousands from all countries. How then does he justify his present commendation of this government's position in admitting only 60,000?


Robert James Manion: Simply >by world conditions, that is all. I did not criticize the late government for bringing in that number, and I said so; I simply pointed out that they had brought so many in and we had cut the number down to 60,000, giving round figures from memory. As a matter of fact this government has been forced to reduce the number, not because I do not believe every word I said then, but because of world conditions, a depression such as the world never experienced before, and in which we share.


John Vallance: All I wish to say is that in May 1929 the present Minister of Railways made that statement. In 1930 he and his colleagues in the present administration went about the country preaching blue ruin, and to-day he is Minister of Railways simply because of that. They spoke of the deplorable conditions existing in Canada, and said that it was not a world condition but peculiarly a Canadian condition; there was no depression in Europe, they said. Why', the depression in Europe was four y'ears old at that time, before it ever struck Canada.


Robert James Manion: I did not discuss the depression in Europe at all. I do not know what my hon. friend is talking about.


John Vallance: In 1930 the hon. member said it was peculiarly a Canadian condition.

Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement


Mr. BROWN:: Due to the policy of the Canadian government.


Robert James Manion: Oh, nonsense.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: In every speech he made.


John Vallance: It seems so many want to talk to the minister that I am not going to be privileged to say much more. But I just want to put the minister straight on this, that his attitude in May, 1929, was that we should bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from all countries.


Robert James Manion: You were doing it.


John Vallance: Then on the 5th day of March, 1934, he stands up and excuses this government by telling us that we brought in 460,000 immigrants at the very time he was telling us we should have brought in hundreds of thousands more. Now he says, in appreciation of this government, that they brought in only 60,000. I hope that when the government goes to the country, which probably will be this year, his attitude will be different -as I know it will-from his attitude in 1930. They pulled that stunt, to use the vernacular, in 1930, but it cannot be repeated in 1934.


Albert Joseph Brown: The thing that impressed
' me in this discussion, after listening to the Minister of Railways and his recognition of the fact that there was a period of great prosperity before this government came into power, no matter who was responsible for it, was my recollection of the vicious, bitter, uncalled for .attacks that were made upon the Minister of Immigration of the previous government. I may say to hon. members of the house who are here lor the first time that if they have thought sometimes the government opposite have been subjected to severe criticism, they should have sat in this parliament from 1922 to 1930. We all remember the attack made upon the government with regard to the customs department; we all recall the bitter attacks made upon the then Minister of Immigration, and if I am ever disposed, as I sometimes am, to let up on my criticism of the present government, my thoughts go back to the attacks made upon the late Hon. Robert Forke when he was Minister of Immigration. It was not only the private members of the then opposition who attacked him; I cannot forget how the present Prime Minister spoke of the late Hon. Robert Forke as a man who was temperamentally unfitted for the great position which he held. A whole session was devoted by the opposition to attacks upon that gentleman.


John Vallance: Just along the line of
what my hon. friend has said, on Thursday night I was greatly tempted to rise and recite just what the hon. member for Lisgar has stated the present Prime Minister said across the floor of the house to the then Minister of Immigration; I should have done so had it not been for the esteem in which we all hold the present Minister of National Revenue. We all remember the Prime Minister saying: "Why can you not remember it?" and " Why, Mr. Chairman, what a spectacle; a minister of the crown not able to give the information." We were too kind on Thursday night, in sheer deference to the new Minister of National Revenue, but as the hon. member for Lisgar says, sometimes we get a little warm under the collar when we listen to hon. gentlemen opposite now that they are sitting to the right of the speaker.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I have often hearc
Canada referred to as the mecca of the workingman, but I have also heard people in this country refer to Russia in the same way. The hon. member for East Hamilton asked with regard to the number of workmen in this country who have asked to be deported to Russia, and I was wondering if that number was very large.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There will be little difficulty in finding that out. While I have not the information before me I can say that we have very great difficulty in returning anyone to Russia because of the passport troubles that I presume are well known to my hon. friend. However, I will secure the information before my estimates are through.


Michael Luchkovich: But are they very
anxious to go back? That is what I want to know.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know of any
that have expressed themselves in one way or the other.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Minister of Railways said that 60,000 immigrants have been brought to Canada since this government has been in power.


Robert James Manion: No, I did not say that; I said in the last three years, and I was speaking of calendar years.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Very well, but I will take the figure of 60,000. The Minister of Immigration has said that since this government has been in power some 26,000 people have been deported, so in view of that fact would it not be just as well to change the name of this department from immigration to deportaton?
1180	COMMONS
Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If I might put my hon. friend right, there has been no such number of deportations. I think the number would run closer to 16,000.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: According to a return tabled by the minister on February 15, the figure is about 26,000, of whom over 13,000 were British subjects. Coming back to General Hornby's scheme, may I say that this man has been going across the country addressing boards of trade, Canadian clubs and other organizations, creating the impression that there is a big scheme under way to bring immigrants to this country. He has caused a great deal of unrest in many localities, and I should like to ask the minister if he does not think it would be advisable for him, as Minister of Immigration, to give to the press a statement pointing out that there is no foundation to this scheme and that this government has not encouraged it in any way. I think it would be a good thing, because it would relieve the erroneous impression that has gone abroad.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What is his scheme?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I do not know.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Neither do I. Am I to give a statement to the press condemning a scheme when I know nothing about it?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If General Hornby interviewed the minister a couple of times the minister must have some idea of the scheme.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I said he did not have a very clear idea when he saw me.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If he is getting locations of land and so on, surely the department could find out about his scheme.


Mr. ROBINSON:: The department is not a police force.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Well, they have a certain responsibility. To-day thousands of people cannot find work and cannot get enough to eat, but the impression has been going out that under this scheme thousands of immigrants will be brought to Canada to settle in different parts of the country. With all respect I think the minister should issue a statement denying these reports.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Did I understand the minister to say that he does not know the Hornby scheme, a British migration movement, that has been discussed with the different provincial governments?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have an outline of the scheme here if the committee would like to hear it; it is very brief. With regard to Prince Edward Island General Hornby says that he has not yet visited that province at the request of the government, but that he intended to do so at the very earliest opportunity after his return to eastern Canada. With regard to Nova Scotia two locations have been selected and the approval of the provincial government has been obtained. In New Brunswick there are two selected locations, and again the approval of the provincial government has been given. In Quebec two locations have been chosen but approval has not been given. In Ontario four locations have been selected, in the counties of Middlesex, Oxford, Brant and Glengarry and Stormont. No approval has been given as yet. In Manitoba two locations have been provisionally accepted, but the approval of the government has not been given. In Saskatchewan the number of locations selected is four. Approval has been given by the Saskatchewan government to those four locations. I understand one of them is at Lashburn, a short distance from North Battleford. In Alberta the number of selections is six; no approval has yet been given, but negotiations are of course going on between General Hornby and the provincial government. In British Columbia the number of locations selected is one; no approval has yet been given.
Then, following these locations in the nine provinces this statement is made in the memorandum broadcast by General Hornby:
The above mentioned twenty-three settlements, each to consist of one hundred farms are the first instalment of what will undoubtedly become a great overseas migration movement from the old country-a voluntary, spontaneous and continuous movement, involving eventually the establishment of no less than 250 such community settlements, 25,000 farms in all, absorbing at the outset 25,000 new settler families, 125,000 persons, and maintaining an uninterrupted flow of at least 5,000 families. 25,000 persons, to Canada every year. Every county in the United Kingdom, and every town of importance should have its community settlement in Canada, to take care of its selected immigrants.
For the next few months in Canada our work will be confined to the lining up of the farms to make up the proposed settlement at each of the twenty-three selected locations.
But these are only a forerunner of a large movement which is to take place from year to year after these locations have been definitely settled, approval given by provincial governments and all details worked out.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say any more, but may I add simply this: that

Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement
if file department at Ottawa through the minister has not had this policy of General Hornby presented to it, apparently the federal government is either directly or indirectly linked up with it. For instance, in the memorandum from which I have been reading I find information which I believe the minister should have, and which I am quite pleased to give him. It is as follows:
For the same reason I welcome the step taken by the federal government in placing the services of the staffs of the land settlement department and the soldier settlement department at the disposal of the provincial governments, for the purpose of making surveys and reports, where required.
There is a definite link up between the Department of Immigration and Colonization of the national government with the colonization departments of the different provincial governments. Consequently I think the headquarters at Ottawa ought to have all the facts and all the details of this policy to give to the house, so that information may toe given not only to parliament but to the country.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask the minister
if this authority was given to -the soldier settlement board, and to the land settlement board?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Officials of the soldier
settlement board, who are really the land settlement branch of the immigration department, since we started colonization at home, have been constantly at work endeavouring to tabulate, so far as possible, suitable available lands for colonization. It is a difficult task, because many of these lands are privately owned. I have not had the officials of the department go to the trouble of tabulating these lands in any great detail, because of necessity they change from week to week and from month to month. But if General Hornby or General anybody else wants to go to the department and get all the information they have in matters of this kind, he is at perfect liberty to do so.
I can say only this, that I am amazed at some hon. members going to the length of utter condemnation of British settlement in Canada, because I by no means agree with the view that the right type of British settler would not be a very welcome person in Canada, and I should not like to see the time when he would not foe welcome. Remember, there are other schemes constantly affecting
and concerning settlement in Canada. We have the community settlements of western Canada, which have grown up in the last fifteen years, and we have other types of settlement, both assisted and unassisted. To the extent that our predecessors in office put forth their activities towards inviting and encouraging the right sort and type of settler to come to Canada, I have no complaint. But I do have a complaint which I shall now register, in case I have not done so before, that when I took over the administration of the Department of Immigration there were permits granted to hon. members on both sides of this chamber, to railway companies, to various agencies of all kinds and characters. Remember, there was not just one man's name on a permit, and information showing where that man's background was investigated, but on one sheet of paper there would be authorization for admission of large numbers and these were sent to Europe and traded in among the steamship lines at so much a head. That is the kind of immigration I condemn and will continue to condemn.
But I commend the late government to the extent that their activities were conducted- and they were in some measure-towards the invitation given to the right type of person to settle in Canada. They are entitled to that commendation, and I have no hesitation in giving it.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, having sat in this house since 1921 I find it interesting to listen to this discussion on immigration. Fortunately or unfortunately I happened to be Minister of Immigration at a time somewhat similar to the present. At that time the force and eloquence of the opposition were directed to the desirability of widening the field for immigration, and of the expenditure of more money for that purpose in order to bring in more immigrants. Not only that, but the financial houses in eastern Canada, and the railway companies, were putting up money for the purpose of encouraging people to come to Canada. Sometimes I have been incensed when, sitting in this house, I have listened to the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite who, on the occasion to which I have referred, were most vociferous in their declarations that the government was not doing its duty and was not getting more people to come to Canada.
Let me say now, as I said in 1921, that I do not believe the Canadian government should spend a dollar in bringing immigrants into Canada. Any man who is worth his salt
1182	COMMONS
Supply-Immigration-Empire Settlement
and wants to come to Canada could be examined, but we should get away from the idea of inviting people to come to this country.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We are not at the present time.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I know you are not at the present time. With one exception I am not complaining about what is happening now. When the minister states that he believes British settlement would be worth while, I agree, but when we listen to the returns to which references were made by the hon. member for Provencher we find that fewer continentals than Britishers were returned. I wish to bring that to the attention of the committee.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I gave the explanation.


Charles A. Stewart: But I may also direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that not in this house but outside of it, much of the difficulty experienced in the present day with respect to unemployment was brought about by the uncontrolled flow of immigration into Canada in former times. If it was uncontrolled my hon.friends opposite must take their fair share of the responsibility because there was only one group in this house, which sat in the far corner to my left, which from the day it entered the house consistently up until this moment opposed immigration into Canada. The Conservative party, on the other hand, backed by the financial interests of eastern Canada and the transportation interests, were continually driving any government and any minister who would listen to them into unlimited immigration. It was the only way in which we could pay our public debt; that was the argument, but unfortunately these immigrants, and it is no reflection upon them to say so, have become a burden to us to-day rather than a help in paying our public debt. This is not the first time that ministers have had to sit back and take a castigation over immigration, not by a long shot, and a castigation from the very gentlemen who now seek to adopt a defensive attitude. It is just as well that they be reminded of this once in a while because I had to take my share when hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting over here. I sat for four days where the Minister of Immigration is now sitting, listening to sixty-five members in the far left corner of the house demanding that the immigration estimates be cut in two if not abolished altogether, because we had no place in Canada for immigrants, while from the Conservative benches in this house, then the opposition, there was a most vociferous

demand for increased immigration all along the line. I need only remind hon. gentlemen opposite that as late as 1927 or 1928 the then member for Vancouver, now Senator McRae, propounded a scheme to the house which if it had been put into effect would only have added to our present difficulties. So I say that hon. gentlemen opposite are not warranted in the criticism which they are levelling against the government that preceded them in office. True, the late Hon. Mr. Forke when Minister of Immigration entered into agreements with the railway companies to bring people to this country, but it was done upon the insistent demand of hon. gentlemen opposite then sitting on this side of the house, and various organizations throughout the country, churches and everybody else, were behind that demand. Now we are all agreed that that policy was a mistake; for we have a very serious state of affairs in this country. The present difficult position in which we find ourselves is not by any means due entirely to immigration, because in comparison with the number of people in Canada our immigration during the last eight or ten years did not amount to very much. I shall have something to say later, Mr. Chairman, as to other causes for our present conditions, but this is not the time or place to enter into such a discussion.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Chairman, I happened to be in the House of Commons wdien the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) was Minister of Immigration, and I remember the debates to which he has made reference. I challenge him to say that at any time the official Conservative opposition of that day ever advocated uncontrolled immigration into this country.


John Vallance: As late as 1929.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not uncontrolled; we urged selected immigration.


Charles A. Stewart: What about General McRae's scheme?


Richard Burpee Hanson: His scheme was never crystallized in the form of resolutions, and was never the policy of the Conservative opposition. As to the criticism of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) he himself never had any concrete policy on immigration. I remember him standing in his place in this row and making a speech, seven hours in length, if I recollect aright, and when he got through no one knew what his policy was, not even himself, and I leave it to my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) if I am not right.

Supply-Defence-Administration


Charles Gavan Power: He must have been a good man.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
trouble was that the government had no well formulated plan in those days, and they were bringing in people who did not stay here. We had the spectacle in this country of one million Canadians leaving Canada under the regime of the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, and they brought in about as many immigrants from continental Europe.


William Duff: The only reason they do not leave now is that they cannot get out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
would be too bad if it deprived my hon. friend of any assistance. My reply to the hon. gentleman who has been scolding the minister is this, that when he was Minister of Immigration his government spent all kinds of money to bring people into Canada, and then by a policy of attrition, wearing down the industries of this country, they drove out the immigrants they had brought in, or drove out our own people, and Canada lost just that many. Through the policy or lack of policy on the part of the late government we lost millions of Canadians whom we shall never replace.


Charles A. Stewart: You are
getting them back.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. Some of them will never come back. We also had a lot of southern Europeans brought into this country who never should have been brought in.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: We are feeding over one million people in this country through the policies of this government.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There seems to be some difference of opinion whether this item should pass or not, and so, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the item stand.


William Duff: I think you had better.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Your suggestion is not helpful.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Hugh Guthrie: In view of the discussion
that has taken place we will let item 52 stand and take up item 160.
For administration of the Explosives Act (chap. 62, R.S., 1927), $7,000.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister was willing that I ask a final question, but if he thinks it will take too long now I am content to abide by his decision and await a subsequent opportunity.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There will be ample opportunity.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
quite a reduction here. Is it due to the inspection by the mounted police?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administration, $318,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How is
the reduction accounted for?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We try as far as we can
to have the officers moved around as little as possible, thus saving in travelling expenses.


Mr. REID:: How many camps are under
the jurisdiction of the department in British Columbia?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That would not
come under this item.


William Richard Motherwell: Will the minister
classify this item into the various units that comprise it, so that it will be a little more intelligible?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This vote is for pay, allowances, transport and travelling expenses of militia officers holding staff appointments; that is, the staff appointments at Ottawa and in the various military districts which exist in every province of Canada.


Frederick George Sanderson: This is the permanent force.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: How long are we
going to keep up these military districts with all this paraphernalia in every province? They were there when we were in power, but they were being gradually reduced. I do not think we are confronted with a war in Canada. There is of course a good deal of war material to be housed and that has to be taken care of. But are we going on indefinitely with all this business of war preparations?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: These are the key
men who run the whole institution, and they have to be prepared to instruct and administer

Supply-Defence-Administration
the whole militia force. There is no increase in them. It has been generally felt by every government since we have had a country at all that we must have a military force, and so long as we have a military force we must have a head and a staff to administer it. The general vote has been cut down in the last few years from something like 322,000,000 to about 312,000,000, but that has been in the non-permanent militia and in the buying of supplies, and matters of that sort. We must however keep the administrative divisions ready and capable at all times.


William Richard Motherwell: We had all these military districts before the war.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We had all the military districts as at present except Regina. During the war one was formed at Regina, and one was also formed at St. John.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are any of the officers who come under this vote used as supervisors of relief camps?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What proportion of this is for Saskatchewan?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is a certain
amount of it for the headquarters in Saskatchewan. At Regina there is a district officer commanding who is paid out of this vote, the general staff officer and the assistants and the quartermaster general.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What is the amount,
approximately?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The amount is 315,476.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does this include the non-permanent personnel?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is there any increase
or decrease in the personnel?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is practically no increase in the permanent force. We are estimating in another vote, in the permanent force vote, for about thirty or forty less than last year.


James J. Donnelly: I want to join with the hon. member for Melville in objecting to this vote. We have a reduction of 3170,000 in the money being voted for militia purposes whereas there is a total reduction of over
8800,000	in the estimates for agriculture. I object to this vote. I am one of those who cannot see why, in times like these, we should not reduce this vote for military purposes. When you live in a district where the people

are living from hand to mouth, where a man is given 39 to buy clothing to last him the whole year-boots and shoes, overshoes, underwear, overalls, socks, and everything else-you can readily realize how absolutely ridiculous a vote of this kind is. It is absurd for us to be voting money for military purposes while being so penurious in the matter of expenditures for the relief of people who are in dire necessity. I wish to register my vote against this whole item.


Charles Gavan Power: Are any of the officers
covered by this vote employed in looking after relief camps?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. There are no
officers particularly engaged in that. Of course, those in the department may have something to do with it, but they are not in charge of the camps.


Charles Gavan Power: Some officers of the permanent force have been placed in charge of camps.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, but not in this administration vote.


Charles Gavan Power: Are they getting extra pay?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is no one in this vote getting extra pay. At Lac Seul a couple of permanent force officers get extra allowance while there-about 390.


Charles Gavan Power: What about Valcartier?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I cannot be sure
about Valcartier. When we come to that I will have the information.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Would the minister give the approximate amounts that will accrue under this vote for each of the three western provinces?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: For Regina I gave the amount, $15,476; for Calgary, 315,731, and for Winnipeg, $17,812.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For Victoria?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The amount is $14,162.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Lighthouse and Coast Service-Amount required to pay compassionate allowance to John Davidson, formerly ilightkeeper at Cape Mudge, B.C., $500.
Charles A. Stewart: Is it the intention of the minister to begin the estimates of all the departments to-night?
MiAlRCH 5, 1034
Supply-Mines


Hugh Guthrie: No, I think this is the last one.


Charles A. Stewart: There were three mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: This is the third.


Charles A. Stewart: It is about the fifth. '


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $6,000.
Charles A. Stewart: Is this
another department?


Hugh Guthrie: This is fisheries.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend has brought down two more departments than were agreed on the other day.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, if there is any objection-


Charles A. Stewart: We certainly object.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to say to the Minister of Justice that if we go into all these departments, the government will be relieved of the necessity of moving for committee of supply on any day other than Thursday and Friday, and he can have committee of supply on Thursdays and Fridays automatically, thus depriving members of the opportunity of bringing before the government any matters wThieh they want to discuss before the end of the session. For that reason I do not think the government should ask us to open any more departments.


Hugh Guthrie: Then we shall return to one already introduced.
Item stands.



MINES AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

[Stage Direction]
Geological Survey-
For explorations, surveys and investigations, wages of explorers, topographers and others, $83,500.
For publication of English and French editions of reports, maps, illustrations, etc., $65,000.
For maintenance of offices and museum, expenses of special exhibitions pertaining to natural resources, purchase of instruments, chemicals, books of reference, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, and expenses of the Geographic Board of Canada, $70,202.
For museum equipment, $5,000.
For purchase of specimens, $300-Total, $224,002.
Charles Gavan Power: There was no mention of our taking up the estimates of the Department of Mines.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, we are in it.


George Gibson Coote: Where are the surveys to be carried on this year under the first item:
For exploration, surveys and investigations: wages of explorers, topographers and others.
I am given to understand unofficially that very little work is going on.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is unfortunate, but the number of survey parties had to be reduced very materially because economies had to be made. The parties for this year's operations and the places where they will go have not yet been finally determined and probably will not be for three weeks or a month. Officials of the department and I have been as careful as we can to see that the parties are so arranged that there will be no interruption in the continuity of the geological survey work. Of course I am hopeful, as I am sure every member is, that the time will not be too long delayed when additional parties over and above those that are now being sent out will go out as times improve. Arrangements for the work of the summer have not yet been perfected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How have the survey parties been allocated? By provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In the past the parties have been allocated not according to provinces, that is by reason of any demand or pressure from them, but purely to make a continuous projection of geological work. Of course my hon. friend knows that the geological surveys of Canada were started officially in 1842 and have proceeded from that time on, having regard to those areas where it would seem that the projection of geological surveys would result in the greatest good; but they have not been allocated to provinces as such. There is one province, I think, British Columbia, where according to statute these surveys must be carried on. But the arrangement made is: first, to see that the continuity of the geological survey is not disturbed; second, to see that the geological surveys are carried on where they will disclose the beat areas for prospecting and so forth, and, third, to arrange with those provinces which have provincial geological surveys so that our work does not overlap theirs. That practice was pursued by the hon. member for West Edmonton and it is a very proper one.


Frederick George Sanderson: There is an increase of $15,000 in the second item:
For publication of English and French editions of reports, maps, illustrations, etc.
Will the minister explain that?
Supply-Mines


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We found that there was a large number of geological reports that for various reasons had not been published at the time the geologists went into the field. Some of them were delayed a considerable length of time. That, together with the necessity for providing for salaries for some staff that had been transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Mines, and who before they were released from the Department of the Interior had been mainly engaged upon work for 'the Department of Mines, accounts for the increase in that item.


Frederick George Sanderson: Perhaps I did not hear the minister correctly. Are salaries included in this increase of $15,000?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I find I was mistaken in regard to that item. The increase for publications is for the publication of a book known as the Birds of Canada. Let me explain that to hon. members so that we shall not get into a difference of opinion as to the desirability of this publication. Judging from the number of applications we have in the department for this book, from schools and other educational institutions, this money will be repaid in a very short time. I have no doubt that it will cost the country nothing, and it is indeed a very valuable work. The plates are all ready and have been for some time, and I believe it is desirable to proceed with the publication of the work.


Charles A. Stewart: As a matter of fact you are always short, are you not, in your estimates for publications? I should imagine it would be worse than ever now owing to the activity of mining.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is difficult to balance
the cost of publications with the revenue received, but we are doing our best to have them balance. This, I believe, is one item that will balance.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad to take
this opportunity to congratulate the minister upon what he has just said. That publication on birds is very good; it is sold at a reasonable price. It is very commendable for several reasons, and should be widely distributed. It should be used for presentation as prizes in schools.
Hcs the hon. minister any objection to our taking at the same time item 161 of the same department? Items 161 and 162 are closely related; one is for the mines branch and the other for the geological survey. In vote 162 there is an item for purchase of specimens; if I understand correctly it is for the purchase of specimens of minerals, therefore it would

not be out of place to discuss both items together. Would the minister be kind enough to tell the committee whether the last year for which the value of mineral production is available is the year 1932, and if we cannot get now the value of production for the year 1933?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, the hon. member can get from reliable sources, the production of minerals throughout Canada for the year 1933, and I think, even up to the end of last month. While the department may not have those figures, they are available generally to the industry. They are kept pretty well up to date by many publications in Canada and by the department. If the hon. member would like to have a record of the mineral production of Canada up to the end of 1933 I shall be very glad to let him have it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. minister. I got some information from the bureau of statistics but it was only for the years 1930, 1931 and 1932. I will ask the minister if the value of production of metals, including gold, and the value of non-ferrous metal products, increased or decreased in 1932 as compared with 1930, and how much.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the figures
available at the moment, but if the hon. member has any difficulty in getting them I can either furnish them before the estimates for this department are concluded or give them to him personally.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman very much, and as he cannot give it to the committee right now I will give it myself. The decrease in the value of production of metals including gold, and of non-ferrous metal products for 1932 as compared with 1930, is $108,691,098. Why have we a decrease in the value of those minerals? Now that the minister has the figure it will be easy for him to tell the committee. At the same time I will ask what minerals are included in that list.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know what the
hon. member is reading from. It may be a speech of the Prime Minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am reading from page
635 of Hansard.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are many factors that affect the value of mineral production. One would be the very low prices for copper, lead and zinc. My hon. friend knows that copper, for instance, dropped from 24 cents to less than 4 cents per pound, and while in

Supply-Mines
lead and zinc the reduction was not so marked yet there was a very great contraction in the price of those metals. Gold, on the other hand, increased in world price. As I said a moment ago, it could scarcely in fairness be anticipated that I would have available on short notice the figures asked for, but 1 will have them before these estimates are passed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, and I ask him if he would be kind enough to tell the house if that decrease in value of production means a decrease in labour employed, and if so, how many miners have been put out of work on account of it? That is one question. Then I would ask if the exports of the minerals I have mentioned have been larger in quantity although smaller in value?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the hon. gentleman will have to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce for those figures; or if he would wish that I get them for him I shall be glad to do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Now we will
take another classification of minerals in the same item:
Value of lion-metallic minerals and structural materials production; and value of nonmetallic mineral products, except glass.
This is a description which comes from the bureau of statistics; what are the nonmetallic minerals and structural materials? If the hon. gentleman would be kind enough to give that information I would be thankful.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is quite obvious that
the figures requested by the hon. gentleman come within the purview of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Of course there are parts of the interrogation that I can answer, with respect to structural material, that is brick, building stone and things of that character, the investigation of which falls within the purview of the Mines department. The marketing of these materials, how much is exported and imported, and the values and so on do not come within the activities of the Mines department.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that asbestos is included in the non-metallic minerals. The minister has said that these figures come under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I must tell him that I obtained these figures from the bureau of statistics, but they came from the Department of Mines; they were certified by one of the employees who comes directly under the jurisdiction of the
hon. gentleman. Therefore I will ask him with regard to the value of non-metallic minerals, structural materials and so on. What was the value of the production of these minerals in 1932 as compared with 1930; is there a decrease or an increase and, if so, why? I see the hon. gentleman is not going to answer.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh, yes; I will answer.
The statistics the Mines department has concerning the production, the values, the imports and exports of these materials were procured from the bureau of statistics. I cannot follow the hon. member for Temiseouata when he says that the bureau base their figures on certifications from the Mines department. There may be something of which we have some special knowledge but generally, and I think entirely, we rely upon the bureau if we need statistics of that character.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, but I may tell him how I proceed when I want statistics. I do not write to any particular employee of the bureau; I write to the Dominion Statistician who refers my letter to some of his officials. When we ask questions about different departments we receive answers certified by different people. In this instance the report on the value of the mineral production of Canada was certified by a gentleman whose name I have not here but who signed as chief of the mines branch. Perhaps it was the mines branch of the bureau of statistics, but I was induced to believe that he was under the jurisdiction of the hon. gentleman.
At all events we have a Department of Mines. The minister is very genial, but this question of minerals is of the utmost importance to Canada. Here we have the products of the land, of the sea and of the mines, and we cannot neglect any of them. I do not insist on an answer with regard to these figures, but I will put them on Hansard so that each member may draw his own conclusions. In 1932 the value of production of non-metallic minerals and structural materials except glass was $203,599,158. In 1930 the value was $307,710,915, showing a decrease in 1932 of $104,151,757, which means that the people engaged in cutting stone, in quarrying, in the mine shafts and so on have suffered a great loss. I agree that these matters could be discussed under the items of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but they come mainly under the estimates of my hon. friend. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has general supervision over the trade of this country, but these matters are

Supply-M ines

of particular interest to the house at the present time. In the same way this afternoon we discussed the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
There is still another item which is of the utmost importance. I refer to the value of glass production, including pressed and blown glass and the bevelling, cutting and so on of plate glass. In 1932 the value of this production was 88,469,895 as compared with $12,191,752 in 1930, or a decrease of $3,721,857. For that small industry such a reduction represents a panic. In the same category we find the value of chemical production; in 1930 this amounted to $119,969,637, while in 1932 it had dropped to $95,279,376, or a decrease of $24,690,261. What about the home market? Prices are falling all the time, and with these figures it is easy to see why so many miners are unemployed.
Another important item is iron and steel and their products; this is a very large Canadian industry. We have the British Empire Steel Corporation in Cape Breton, the Algoma Steel Corporation in Ontario and other large plants, and this is a matter of interest in many provinces. In 1932 the value of this production was $226,205,543, while in 1930 it was $569,745,973, a decrease in 1932 of $343,540,432. The total decrease in the value of the production of the articles I have mentioned is $584,795,205. It is almost inconceivable that mineral production has decreased by over $584,000,000. My hon. friends opposite can check my figures, because they may be found at page 635 of Hansard. I reecived them from the government, either the Department of Mines or the Department Df Trade and Commerce, through the bureau Df statistics.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Does he refer to primary production or to manufactured articles?


Jean-François Pouliot: The information is not
detailed. I shall take the liberty of asking the minister to give me some explanation in that connection. I am ready to hear him, if he is kind enough to speak, because I asked about the value of mineral production and I received an answer about the value of iron and steel products. The last line of the information contains this expression, "decrease, $343,540,432." If this figure concerns primary industry, all right, but I wish to know. I do not say it is all right because I am satisfied with it; I am very sorry about it, and I am sure the hon. gentleman himself is very sorry. I should like to know from him if these figures relate to primary products or to manufactured products.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The items we have under
review at the moment have nothing whatever to do with the sale of mineral, precious or otherwise, but have to do, purely, with the scientific investigations of the Mines department, which deal with ore dressing, metallurgy and geological surveys, which are self-explanatory. Although I have no figures, nor has my department the figures to which the hon. member for Temiscouata has addressed himself, I would say that the larger figure would cover the manufactured article. While I do know the hon. member is deeply concerned with the possibility of miners being out of work, the fact is that with the exception of certain places connected with the coal mining industry of Canada, miners are not out of work. In fact, in a number of places it is very difficult to obtain the services of experienced miners who can carry on the work in the rapidly expanding precious metal mining operations of Canada. I can but repeat that it is not the function of the Department of Mines to collect and tabulate the figures to which the hon. gentleman has referred. That is a matter for the Department of Trade and Commerce. I have no doubt those figures could quite easily be determined, and if I can be of any assistance to the hon. member in getting them together I should be very glad to do so. As far as these items are concerned the Department of Mines does not engage in the sale of or advertise for the sale of the minerals, but does try to solve under the first item, the metallurgical problems with which miners are met; under the second item, the projection of geological surveys, in order that they may reach the hands of the prospectors and the mining fraternity generally, and the publication of reports. I am not prepared to go into the figures to which the hon. member has made reference, because they do not come within the compass of the activities of the Department of Mines.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. member
for his courtesy. I shall not insist, therefore, but will take advantage of his generous offer to supply me with more information. I have approached the matter with an open mind, and shall be thankful to him if he is kind enough to assist me in obtaining the desired information.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo) :: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions in connection with the vote now before the committee concerning geological surveys, and particularly about those surveys in British Columbia. There may be a general decline in the value of minerals produced throughout

Supply-Mines
Canada, but I have the honour to represent a district in which there is a very substantial increase in the amount of minerals being produced, and a section in which there is intense activity. In addition to that I wish to remind the minister that by statute the federal government is obliged to take charge of all the geological work there may be in British Columbia. I regret very much that conditions are such that it has been found necessary to reduce this vote, as I consider it one of the most important in the estimates now before us, so far as British Columbia is concerned. I should like to ask the minister if it is not possible to continue the geological surveys in that part of British Columbia particularly where theTe is intense activity in the search for gold. I refer to the Cariboo and Bridge River areas, both of which are very active and in which a great many people are looking for minerals. Each man seeking minerals needs geological information. The department sent one small party into the Cariboo district last year. I assume their work has been valuable and will be available for miners next summer. I should like to be assured that there will be no suspension of that particular work in the current year.
While I am on my feet I should like to ask if there is any possibility of proceeding with a resurvey of the Nicola coal mines area. I have been asked by the Merritt board of trade to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and should like to have some assurance from him that the work will be continued.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Answering the question and observations of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), it is quite true that under the statutes the Dominion government has certain obligations with respect to carrying on geological work in British Columbia. I am not entirely unacquainted with the mineral industry of this country, and it would not need the impulse of statutory enactment to move me towards doing everything possible to supply what money is necessary in order to advance the interests of that great industry. I had in mind with respect to British Columbia, although it has not been definitely decided upon, as I pointed out a while ago, the placing of parties this summer at Bridge river, Cariboo, Kamloops, North Vancouver island and at Finlay river. That program may be subject to some change when the work of the coming summer is finally decided upon.
With respect to the questions put by the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) I would be the last one to disturb the very efficient staff that has been built up through the years in the geological survey. This reduction in the vote will not in any way interfere with that staff, but rather the parties in the field will be cut down and some of the staff who perhaps have not been engaged in actual field work will be used in that work this summer. That will have to be determined, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that the reduction will not affect the permanent staff here to which he has made reference. The reduction in the number of geological parties I trust will not continue during the years that follow, but confronted as this country is with very serious financial problems I have found a great willingness in the mineral industry, represented as it is by so many men active in carrying on that great work, to have economies made at this time, temporary-it is true, in order to relieve the taxpayer and the treasury to as large an extent as possible. I have had the matter up on a number of occasions with the representatives of the mineral industry, and they seemed to be quite
Supply-Mines

in accord with the efforts we are putting forward to exercise the greatest possible economy without injuring seriously the efficiency of the geological survey.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Chairman-


George Gibson Coote: These are false economies, in my opinion-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: With the consent of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), may I say, Mr. Chairman, that I regret in the discussion of these estimates that everybody gets up and asks a question out of tune and out of time so that it is impossible for an hon. member to get his questions and answers on the record in any intelligible way. I have sat here listening with interest to the discussion, and if my hon. friend from Macleod will allow me sufficient time to ask a question or two I shall be satisfied to sit down. I think it would help if hon. members would follow that practice for the sake of the record.
I wanted to ask the minister a question with regard to the next item, No. 162, for the publication of French and English editions of the reports, maps and illustrations. I notice that there is an increase of $15,000 in this item. Does that mean that there will be an increased publication in French? I gathered that the minister said a few moments ago that there was an increase in certain items because of certain publications. If the minister will increase items of this kind by fifty or sixty or seventy thousand dollars I shall have no objection to voting the money, provided that such publications as the one I hold in my hand, Les Oiseaux de Test du Canada-The Birds of Eastern Canada-by Doctor Taverner, be translated into French and distributed. I think that such reports and a report on the birds of western Canada should be translated into French, as well as various reports on the geological deposits in Canada, and if that were done I should have no objection to voting a larger amount than this, provided that the minister give us the assurance that the reports from the Mines branch will be put out to the public in French within a reasonable time. I know that the French calls for two operations and the English only one, but if the reports were published more nearly concurrently in French and English, I should be glad to vote any amount of money. It has been my privilege to see and to appreciate the work of the translation into French of some of the technical reports from the Mines branch, and I mention the Mines branch at this moment because only the estimates of that branch are under consideration at the moment. I have in mind some reports

of 250 and 350 pages, for instance, the report on the Rouyn district, which has been translated into French. It is astonishing to me that these reports are not more widely distributed amongst the colleges, universities and institutions of learning in Canada. I think the government, and I have said this on a number of other occasions, should take steps to see that these technical publications, on which such a tremendous amount of money is spent, and properly spent, are put into the hands of the proper educational institutions. I have in mind, if I am in order in mentioning it, a pamphlet published by the Department of Agriculture last year on beef and its uses, and the ways of cutting it. I distributed over six hundred copies of that pamphlet in the educational institutions of this city. We pay a tremendous amount of money for the compilation of these reports and a tremendous amount of money for their translation, and then unfortunately there is no activity shown in distributing them so that they may serve the purpose for which they are prepared. I have no hesitation in approving of this increase of $15,000 if the minister will say that it will mean an easier distribution of the publications in English and French of the editions of reports, maps, illustrations and so on, and that something will be done with a view to further distributing these educational reports among our institutions of learning.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think that anyone will disagree with the observations that have been made by the senior member for Ottawa. This increase will take care of that work, covering the birds of both eastern and western Canada, and will also take care of an appropriate number of reports in the French language. In the department there has been built up, over a great number of years, a mailing list that covers universities, colleges and libraries of alii kinds, and reports that would seem to be suitable to these institutions are mailed to them. AVith respect to the publication of reports in the French language, that is now being done, not in its entirety it is true, because there are many reports in which, as I think the hon. member for Ottawa will agree on reflection, very few people in the province of Quebec would be interested; but those reports generally in which, in the opinion of the officers of the department and of myself, the people in that province, or in other French speaking parts of Canada, would be interested, are published in French. Take for instance the expansion in northeastern Quebec; the reports in that connection are printed in both English and French. I do not

Translations Bureau-Mr. Deslauriers
think however that the interest which would be taken in the province of Quebec in some other reports would really justify their publication in French. Certainly reports are now and have been for some time published in the French language, wherever, in the opinion of the department, they would usefully serve French speaking Canada. That practice, I think, is a proper one.


George Gibson Coote: I understand the minister
to say, replying to the hon. member for Cariboo, that the first item here for geological explorations, surveys and investigations had been reduced by $44,000 because it was the desire of the government to effect economy. But the previous vote which the committee passed, for administration under national defence, was reduced by one per cent whereas, in this geological surveys vote, the reduction of $44,000 is equivalent to a 35 per cent cut, as compared with the amount voted last year.
I suggest that this is the wrong place to practice economy. It is false economy, at a time like this, to out down the amount spent on geological surveys. The object of these survey parties is to explore new areas particularly for the purpose of discovering any minerals that exist therein, and I believe that this offers at the present time some hope for employment in new industries. I think we should encourage the opening up of new mineral areas in Canada.
I would express my appreciation of the service I have received from the geological surveys branch on different occasions; but this year when I inquired for certain maps of districts in the northwest territories I was informed that no surveys had yet been made of some of those districts. I think the government might very well increase rather than decrease the vote for surveys, particularly in that territory. Some new gold fields might be found, and the production of gold in Canada would help us to discharge the foreign debt which worries us so much.
Will the minister tell me how this vote of $83,000 compares with the same vote for the last four or five years? Is not this a steady cutting-down of the amount spent on geological surveys, and after all is it not false economy? In what better way could the government spend money now than in opening up new mineral areas in Canada? Are there not districts in the Northwest Territories, where metals are now being discovered, in which the department has not yet made regular surveys and issued maps of the districts?


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, in order
to carry out the arrangement made on Friday night, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cahan for the second reading of Bill No. 4, respecting the bureau for translations and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Chevrier.
Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, this measure
known as the "Bureau for Translations Act" is submitted for our consideration, under the plea of economy and efficiency. The speeches, however, to which we have listened, proved that economy and efficiency were not at stake in this bill. Experience has shown that this system had been tried in other countries and found wanting.
I shall not, this evening, attempt to repeat the arguments presented to the house against this bill. I shall discuss another aspect of the question. Relying on my experience as a parliamentarian of long standing, may I state that it is an easy matter for me to observe, at present, that all conservative regimes when they apprehend that their end is near, always resort, before going out of office, to a reorganization scheme of this nature. Is it, this year as in the past, a sign of approaching elections? We expect so. Once, in the past, it was the civil service reorganization. As ever, with economy and efficiency of the service as their aim, the Civil Service Commission sprung up. This institution, as all know, is a great drag on the country and its mechanism has had an entire different result from the one expected. I had often the occasion of expressing my views on this institution and its effects. I shall, this evening, summarize my thoughts in this respect by stating again that it is an institution in which political influence, by indirect means, has its elbow-room and, in which the staff is recruited mostly on the grounds of friendship, relationship and sometimes loveship. Owing to this institution, the representatives of the people have seen their prerogatives decrease and have been so checked that they can hardly be of service to those that have given them a mandate.
I am aware, and I have heard it stated, recently, in the house, that the question of patronage is held in horror by certain members. They prefer not to be pestered by

1192	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Deslauriers
people who seek privileges, positions or a service. However, after all, I think it is incumbent on a member, owing to his mandate, to look after legitimate requests and claims of those who have entrusted him with this mandate. And the fact of replying that what they request is entirely out of his hands, that it is within the purview of an independent institution, which has the authority over their request or desire, cannot possibly satisfy those interested. The representative who wishes to fulfil his duty, in my opinion, can not be satisfied with the part he plays.
Later on, always on the eve of an election, we had the Young classification, which had very little results; then came the Griffenhagen reorganization. If we question, always from an efficient and economic viewpoint, the people, especially the French Canadians of Ottawa, we find that the latter always lost many of their rights.
Now, so far as efficiency, after these thorough reorganizations, it certainly has not improved since the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), discovered in the course of his numerous travels, stacks of French publications valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars which were not distributed. It is admitted that the only and unique reason was that these bundles of publications were out of date, issued at a time when no one required them, because the English version had been issued long before, and, therefore, the French version had become useless. Consequently, no efficiency resulted from such an organization, and we have every reason to believe that such a departure, this year, will have the same result.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: Are you censuring the hon. member for Labelle?


Hermas Deslauriers: If the hon. member will kindly let me proceed, he will be in a position to know whether I am censuring him or not.
The hon. member for Labelle is supporting the measure. He quotes figures which are not official but confidential, and he endeavours to prove that the translators do not earn their salaries, besides being the cause of all the evil inherent to the questions relating to French in our parliament.
May I, sir, express a totally opposite view. First, the figures he quoted are not official, therefore they are difficult to contradict since they are confidential. On the other hand, we are obliged to take them for what they are worth. They are not official, since the hon. Secretary of State stated, replying to a question put by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St. Pere) that these figures were not
lMr. Deslauriers.]
issued by his department or by himself, directly or indirectly. The following are the figures quoted by the hon. member for Labelle. I think we must take the word of the hon. Secretary of State in his reply to the hon. member for Hochelaga. First, if he had in his department translators unemployed, he would certainly be aware of it. If there were work to be done in his department, as one who attends to his duties, as we all know, he would certainly have given out the work to these unemployed officials. We are aware, on both sides of the house, that the hon. Secretary of State has certain work of his department done by outsiders. If there were translators unemployed in his department he would, first, utilize them instead of giving out the work.
In quoting these confidential figures, the hon. member for Labelle stated that in the Department of Agriculture seven translators, in the course of a year, had translated but 568 pages each; in the Immigration department, two translators had only translated, in the same period, 46 pages each; in the Public Works department, three translators had only translated 108 pages; in the Mines department, three other translators 148, and in the Trade and Commerce, four translators 1,719. Dealing with the unreliability-may I say-of the figures quoted by the hon. member for Labelle-because it is inconceivable that a man, in the course of a year's work, succeeded, without dying of languor, in translating only 46 pages -dealing with the unlikelihood of such figures, I took the pains to obtain a confidential, not official list, of the departments of Agriculture, Immigration, Public Works, Mines and Trade and Commerce, and what is very strange, the information obtained greatly differs from that of the hon. member for Labelle. For instance, in the Agriculture department, seven translators translated 742 pages, each; in the Immigration, instead of 46 pages, the two translators had to their credit 568 pages and, in the Public Works department, three translators, 715 pages. In the Mines department, where the work is exceedingly difficult owing to the technical subjects, the three translators translated 572 pages. In the Trade and Commerce department, instead of 1,700 and a few pages, there were 1,425 pages of similar schedule work.
Seeing that our figures differ entirely, it would be interesting to have the hon. Secretary of State appoint a committee of members, so that those interested could give evidence as to the amount of work they have accomplished during the period mentioned, and, thereby discover whether in the figures they quote the hon. member for Labelle is

Translations Bureau-Mr. Deslauriers
nearer to the truth than the hon. member for St. Mary's. This procedure would entail no delay and permit the house to give, perhaps, a more intelligent vote on this bill. Another important point, as the interested parties have not been heard, this committee would afford them an opportunity-which would be highly appreciated-of defending themselves against those who insult them and proving their gratitude to those who wish to do them justice.
According to the statement of the hon. member for Labelle, the stenographers of the House of Commons should be placed in the same class.
One must have very little knowledge of what takes place in the house to make such a statement. Both sides of the house are aware that to find a qualified French stenographer, the Civil Service Commission held a number of tests and that all of them, without exception proved a failure, owing to the difficulty of obtaining qualified men. I may even state that a number of official court stenographers, those who take down court evidence, have failed when put to the test, here. Disheartened, after a few days of trial, they were forced to return home and take up their work in the courts, where their remuneration is higher than that received at present, by the Hansard stenographers of the house. Yet, we heard an hon. member state in the house that the government is at liberty to dictate whatever terms they please to stenographers of the house. I state that if the Civil Service Commission, after a number of tests, were unable to find one qualified person, the government is not at liberty to dictate whatever terms they please to these officials.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Hear,
hear!


Hermas Deslauriers: Now, sir, may I somewhat discuss the question of the translators of the House of Commons, with whom I have the pleasure of being better acquainted than with the others. I had, personally, the opportunity on numerous occasions, since I am in parliament, to see them at their work, translating technical subjects which I had brought up in the house, such, for instances, electrifying our railways, occupational or trade disability, tuberculous cattle, the question of fruit and vegetable sprinkling, and the regulations which govern this trade abroad. All these subjects embody numerous formulas of industrial, organic and inorganic chemistry, etc., and I am able to state to the house that their work, in so difficult a field, which obliged them at times not only to show much patience, but also to
make researches devoid of any interest, was perfect, and I wish to bear witness of my appreciation.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Hear,
hear!


Hermas Deslauriers: May I, sir, in support of my contention, borrow one of the arguments of the hon. member for Labelle. This may seem somewhat paradoxical since he made use of it to prove quite the opposite. The argument of the hon. member for Labelle is as follows: He was obliged, at times, to pause two hours in searching for the-exact term which would express his thought. I am willing to believe him, although I confess that it must have been an extraordinary thought, for, in the natural course of events,
Ce que 1 on congoit bien s'enonce elairement,
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisement.
At all events, if it took him two hours to translate his thought, what merit must the translators of the house have when they must translate the thoughts of others, which is much more difficult! What merit must these men have? That is why I think that his argument may be retorted. If it be so deserving of praise to be a translator, why then criticize the translators, especially those of the House of Commons.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: When the thought is not there, it cannot be translated!


Hermas Deslauriers: Perhaps, I admit.
I have been, sir, a general practitioner for thirty years-and when called upon between sessions, I still oarry on-and I have had the opportunity of treating, among my clients, workers in various occupations; industrial workers, printers and hand labourers. In my career as a medical man, I observed that although they are all workers, there are, among them, people who are entitled, in all fairness, to higher salaries than those of their neighbour. To illustrate somewhat my argument, may I take, for instance, the printer who constantly comes in contact with anti-monj' salts and who is compelled to retire at 45 years old; because his sight is defective. This man whose eyesight is affected at such an early age is entitled to a higher salary than the one who can earn a livelihood up to 60 or 70 years old. The same applies to polishers of copper and various metals. I now come, sir, to the brain worker who is obliged to accomplish ihis work at continuous high tension. It is unfair to wish to relegate him with his colleagues in offices so as to exact from him, during 12 months, mercenary work,
1194	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Deslauriers
with a decreased salary. I entirely disagree with such views. We have witnessed in our educational institutions, in our colleges and universities, students whose health has been ruined by over work, men hardly having reached ripe age, become sometimes the victims of this brain overwork. I think there is, at present, legislation being enacted which will force a class of workers, who are worthy of all our sympathy and who certainly earn their salaries to adopt this manner of living. We have no right to enforce such legislation.
I intend to vote against this measure, because, in my opinion, economy no more than efficiency are at stake. I am rather inclined to think that it is a sign of an approaching election, that the present administration, already on its last leg, wish to erect themselves a small monument to remind us of its regime, in case they were refused a return ticket at the next election.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: It must
then be a popular measure?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: This has no resemblance whatever to a measure.


Hermas Deslauriers: 
Joseph Arthur Barrette: Then,
you contend that the hon. member for Labelle has not carried out his duty?


Hermas Deslauriers: I
would request the hon. member to speak in his turn.
The people of St. Mary's wish to know whether, on May 1st, they will be among the 50,000 heads of families having no other lodgings-because the city of Montreal or governments will not have paid the rent due to the landlords-having no other lodgings than the stars above.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: There is
no mention of this in the bill.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Take
things easily, now.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: It is the
hon. member who is out of sorts.


Hermas Deslauriers: Mr. Speaker, there still remains to find out whether we are going to uphold the French and English races in this country-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: The race
will survive, have no fear.


Hermas Deslauriers: -
whether we shall promote peace and give them a livelihood and especially, protect them against profiteers. That is what I intend to do, at the opportune time.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, before entering into a discussion of the question, it is needless for me to remind anyone, in the house and, I
MlAiRCH 5, 1834
Translations Bureau-Mr. Dupre
might even say, anyone in Canada of the fruitful and extensive public activities of my colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), by whom the present bill was so ably explained last week. In the eyes of Canada, and especially French Canada, he stands out as a brilliant statesman,, broadminded by nature and culture, actuated by a deep sense of responsibility and patriotism, and always taking, in matters of language and religion, the highest plane of justice, freedom, fair-play and tolerance, with a chivalrous leaning towards the weaker party, coupled with a keen fighting instinct. He has many times and for many years upheld the Quebec claim with his convincing eloquence and his extensive constitutional experience. And such a fight he has carried even to the point of personal sacrifice. Speaking for myself and my Quebec colleagues on this side of the house I wish to express to the hon. Secretary of State how deeply we all appreciate the fine and powerful support we have received from him in the past. It was an especially gratifying tribute to him and to the spirit of his bill that even such a brilliant and eminent personality as the distinguished member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) could not help supporting and praising the present measure in most emphatic and vigorous terms.
Now Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss in French the present bill from the two points of view involved, the constitutional aspect and the technical point of view.
(Translation) I wonder, sir, whether the opposition which is unlatched against the bill-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Is genuine.


Maurice Dupré: -is not entirely due to a simple misunderstanding. May I be permitted, sir, to review as briefly as possible the status of French, at present. First, we have section 133 of the B. N. A. Act which provides for the optional and compulsory use of the French and English languages. Section 133 reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published' in both those languages.
To summarize, section 133 of the B. N. A. Act, provides, first, the optional use of either
French or English in the parliamentary debates of the two Chambers and before the Supreme Court of Canada and the various Quebec courts; secondly, the compulsory use of the two languages in the parliamentary journals and reports of both Chambers, respectively, in the publications of the archives and proceedings and in the printing and promulgation of the acts of Parliament.
This section 133, and section 93 of the same act, which grant to provincial legislatures the exclusive right to legislate in matters of education, constitute according to the statement of the distinguished Senator Belcourt, whose memory is imperishable, the total aggregate of our legal rights to the French language, officially recognized, in Canada. May I, sir, further include sections 47 and 72 of the rules and regulations of the House of Commons, which read as follows:
When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French by Mr. Speaker, if he be familiar with both languages; if not, Mr. Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct the clerk at the table to read it in the other, before debate.
Section 72 provides:
All bills shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages.
Let us now, sir, examine section 3 of the act and see if this section 3 does not add to the total aggregate of our rights. Section 3 of bill No. 4 reads as follows:
3. (1) There shall be a bureau under the minister, to be called the Bureau for Translations. the duties and function of which shall be to collaborate with and act for all departments of the public service, and both houses of the parliament of Canada and all bureaus, branches, commissions and agencies created or appointed by act of parliament, or by order of the governor in council, in making and revising all translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.
As the hon. member for Labelle so well pointed out in his splendid speech, the English version says:
It shall be the duty . . .
(2) It shall be the duty of all departments of the public service and all such branches, commissions and agencies as aforesaid to collaborate with the bureau in carrying into effect the provisions of this act and the regulations made thereunder.
Which means, if I am not mistaken, that, according to section 3, first, the bureau shall translate all documents-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: No, all the documents that it is requested to translate.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Dupre
Mr. DUPRE (Translation)	-debates;
bills, acts, proceedings, correspondence and administration reports and, secondly, the departments shall collaborate with the bureau to facilitate its efficient and speedy translation. The branches, agencies and commissions appointed by parliament or by order of the governor in council shall be likewise, that is, shall collaborate, just like the departments.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: Will the hon. minister permit me to put a question?


Maurice Dupré: Yes.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Am I to understand from the minister's remarks that certain official reports such as that of the superintendent of insurance, which are published only in the English language for a number of years past, shall, in the future, be translated in all departments, in the French language, whatever may be the nature of the official reports? In other words, will section 3 of bill No. 4 bind the government to have all official reports and documents, whatever may be their nature, translated by the Bureau for translations?


Maurice Dupré: My reply will not be unintelligible. My answer is: Yes. That is bill No. 4 applies the provisions of section 133 to all departments and branches of the public service. The subsection 2 applies these provisions to all branches, commissions and governmental agencies; in other words this section 3 spreads the application of section 133 to all reports of the administration, and others, such as documents, debates, bills, proceedings, correspondence, whether they should emanate from the superintendent of insurance or otherwise.


Onésime Gagnon: Hear, hear!


Maurice Dupré: May I be
permitted, sir, to summarize from a legal angle, by submitting the following argument: Briefly, bill No. 4 completes section 133; it implements the spirit in which section 133 shall be construed or, if you wish, it is the recognition, in legal form, of what section 133 intimates but does not express. Section 3 of bill No. 4 confirms in a federal statute the interpretation that we, from Quebec, have given to the spirit of section 133 of the B. N. A. Act. In my opinion it is a step forward in the laying of our claims and is this not, sir, the most essential aspect of the question?
I suggest to all who have protested against this bill to peruse those sections. First, section 133; secondly, sections 47 and 72 of the Rules and Regulations of the House, and finally, bill No. 4, and compare them, that

is all I ask of them; all I ask the French Canadian press, is to publish this section 133, sections 47 and 72 of the Rules and Regulations of the House and bill No. 4.
My hon. friend, the member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois), in his noteworthy speech delivered on March 2, 1934, put a question to the hon. Secretary of State. At page 1116 of Hansard, he said:
If the hon. Secretary of State would publicly state that it is a greater guarantee for the French language, I could be more lenient towards the measure under consideration.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Hear,
hear!


Maurice Dupré: Well! Before the hon. Secretary of State replies to this question, I answer: yes, it is an additional guarantee.	i


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: My request was that the hon. Secretary of State should do so himself.


Maurice Dupré: The honj
member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), at page 993 of Hansard, stated that this bill could be abrogated as easily as it is enacted. True. That applies to all measures enacted by parliament. To my mind, it is a strange argument. Conclusion, let us not enact any measure, let us not even vote for a bill if it implies a step forward in favour of the rights of the French language because it might be abrogated next year or in a few years!
May I now, sir, broach the technical -viewpoint of the question. What are the advantages to be derived from bill No. 4?
In my opinion, the advantages to be derived from this bill will be to secure the simultaneous publication of the French and English versions of all documents. That is what we have requested for many years and that is what we shall actually realize. For instance, this year, only 12 French reports compared to 29 English reports are at the disposal of the house, and in previous years the situation was worse. With the new organization which the bill suggests, these reports will be issued simultaneously in French and English. I have here a list, somewhat long, but which I shall curtail, of the various annual reports which are to be found in the report of the King's Printer. First, we find that the annual report of the Pensions and National Health department for the year 1928-29, was issued in English in February, 1930, and in French in July, 1931, namely, a delay of 17 months.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Are the
translators to blame?

Translations Bureau-Mr. Dupre


Maurice Dupré: We find that
the report of the Secretary of State for the year 1929-30, was issued in English in March, 1931, and in French in January, 1932, namely, a delay of 10 months.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Who
is to blame?
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Was the
English version handed over immediately to the translators?


Maurice Dupré: The report of the Labour department for 1929-30, was issued in English in March, 1931, and in French in March, 1932, namely, a delay of 12 months, and so forth. I have here a list of 15 reports the French version of which was only issued long after the English one, and the delay varies from 17 months to 12, 9, 7 and 6 months.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Who is to blame?


Alfred Duranleau: Your
system.


Maurice Dupré: Such are the
conditions we wish to remedy.
The second advantage we find in this measure, is that it defines and specifies the responsibility in connection with the translation. With the present system, this responsibility is vague and undetermined. Sometimes no one knows who is responsible for the delay. In the future, one minister alone will be held responsible for the translation and, if delays occur in the translation or if it is not satisfactory, he will equally be held responsible and must account for same.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear,
hear!


Lucien Dubois: While the
other ministers will wash their hands of the whole affair!


Maurice Dupré: It is unfair
to blame the government unless the latter is given full authority to act. This authority, in the future, will devolve on the Secretary of State or any other minister of the crown who may from time to time be appointed by order of the governor in council, pursuant to paragraph 2, section 3.
Third advantage: this measure will improve the translation.
It is quite clear that in translation as in other work, specialization gives better results. This bill will in no -way hamper specialization. It shall be the duty of the superintendent to see that translations are
done by the most qualified translators, according to their fitness and training. His duty will be to encourage specialists.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear,
hear!


Maurice Dupré: Fourth advantage : a better distribution of work.
Is it fair and rational that a number of translators should be overtaxed with work while others are unemployed for months?
Reports, such as those of the imperial conference or interprovincial conference, must be speedily and well translated. However, as such reports are not published by any department, no department is therefore responsible for their translation or publication. Thanks to the bureau created by the present bill, these reports will be translated and issued simultaneously.
May I, sir, refute certain objections raised against this measure?
It was stated that this bill will destroy the bilingual character of every department. The report of the Sellar commission was even quoted. The Sellar commission, if I be not mistaken, settles this question.
The reports states:
From the information before the committee, the general consensus of opinion in the departments is in favour of the statu quo.
Which means that the deputy ministers prefer keeping their translators in their departments. W e have no desire by this bill, and nothing to the contrary is stated, to deprive the various departments of translators who are already there doing their daily task. These translators will remain in the departments if the latter wish to keep them. Far from wishing to destroy the bilingual character of departments, the present Act increases it, even totally and definitely so, by translating not only the reports which departments table in the house but also, pursuant to the letter of the law, all reports of the administration and others, all documents, proceedings and correspondence.
By what distortion can it be said that the new act places the French language on the same level as foreign languages? I fail to see. All are aware, it goes without saying, that no foreign language is recognized by our constitution. The only two official languages are French and English, and the former is given, by the new act, rights which implement its status and extends its sphere to all official papers of the administration.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear,
hear!

Translations Bureau-Mr. Dupre


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: Hear, hear!


Maurice Dupré: Now, sir, the opposition made use of the word " centralization ". What the bill really proposes is not so much centralization as unifying, coordinating supervising and controlling translation.
The criticism implying that the translation of technical matter will not be done by experts in the subjects, is not, in my opinion, well founded, because it is our desire that translators who have specialized in certain subjects should continue to devote to them their special care.
Translation work is not generally conducive to promotion in a sphere other than the translation service, and the chances of promotion referred to in certain speeches will certainly be as numerous in the bureau for translations as they are at present.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: That is
good news.


Maurice Dupré: I acknowledge, however, that the case of the translators of debates, the conditions under which they work during the session, differ from other public employees and must be given special consideration when the organization of the bureau for translation takes place.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: Hear, hear!


Maurice Dupré: It is contended, in this respect, that the new act does not follow the practice of other bilingual countries. First, we must admit: we are masters in our own house; I admit the Frechette report, to which my hon. friends opposite referred, is a well put together report; on the other hand, it is twenty years old. Much technical progress has been made since that date. After all, as to the principle, the present act conforms with the Frechette report by acknowledging the advantage to be derived from specializing. However, where it is superior, is in seeking to combine the benefits of specialization with those of centralization. Far from being a hindrance to specialization, this bill aims at completing and perfecting it by giving it all the advantages of a sole and central supervision.
My hon. friend the member for Nicodet (Mr. Dubois) stated, in his speech of March 2, that the house had enough serious questions to settle without bringing up such a burning question. Why burning? Why burning, sir? Because of a well intentioned opposition, if you wish, but not sufficiently informed. We shall settle this burning question in favour of the rights of the French

language. For years we have heard complaints about the deficiency in translation, and when we propose a remedy, we are told: Keep out, it is a burning question!
I summarize, sir. Here is a measure which in the opinion of the government, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, aims at placing French on a sounder-


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: To win elections.


Maurice Dupré: -more satisfactory foundation than it has ever been since confederation. Here is measure that emphasizes more so sec. 133, and completes it; which, as I stated a moment ago, implements the spirit in which must be interpreted sec. 133; which is a recognition, in a legal form, of what sec. 133 intimates, but does not state, which implements in an act and the abrogation of which will be found difficult, the interpretation, we, from the province of Quebec, have given to the spirit of sec. 133. Yet, we have to carry on the fight against whom? Against our own compatriots of the French language.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: Shame!


Maurice Dupré: Mr. Speaker, such is life, such is politics! One must not take offence or lose one's temper. We shall pursue our task, in spite of taunts; however, putting to account whatever beneficial may be found in the criticism and suggestions. We shall endeavour to attain the aim we have been following for ever so long, but more especially since we are in office, since 1930, namely, the complete recognition of the rights of the French language pursuant to the spirit of our constitution and in keeping with the spirit which inspired the discussion and negotiations of the confederation pact, in keeping with our history, traditions, the written and unwritten law; recognition of the French language rights-


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Also of the Imperial conference.


Maurice Dupré: -of its status in .parliament, in departments and all fields of Canadian activities.
I appeal to my compatriots, to the French Canadian press, to trust in us. Surely the French language's rights are not-as it was stated at the outset of the opposition in danger through this bill. Within a few months our opponents, such as the Droit and other newspapers-as I cannot cast any doubt on their good intentions-will recognize that they were somewhat led astray.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Denis
You must make a distinction between the accessory and the principal. Here, sir, the principal is the additional guarantee given to the French language and the sanction of rights unceasingly claimed during many years. The accessory is how, when, and by whom translations will be carried out.
I shall close my remarks by an appeal to my compatriots on the other side of the house and to the French Canadian press. I say to them: if my reasoning is wrong, keep on the fight. But if I am right I beg of them, on behalf of the cause which is dear to us, to cease firing on their own troops.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Speaker, 1 closely followed the
speech delivered by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). His statement displayed much enthusiasm and, I think, sincerity, however, as he is only one in the cabinet, I am afraid that his influence and patriotism will make no change whatever in the methods prevailing since confederation, in the the various departments in connection with translation. I do not intend to discuss his statement or the purport of section 133 of the British North America Act, from a legal angle. The spirit of this act exists since confederation, and if, in the past, translation has been delayed in the various departments, it is due to the negligence and antipathy of certain deputy ministers, not to say of ministers themselves, in transmitting immediately to translators the reports to be translated.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Hear,
hearl


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I do not think that this bill will in any way change the mentality existing in the various departments, and force the deputy ministers, as well as the ministers, to transmit the reports sooner to this bureau for translations. This bill was submitted to the house, in my opinion, at a time when our efforts are required to obtain unity, collaboration and union of the two great races in this country; I, therefore, think that to obtain such results this bill should have been postponed a few years more. We need cooperation and unity, if we are to judge from the views expressed by French Canadian public societies of Quebec, which we must admit, must be able to understand the purpose of an act. It is not because we have heard in this house French Canadian members argue in favour of this bill that we must conclude that it is to the advantage of the French Canadian race.
The hon. Solicitor General, so as not to differ in opinion with his colleagues, was
forced to make the statement he did. As to the views of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I think, he is out of date. He dislikes to mingle with the crowds and rather seeks small parties so as to better shine.
This bill will not improve the translation of the various departments. All depends on the good intentions of ministers and deputy ministers and the standing in which the French language is held by each department. If delays have occurred in the past, they will, I think, perhaps, occur still more in the future, because reports will have to be transmitted from departments where they have been prepared and then sent to the bureau.
I was amazed to see such a bill introduced in the house. The improvement suggested by the hon. Solicitor General could have been carried out in each department without upsetting the whole system and preventing a large number of French Canadians, in various departments, from profiting of the promotions due to them on account of their efficient services.
So far as efficiency, I do not think that a translator placed under one minister, in particular, and centralized can possibly make a more efficient and perfect translation. I think that is fooling oneself and endeavouring to make the people believe that this bill was introduced with the idea of improving translation and affording to the French Canadians a greater protection and fair play. A number of French Canadian members opposite rely on the word of the Secretary of State and on the bill itself; however, we of the opposition have a better knowledge of what took place in the past, in the departments as regards translations, and we are aware that, in the future, even with the centralization of translators, the same thing will happen. Our rights and our language in parliament and the departments have been respected because we have insisted, fought for them. Thanks to such means we were able to obtain some satisfaction as to the respect due to our rights.
More than ever, the majority in this country, must make it a duty to respect the rights which the French Canadians were given under the constitution.
Because of this respect of our rights, we must have unity of action in the administration of this country, without which, we are all destined to perish. We must live as brothers, but in order to obtain that end, we must respect our mutual rights. By this bill, the centralization of translators, one replaces an evil by another; that is all. One
1200	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
wishes to centralize the translators, place them under one roof, not so much for efficiency sake in translation or economy, but so as to decrease, in various departments, French prestige. And it is for such reasons, that I most strenuously oppose the bill. I expect the majority to respect the rights of the French Canadian minority and leave things as they are. I trust that the French language will be more respected in the future and that the translation of all governmental reports will be speeded up.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with much interest the speeches delivered, on both sides of the house, on the second reading of bill No. 4, introduced by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). From the viewpoint of the French language, numerous arguments have been set forth, and I think we all agree on the subject. The hon. Solicitor general (Mr. Dupre), if I am not mistaken, endeavoured to prove, just now, that bill No. 4 constituted a complement to section 133 of the British North America Act. Although the letter of the law is not very precise as to the use of the French language and the publication in French of the various official documents of Canada, we have always been under the impression since confederation, and especially within the last twenty years, that the French language was to occupy a place of honour in this country. Translators were appointed in all departments. That was an official recognition of the French language. These translators, scattered here and there, over the government departments, occupy, each of them, a place of honour and translate not only the documents of their departments but often those of other departments when their special qualifications are required. They were, so to speak, the French ornament of each department, and they are still. They accomplished their task scrupulously. Perhaps, defects appeared, at times, but this is not a reason to blame the system. There are no rules without exception, if in such and such a department unqualified translators are met with, let them be replaced. However, one must not, for such a reason, upset the entire system of translation and concentrate them in a large study hall.
It is stated that one of the advantages of the act will be to ensure the simultaneous publication of English and French documents. I respectfully submit that this is a myth. They must first be printed in English before the translators begin their work. Complaints come from the government side that docu-
ments, proceedings and departmental reports were not translated in sufficient numbers or when required. It must be that the departments were short of men or of qualified persons. Yet, we find in the explanatory notes that this bill is introduced to obtain more efficiency and to economize the public moneys.
I take it for granted that our translators, on the whole, are efficient. In no way was it proved that there existed unqualified, lazy persons or parasites; translators that sleep over their work. Then if you wish to have a larger output of translated reports and obtain the object which the Solicitor General mentioned, more translators will be required and, therefore, it will be at a greater cost to the country. AH have complained, for twenty years, under all administrations, of the small number of translated publications. If you wish to have a larger number of these, additional translators will be required, the cost will increase, as a greater efficiency can not be obtained at a lower cost; the two clash.
It was with pleasure, sir, that I listened, just now, to the sincere statement of the hon. Solicitor General. One says in English-it sounds better than in French-it is a pious wish. However, from a legal angle, I shall examine clause 3 which reads as follows:
There shall be a bureau under the minister to be called the bureau for translations, the duties and functions of which shall be to collaborate with and act for all departments of the public service, and both houses of parliament of Canada.
Where is to be found the obligation of implementing the last provision of section 3? Where is the principle? It is a matter of collaboration, nothing else, one cannot interpret as a stipulation the wish momentarily expressed in the speech of the hon. Solicitor General.
I deny to any commission the right of removing from the House of Commons the translation service; such a privilege is adherent to the House and Senate; these translators are our distinguished collaborators. They are, so to speak, the radio broadcasting our speeches both in English and French-always at the right time, I trust-and informing the people who like to read. I enjoy seeing our translators in this building, on the first floor where we can easily get information. I should not like to have to walk to the Confederation building or the Public Works buildings, and in a large study hall-reminding me of my college days, when I use to call on my fellow student-and having to knock at the door and ask the supervisor or superinten-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
dent whether I may speak to such or such a translator to complain, to alter or to be more explicit about some part of my speech.
We, members of the House of Commons, are perfectly satisfied with the translation of our speeches. It reaches us within 24 hours after the text is published, and so far as members are concerned we have no complaint to make about the official translators of the house. If it happens, as the hon. member for Labelle stated, that some of them work less than others, let an investigation be held. Let the house, through its worthy Speaker, inquire whether there is room for improvement on the debates staffs and make changes if necessary.
Section 3 continues:
. . . and all bureaus, branches, commissions and agencies created or appointed by act of parliament or by order of the governor in council, in making and revising all translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.
Where is to be found in the bill, in the legal sense, an immediate and statutory obligation to translate these documents? Absolutely no such stipulation is inserted. It is a collaboration-just like the collaboration between members on your right, sir and those on your left.
An hon. minister has just stated that he had before him, I think, 15 reports which had been translated out of a total of 29. He assures us that in the future such will not be the case. This can apply just as much to former ministers as to the present ones, I wish to be quite frank in my arguments-however, were any reasons given why these documents were not translated in French? It is not simply a case of applying a remedy, the cause for such deficiency must be found, yet no one gives any explanation. Again I state if you wish to remedy present condition, obtain more efficiency and economy in this service, gentlemen, I fail to see how you will do it, with the goodwill which characterize each of you! For such and such a department you will require translators. Where will you seek them? By virtue of bill 4, clause 4: may be transferred to the bureau as herein provided . . . the translators of the various departments.
You will then, take them in all departments, removing these translators from the various govermental departments so as to place them in this new bureau for translations, at the head of which there -is to be a superintendent and supervisor. If you are not going to
dismiss them, you will have the same men, the same intellects, the same qualifications and you will have the same efficiency.
Another reason given is the better distribution of the work. But is not a translator familiar with the work of his department, better qualified to do that departmental work, where he has been stationed for 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15 or 20 years, where he has specialized himself in all its branches and acquired a technical working knowledge? Is this translator not in a position, to-day, to prove himself more efficient? I say: certainly, yes. It is contended that there is no future in the department for this translator; well, if he is a competent man, he can study the various activities of the department, and his chance for promotion will come. You will be unable to get qualified translators, because they will be untrained for this special work, even though our students in technical schools, in the Ecole des Halites Etudes Commerciales, briefly, in High Schools are well tutored-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Not in the University of Montreal!


Mr. MERCIER (Translation):: As to the
University of Montreal, I wish to praise it for the splendid work it carries on in developing our gifted youths; to it, we owe our own education. It is the university where I followed my law' lectures.
If these translators are brought together and submitted to strict rules, like in a college, if they are concentrated in a large office, their efficiency will be decreased. If it is intended by this bill to replace them for the sake of economy, where will you find immediately qualified men for the various departments? If you are in earnest you will keep the same staffs; otherwise, how are you going to maintain this bureau of translators? It is impossible, incomprehensible. If it be otherwise, then you wish to retire or dismiss some of them. If they are dismissed, others will have to replace them. This will simply mean the dismissal of efficient translators to replace them by ordinary ones. One may sometimes find fault with translators, but a good translation is not an easy task. Give a text to translate to ten persons and no two translations will be alike, while if a qualified translator is given the same text, his will be the only good one.
"Responsibility": "a responsible minister." But the present ministers are all responsible. If the work of translation is not being carried out, especially since 1930, it must be because there is some deficiency somewhere, in the departments.	[DOT]
1202	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Mercicr (St. Henri)


Maurice Dupré: Will my hon. friend permit me? ?


Paul Mercier: Certainly.


Maurice Dupré: I think that
the statement that the work of translation is not being carried out, especially since 1030, is an absolutely unfounded charge, because never has the translation been so well done and kept up than since 1930.


Paul Mercier: It is not what I stated, I did not fix any [DOT]particular date; I mentioned just now all the governments which have been in office, within the last twenty years. However, I am ready to abide by your statement. You have made a special study of the question and you have just stated to the house that the English documents, for the most part, were not translated. Then this deficiency rests with certain departments, the translation having been neglected in those departments.


Maurice Dupré: I mean that
the translation, although deficient, is better than before. I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend without his consent.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: He is sufficiently perplexed, at present.


Paul Mercier: At all events, whether this defect existed before 1930 or since 1930, it simply means that documents were not translated in time, both under your administration and the previous one. We, therefore, agree. In the cases mentioned, there has been a deficiency somewhere. Why were these documents not translated under both administrations? Because no one supervised the work or else there were not sufficient translators. You cannot deny this fact. And should you intend to supply all the translation you spoke of, no economy will result since more translators will be required to obtain more efficiency. Therefore, the explanation given to the house for enacting this bill, namely more efficiency and economy, falls short.
I contend that in placing all these translators under the same roof, all these young men, brilliant as most are-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	They
will be contaminated!


Paul Mercier: Had they not been brilliant, they would not have been kept in the employ of the state. I take too great a pride in the welfare of my county to imagine that in all the depart-

ments there are no efficient officials. By confining all these translators from the various departments in the same office at the bureau for translations, individual differences will be levelled down and that will hinder their chances of promotion.
Under the circumstances, particularly after hearing the arguments put forward to-night, I am more convinced than ever that this bill is useless and will not make for efficiency in translation unless more money be spent. Then where would the economy come in?
I have no orders to give to anybody, I have no desire to give any nor am I conceited enough to do so, but I may say this: Instead of this wild topsy-turvy with no better result and with greater cost, because they will have to increase the staff, wherever there are not enough employees in a department let the minister in charge of that department appoint some. He need not apply to the Civil Service Commission; he has only to look for competent men and bring them into his department. Let him go and get them in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, anywhere, provided that they give satisfaction. And then let each minister determine what reports must be published in French.
Last year I asked the government if the evidence brought before the radio committee of the house would be translated into French and the answer was that it would not be translated, although it was a very important inquiry.
Section 3 of Bill No. 4 gives no assurance whatever that the Solicitor General's dream will come true.


Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Maisonneuve) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, much importance is being given to the bill now before us. The Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), after the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) endeavoured to show a moment ago that the effect of this measure would be the recognition of additional rights for the French language. He maintained that under section 3 of this bill, every one of the documents and reports of the various departments will have to be translated, even those that are not mentioned in section 133 of the British North America Act. I do not think that is the legal interpretation 'which can be placed on this measure. This bill was presented merely for the purpose of organizing the translators into one central bureau. These translators will be left to interpret themselves the constitution and in this I see rather a danger than an extension of the rights of the French language,

Translations Bureau-Mr. Jean
because the interpretation of section 133 of the British North America Act will be entrusted to a group of civil servants. The chief translators or one of the translators may take a fancy to say that section 133 does not permit or compel him to translate such or such document; he will be free to interpret the law as he likes. And what authority will parliament or the various departments have to induce that translator to construe the spirit of the law such as we have always understood it to this day.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this bill, not only is far from giving additional rights to the French language but is dangerous on account of the false interpretation that might be placed on the laws which presently guarantee the use of the French language in this parliament and throughout the Dominion. Further than that, I think we should not give this measure the interpretation that has been given to it by the hon. member for Labelle the other day and by the Solicitor General to-night.
At any rate, I am sure that the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Calian) when he drafted this bill, never thought of granting additional rights to the French language in this country. The object as expressed in the explanatory notes annexed to the bill contains nothing of the kind, and there is not a word about it in the bill itself. These explanatory notes state why the measure was submitted and the results which are expected from it. According to these explanatory notes and the information given to us by the hon. Secretary of State when he presented this measure the other day, it is a matter of efficient translation and economy. The hon. Solicitor General has seen fit to tell us that the efficiency will consist mainly in the simultaneous publication of various reports and documents which must be translated. I believe the bill itself says the very opposite. Section 3 deals with a Bureau of Translation whose duties will be to translate reports that have alreday been published. We cannot translate a report before it is published and there is no doubt that nothing in the bill provides for a simultaneous publication in both languages. If such a clause were inserted in the bill I might approve of the measure in so far as efficiency is concerned. But no such thing appears in the bill; it is quite the contrary.
Mention was also made of improving the translation. Some are under the impression that all translations are alike. The present translators of the various departments carry out their work to the best of their ability.
Either they are efficient or they are not. If we employ the same translators, there will be no change in the translation. If the translation is well done, to-day, I do not see the necessity for this bill.
A more fair distribution of the work was alluded to. I do not think that the work can be better distributed since it is distributed among the various departments which have their own translators. Each department has its bilingual character owing to the presence of its translators; if these are removed we destroy the bilingual character of the departments and create a sole bilingual bureau, in the parliament buildings.
Let us examine the constitutional side of the question. This bill concentrates in a bureau all departmental translation as well as that of the two chambers of parliament. This provision is the most amazing part of the bill. I fail to see how the two chambers of parliament can be controlled by a bureau for translation and forsake their prerogatives. According to the strict letter of the constitution, I fail to see why parliament should thus divest itself of its prerogatives. The government, the House of Commons as well as the Senate should have under their control the translation, especially that of the debates.
According to this bill, the house will lose control over the translation, which is so important to parliament. I repeat that this bill, in my opinion, does in no way increase the prestige of the French language; quite the contrary, there is danger that the act will be so interpreted as to turn against us instead of in our favour. We shall always have to carry on the struggle to maintain the rights of the French language, so long as we remain a bilingual country and are in the minority. We must, therefore, always stand by our guns, if we wish to uphold our rights. I do not think that this bill will add a dot to the rights of our language; on the contrary, it may constitute a danger; all will depend on how the translators themselves interpret the act. On the other hand, if the bill stipulated that the publication of the various reports and documents, both in French and English, shall be simultaneous, if the bill provided that all parliamentary documents, even those which are not stipulated in section 133 of the British North America Act, shall be translated if parliament was given control over the translations, especially those connected with the debates of the house, well truly, I think I would endorse this bill and would not feel justified in voting against it. However, nothing of the kind is to be found in this bill.
Privilege-Mr. Chevrier

I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and the debate adjourned.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, may I have
the consent of the house to revert to the orders for motions? Inadvertently two formal motions were omitted to-day when the order was called.
The house having reverted to the order for motions:



BANKING AND COMMERCE

Hugh Guthrie: That the name of Mr. Smith (Cumberland) be substituted for that of Mr. Gagnon on the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
That the name of Mr. Cotnam be substituted for that of Mr. McDade on the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hugh Guthrie: That Messrs. Ahearn, Beynon, Cardin, Gagnon, Garland (Bow River), McLure, McKenzie (Assiniboia), Morand and Wright do constitute the select special committee of this house pursuant to the motion adopted on the sixteenth day of February, 1934, to inquire into and report upon the operations of the commission under the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, as amended at the last session of parliament, and to have power to send for persons, papers and records and' to examine witnesses and to report from time to time to this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Tuesday, March 6, 1934