1934-04-12

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have a communication
to make to the house. Pursuant to your wishes I conveyed to Lady Aberdeen the
sympathy of the house expressed in this chamber on the passing of her husband, the late Lord Aberdeen, former Governor General of Canada, and have received from her the following reply:
House of Cromar,
Tarland, Aberdeenshire,
April 3, 1934.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I beg you to accept yourself and to convey to the members of the Canadian House of Commons the most grateful thanks of my family and myself for the message of understanding sympathy which you have been good enough to convey to me on their behalf.
We are very sensible of the high honour paid to my late husband by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Progressive party, all speaking so appreciatively of Lord Aberdeen's character and career, and I only wish he could himself have read the report of their speeches and heard of the unanimous resolution passed. He had a very deep love for Canada and it would indeed have been a joy to him to know that he was thus remembered by the House of Commons.
I can only beg you to believe that Lord Aberdeen's family and' friends do most keenly appreciate this signal mark of honour and affection.
Yours very sincerely,
Ishbel Aberdeen and Temair.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. EUSEiBE ROBERGE (Megan tic) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on
the table of the house a petition from the municipal council of St. Pierre-Baptiste, county of Megantic, protesting against a tax of 20 cents being levied on leaf tobacco.

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

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Is the south bank of the Beauharnois canal showing signs of erosion?
2.	What will be the cost of the reconstruction of this bank?
3.	Is the government undertaking any inquiry into the Jacques Cartier Company which last
Questions

year was said to control approximately one million shares of Beauharnois Power common
stock?
4.	If so, will such report be tabled?


Mr. MANION:: The answer to Nos. 1
and 2 of this question is no. The third and fourth questions the hon. gentleman might perhaps submit as a separate pair of questions, because they deal with another side of the matter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question will be redrafted.


STABILIZATION FUND
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	How much money was paid out of the agricultural stabilization fund, established' in 1933, to exporters to Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
2.	How much money was paid out of such fund to the exporters of each of the approved commodities mentioned in clause 2 of the regulations respecting such fund, approved by order in council of June 2, 1933, P.C. 973?
3.	On what date in 1933 did the pound sterling become worth $4.60 or more in Canadian money?
4.	During what period in 1933 were there exports from Canada by shippers who received payments out of such fund in respect of such
exports?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	836,040.18.
2.	Cheese	$ 5,451 85Bacon and hams	
24,021	03Cattle	
3,988	54Eggs	
409	80Canned	lobsters	
2,010	57Canned	salmon	
158	393.	June 20, 1933.
4. Exports on or after May 1, 1933, in respect of which sterling proceeds were transmitted on or after that date at less than the stabilized rate, were eligible.


CANADA, 1934
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: May I reply to a query yesterday by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). The explanation of the point raised is this. When returns are called for affecting more than one department, the two departments or more affected send their replies to the Secretary of State and then they are tabled. In this instance, the Secretary of State tabled the reply, but the figures were of two departments, and all that is necessary is to add the two together. I will accommodate my hon. friend by doing that now. Bureau of Statistics: 13,000 in English and 4,500 in French; King's Printer, 2,300 in

English and 60 in French, or a total of 15,300 in English and 4,560 in French. Those retained by the King's Printer are for sale upon demand.


OTTAWA AGREEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I hold in my hand a dispatch published in the Toronto Mail and Empire under date April 9. Part of it is from London, England, dated April 8, and part from Ottawa under the same date. The heading is:
Imperial pacts causing concern. British leaders hint privileges may be curtailed.
I do not suppose Your Honour would permit me to read the whole dispatch.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have all read it.
Mr. SANDEiRSON: With the permission of the Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member proceed with his question.


Frederick George Sanderson: The statement from London, under date April 8, reads in part:
Both Stanley Baldwin and Walter Elliot, Minister of Agriculture, have recently hinted the privileges the dominions enjoy in the British market may be curtailed.
One paragraph in the dispatch from Ottawa under the same date reads:
Some changes have already been made in the trade agreement by mutual consent and it is quite possible that further cooperation along that line may be necessary.
My question is this: What changes have been made by mutual consent in the agreements of the Ottawa conference?
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister): The Ottawa agreements provided for the variation of the terms of contract by mutual consent, as is usual in all cases of that character. The changes that were agreed upon were indicated at the last budget; others doubtless will be indicated at the next budget. Any changes that have been made have been indicated to the house, except possibly some questions of administration, which are only matters that arise from day to day. But any changes are matters that have been communicated to the house through the appropriate and proper channels. Perhaps hon. gentlemen will recall that with respect to a part of the agreement it continued for a period of three years only; the Australian agreement continues for two years, that is until 1934,

Passamaquoddy Bay Dam
and a portion of our agreement terminates in 1935. It is that, presumably, to which reference was made and having regard to the attitude taken with respect to the agreements by the hon. gentleman and those who surround him, anything that would bring about their abrogation or termination would, I suppose, fill him with the greatest joy.


Frederick George Sanderson: On a question of privilege I object to the remarks of the Prime Minister. He has no right to make' them. He has no right to impute to me or any other hon. member what he tried to impute and I submit that he should withdraw the remarks.


Mr. BENNETT:: I was referring to the recorded vote of the hon. gentleman with respect to the Ottawa agreements.
Mr. MoINTOSH: How about the right hon. gentleman's own vote?


INTEREST RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: In the Mail and Empire of
yesterday there is a heading in big block letters:
Manion predicts interest rate cut on loans, mortgages.
Then in the press dispatch I find the following :
Hon. R. J. Manion, Minister of Railways, told South Oxford electors here to-night, "I may say that I believe in a short time this reduction will be an accomplished fact."
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has a statement to make to the house in connection with that declaration of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The predictions of any member of
the administration are predictions which he makes based upon his general idea of what the government desires to do.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What
about collective cabinet responsibility?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not with respect to predictions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We knew that long ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member should know. He was a member of a government
once for a short time and tried that. That is all that has to be said with respect to that.


PASSAMAQUODDY BAY DAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I wish
to direct a question to the Minister of Marine and Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duran-leau). It may be that the report to which I am going to refer was tabled while I was ill for a day or two. I have not, however, seen the report. I see by the press that a report on Passamaquoddy bay investigation in connection with the construction of the dam there has been submitted to the United States congress. Has the minister received any report from the commission and if he has received it, will he table it?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I am not aware of any report
made to my department to date, but I shall make inquiries.


Peter John Veniot: The report has been made
to the United States congress and a statement to that effect has appeared in the press. I understand the report condemns the construction of the dam. In the interest of fisheries in Passamaquoddy bay and bay of Fundy, we should have some report or a copy of that report submitted to the parliament of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that the Department
of External Affairs tabled a copy of the report some days ago.


Peter John Veniot: Could the minister tell me
under what heading that report was tabled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to say to
the hon. gentleman that the report is .being printed. I recall now that it was not in printed form. The French translation has not been completed, but as soon as that has been done the report will be printed and laid on the table.


TOLLS ON MONTREAL BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, a few
days ago, a delegation comprising farmers and other citizens from the surroundings of Montreal, interviewed the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) in order to request him to reduce the tolls on the Victoria and Montreal Harbour bridges. I was invited to join this

Commuters Canada-United States
delegation but owing to illness, I was prevented doing so. I wish to inquire of the hon. minister, who no doubt has taken the matter into consideration, whether a favourable reply can be expected soon in connection with this request and the resolutions adopted by the various counties interested.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday last, I think, quite a representative delegation comprising citizens of the south shore, mayors and councillors of the various municipalities, met at the government's offices, in Montreal. I had the pleasure of receiving this delegation and listening to their request. I wish to state to the hon. member that this question does not only concern my department but also the Department of Railways and Canals. I promised that their request would be considered by the government. I have already communicated with the other department interested and I trust that a reply will soon be forthcoming.


COMMUTERS CANADA-UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. MICHAUD (Restigouche-Mada-waska):: I would like to ask the government to inform us with regard to the attitude they have taken or the representations they have made in view of the legislation being promoted in the United States congress to prevent Canadians seeking employment across the border, and whether, if the United States government persists in its attitude, retaliatory measures will be taken by Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter to which the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska refers is one which has been brought to the attention of the government from many sources. For instance, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) at present beside me has been pressing the matter upon our attention and members for the Essex constituencies as well as those concerned who live in western constituencies bordering on the United States have also been bringing the matter to our notice. The legislation that has been introduced into congress is similar in terms to legislation that has frequently been introduced there. It has not, however, been enacted heretofore. Whether the present legislation will or will not be enacted is something about which it is impossible for the government to make a statement. There are large numbers of people living in Canada who work in the United States and likewise there are large numbers of people who live in the United

States who work in Canada. Heretofore the spirit of good neighbourliness that has characterized the relations between the two countries and to which the president made reference a few days ago has enabled those who live in Canada to cross the border from day to day to work in the United States and those who live in the United States to cross the border from day to day to work in Canada. The government has, of course, taken notice of the legislation and through the appropriate channels made to the United States authorities such representations as were thought desirable. It will be time enough to determine what action should be taken by Canada should the legislation to which the hon. member refers become law. I can make no further statement than I have just made with respect to the matter except to assure the hon. member and all those who are concerned, that the government is fully seized of the seriousness of the situation and has made to the United States government as strong representations as are possible under the circumstances.


Peter John Veniot: With
reference to the matter of Canadians employed on the American side of the international boundary and Americans employed on the Canadian side, might I ask the Prime Minister if it is not a fact that under the Ashburton treaty there is a special arrangement relating to residents of the St. John river district?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whether it was under
that treaty I am not prepared to say at the moment, but the matter was a subject of special discussion. I shall ascertain in which document it is and make a statement to the hon. gentleman.


Peter John Veniot: I think it is 1814. UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


BILL IN TERMS GENERALLY OF RELIEF ACT, 1933, WITH PROVISION RESPECTING DELAYED RELIEF ACCOUNTS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures-Mr. Gordon-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, in to-day's papers there is a dispatch from Washington dated April 11, entitled:
Arthur Cutten Facing Charge of Conspiracy
Alleged by United States Secretary of Agriculture to Have Made False Reports to Manipulate Grain Prices
That dispatch is very interesting. It refers to wheat business in the United States. It

Relief Act, 1934
says that according to the American authorities the said Cutten:
"conspired and colluded" with firms and persons on the Chicago board of trade "to conceal his trading and position in the market" and to so "make inaccurate, incorrect and false reports of his position in the market."
I shall ask the government first, if that Arthur Cutten is the same Arthur Cutten whose name appears in Hansard of February 26, 1934, at page 933 in the debate on the bill of the Small Loan Company of Canada and is the man referred to by the hon. Minister of Justice as head of the well known Cutten family of Guelph. My second question is, did the said Cutten do anything in Canada of the kind complained of by the American government according to the dispatch I have just quoted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure it must be
within the sense of this committee that these questions have no relevance to this relief act. I desire to place myself entirely in the hands of the committee in endeavouring to assist in the passing of this legislation, but if one is to be confronted with questions of this kind is it possible to conduct legislation at all? The matter mentioned by the hon. gentleman is one which can easily be considered when the house is in committee on the private bill to which reference has been made, but I cannot see its relevance to this bill, and I ask you so to rule.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I shall not insist any more about it except to say that the man was given a certificate of virtue-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. A point of order has been taken by the Prime Minister that the hon. gentleman should not discuss this question at this time.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the chair has not
given judgment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I thought the hon.
gentleman was speaking to the point of order. On the question now raised I shall have to rule him out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before you give your
ruling permit me to explain. That man, according to the press, has been manipulating grain markets in Chicago, and I wondered if he had been doing the same thing in Canada when the government was guaranteeing wheat loans. This is most relevant to the matter we are now discussing, because those guarantees were given under the blank cheque legislation. There is an obvious connection between the manipulation of grain by Cutten in Chicago and what might have
been done here. We do not know what has been done here. I do not know, no one knows-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. Does the hon. gentleman speak of his personal knowledge or of what he has read?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, most of our knowledge comes from the press, because the government does not say much. If we had not the press we would be very poorly informed, although I am very thankful to the right hon. Prime Minister for having tabled the Amulree report the other day.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understood the hon.
member was referring to the American press.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not making any
distinction between the Canadian and the American press. I am discussing the blank cheque legislation. Remember, Mr. Chairman, we are all glad to see you in the chair. I shall tell you why. It is because you have a real sense of humour. You have so much of it you could give a little of it to the government. But now I see the Prime Minister is smiling. When he smiles he is an altogether different man. When he frowns his eyebrows-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: The shouts of order remind me of something that comes to us from across the boundary, of negro spirituals. The preacher starts to say something, then he gets enthused and the audience shouts the louder with ham and then someone faints or drops outside the church and they restore him with buckets of water. That is what should be done to those who are so noisy on the other side of the house.
But, sir, this is a serious business. The government have been trading in wheat and steel, and so on. I wonder why the government offices are not transferred to the market square. There are two or three days in the week for marketing. I would like to deal with those gentlemen, I wonder if they would be disposed to give credit to an individual, I would like to be as well connected with them as the Algoma Steel Corporation, the Canadian Pacific Railway and Mr. McFarland. However, leaving negro spirituals, let us come to the blank cheque. What I do not understand in that legislation is the mystery of it. Everything is done in the fashion of the magic rope in India. The fakir burns some wood, there is a cloud of smoke, then the rope hangs straight up in the cloud and he does all sorts of magic in that cloud of smoke.
Will the government follow the wonderful example of the Hindoo fakir. Some small
Relief Act, 1934

guarantees have been given by the government, in the name of the country at large, to the steel corporations in Ontario and Nova Scotia as well as to other corporations, but this is what I find most extraordinary. We heard a great deal from hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to Beauharnois; they found it a very bad proposition, and they destroyed the credit of that corporation. Then, after having done so, they supplied it with crutches to the extent of $15,000,000, by way of guarantee.
Unfortunately I have not the gift of ubiquity; yesterday I was unable to be in the house because I was attending the meetings of a committee, so I did not have an opportunity of listening to the debate. On reading Hansard this morning, however, I was delighted to see how hon. gentlemen on this side of the house pointed out the absurdity of this legislation. I should like to compliment all who took part in that debate, but I would particularly mention my good friend from Antigonish-Guysborough. First he spoke with a smile; then he brought facts to the house to which there was no answer. It is sad not to receive an answer when such important matters are discussed, but after reading what took place yesterday may I say that I fully agree with the well founded remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough who asked that the government guarantee loans to the fishermen of his constituency to the extent of $15,000. The right hon. Prime Minister thought the hon. member was not perhaps a happy medium. Medium is another word that is used in connection with spiritualism, but it is just a word, like protoplasm. A member is not a magician; a member cannot make bad things look good, as the government attempts to do. It is our duty to secure from the government information which we supply to our constituents, and that information must be accurate. The member elected from each constituency is the connecting link between that constituency and the government. Very often the suggestions that come from this side of the house are disregarded by the government; the government have that power, but when they take the trouble to consider the real needs of the nation they are forced to admit that the members on this side of the house, who do not pretend to be infallible, are earnest in their desire to promote the welfare of our country.
I am not surprised, sir, that my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough was unsuccessful in presenting the request of his electors to the government, because I know that some 
requests that have been made to the federal government by the provincial government of Quebec have been disregarded. The other day I mentioned the case of the poor settlers of Saint-Emile d'Auclair, Saint-Elzear and Packington. An inspector was sent to those parishes by the department, and he made a report saying that those people should not have the relief works asked for by the Quebec government. After a further investigation, however, and after the parish priest had come to the government with tears in his eyes and described the real condition of those poor people, the eyes and heart of the Minister of Labour were opened. In other places, however, the government did not reconsider its decision and did not approve of the relief works which had been asked for by the Quebec government, What was the explanation given by the government? He stated that in connection with the last two parishes they had received a list of the unemployed in a letter which bore no date or signature and which did not contain a covering letter, but that the department had a confidential report from the inspector in this connection. If the report was confidential in regard to the members of the opposition it was not in any way confidential in regard to the minister, because it came to him from one of his employees. The minister should have looked into the matter; he should have paid attention to it. He should have sent reliable men as inspectors, who would give him a true picture of the situation. I have received tens and hundreds of letters from those people complaining of their dire distress, and I wonder how it is possible for the poor people of this country, who have not an opportunity to present their case to the government, to be heard by hon. gentlemen opposite.
I have often told the government that they are wrongly informed, that they obtain their information from interested parties. Those who could tell the true facts are not those who flatter; they are those who stand silent. Those who come to the government are those who flatter in an endeavour to obtain something from the government, and they paint false pictures of the conditions that exist. They deceive the government for their own benefit. This is being done now, and this is why I complain so much. I regret that wihen we do our duty as defenders of the rights and privileges of these poor people we can get no answer from the government. The report is called confidential, and it must be a contagious confidence which spreads like a disease because every paper filed next to such confidential report of an inspector is also

Relief Act, 1934
called confidential. The word "confidential" is spread through the whole file, and it is impossible to get any information. I have said very often in this House of Commons, and I shall now repeat, that I will not accuse any hon. member of the government of having a stone where in the normal human body we find a heart. I believe they are generous. They are good natured and average men. I regret however that they are wrongly informed, and at times I am sure they are afraid to face the facts. They act like a man who is condemned to death because of illness, a man who is afraid to see his doctor for fear he will be told, "My friend draw up your will; you will die within a few hours." The government is afraid of that and they will not listen to those who are their good friends and who are willing to tell them when they are mistaken, and give them a chance to change their policy.
The stand I now take is not taken selfishly, but is taken on behalf of my people. Unfortunately however those who take that stand are found only on this side of the house. I regret very much that the case of those settlers has not been considered by the government.


Mr. SPENCE:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member from Toronto is rich.
Mr. SPEiNCE: You claim to be perfect, yourself.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is rich; he is well off. Everyone knows that, and I do not blame him for it. The unfortunate fact is, however, that he is so rich he does not understand other people being poor. He knows nothing about the settlers I have described time and again in this house.


Mr. GOTT:: Very well off, intellectually.


Jean-François Pouliot: I see some hon. members opposite laughing when I describe these cases. When I return to my constituency I will tell the people who have no shoes, no warm clothes to wear in the winter time, no food, only shelter rain and snow can get through, that when I was describing their very sad cases to the government I saw some gentlemen who are not suffering in the same way, men who are wealthy and supporters of the government, laughing at what I was saying when I took opportunity to defend them in the Canadian parliament.


Eccles James Gott: They won't believe it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I am here to do my duty. When the government does not answer
there is always some heckler who interrupts anyone who is speaking earnestly and for the public good. I speak because I believe it to be my duty, and at great sacrifice. This is no joke. Every one of us takes pains to study in order that he may learn something. Some are born wrapped in an encyclopaedia of general knowledge-which could be called otherwise, but are not wise at all. I will admit that it is useless to speak, but I have said what I wanted to say, and when I see the government guaranteeing millions of dollars to huge companies, private enterprises, steel companies, Newfoundland and so on, I feel I must speak for the settlers in my constituency as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough spoke for the fishermen in his. These people live far from Ottawa, and they have no means with which to travel here and to expose their troubles to the government. They cannot get the ear of the government because of the noise made by those who do not understand their troubles, their miseries and their distress.
I shall not insist upon an answer to what I have said about the settlers, because I know I shall receive none. However as the Prime Minister was good enough to supply me with a copy of the Amulree report I shall ask him if the Canadian government has been released from the guarantees given to Newfoundland, and if following that release Canada will have anything to say in the future for the guarantee which has been given to the banks on behalf of Newfoundland. No answer?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the amendment
carry?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: We are waiting for an
answer.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: There is
no answer.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question is on
the amendment; shall the amendment carry?


Mr. DUFF:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Go on.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
who is running this government; is it the hon. member for York-Sunbury or the ministers who occupy the front benches? If if is the ministers I suggest that the hon. member ought to keep quiet. He may not be serious but hon. members on this side of the house are discussing a very serious matter, and I must object to his remarks.


James Houston Spence: Don't be too serious.
Reliej Act, 1934


William Duff: I am not. Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate you upon the fact that your health is so improved that you are able to resume your duties as chairman of this committee. I am sure I appreciate the courtesy with which you dealt with the first part of the remarks delivered by the hon. member for Temiscouata, in which he referred to a gentleman named Cutten whose name appeared in to-day's press. 'It may be possible, sir, that in the past few months you have not been able to follow discussions which took place within the precincts of this House of Commons. It seems to me that in view of those discussions and in view of the fact that a very important witness was brought before a committee of this house to deal with guarantees to the farm relief authorities, the hon. member for Temiscouata was quite right in bringing the matter before the committee. As far as I am concerned I have no objection to Mr. Cutten selling either physical wheat, margins or futures, or wheat known by any other term, and if he made a great deal of money by selling that wheat to somebody, jolly good luck to him as far as I am concerned. But I do say that in view of the fact that this government guaranteed a very large sum of money the amount of which we have not been able to obtain either in this committee or in another committee of this house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to point out to this committee that there are rules governing debate in this house, noted mostly perhaps for not being observed, but one of them is this, that a matter being before a committee of this house is not a subject for discussion in this committee or in this house until that committee has made its report. The hon. member is now proceeding to discuss what took place in a committee and is referring to the discussions that took place there.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understood that the committee had made its report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the committee is
still sitting-the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. OASGRAIN:: We have disposed of
that matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me. None of
those matters has been disposed of. They all stand in the same position. There is no report from the banking and commerce committee, and if we are to pursue this course the rules might as well not exist.


William Duff: On the point of order raised
by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, I
(Mr. Spence.]
agree the rules should be observed, and have tried to keep myself within the rules of the house in this discussion. Perhaps we all break the rules sometimes to a greater or less degree. The Prime Minister's remark reminds me of the answer that Priscilla made to John Alden, "Speak for yourself, John." I have endeavoured to keep within the rules of this house so far as I possibly could, and in referring to this matter I was very careful to keep as far away as possible, in my references to what was being done in another part of this house, from breaking the rules. But I think I may be allowed to say that certain facts have been brought out in a committee of this house by one important witness who appeared before it. The public has the evidence given before that committee, and I therefore claim it is no longer a private matter because every man in Canada can get a copy of that evidence and see exactly what was said by that witness. Therefore I submit to you, sir, as the Deputy Speaker of this house and the chairman of this committee, that I am quite within my rights in discussing this matter so long as I do not transgress the rules of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we might as well have the matter disposed of, Mr. Chairman. The rule is that matters that are referred to committees to be dealt with shall not be discussed in this chamber until the report of the committee has been made, and on that report discussion can take place. That is the rule. The other day one hon. gentleman observed that he was getting very near the edge of breaking the rule and he reformed his speech accordingly. There is no doubt what the rule has been, and if we have rules here for the conduct of debate in this chamber we should follow them. There is the other ground of the irrelevancy of the discussion that is taking place to the relief measure before us, and if hon. members desire to discuss matters so wholly extraneous I might as well say now what I was going to say presently, that it is quite obvious that the purpose of the opposition is not to proceed with this measure during the absence of the leader of the opposition. The discussions that have taken place and the speeches that have been made have latterly been a repetition, and with no reference to the clause under consideration at all. If that is the course which the opposition desires to pursue I shall follow the other course and adjourn the discussion until such time as the leader of the opposition returns, and thus save several thousands of dollars of public money per day by taking up other matters

Relief Act, 1934
of public business. It is quite obvious that an effort is being made to prevent this matter being dealt with at all. This is the eighth day I think on which this matter has been discussed, and people who have nothing to do with it, newspapers and others, are beginning to remark upon what this discussion means. Rather than see public money wasted I am prepared to move the committee up and afford the opportunity for estimates and other business of the house to be proceeded with. I think that would be preferable to having a repetition of this and other matters that have been discussed put on Hansard.


William Duff: It does not make any difference who the leader is on this side because every one of us over here is equal, which is more than can be said for some of my hon. friends opposite.


Eccles James Gott: I would ask my hon. friend if he compares himself with the hon. member for Temiscouata.


William Duff: In answer to the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott), may I pay him the compliment of saying that. in some respects I compare myself even with him.


Eccles James Gott: Not in all respects.


William Duff: No. On the point of order
raised by the Prime Minister, and before he moves that the committee rise for the reason given, which of course he should not have given, because in the first place he does not know what is in the mind of the leader of the opposition or in the minds of members on this side of the house or whether we have had any instruction from our leader to proceed with this bill or not, may I say that we are not sycophants on this side of the house. There is no one-man leadership or domination over here. We have our own views and we express them for ourselves. The Prime Minister should never have used the expression that we are blocking this legislation or that for several days we have been dealing with something that is not in the public interest. So far as I am personally concerned 1 brought up an entirely new matter yesterday that had not been discussed before, and that I had a perfect right to do as a member of this assembly elected by the intelligent electors of Nova Scotia, and I am not going to allow the Prime Minister or anybody else on that side or on this side of the house to interfere with my rights as a member of this house.
Again on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the Prime Minister evidently is not very anxious to have discussed the guarantees which this government gave. The public, however, are very anxious to get the 74726-131
information. I have been trying for the last month to find out what was the amount of the guarantee which the government gave to the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited or John I. McFarland, and it is quite evident that so far as the government is concerned they have something to cover up or we would have had that information.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Duff: Very well then, let us have
the information. If the government does not want to give the information I can give myself, within a million dollars, the amount of the guarantee which this dominion gave to the banks of this country to carry on the business in which in 1930 John I. McFarland was interested. The amount was about $150,000,000.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understood the hon.
member was going to speak on the point of order.


William Duff: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me go a step further. As far as the Cutten matter is concerned, in which you intervened, Mr. Chairman, in a very courteous manner, I understand that this wheat which Cutten was selling in Chicago was sold to Mr. McFarland, and that the government was guaranteeing the money which was paying for that wheat.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is not permissible
to discuss facts which are before a committee of this house until that committee has made its report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the
point of order, Mr. Chairman, on March 27 of this year, at page 1901 of Hansard, the figure of $15,000,000 was given by the Prime Minister as the outside liability under this very guarantee which is being discussed by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I submit that my hon. friend is quite within his rights in discussing that statement made by the Prime Minister seeing that it is contained in the Hansard of the present session at page 1901.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No doubt, if the hon. member confines himself to that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand the standing orders of this house of 1927. The rules of debate are set out at pages 16 to 21 inclusive and on part of page 22. I would ask you, sir, to be good enough to look at the book and refresh your memory. I see it just in front of you and it is closed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My mind is open.

Relief Act, 1934


Jean-François Pouliot: The first rule, No. 34, is not relevant to the point under discussion, nor is rule 35, nor rule 36, nor rule 37, nor rule 38, nor rule 39, nor rule 40-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Will the hon. member please quote the rule that is relevant.


Jean-François Pouliot: Nor rule 40, nor rule 41,
nor rule 42, nor rule 43, and that is the last one. Therefore in that book, which contains our own regulations governing the conduct of debates in this house there is nothing at all to prevent the hon, member for Antigonish-Guysborough from discussing the question which he was considering. You have in your hand a book that costs much more than the standing orders of the house, because it costs $10-I am speaking of the authority you have in your hand.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is
not speaking to the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: This other book which I
have quoted contains the regulations passed by this house governing the way in which debates should be carried on, and there is absolutely nothing in the standing orders to prevent an hon. member from speaking about legislation that is before the house. Has the matter been submitted to another committee of the house to prevent free discussion of it by members of this house? That is a most important question and, as there is not a single standing order which prevents the hon. member for Antigonish-lGuysborough from saying anything he thinks fit about that very matter, I do not see how anyone can take advantage of what is being done either in England or in any other country, where the rules governing their legislative houses are different from our own, in order to impose upon us a regulation which does not exist in this house. I do not see therefore, no matter what author may be quoted, how you, Mr. Chairman, can prevent the hon. member from discussing anything which is relevant to the present debate. If there is one standing order which would preclude the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough from discussing the matter in question, I will fully respect your decision; otherwise it will be impossible for me to understand your ruling.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I hope the hon. member for Temiscouata will understand my ruling, which is this. Under standing order 41, with respect to decorum in debate, it is provided in 303:
Until a committee reports, it is irregular to refer to its proceedings in debate in the house.
I will not quote the whole rule. I would refer the hon. member to 666 as well.
[The Chairman.]


Jean-François Pouliot: That is Beauchesne.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Not only Beauchesne
but common sense.


Jean-François Pouliot: Beauchesne is right?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order; the hon. member must at least respect his county and his name. I certainly will not curtail discussion by any hon. member of any aspect of the legislation before the house, but at the same time I am bound to abide by the rules of the house, according to which no hon. member may refer specifically to any matter which is now before a committee and on which such committee is going to report, when full discussion will be allowed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree entirely with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as far as it goes, but the hon. member was not referring to proceedings before the committee. We are entitled to refer to information which we have received with regard to any transaction, though such transaction may be under discussion before any select committee of the house, but we may not comment on any particular evidence given before the banking and commerce committee.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I agree with the hon. member on that point. Any hon. member discussing this legislation may quote any information, whether or not that information has also been given before the select committee, so long as the information quoted comes from some other source than the committee itself. But what is under consideration by that committee cannot be discussed in this house until the committee has made its report.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Then how can you expect this house to grant another blank cheque until all the expenditures have been accounted for under the last? So long as the wheat agreement guarantee has not been accounted for and the total amount of this guarantee stated by the government, we are justified in demanding it so that the aggregate of the guarantees may be known.


William Duff: I am pleased to hear your decision, Mr. Chairman. So far as I am concerned, I do not want to go against the well-established rules of the house, but I think I am in order in mentioning the Cutten matter. Various statements are-being made in the country, and it seems to me that it is the duty of the government to clear the matter up and to show what at any particular time was the gross amount of guarantees for which they were responsible. As I said a

Relief Act, 1934
2073'
moment ago, my only interest so far as the Cutten matter is concerned is this, that owing to the guarantee given Mr. McFarland by the government, Mr. Cutten in Chicago sold wheat to Mr. McFarland, and he had to use money from the guarantee which the dominion gave to him. In making that statement I think I have said sufficient for my purpose.
I wish to refer to another matter. I have tried always to speak in this house only when I have something to say which, in my judgment at any rate, is in the interests of my constituency or of other parts of Canada.


Eccles James Gott: That is where you differ from the member for Temiscouata.


William Duff: Yesterday, in discussing this relief measure, I directed the attention of the committee to the fact that from one part of my constituency I had received a telegram asking that the government arrange to give them a small amount of $15,000 for certain purposes in connection with fisheries, and in his reply the Prime Minister, as reported at page 2059 of Hansard, column 2, used these words:
But that can be done only when we have the powder to do it, and at present *we have not any such power. Some ten days ago the power lapsed, and until such time as this parliament again confers the power we shall not be able to help the fishermen of Canso either through the government at Halifax or otherwise.
Of course, that statement was quite correct, but from other statements made either in this house or on the public platform or in private conversation one can sometimes draw different conclusions. Now, there are some people in this house who have fairly good memories. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on his good memory although some times he errs just as we do. But yesterday he made the statement that he could not guarantee this relief to the fishermen of Canso because there was at the moment no act of parliament. All I asked yesterday was that the fishermen of Canso be treated like other people in this country, like the western producers or John I. McFarland or whatever name you want to give to the organization which he headed to which this government gave a guarantee, the amount of which we do not know but which ran into not tens of millions of dollars, but in my opinion, over $100,000,000. What was the position of the government and the country in regard to that guarantee? Did the Prime Minister or his government have at that time any legislation to deal with the matter? If there was no such legislation-and in a minute I am going
74726-131J
to prove that there was none-why cannot the government deal with the fishermen of Canso as they did with the Wheat Producers Limited, John I. McFarland and those associated with him? Let me read order in council P.C. 2238 as follows:
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 12th September, 1931.
The order in council goes on:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 11th September, 1931, from the Minister of Finance, recommending that, in pursuance of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and of an undertaking on behalf of the government-
Listen to this, Mr. Chairman.
*-made before the session of parliament at which the said act was passed, to implement by legislation the recommendation hereinafter set out, the governor in council guarantee repayment to the chartered banks hereinafter mentioned:
The Bank of Montreal,
The Bank of Nova Scotia,
The Bank of Toronto,
The Canadian Bank of Commerce,
'The Royal Bank of Canada,
The Dominion Bank,
The Imperial Bank of Canada, of the amounts of money advanced by them to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, hereinafter called "Wheat Producers," and interest thereon until repayment as agreed between the said banks and Wheat Producers in connection with and incidental to the marketing of the wheat and other grains grown in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and" Alberta in the year 1930 and delivered to or in process of delivery to Wheat Producers, and including advances for purchases of wheat or other grains deemed necessary by Wheat Producers to secure the advantageous sale of such grains already delivered to or to be delivered to Producers.
The agreement was made with Mr. John I. McFarland who took over the management and selling of the wheat in November, 1930, and no legislation was passed at that time. This house was not in session then, and when the government gave guarantees to the banks to the extent of tens of millions of dollars there was no legislation passed, yet this government itself, six or eight months before the act was passed in 1931, gave to Mr. John I. McFarland and the banks, power to sell that wheat on a guarantee of the government. The Prime Minister was mistaken when he tried to argue that nothing could be done for the fishermen of Canso even to the extent of the small amount of $15,000 because at that time there was no statute on the books, whereas the government in September, 1931, passed an order in council in which it distinctly admits making an undertaking on its own be-
Relief Act, 1934

half before the session of parliament of 1931. Surely, therefore, the Prime Minister and the government cannot give as a reason for not looking after the interests of the fishermen of Canso, that we are delaying this legislation or that none exists. Consequently the point of his remarks was not well taken and I again appeal to him on behalf of the fishermen of Canso that there is no reason, if the government can make a deal which means a guarantee of tens of millions or perhaps $100,000,000 to certain people, it cannot guarantee a small amount to the fishermen of Canso.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The committee doubtless has observed that the telegram which was sent by the mayor of Canso to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough did not ask for a guarantee; it was a request for assistance under the marketing legislation. It states:
Owing to present adverse condition majority of fishermen in Canso are unable to equip themselves for fishing. Therefore this council urges the federal government under the proposed marketing and credit legislation to establish a fund of not less than $15,000 to be applied immediately through a system of loans to bona fide fishermen in Canso for the purchase and equipment of boats and fishing gear. As season is about to open immediate action is imperative. In this manner only can our fishermen once more become self-supporting.
Yesterday I pointed this out, at which the hon. member seemed to take some offence, that the telegram might better have been sent to the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister or another appropriate minister if it was desired to have it dealt with, and while I do not think the hon. gentleman took serious offence, he took offence at what I said during the progress of the discussion. Now I point out to him and to the committee that the suggestion was for assistance under the marketing legislation and not for a guarantee. When yesterday I pointed out that we had no power to give the guarantee I had in mind two things: first, that the legislation of last year contained provisions whereby the government could give a guarantee and this year the legislation does not do so, because the provision was so strenuously opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite that it was deliberately omitted from the legislation by the minister. In order to make the matter doubly sure, the hon. member for West Lambton, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, moved this amendment yesterday:
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the governor in council to loan, or advance money to, or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.

So that not only did hon. gentlemen opposite desire that no further guarantees should be given, but when the explanation was made that these words had been deliberately left out of this year's legislation, the hon. member for West Lambton with the aid of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard desired to have the committee add to the legislation a proviso that no guarantee could be given under any circumstances to anybody except the provisions with relation to provinces, which provisions were contained in another section. Therefore perhaps the committee as a whole will realize that no government could give such a guarantee as that which is sought nor give any undertaking to give a guarantee in view of the fact that it had deliberately omitted from the proposed legislation the provision relating to guarantees.
There is just one observation which the hon. member made which I submit to the committee is a very serious one. He has alleged that in consequence of something that appears in the newspapers, there was collusion-that is what it amounts to-between the cooperative wheat sellers' organization and Mr. Cutten at Chicago and that money was used by Canadians for the purpose of buying Mr. Cutten's wheat.


William Duff: If the Prime Minister will
allow me, I said that there was a report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any man who in parliament makes a statement of that kind must accept the responsibility for making it.


William Duff: I am willing to accept it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to say something more about the matter, and that is this: The government is not responsible for the information not being given. The government told the committees, they told this house that it was free to do what it thought best, and by a majority which did not include government supporters alone but men who knew something about the business as distinguished from those who did not it concluded that the information should not be forthcoming. I ask the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough and those who cheer his sentiments, do they desire to destroy western agriculture and drive the farmers of that country into bankruptcy? Is that their object? Is that the reason he makes these attacks? Why is it he stands in this house and becomes the mouthpiece of those who make attacks against western agriculture?


Vincent Dupuis: To do justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it for the purpose of getting some measure of support from those

Relief Act, 1934
who come from the great eastern provinces that they are now condemning the government because it is trying to help western Canada?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We hear the voice of the hon. gentleman next to the member for Antigonish-Cluysborough saying it is in the name of justice. The greatest peril that ever came to the Canadian agriculturist! The government is endeavouring to do the best it can to safeguard that interest, the interest upon which western Canada has prospered in years gone by, which by its purchasing power kept the factories of the east going. Now are these gentlemen going to raise this cry against the west in its time of peril, its time of difficulty, its time of stress; are they going to appeal to sectional and other prejudice for the purpose of carrying out any such policy? I appeal to the members of this committee, those who know and understand what happened, who know that the government left it a perfectly open question for the members to determine as they saw fit, and that the committee decided as it did in the light of the knowledge they had as to what was best for the country under the circumstances. It is little credit to any hon. member to raise that issue in the way in which they have endeavoured to raise it in this case. Of course the west has had large benefits from the relief measures. Why? Because there we have a small number of people inhabiting a vast area, who produced more wealth per capita for Canada than any pioneer people in the world. That is the real truth, if you want to know the real truth. Everyone who takes the trouble to analyze the statistics realizes the great amount of new wealth that has been produced on the western plains between the head of the lakes and the mountains during the last ten years; new wealth coming into being year by year, not baking five or Bix years to produce but produced between the spring and the fall, which had such a tremendous effect on this country that now the drying up of this source of production has been felt in every part of this dominion. Everyone knows that, but here we have the cry raised that what we are trying to do is to deprive someone of something for the purpose of giving it to someone else. If the figures are looked at it will be seen that under the agreement made every part of this country has had the same treatment. In the older parts of the country the necessity has not been so great as in the new. Why should
an old and long-settled country be asking the federal government to make contributions for the purposes of relief? It is in the new, the pioneer country that this necessity has arisen.


Vincent Dupuis: What about Montreal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: An hon. gentleman mentioned the word Montreal. The city of Montreal has had as great a measure of relief as any other city in Canada, the only difference is that until this morning the accounts from the city of Montreal had not been received since those for the month of July of last year. Who is to blame for that? Let the hon. gentleman mutter "Montreal" as much as he pleases but let him know the facts before he makes his statement. If the city of Montreal presents its accounts as other communities have it will be dealt with in just the same way and just as rapidly. But only this morning the accounts of the city of Montreal were brought in in part for relief from the month of July up to the month of November. And then they blame this government! They cry that the west is receiving some assistance and mutter that Montreal is neglected, and another mutters "justice."


An hon. MEMBER:: Prejudice towards
the east!


Richard Bedford Bennett: There it is you see. All I can say is that as long as this government lasts it will give the same measure of consideration to every part of Canada as to all parts of Canada, and that measure will be the measure of necessity, for relief is based on necessity. That is what it was based upon, and on that basis it will continue to be administered. As long as we make contributions to the provinces to aid them in the discharge of their duties, just so long must necessity be the measure of the extent of the relief. All I can say is that the sentiment expressed by some of the members of this house is not the sentiment of the people of the communities from whence they come, for last year not ten, not fifteen, not twenty, but I believe it went up to something between one and two hundred carloads of produce went from eastern Canada to the west to help them in their need.
Mr. VE.NIOT: And would go again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And as the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot) says it would go again. That is the position if the occasion arises. The government has acted in no spirit of discrimination but on the principle of giving to every province of the confederation the measure of assistance needed, the measure
Relief Act, 1934

of it being the necessity of the community itself as expressed to the government through the province. And the fishermen of Canso send a telegram asking support, but do not send it to the government, and the member does not come to the government for any assistance but standing in his place in the house in the middle of a debate, a partisan debate, urges that that is not the way the west does it. Those in the west present their case not for political reasons but for the purpose of having assistance and aid given, and expecting to receive it, as they have, not to make political capital out of their necessity, their sorrows and their sufferings, but for the purpose of getting some assistance given to them to tide them over the difficulties in which they find themselves. Was that telegram communicated to the government, was it shown to the government, was it shown to the minister, was it shown to anyone who had any power to deal with the matter? It asked that something be done under the marketing act which is not yet law. Those who sat in this chamber yesterday and heard the attack made and the manner in which it was made will realize just how much of the effort was to help the fishermen and how much to make political cauital out of the incident. And the country is not slow to judge in matters of that kind. It is perfectly obvious from what transpired in this chamber yesterday and for eight days before that, with the second section of the bill still under .consideration, that the opposition are endeavouring to delay the passing of this legislation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not at all!


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no objection to
their delaying it, none whatever.


Mr. BANBURY:: That is unfair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman say that what transpired in this house yesterday and to-day was not by design? Will he say the hon. gentleman beside him was not a party to it?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know better.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have the right to say what I have to say in the house, and you have no right to say it is designed to delay.


Wilfred Hanbury: The right hon. gentleman cannot be responsible for every member on his side, and we cannot be responsible for every member on this side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I wish hon. members would listen-


Peter John Veniot: I ask that the Prime Minister, if he reflects on me in the words he has used, will withdraw them. He has attributed to the opposition a design to block the passage of this bill. I do not think he can attribute a design to any member of this committee to block it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was very careful not to use the word "block" or the word "obstruct." Both of those words I did not use. I said "to delay."


Peter John Veniot: You said "designed to delay."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, exactly, and that is in order.


Vincent Dupuis: -It is not right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words used in England are "dilatory tactics."


Mr. DUBOIS:: As the word "humbug."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I do not know any better example of it than the hon. gentleman. I can see nothing in this country quite equal to it. That is well known to all who have had the privilege of hearing his observations this afternoon. All you had to do was to watch the debate yesterday.


Peter John Veniot: I want the point of order decided.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the point?


Peter John Veniot: The Prime Minister said that we on this side of the house designed to prevent the passage of this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not say that, I said "delay." That is parliamentary.


Peter John Veniot: Well, delay. Now, sir, if I
understand the English language that amounts to what is mentioned on page 98 of the rules and forms as "factious opposition." When you attribute to a member or to the opposition as a body the design to delay the passage of the bill it can amount to nothing else than factious opposition, and under rule 298, which appears at page 97 of Beauchesne, that term is not permissible.

Relief Act, 1934


Mr. GUTHRIE:: On the point of order,
Mr. Chairman, occasions may arise when it may be necessary, in the opinion of any hon. member, to delay the passage of any measure. That is within his rights, and there is nothing unparliamentary in stating that the intention or design of the hon. member is to do so. It is unparliamentary to charge obstruction.


Mr. YENIOT:: It amounts to the same
thing.


Hugh Guthrie: Factious opposition is not the design to delay at all. I submit that the statement by the Prime Minister is entirely parliamentary, Mr. Chairman, and I ask you so to rule.


William Richard Motherwell: I am one of those who have been quiet as a mouse both yesterday and to-day, and I do not think those remarks could apply to me. I wanted to ask something in regard to this very matter brought up by the hon. member for An-tigonish-Guysborough. For many years I happened to be a member of a government which gave guarantees to the farmers, but we did not hide them under our hats.


Peter John Veniot: We are discussing a point
of order.


William Richard Motherwell: I am talking now; you had your chance. What is the point of order?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: On the point of order may
I be permitted-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think the hon. member can speak twice on a point of order.


Peter John Veniot: Where is the rule that
prevents me from doing so?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is a rule which states that an hon. member may speak only once to a point of order.


Peter John Veniot: We are in committee now.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, but we are not in committee on the point of order.


Peter John Veniot: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that on a point of order you have the same jurisdiction as though you were in the Speaker's chair, so to speak, but I do not think I can be prevented from replying to the Minister of Justice.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have no objection to hearing the hon. gentleman if the committee consents.


Peter John Veniot: If in your opinion, Mr. Chairman, I am not permitted to reply I bow to your ruling.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where is the rule, Mr. Chairman?


Peter John Veniot: If in the opinion of the
chairman of this committee I am infringing the rules of the house I accept the ruling, and I do not want the consent of the committee to go on.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: May I say further that for my own information I should be only too happy to hear the hon. gentleman, because I *want to form my opinion on the point of order and I must understand it clearly, because there seems to be very little difference between the Prime Minister and the hon. gentleman in regard to the words used. So I will listen to the hon. member for Gloucester.


Peter John Veniot: I take it, sir, that under rule 298, which appears at page 97 of Beau-chesne, the expressions there set out have been ruled unparliamentary in the British House of Commons, which ruling applies here as well. The first expression I find is "factious opposition." While the Prime Minister did not use the words "factious opposition" he did say there was a design evident on the part of the opposition to delay the passage of this bill.


James Houston Spence: Is that not true?


Peter John Veniot: Those were the words he
used. Now I hear a voice from the other side asking if that is not so. I wish to protest that it is not so and that the words "design to delay the passage of this bill" amount to obstruction; they amount to more than that, and come under the heading of factious opposition. I do not agree with the Minister of Justice, although perhaps I should say that he ought to be a better authority on the interpretation of the English language than I am. I cannot agree with him, however. I will say that he is in a better position to interpret a legal term than I am, but I will not play second fiddle to him in the interpretation of the English language. Therefore I take it that the words "design to delay the passage of this bill" come within the class of expressions which have been ruled objectionable and unparliamentary, as laid down in the section I have quoted.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My ruling is this:
Sometimes it may be not only the right but the duty of any hon. member to delay, obstruct or stop any measure which he may think bad for the future welfare of the country, and at certain times he may be entitled to use the term " obstruction." The
Relief Act, 1934

rule on which I am bound to base my decision is this, that you cannot impute motives to any hon. member. At the same time, however, I think it is only fair to say that all sides of the house may criticize any attitude taken by any hon. member, so long as that is done in parliamentary language, and in my opinion it is not unparliamentary to say that a member, or some members, or an opposition, or a government party, have designed to delay any legislation. I might add that sometimes it might be a good thing if they did.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
say, Mr. Chairman, that I thoroughly agree with the ruling you have just given. Speaking for myself certainly I am endeavouring to delay this measure for the reason that I am absolutely and bitterly opposed to two most vicious principles contained in this legislation. In my humble way I want to impress upon the country the vicious nature of the legislation that now is being piloted through the house by the Prime Minister. But so far as actual delay is concerned I want to bring to the attention of the right hon. gentleman the fact that at 10.45 o'clock on Tuesday night in this chamber the official opposition were prepared to vote upon the amendment which had been moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition, but because the right hon. gentleman and his Minister of Labour did not have at that time enough members behind them to sustain them in the position they had taken we saw what were really blocking tactics of the worst kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "blocking" is
not parliamentary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will
withdraw it, in deference to my right hon. friend, and in deference to the classical vocabulary of the right hon. gentleman I will say that the Minister of Labour adopted tactics which were designed to delay the passage of this bill which we are now considering. I would also tell the right hon. gentleman, who virtually accuses the opposition of using blocking tactics, though actually his words were "using tactics designed to delay," that if he removes from this bill, in the first place, the clause dealing with peace, order and good government and if he inserts in section 4, in the second place, an amendment which we intend to propose to the effect that no money shall be expended by this government except such as may be appropriated by this parliament, the bill will very soon go through. If the Prime Minister will do what was done by the government themselves in 1932 and remove from the bill the refer-[The Chairman.]
ence to peace, order and good government, and if he will return to this parliament its fundamental right to control taxation and expenditure, this bill will go through and receive third reading in thirty minutes, so far as we are concerned.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I am bitterly opposed to legislation based upon peace, order and good government. Our attitude has been consistent, sir, in this house since 1930. In 1932 I moved an amendment along the same lines, and I should like to place it on record again now. I moved:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved:
1. That this house has been from the commencement of the session and continues to be ready and willing to consider and vote without delay any money or grant, submitted and asked for by the government for relieving distress and providing employment throughout Canada.
In the second place, and this is our position this afternoon, the amendment stated:
2.	That this house cannot surrender the rights of the people of Canada, through their representatives in parliament, to maintain direct control over matters of taxation and expenditure, _ nor vest in the governor in council or in any other body absolute and despotic powers under the guise of dealing with peace, order and' good government, particularly while parliament is in session.
That was our attitude in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and that is where we stand in 1934. We say to the government to-day that we are prepared to vote all the moneys necessary at this moment to provide relief, providing these moneys are properly voted. As far as I am personally concerned I am conscientiously opposed-and I hope hon. members will accept my sincerity-to the clause relating to peace, order and good government in this legislation. I am opposed to depriving parliament of control over public expenditures. I say we have been acting [DOT]within our rights in delaying this legislation, in order that the country may be impressed with the serious nature of the legislation which the Prime Minister, because of the regrettable absence of the Minister of Labour, is at the present time trying to compel us to accept without proper, due and mature consideration. With all respect and kindly deference to my right hon. friend I say that he himself, by his personal demeanor yesterday and to-day, has been responsible for a great deal of delay. I wish to make that statement in the kindliest manner, and to add that tire right hon. gentleman himself provoked antagonism and unnecessary discussion in the piloting of this measure through the

Relief Act, 1934
House of Commons. For that reason I regret that his genial colleague, the Minister of Labour, is indisposed. 1 do wish to impress upon the right hon. gentleman however that 1 do not believe he is in a position to lecture hon. members on this side of the house who have conscientious and deep-rooted objections to the main provisions of the bill.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to cover that which has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, other than to state that I concur in his statements. I do point out to the Prime Minister, in the most kindly spirit, that this legislation is thoroughly obnoxious to hon. members on this side of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: For four years.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, for four years, and if it had been twenty years our position would be just the same. May I say to the Prime Minister that because of the absence of the leader of the opposition there is no desire to delay the legislation. May I add that there are a number of hon. members on this side of the house who still desire to speak upon the measure. So far as I am concerned I should hope we might conclude discussion of the bill this afternoon, but when the right hon. gentleman imputes to us the motive of delaying the measure I state that 'he is entirely beside the mark.
May I say here and now that while I was absent yesterday and cannot speak as to the discussion which took place then, I do know that three or four hon. members on this side of the house were very anxious to discuss the guarantees. I presume they did so, although I have not yet read Hansard to ascertain whether or not they spoke. There are some further matters touched upon in the measure concerning which, as we proceed, hon. members will desire to speak. The discussion may have wandered somewhat far afield, but we do resent very strongly any imputation that we have used obstructionist methods, if you wish to use the extreme term, and that we have unnecessarily delayed the passage of the measure. This is one of the most important bills the House of Commons will be asked to consider. Let me repeat what I said a few days ago-and may I add that upon that occasion I had waited twenty-four hours before I had an opportunity to speak. Other hon. members were anxious to express themselves, and of course my remarks were delayed.
May I repeat that we are just as anxious as is the government to grant relief where
such relief is required. I should like to express myself as strongly as has my colleague by stating that we object to the provisions contained in the bill. We always have objected, and as opposition members it is our duty to object as strongly, as is humanly possible, to those features in the legislation which we do not like-and we intend to do it. The delay has not been caused by the absence of the leader of the opposition, because I wish to make it perfectly clear that I believe hon. members on this side of the house have discussed clause 2 as much as they have desired. We wish however to discuss clause 3 in connection with which the Prime Miinster has presented an amendment. We are anxious to proceed with the legislation, because we do not want to stay here any longer than is necessary. But we do intend to remain until we have had the opportunity of presenting our views to the House of Commons, and we will not be deterred from our purpose by anything which may be said by any hon. member of the government or by its leader. I make these statements in the kindliest spirit, and say that we are ready to go on and vote upon our amendment, and then proceed with the amendment presented by the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I thank
the hon. member for West Edmonton for the statement he has made. I do think it is quite unfair to say that an effort was not made yesterday to answer every reasonable question asked and to do so in the best possible temper. There was nothing said yesterday which was not responsive to a question asked and I leave it to any hon. member who sat in the committee to state whether or not the replies were not made in the best possible temper. Therefore I say that the particular criticism is unwarranted.
The amendment now before the committee is one offered by the leader of the opposition upon which, I understand, we will vote. I indicated that I purposed at least to some extent to meet the views of the opposition by striking out subsection (b) of section 2 and making a new paragraph.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
will come subsequently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, when we dispose
of this matter I shall make that motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some further references to my
20S0

Relief Act, 1934
statements of yesterday concerning the stabilization fund. Yesterday the Prime Minister said in answer to a question of mine:
The return will gratify the hon. gentleman's very laudable curiosity in that regard. They were not paid to the provinces but to the persons who made the exports under the terms fixed by the regulations, which were published and indicated to the house.
In connection with my question as to how this $35,145.71 was appropriated I have consulted Hansard for the present year, and at page 237, February 5, I find the following question asked by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) and answers thereto:
Agricultural Stabilization Fund
Mr. MacLean:
How much money was paid by the government of Canada under the agricultural stabilization fund, for each of the agricultural products entitled to aid from this fund, for each month of 1933?
Mr. Khodes:
Payments to date by commodities (statistics not kept by months of shipments):
Cheese	$ 5,437 33
Bacon and hams	
9,006	41Cattle	
3,779	44Eggs	
409	80Canned lobsters	
1,559	27Canned salmon	
158	39

Administration expenses	 217 82
Total to date	$20,568 43
I should like to find out the difference between the $35,145.71 and the $20,568.43 mentioned here, and also the names of the persons about which the right hon. gentleman spoke yesterday when he said that payments were made to the persons who made exports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The figures I gave yesterday, now repeated, namely, the thirty-five thousand odd represent the amount to date. The figures given on February 5, represented the sums paid to that date. The difference between the two sums represents the amount paid between those two dates. Obviously I have not the names of the persons to whom payments were made, but I shall endeavour to secure them from the Department of Finance, and table them. I do not know whether or not they are available, but I believe they are. They are not paid to provinces.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When I put that question I was not trying to delay matters at all or to make trouble. I was simply trying to get some valuable information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman complains that the suggestion was as to the

ingenuity of the method adopted to drag out the proceedings. I only suggested that if we were ready to vote on Tuesday night why did we wait all day yesterday?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I did not have time on Tuesday night to put that question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Secondly, I would point
out that if the pairs were observed the government would have had a majority of fifteen at that time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If the pairs had been
observed; but sometimes members forget all about them in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they were observed
the government would have had a majority of fifteen.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I had no conference with the chief whip on the government side and I was not approached to take a vote on that night. The debate was carried on until eleven o'clock by the Minister of Labour himself.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us take the vote
now.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Before the vote is
taken I just wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the condition in which people in the dried-out area in Saskatchewan find themselves at the present time. The relief commission in the province of Saskatchewan furnished the farmers in that dried-out area with seed sufficient to sow their land, and I also understand that they have supplied those farmers who are using horses with feed for their horses to enable them to put in their crop. In the same manner those farmers who are using tractors instead of horses are being supplied with oil and fuel to enable them to put in their crop, but the difficulty is that while they have the seed and the power many of the farmers are needing repairs for their machinery, and it is almost impossible for them to get them, and therefore impossible to put in their crop. They have made representations to the municipalities, and the municipalities have made representations to the provincial government or to the commission, but there has been no decision yet as to what is to be done with regard to these repairs. I know that the Prime Minister will tell me that it is the duty of the Saskatchewan government to take up this matter with the commission, but I would urge him to bring this matter, which is of very great importance, to the attention of the Saskatchewan govern-

Relief Act, 1934
ment or of the commission and see if something cannot be done soon to get these machinery repairs in order that the farmers may put in their crops.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question is on the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).
Amendment negatived, on division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move, Mr. Chairman:
That section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out sub-paragraph (b) and by inserting in the said bill as section 3 thereof the following:
"3. In addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, when parliament is not in session take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada; and' at all times to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof."
The effect of that is that instead of saying "notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may," we say "in addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law [DOT]the governor in council may, when parliament is not in session," and so forth. It strikes out those words at which offence was taken on the ground that they seemed to be too broad.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the purport of the amendment moved by the Prime Minister is to leave section 2 (a) of the bill exactly as it is and to delete section 2 (b), and add a new section 3, so that the words which commence sect-tion 2 "notwthstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may" are changed to "in addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law," and so forth. I did not happen to be in the house when the matter was being debated the other day, when I think it was indicated from this side of the house that the words as now submitted by the Prime Minister are preferable to the words "notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law." But as far as I can presently see, the words now used in the amendment are almost as wide in their scope as the language previously objected to. Looking up Hansard I observe that the objection was that with the very extraordinary powers taken under this legislation the administration might override the provisions of any statute. I think the resolution of parliament which
was subsequently embodied in a statute with regard to Canada entering a possible or contingent war was quoted and it was suggested that the present legislation might override such statute or resolution. I personally must state that I am distinctly opposed to the amendment now moved although I think it is slightly less sweeping than the section as it now stands in the bill, but there is nothing in the amendment that removes in the slightest degree our fundamental objection to the clauses referring to peace, order and good government. The powers which the administration are taking in this amendment to take all such measures which may be deemed necessary, "in addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law" now upon the books are as wide as they were in the legislation of other years in regard to peace, order and good government, and the same deep-rooted and fundamental objection which we took to the previous legislation applies to the amendment now submitted, although I am prepared to admit that it is not now so obnoxious as it was with the words "notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law."


Charles A. Stewart: We have
just voted against the deletion of the words "peace, order and good government" in section 2 (b). Do I understand that they will still remain in the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but not at the place where they now are.


Charles A. Stewart: Nothing has been done to remove them from where they now are?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My amendment proposes to strike out all of sub-paragraph (b) and substitute a new section 3. The effect I think was clearly stated by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre just a moment ago. As the hon. gentleman has stated, the effect of it is to leave in the provisions with respect to peace, order and good government, but to eliminate those provisions which seem to contemplate the possibility of orders in council overriding all existing statutory provisions of the dominion.


Wilfred Hanbury: I just wish to draw the
attention of the Prime Minister and members opposite to these words which were spoken in this house on Tuesday of this week:
Does the hon. gentleman not think it is highly desirable to protect this parliament in the exercise of its powers from usurpation by a delegated authority?
That is the point we on this side are making in connection with this particular feature
Relief Act, 1934

of the bill. I wish to call the attention of hon. members on the government side of the house to the fact that these words were used in this house on Tuesday of this week by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Vincent Dupuis: I want to say a few words before this amendment carries. I do not want to be too long because hon. gentlemen to your right, Mr. Chairman, would try to lead the house and the country to believe that we are intentionally trying to delay the passage of this legislation which is coming to the rescue of the needy. The Prime Minister a few minutes ago, replying to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, said that we on this aide of the house were opposed to relief and t.o whatever has been done for the western provinces; he said that we wanted to raise prejudices and to divide east from west. As no one has answered this implication, which is absolutely wrong, may I be allowed to say for n^self and, if I may do so, in the name of the province from which I come, that we from the province of Quebec are always glad to see this government come to the rescue of the western provinces, and have always approved of what has been done in that regard. As far as I can recollect we have never objected in this house to any legislation intended to assist the needy in the west, but we do object to having two ways of doing it. We object to two measures. The Prime Minister raised his voice in protest against an interruption of mine in regard to Montreal. He said, "We received only yesterday the report from the Montreal relief people." May I say to him, with all due respect, that he is not in a position to say that we are responsible for any delays in administration, in bookkeeping in the large centres of Canada.
What I intended to say on behalf of Montreal and of the eastern provinces was this. What we want is an opportunity to work, not to beg our bread as direct relief compels the people to do. The people want work, and if I said that enough had not been done for Montreal I had in mind the fact that prior to 1930 the Liberal government had voted 850.000,000 to build a central station in Montreal, and that as soon as this government came into powrer, owing to the advice, not of representatives of the west, not of the mayor of Toronto or of the mayor of Vancouver, but on the advice of a revengeful citizen of Montreal, who was then mayor of that city, this government stopped the spending of this 850,000,000 for the construction of that central station, which would have given work to hundreds, yes, thousands of people in

Montreal who are now starving. There are works of different kinds that might have been done in Montreal, and help in other directions might have been given to our province and other eastern provinces, which this government has not carried out. That is all we are complaining about, and I say that the Prime Minister has no right to take advantage of a situation like this to make political capital out of it, if I may use his words, and to try to say to the western people, "You see the Liberal opposition from the eastern provinces are angry at my government for having come to the rescue of you people in the west." He has no right to take this attitude and I protest very strongly against it; he should give us justice. We may be very small in his eyes, but we are the representatives of the people, and we come from a province the intentions of the people of which are, to say the least, just as good as those of the right hon. representative of Calgary.
The Prime Minister also complains that we are intentionally delaying this legislation. As far as that goes, I fully concur in what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has said. VTe support this bill, but we contend that it places in the hands of the government very drastic powers. Let me ask the government this question. If they are so anxious to help the needy and the unemployed, and knowing as they do that we object to the provision with respect to peace, order and good government, and have objected to it for the past four years, then they cannot plead ignorance of our attitude to this legislation so far as that particular provision is concerned. That being so, may I ask the Prime Minister why this bill was not introduced earlier in the session. Some weeks ago the Secretary of State brought in a bill entitled an act respecting a Bureau for Translations. Mind you, that was a very pressing piece of legislation, apparently, from his point of view, so pressing that the government did not want to wait a single day to have it passed. We spent a week objecting to certain principles it contained, and week after week went by in the discussion of legislation that was not pressing at all. Instead of bringing down that legislation, why did not the Prime Minister introduce this relief bill long ago? The government brought down this bill just before the Easter recess, though the Prime Minister knew perfectly well that we on this side of the house would object to the provision with regard to peace, order and good government. They brought in the legislation practically at the close of the fiscal year, though they knew that they could not have it passed in such order;

Relief Act, 1934
yet, with all that knowledge they delayed its introduction. When they offer the arguments against us on this side which they have made with regard to the delay in the passing of this bill one is reminded of the tactics of an enemy during war. When they are trying to take a certain point in the opposing territory they make a screen of captive old people and children so that they will not be fired at.
An lion. MEMBER: Sit down if you can't speak.


Vincent Dupuis: Hon. gentlemen to the right of you, Air. Chairman, have not much charity for the people of French origin.


Robert James Manion: Nonsense.


Vincent Dupuis: Then why should they
object if I do not find the proper words to use? I am trying to do my best, speaking in one of the legal languages of the country. I am trying my best to be understood by all members of this house, but if on occasion I do not at once employ the proper word I am heckled from all parts of the other side. That is not fair. I have been accustomed to meeting numbers of English speaking people; I have spent three years at McGill university; I have known people of English origin, and the impression that I have of their fair play I do not want hon. gentlemen opposite to destroy. Let them give me fair play; I am trying to do my best. I do not even ask them to speak French although they know very well it is of great advantage to know both languages.
I say in conclusion that the government has no excuse whatever for bringing down this legislation just at the end of the fiscal year when they knew that we would object to the peace, order and good government provision, otherwise called the "blank cheque." They have no excuse for creating prejudice in favour of the west against the east when they know that not only are the people of the east glad to help the people in the west where we have relatives and friends, but the eastern provinces contribute, and are glad to, a large share of the money that is spent for the benefit of the western people.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would like to ask
the Prime Minister for some information in regard to the amount which has been spent under the relief legislation in Ontario. I note from the sheet that I hold in my hand that the amounts are as follows:
Act-	Amount
1930		$ 4,692,650 50
1931	11,119,811	861932	
7,810,208	161933	
7,753,625	54
I can understand the amount being smaller in 1930 than in 1931, but in 1932 the amount was about $3,500,000 under the 1931 amount. Was there less unemployment then in Ontario, or what caused the difference between the two years?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member will
remember that in the first year there was an appropriation of S20,000,000.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not asking about the first year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In that year there was
an allocation of the money among the provinces and the total expenditure was under $20,000,000, around $18,700,000. In the next and the succeeding year the contributions were based on the amounts the several provinces were willing themselves to expend. Perhaps the hon. member will recall that the municipalities and the provinces expended certain sums of money. Then there was laid down a principle applying to all the provinces whereby the dominion made contributions in terms of the expenditures of the provinces and the municipalities. That is the reason that item is so very large, for instance in the case of Ontario, because the expenditures were based upon what the municipalities and the province spent.
While I am on my feet may I say to the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville that he is entirely in error in his statement with respect to the attitude taken by the mayor of Montreal in connection with the Canadian National expenditure. He had nothing to do with it in any way, shape or form, directly or indirectly.


Vincent Dupuis: It was published in the
newspapers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that he was opposed to it was well known, but he had nothing whatever to do with the action taken with respect to the matter. But if he had, apparently he has been vindicated for he received the largest majority a previously defeated mayor has ever received.


Vincent Dupuis: He did not get it on that question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only point out that that is the result. Let me go one step further with respect to the matter. The hon. member has referred specifically to the city of Montreal. I desire to repeat for his information that the city makes its report to the province and from the province we receive the accounts. All the other cities of Canada, without, I think, a single exception, have sent in their accounts at the most thirty or forty days


$31,376,296 06 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Relief Act, 1934
after the expiration of the month; but for some reason, not yesterday but this morning the accounts of the city of Montreal with respect to only the months of August, September, October and November in part were received at the office of the Minister of Labour.
Vincent Dupuis: When the Prime Minister received that report was he informed as to the cause of the delay? Because many sections of Montreal relay their reports one after another to the city hall. I was informed in Quebec city that the provincial government was awaiting returns by certain sections in Montreal to the city hall there, after which those returns have to be sent to Quebec for approval.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may well be. I am not saying what the cause of the delay was between the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact we have been asking for these accounts and I shall tell the hon. member why. It will be observed that the expenditures charged against Quebec for 1933 are only about $2,300,000. We know there are many millions of dollars more to be paid and we have been anxious to get the account. Let me go further. For some reason that I cannot say except that it be the way in which the accounts are kept, this government has not been able to receive until today the accounts with respect to the city of Montreal for any month later than last July. The result has been just what I have said. The city of Montreal is clamouring for money and it must look to the government at Quebec as between itself and that government why the accounts have not been rendered.
The other evening I pointed out that the form of certificate which we exact is one which the provincial auditor and the province will sign. When that is signed in that form and sent to us we try to get the cheque out with the least possible delay, just as soon as the accounts are checked over. I am informed that the accounts received by the department this morning were six or seven inches thick and they began only with the month of August last. Why this delay should happen is not for me to explain, but it is for me to say to the hon. gentleman that when he makes the statement he does about equal justice, we expect promptness on the part of those whose duty it is to discharge their obligation without endeavouring to put the blame where it does not belong. Just as soon as the accounts are received they are dealt 
with promptly, and Montreal is the only city in Canada from which we have not received the accounts through the province within a reasonable time after the expenditures have been made.


Vincent Dupuis: I just want to conclude this question by saying that when I spoke of equal justice I did not have in mind any undue delays on the part of his government with regard to direct relief; I had in mind what I have already stated-help to the unemployed, and in divers fields of activities and forms. May I say that in our province of Quebec, and perhaps I shall not be wrong if I say in Ontario also, the situation of the farmers is in some cases just as bad as that of our friends in the west. But nothing has been done for the Quebec people, although during the last election promises were made *that paradise on earth should come to us. I hate to recall those promises, but the farmers of Quebec are in such need that they are just as much entitled to help as our friends in the west, yet nothing has been done for them. That is what I was saying a few moments ago; we want equal justice. The credit of our farmers is absolutely destroyed; their products remain unsold on their farms. I will not discuss the tariff question now; I just state the situation as it is. Farm after farm is being sold by the sheriff or abandoned, yet our farmers could have been rescued or 'helped by this government-there is no excuse for this government not helping them by a guarantee in some way or another of their mortgages. But nothing has been done. The farm loan board created by this parliament to lend money to the farmer offers unacceptable conditions, and a rate so high that the farmers cannot take advantage of it. This government knew when they came into power that they must do something for the farmers, and not only the western farmers. I repeat that I am not jealous of what the government has done for the west; they were right in doing it; it was good policy to help them in the difficulties they were facing owing to the decline in the export market for wheat. But while they have done so much for the west, what have they done for the east? Have they brought into this house a single piece of legislation to help the Quebec farmer? Take for instance dairy produce, butter, cheese; was any premium paid for butter as promised during the last election? Not a single cent; not a word of legislation was brought before this house. When a resolution designed to help the farmers was introduced two or three years ago the reso-

Relief Act, 1934
20S5
lution was killed; it was talked out. I believe it was the hon. member for St. John-Iber-ville (Mr. Rheaume) who brought in a resolution to come to the rescue of the farmers who were to lose their ,cows owing to tuberculosis. Well, you had hon. members on the other side speaking against this resolution, and that is all we heard from the government. What if we did as some hon. members did in 1930, when the hon. member for Haldimand and two or three of his friends came into our province before the election and allowed the newspapers to describe them as delegates from the government? Mind you, it was then a Liberal government. They let the public think that they were representatives of the government, of the agriculture committee; they came into our province and into my riding and made an investigation concerning the awful state of the farmer. Of course I do not blame them, but they brought with them my good friend Gustave Monette-I suppose the right hon. gentleman remembers that name-to interpret for them. As the Lon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Jean) suggests, that name is in the public accounts, and I am glad for him because he is a good lawyer if he is not a good loser.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He wins mostly, I understand.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You are a good winner.


Vincent Dupuis: Of course I had to smile,
but my smile did not last long when I heard that Mr. Bennett was in power. I was saying that if we had the-I should not say effrontery, but if we had the audacity to make a pilgrimage into Ontario to conduct an investigation in the county of Haldimand or other counties in Ontario into the condition of the farmers we should find innumerable farmers in a state of starvation who would beg us to help them out. But we would not presume to do such a thing; we let this government go and find out for themselves. We will let the members of this cabinet find out at the next general election. The people of Ontario will soon be able to say, as will the people of Quebec and the whole country if the way this government had administered this country is satisfactory to them.
So in conclusion I say again that the right hon. gentleman should not mix up questions. I know he is very bright-and may I say that sometimes my hon. friends on this side of the house do not like me when I try to do justice to an opponent, to a political enemy, if I may use that word, although it
is a little strong. But I like to render justice to whom justice is due, and so although some of my friends do not like me to say it, I Shall say that I admire the Prime Minister's way of speaking. He makes a very nice speech; sometimes he is almost too sophisticated, but he puts things in such a charming way. For some time he has charmed the people of this country, but I believe his charms are fading. This country is awaiting the call, is anxious to have this government call upon the people for their judgment. So I say that this government would do better if it did not insist upon the retention of the peace, order and good government clause in the proposed legislation. We are all ready to vote for the bill with that clause omitted, because we are just as anxious as hon. members on the other side to help the unemployed and the needy.


Mr. NEILL:: Coming back to the business of the committee, I wonder if the Prime Minister would give to my ignorant lay mind an explanation of a small matter. The original section reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council maylake centain drastic powers as regards peace, order and good government, etc. The amendment he now proposes to introduce reads:
In addition to the provisions of any statute the governor in council may-
Take these power, etc. This is what puzzles me: if tihe measures that are to be taken in addition to these statutes are subject to the statutes and circumscribed by them it seems to me the ordinary laws will govern and the section will be wholly negative. If on the other hand they go beyond the existing statutes what is the need of the amendment, because it will be exactly the same as though the words "notwithstanding the provisions" were included. Does the Prime Minister follow me?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I follow the hon.
gentleman perfectly. I pointed out the other day that the difference is purely a difference to the lay mind rather than to the legal mind, but hon. gentlemen opposite seem to prefer that the section should provide that the exercise of the powers with respect to peace, order and good government, if exercised, should be supplementary to existing legislation. I do not think it was intended that this construction should be placed upon it, but as they read it it meant that under
Relief Act, 19$4

the powers with respect to peace, order and good government there might be an entire and utter disregard of any existing legislation, instead of being in addition to it.


Alan Webster Neill: Is there any real difference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ventured to say the
other day that I thought the difference was more imaginary than real as a matter of legal construction, but hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to prefer the clause in that form, and I desire to meet their wishes. That was all.


Alan Webster Neill: Then we are wasting time,
are we not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think so.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to ask
the Prime Minister for some further information. According to the figures furnished us, in the three years 1931, 1932 and 1933 there was expended by the Department of National Defence $4,683,496.90, and of that total $4,189,389.34 was expended in 1933. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if he can give me the information, how much of that money was spent in Ontario.
Before the right hon. gentleman answers I want to ask another question, for the sake of information, in regard to the Department of Railways and Canals. We are told that this department spent $1,772,725.74 in 1931, and I should like to know how that money was spent. Was it for the purchase of ties, rails or other materials, or what was it used for?
Before I take my seat I should like to ask the Prime Minister in regard to the loans to the provinces, which are given in the summary as follows:
Manitoba	$10,286,774	34
Saskatchewan-
(Including Saskatchewan relief
commission)	
22,579,078	16Alberta	
10,229,859	63British Columbia	
7,384,332	63Canadian Pacific Railway Company	
2,447,222	71

I should like to get this information from the Prime Minister, if he would be good enough to give it to the committee:	Do
the loans to the provinces bear interest and, if so, what is the rate of interest? I should like to ask also whether, when these moneys were advanced to the different provinces, those loans were made on the security of the notes of the provinces or how the loans were made, and whether any security was given.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister also in regard to the loan of $2,447,222.71 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, whether this loan bears interest and, if so, at what rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All the questions that
have been asked by my hon. friend are answered in the orders in council that have been tabled, but I will endeavour to answer them again. I think this is at least the fourth time this year that these questions have been asked.


Frederick George Sanderson: The Prime Minister does not object to answering them, does he?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in the slightest, only I think perhaps it is not desirable that Hansard dhould be cumbered up by answering the same questions half a dozen times. The orders in council were tabled for the purpose of enabling hon. members to have this information.
With respect to the loans to the Canadian Pacific, they are covered by two orders in council. They were advances made for the purpose of enabling the shops to be kept open during the Christmas season. With respect to one advance no interest was charged, nor was interest to be charged; the principal was to be repaid. This was done instead of carrying on relief, and the amount saved, anticipating that the principal would be repaid in a reasonable time, is considerable as against paying direct relief to the number of people involved. The second loan bears interest and is repayable when the Canadian Pacific is in a position to pay it which, under present conditions, would seem to be reasonably within sight.
The provinces all have agreed to pay interest. The advances are evidenced by treasury bills. At first the rate was 5i per cent; then it was 5 per cent, and I am not sure that it is not a little lower now. The rate always represents the rate at which the dominion may be able to borrow the money, plus some small fraction of a per cent which may be necessary for the purpose of paying the cost of taking care of the matter. There is no security on a treasury bill given the dominion, any more than there is with respect to a treasury bill given by the dominion or by any province. There is no form of security that the province could give except evidence of their indebtedness by a treasury bill. The amounts expended by the Canadian Pacific-

Relief Act, 1934


Frederick George Sanderson: If the Prime Minister will permit me to interrupt before he gets to the Canadian Pacific, will he tell me if there are any arrears of interest due from the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of the provinces
have been unable to pay, and my memory is that they have capitalized their obligations by furnishing treasury bills for the interest as it fell due. It is self-bearing interest, which of course means compound interest, but to the extent of their ability the provinces have discharged their interest obligations.
The amount mentioned with respect to the railways has been the subject matter of much discussion in the house. The money was spent for ties; there was some work given with respect to a subway which I mentioned the other day, and some extra work was undertaken on the Welland canal that was not within the appropriation for the completion of the canal. Those were the items which, in the aggregate, comprised something over $2,000,000.
Then with respect to the question my hon. friend asked dealing with the camps under the Department of National Defence, I cannot give all the details that are asked. These camps were an experiment in 1932; in 1933 they became very widely established all over Canada, and I suppose the hon. gentleman has read what was said by a distinguished exminister of Great Britain as to the way in which that work was conducted, and the credit which he gave to Major General Mc-Naughton, who is in charge of those undertakings. I cannot say at the moment how many camps are being operated in Ontario; if the hon. gentleman had mentioned the matter yesterday I would have obtained the information. I believe I can secure during the dinner recess figures showing the number of men in the camps in each of the provinces, but I cannot give the information now. I can state, roughly, that at one time the number was about 21,000, but because some of the men have been leaving and going into industry it has become smaller. General Me-Naughton informed me yesterday that the number who had left the camps to take positions amounted, in the aggregate, to
9,000	men. These men have left camps and taken more permanent work. That is one of the conditions under which they are employed. If they desire to leave they are at liberty to do so, because the money they have received is not by way of wages but rather to enable them to obtain some of the comforts of life, and they are provided with food and clothing.
Those who are in a position to speak-and I do not regard myself as an authority-and the people who have inspected the camps, have spoken in commendation of them.


Frederick George Sanderson: When the Prime Minister is getting that information I wonder if he would ascertain how much of the four million odd was spent in Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member so desires, I shall get that information some time before the third reading of the bill. As I understand it I am to secure for him, first, a statement showing the amount expended in Ontario under the national defence relief camps; second, a statement of the number of camps throughout Canada and where they are located; and, third, so far as possible the number of men in the camps.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the information supplied by the Minister of Labour I find under the heading "1931 act" a disbursement by the Department of Public Works of $1,726,732.64, and under the 1932 act a disbursement of $6,904.43. May we obtain information as to what money was expended, and how it was expended, for these various public works, and what kind of public works were carried on as relief measures?


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say, in fairness, if the hon. gentleman desires that information, that those are the figures for 1930 and 1931. Accounts were filed and reports tabled, in which every detail was shown. Every detail for 1933 is in the printed report, and I hold in my hand a report for the year 1931 which, at pages 60 and 61, give details of public works expenditure.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The right hon. gentleman has answered questions concerning other years, and I wanted to get the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason I answered the questions with respect to the national defence camps was because the report in connection therewith has not yet been tabled. The report concerning 1931 expenditures was tabled long ago.


Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. member for West Lambton moved an amendment to the clause to which the Prime Minister himself has now moved an amendment. Consequently I wish now to move a subamendment to the amendment now before the committee.

Relief Act, 1934


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we should deal with one amendment at a time. As soon as this is disposed of, the hon. member could move it.


Wilfred Hanbury: It is the Prime Minister's amendment that we propose to amend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an addition to it.


Wilfred Hanbury: Yes, an addition to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amendment moved by the Prime Minister disposes of the present subsection (b), as it exists, and the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton would be the new subsection (b) of what would be the new section 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amendment now moved will be the new section 3. There is a slight anomaly in the amendment now moved in that it destroys subsection (b) and creates another section. It would be easier to delete subsection (b) and insert the new section 3, because some of us prefer the words "in addition to" to the words "notwithstanding the provisions of." At the same time we are opposed to the amendment because it includes the words "peace, order and good government."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member will agree that it had to be framed so as to offer some substitute. Voting for this, as section 3, does not in any sense imply that an hon. member does not oppose subsection (b) of section 2.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
will be no objection to going back to section 2 and moving the subamendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not at all.


Wilfred Hanbury: The hon. member for
West L'ambiton made reference yesterday, in giving his reasons for the amendment, to the ability of the governor in council to take any action it might consider advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion. I believe that phrase is now in the amendment before the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The new subsection 3
will cover it.


Wilfred Hanbury: The new subsection 3 is what we are considering at the present time. Consequently the amendment I have to sub-

mit would be an addition to the proposed new section 3 now being considered by this committee. I therefore move:
That section 3 of the said bill be amended by adding thereto, as clause (b) the following words:
(b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the governor in council to loan, or advance money to, or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the amendment
carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; we have taken the
words from the statute.
Amendment negatived on division.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question is now
on tlhe amendment of the Prime Minister. Shall the amendment carry ?


William Richard Motherwell: be the reason. But you cannot prevent that from happening because the extraordinary course being pursued by the government of withholding something that as a matter of fact the government should have no hesitation whatever in giving because it would not have one particle of effect on the price of wheat.
Let me refer to some of the circumstances in connection with the guarantee of the cooperative elevators in Saskatchewan back in 1910. Instead of concealing the amount we actually boasted of it, especially at election times, and said: "There is what we have done up and kbove board to promote the cause of the farmer"-and not one dollar was lost in guaranteeing that line of credit for the cooperative elevators in Saskatchewan.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is almost six o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the very apparent desire to rediscuss this matter which has been already twice this afternoon set out in its entirety I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.
Progress reported.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We will take supply, agriculture, after eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Fruit, including grant of $4,500 to Canadian Horticultural Council, $425,053.
William Richard Motherwell: My first word will be to congratulate the minister on retaining the grant to the horticultural council. I am not even going to ask him why he has retained that grant and eliminated the one to the national dairy council, but possibly he will give us a synopsis of what the situation is on the western fruit front, the eastern fruit front and the central fruit front, with regard to pests. Have new insect pests been infecting the fruit of the country and have old ones been surmounted? Any news of interest to the committee will be welcome, and if the minister will give us this information it may save a lot of questions. He might also tell
fMr. Motherwell.]
us whether there is any danger looming up in the offing of the likelihood of the British government applying a quota to our apples or other fruit. If the minister would start with that he could then glide on to the other question with regard to the pest situation, and the quality standing of our fruit. I am also interested in how he is getting on with the inspectional work in the maritimes, which was not an easy matter at the start. Under his administration it has been considerably improved I understand. Shipping point inspection has always been sound, and while the maritimes took it up reluctantly I think it has made great progress.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: There has been no official
intimation that any restriction will be placed upon the shipment of our fruit to the United Kingdom, and no new injurious insects have made their appearance during the past year. Perhaps in this connection the most important work has been that done in Ontario and Nova Scotia through the formation of combined advisory committees-that is, committees formed by officials in the provincial departments together with the officials in the federal department and those outside either department-to make a survey and decide the best plan of action to reduce infestation by the apple maggot. Both provinces have been one hundred per cent behind this campaign, and the results of the campaign in both Nova Scotia and Ontario have been, I am very glad to say, much more satisfactory than even the most optimistic expected in view of the very great infestation that has taken place in the provinces affected.
As the hon. member for Melville stated, there has been cooperation between the government of Nova Scotia and the federal government with respect to orchard inspection for apple maggot infestation, which for some time had caused a good deal of concern and irritation. There is now enforced shipping point inspection for apples for export, and the fruit growers are fully alive to the necessity of enforced and rigorous inspection of all kinds, especially in connection with fruit for export.


William Richard Motherwell: I suggest to my hon. friend that until we can get outside inspectors to do the inspection in these various districts, including the maritimes, we shall always have some difficulty in getting exact and reliable inspection. Whether it be in regard to school inspectors, or bank inspectors or railway agents, the head men of each such institution usually find it advisable to change

Supply-A griculture-Frui t
inspectors around. During my experience with the maritimes, and with other places as well but particularly the maritimes, I found that they were intensely wedded to the idea of local inspectors for each constituency, and it was almost a sacrilege to suggest that anyone outside should come in and inspect apples -I am speaking of about ten years ago. I was glad to note some betterment, though not to the extent that I should like to have seen. Local influences are very strong in support of having local men, and so long as that continues it will be very difficult to obtain proper inspection of fruit, because of the tendency to be a little easy with neighbours. That however can be overcome very largely when they get it into their heads that the certificate of the government behind any product must be lived up to or it is not worth the paper it is written on. In the early days our wheat certificates had not the value they acquired later on. Of course, the certificates always had a fair value, but they must have a proven value, backed by a number of years' experience on the part of buyers, and once the buyers are fully confident that the certificates are bona fide and that the article in question is up to the standard certified to, the certificate is of inestimable value in selling the product. I am not saying that the maritimes are worse than others in this prospect anywhere else, but they have not become quite familiar with the idea and advantage of outside inspectors. A consignment of potatoes and apples was once shipped up to the old fruit branch building here and examined-the fruit commissioner sitting in front of the minister will recall the time- and when the barrels were opened and inspected, it was a holy terror, what they contained. That day, I hope, has gone by, and if the inspection is further tightened up there will not be a recurrence of such an experience.
In 1928 I was at Covent Garden in London, the most wonderful horticultural market I have ever seen, and they knew much more about Canadian apples than I did. They knew all about the British Columbia apples and about the determination of the fruit growers there to live up to standard. They also spoke highly of the Ontario apple and were delighted also with the maritime apples, as to quality, which could not be better; but, oh dear, they were disappointed about the packing, and those buyers stated candidly they wanted to know what was in the barrels before they would do any bidding on them in the auction rooms.
I am speaking candidly but I hope not harshly; but unless the inspection of fruit is followed up continuously and outside inspection employed the ones who are putting up a good pack are disposed to become indifferent if the others are not doing the same.
I make these suggestions believing that great progress is being made, but it should be accelerated, because in this day of overabundance it is becoming harder and harder to sell a poor product, while on the other hand there is always a great advantage in selling a good product, because it helps greatly to sell itself.


Robert Weir: What the hon. member has said is very true about local pressure being brought to bear upon inspectors who are appointed locally. I believe what has had a good deal to do with the change in attitude in this connection has been realization on the part of fruit growers of the importance, especially in connection with export, of a very thorough and rigid inspection. In Nova Scotia in particular a very definite effort is being made to improve the quality of the pack with especially good results. As the hon. member has said, one of the chief criticisms of Nova Scotia apples for export has been in connection with the quality of the pack. In view of what has been said and of the difficulty in many cases in the work of inspection, it would be interesting to the committee to receive a condensed summary of the inspections. In the whole dominion during the past year the paid inspections numbered 26,681, the reinspections asked for numbering 245, or a percentage of all inspections of .92 per cent. After reinspection by other inspectors reversals in certificates were only 16 or a percentage of the total inspections of .06, which I think is the finest compliment we can pay to the thoroughness of the work of our fruit inspectors.


Mr. RYERSON:: Is there a charge for that
inspection?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: Why should there be a
charge for the inspection of fruit when as regards almost every other commodity such as meat, bacon and so on, the inspections are given free of charge? It has always been a wonder to me why there should be this charge for fruit inspections.


Robert Weir: The reason for the charge for fruit inspection is that it was at first instituted at the request of the growers themselves and it has been continued or extended from time to tamei, at the request of the industry. There are other products the inspection of which has to be paid for; grains, grass seeds, hay, turnips, potatoes, grapes,
Supply

Agriculture-Fruit

tomatoes. These inspections also are made at the request of the producers. Personally, I feel the tendency is toward paid inspection for all these products, the industry feeling that if they pay they will have a better claim to ask for further and more specific inspection for the commodity as they realize the importance of the inspectional work.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: Why should that not
apply to meat inspection in the same way?


Robert Weir: I believe it should and perhaps in a very reasonable time it will.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I do not know whether I
caught the remarks of the minister aright, but I understood him to be expressing satisfaction with the work of the inspection staff in Nova Scotia.


Robert Weir: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to say in all sincerity *that if the minister thinks the inspection of fruit in Nova Scotia as carried on by his department is or has been satisfactory, he is making a very great mistake. I have discussed this matter a great deal lately with fruit growers in Nova Scotia. Many of the troubles of the fruit industry there are due to the incompleteness and inefficiency of the fruit inspection. Of course when I say that the packing and grading of apples in Nova Scotia are not what they should be, I know I am to some extent reflecting upon the packers and shippers themselves, but at the same time that is no excuse for the unevenness, lack of uniformity, of the inspection of fruit in that province. During the past season there was a very heavy crop, between two and three million barrels being grown in Nova Scotia, most of which were of course exported to Great Britain; and in conversation with buyers of apples I have been struck with the necessity that exists for improvement in the inspection of fruit in that province. I should like the minister to take this matter very seriously into consideration. This is perhaps the only time in the last two or three years that I have spoken about inspection, because what is called one hundred per cent inspection was put into force only in the fall of 1930 and the fruit growers and shippers in Nova Scotia have been disposed to give the system a fair trial to see whether it would work out. But members of the committee will realize that there has been a great change in the system since compulsory inspection was adopted. Before 1930 prosecutions were possible; penalties were imposed upon fruit growers and packers who did not comply with 
the grading regulations. But under the system under which all fruit for export must receive an inspection certificate, the mere granting of the certificate is prima facie evidence and, I think, conclusive proof, that the apples are properly packed, and if I am correctly informed no prosecutions take place at the present time because the inspectors are not supposed to pass the fruit unless it is packed up to standard. There is no question that there has been passed by inspectors a great deal of fruit which does not comply with the grading regulations. If the minister thinks, as his remarks would indicate, that the inspection has resulted in the fruit all being packed up to standard in that province, he is very much mistaken. I feel constrained to express myself as forcibly as I can upon this subject. The easy thing to do would be to say that we are doing very well in the packing of our fruit in Nova Scotia, and the majority of the fruit packers are doing very well, but there is a minority in that province that are not complying with the law. Some of them are not trying to comply with the law, and some of them, due to the great pressure of work during the past heavy season, did not comply with the law, putting, for example, 800 barrels of apples over a grader in a day when 400 barrels should be the limit, or a warehouse handling 200,000 barrels of apples in a season when it ought to try to handle only 100,000 barrels. These conditions lead to even the most honest warehouse foremen and managers turning out packs of fruit which are below grade. I woidd ask the Minister of Agriculture with the greatest possible earnestness to consider very carefully the improvement, by any method that his fruit branch may advise, of the inspection services at least in Nova Scotia.


Robert Weir: I appreciate very
much the fact that the hon. member who has just spoken comes from a fruit growing and, in particular, an apple growing district. I find difficult}', however, in being able to understand the sweeping statements that he has made, in view of the fact that fruit growers especially those who pay for their inspections are, because of that, not at all hesitant or backward, so far as we have found them, in laying complaints about poor inspection. Last year's crop was practically double that of previous years. The number of barrels from Nova Scotia was as follows:
Barrels
1930		 1,172,000
1931		 1,427,000
1932		 1,054,000
1933		 2,125,000

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit
The number of barrels therefore in 1933 was more than double the number in 1932, which no doubt taxed our inspectors to the utmost. Some difficulty was experienced in enforcing the regulations, but there has been no official complaint received from the fruit growing bodies of Nova Scotia, and if this has been known to the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) for some time I cannot help feeling that it is regrettable that it was not brought to the attention of the department sooner.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The season closed only recently, and one has to get a picture of the cumulative effect, and find out just what has happened on the English market. One thing that brought the matter to my attention was a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture in Nova Scotia on his return from the United Kingdom in February. While he did not expressly go into the question of the pack, anybody reading that speech and following it closely could not fail to realize the great regret he had that our apples as opened up on the British market had not been better graded and packed. It may be that I should have gone to the minister with this complaint before, but I must say that it was never borne in upon me as it was during the last two or three weeks, when I discussed the matter with a great many growers and shippers in Nova Scotia. There is a feeling on the part of the people engaged in the business there that they want a stern, rigid and thorough inspection of apples, and that they did not have it during the past season. In saying that I am not attacking all the inspectors; many of them have been doing the best they could; the trouble may be, as the minister says, due to the great size of the crop. But provision must be made for these heavy crops in future and more attention given to inspection by the department. *


Robert Weir: I appreciate very
much the fact that this desire for a rigid inspection is evidenced by the fruit growers of Nova Scotia, because it is a very healthy sign. On the other hand I am still at a loss to understand, having regard to the hundred per cent effort on the part of the province and the federal department of agriculture to work in cooperation, why the Minister of Agriculture for the province has not communicated with the federal department with a view to planning a more rigid inspection. Doubtless however he will do so in the near future so that every preparation may be made to remedy any weakness in the inspection service.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: May I ask if this vote covers the salary of both fruit and vegetable inspectors?


Robert Weir: Both.


Eugène Fiset: Then I would call the attention of the minister to the fact-and I think he knows about it-that at the present time in the counties of Temiscouata, Rimouski and part of Matane there is no inspector of fruit and vegetables owing to the death of inspector Desrosiers? I have received numerous letters from cooperative societies in these counties asking me to try to ascertain from the department when a new inspector will be appointed.


Robert Weir: My information is
that following the death of Mr. Desrosiers and until a successor could be appointed one of our inspectors from Montreal was sent to that district immediately to carry on the work temporarily, until steps could be gone through to appoint a successor.


Eugène Fiset: I have been informed that this inspector was there not permanently but just now and then. Of course I suppose it is a matter of political patronage. The inspector we had was one of the best qualified inspectors, and I quite realize that the minister finds it difficult to get a well qualified inspector owing to the fact that the man appointed must be able to speak both French and English. I have submitted to the minister the name of a well qualified man, who by the way, belongs to the Conservative party; therefore from a political point of view there should be no objection. I hope the minister will take action to appoint a permanent inspector as soon as possible.


Robert Weir: Of course the
appointments are made by the civil service commission.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask the minister if he
has printed and promulgated the regulations under the Fruit and Honey Act passed about three weeks ago?


Robert Weir: No, not yet.


Alan Webster Neill: It will be remembered that
he said they were " being drafted now and will be submitted at the earliest possible date after the bill passes."


Robert Weir: They will first be
submitted to the growers themselves. They are in shape now to be sent out for thsir approval at the beginning of next week.
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit


Vincent Dupuis: Will the minister give us
a list of the fruits and vegetables included in this item, and say what was the total production for each and the total consumption in Canada?


Mr. GAGNON:: Oh, oh.


Vincent Dupuis: I understand my hon. friend from Dorchester is answering for the minister with his laugh, but I hope the minister will not consider that that is satisfactory.


Onésime Gagnon: My laugh was because the question is foolish.


Vincent Dupuis: I beg your pardon? Of
course I do not like to make any theatrical scene here, but the hon. member is not what I thought he was. He says that the question is foolish. I hope he will withdraw that right now without the obligation being enforced by the chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Mr. SPOTTON:: " Infantile " might have
been a better word.


Vincent Dupuis: Will the minister allow
me to ask that the very pretentious member for Dorchester put himself on the level of his pretensions to be polite at least? I ask him to withdraw, otherwise I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to oblige him to withdraw. We are not in a barn here, we are in the House of Commons, the most solemn assembly in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Onésime Gagnon: If the hon. gentleman
wishes to ask me a question I think he ought to obey the elementary laws of decency. He said I was a most pretentious member. If he wishes to withdraw that remark-


Vincent Dupuis: I am sorry to disturb the
committee with this nonsense.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, "hear, hear." The
nonsense is from your right, Mr. Chairman. How could an hon. member with the pretensions of the hon. member for Dorchester say to one of his colleagues, on whichever side he might be, that he puts a foolish question when I am trying to help the committee to settle a question that is of importance to agriculture? So if my hon. friend forces me to do it I am putting a point of order:	I
submit that the remark of the hon. member for Dorchester was unparliamentary and that he should withdraw it.


Onésime Gagnon: I will leave that to your judgment, Mr. Chairman. I understand the hon. member is asking the Minister of Agriculture to give the full list of all fruits and vegetables produced in Canada, with figures of production and consumption. He might have forgotten one detail; probably he wanted to ask the number of fruit inspectors, but he did not say so. So I submit that an hon. member who asks such a question is not serious; in my humble opinion it is a foolish question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: On a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville has raised a point of order, and I suggest that it would be desirable for the hon. member for Dorchester to withdraw the word "foolish."


Onésime Gagnon: I gladly submit to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, all the information requested is not available. I should be glad to give the information I have, though I feel that it might be more satisfactory if I were to look at the question in Hansard, and then I should be glad to supply the hon. gentleman with all the information available.


Vincent Dupuis: Would it be possible to obtain from the minister also the consumption in Montreal and the importation from other provinces? If I put a proper question at the proper time could the minister tell me, for instance, the consumption of potatoes in Montreal and the quantity imported from other provinces or other countries, and could I obtain the same information with regard to other fruits and vegetables? Is it possible for this department to give me that information?


Robert Weir: Not accurately. We could tell the number of carloads arriving at that point, but if there is any information that we can give after we see the question in Hansard we shall be very glad to supply it.


Vincent Dupuis: I thank the minister. Now I should like to know whether there are inspectors stationed at the public markets to check the classification of fruits and vegetables and, if so, whether the minister was able to appoint citizens of the province of Quebec able to speak both languages. I understand that last year there were many

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit
cases of, I will not say, the abuse of power, but where the rules and regulations were drastically applied by inspectors who could not explain themselves in the French language.
I made complaints, not because I have any prejudice against any citizens of this country but because it was a case of public necessity. Let me give an illustration. An inspector is stationed at the Bonsecours market in Montreal, and he checks up a farmer who has not classified his potatoes properly. The inspector speaks only English and the farmer speaks only French. The farmer may think the inspector is talking about the weather instead of about potatoes. I am only speaking from the practical point of view, and I should like to know if the minister can tell me that this year the inspectors will be able to make themselves understood in both languages in regard to this classification of fruit and vegetables, of which I am in favour so long as it is carried on in a spirit of cooperation.


Robert Weir: I have a very full
appreciation of the importance of inspectors engaged in this work, in which they have to give reasons for their actions, being able to express themselves clearly in either English or French. As I said before, the appointments are made by the civil service commission, though sometimes we have to send additional inspectors to cooperate with and assist the bilingual inspectors at certain points. In this connection every effort is made to see that the inspector will be able to make himself understood in both languages. Should there be any criticism in this connection, though the appointments are made through the civil service commission, I should be very glad to bring the matter to their attention and to do everything possible to correct the situation.


Vincent Dupuis: I am very grateful for these remarks by the minister. I should like to remind hon. members that if they had an inspector on the Toronto market who tried to talk with the farmers in French I am sure they would not endure that situation for very long, and I would not blame them. Last year, if I am not mistaken, the inspector in charge of the Bonsecours market in Montreal was a gentleman named Robinson.


Robert Weir: He was the district inspector.


Vincent Dupuis: He was the one wiho applied the law; he was the one who had our farmers arrested and brought before the criminal courts for having forgotten to put cards on the bags of potatoes stating the grade of
the contents. I remember that I represented those farmers several times, sometimes half a dozen, sometimes more and sometimes less, and the penalty was $10 and costs for having forgotten to put their names and the grades on the bags of potatoes. I tried to induce the inspector in charge to have the cases postponed, but he absolutely refused to do so. The cases came before Hon. Amedee Monet, and I asked for a delay of one week so that I could confer with the Montreal minister, the Minister of Marine, who, may I say in passing, was kind enough to take up this matter and bring it to the attention of the ministry. The inspector in charge, however, absolutely refused to agree to a delay or postponement, because the offence was so great. I said to Judge Monet, " A moment ago a man accused of manslaughter was granted a postponement of fifteen days. I wonder if the chief inspector considers that the failure to attach a oard showing the grade is as serious an offence as that of manslaughter." lit was only after that remark to the judge that I obtained a postponement to enable me to communicate with the Minister of Agriculture, whom I know to be a gentleman and one who wishes to give justice to those to whom justice is due. I said to the Minister of Marine that I wanted him to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, because I was sure he would not allow such a condition to exist. What occurred? I remember on one occasion I met an inspector who was able to speak both languages, and I was told by him, " I would be ready to be lenient in a first offence but the chief inspector said, ' Let those Frenchmen pay their fines; that is all they deserve'." So I protested and said to the chief inspector, "You must remember that we are all citizens of this country; we are British subjects, and we do not deserve the treatment you are giving us." He protested and denied what he had said. I would not name the inspector, because he asked me not to name him because he might lose his job. I say that if that chief inspector had spoken both languages probably he would have understood the intentions of the farmers, and he would not have been so drastic and have imposed such severe penalties for such a trivial offence as -the one of which the farmer was accused.


Robert Weir: The statement made by the hon. member with reference to the inspector making such a statement about his French compatriots is indeed a very serious one. I do not think it would be fair to the
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit

staff that that statement should be allowed to stand on the record without having evidence to substantiate it. I can assure the hon. member that if such evidence is submitted to the department there will be no delay in removing the responsible official. In view of the fact that a board sits and is responsible for the selections made I cannot credit the suggestion that such a thing could occur. Reference has -been made t-o the fact that the district inspector would not be lenient, and that the work had to be proceeded with. I hesitate to say what I am about to say but I believe -no hon. member can take objection to my statement that the department of agriculture of the province of Quebec has approached us in connection with making a greater effort .towards rigid inspection and compliance with the regulations. We appreciate the attitude of the provincial department. They have ap-pofn'ted twenty-one men to cooperate with our men. Up to this time it has been the policy of the federal inspectors not to prosecute on a first offence.


Vincent Dupuis: That is what they did last year.


Robert Weir: Yes.


Vincent Dupuis: I suppose on this occasion they were setting a good example.


Robert Weir: We believe that in a first offence, especially where the people involved are not to any great extent engaged in trade, we should not prosecute, except in those cases where the offences are deliberate. In very close cooperation with the provincial department of agriculture and the provincial government, we are endeavouring to carry out their wishes, and to do a service which they feel is most essential to the improvement of the marketing of their own products. I should again like to remind the hon. member, however, that in fairness to the staff of inspectors evidence should be submitted to prove beyond doubt the accusations which have been made because, in my estimation, nothing could be more regrettable.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I did not make the statement with a view to forcing a man out of his job.


Robert Weir: He should not be on the job.


Vincent Dupuis: At the time of the occurrence I settled the matter with the gentleman in question, and I know that he did not repeat his statement. Of course, if at that time I had been narrow minded enough to proceed I would have had to consider that if the statement had been made it was made only after 
a very heated discussion. Nevertheless, I am broadminded enough not to throw a man out of work because of an imprudent word uttered under abnormal circumstances. The consequences, as I have said, would have been to throw the chief inspector out of employment, and the gentleman who gave me the information would have been faced with a similar difficulty. I thought the consequences were too heavy to make a complaint. People often come to my law office and ask me to sue for damages occasioned by similar utterances. Probably some man will call his neighbour a thief, or will make some other unfortunate reference. I always advise these people to forget their grievances, when the utterances . complained o-f are made under circumstances such as I have described, in which people lose their tempers.
I raise the question only with this in view, that I believe the minister should put at the head of the department in Montreal a citizen of that city or one of the province of Quebec who speaks both languages fluently. The gentleman might be of Scottish descent, a condition which would be -most acceptable. Then he might be of English stock, which might be just as good an arrangement. In fact, the person appointed could be of any race, provided he could speak both languages fluently. That is the condition I should like to see imposed. I believe if my suggestion were accepted it would be beneficial to the department and to the farmers concerned, but I do not blame the provincial government for asking the cooperation of the federal authorities. May I say that I am speaking particularly on behalf of the farmers of Laprairie and Napierville who are intensive producers of vegetables, and who are anxious to cooperate with the government in the classification of their products. I believe if prudent steps are taken no difficulty will be experienced with the farmers in my constituency, and if, as has been explained by the minister, the department now notify the farmer before taking proceedings I believe conditions will be satisfactory.
I said last year to the chief inspector, "Why do you not send a notice to the farmer in the first instance? Why do you go after these farmers as thieves in the night would do without first sending them a notice?" I must say that I did not see on the market any of the inspectors named by the provincial department of agriculture, although some may now be operating. At the particular time about which I speak there were no provincial inspectors. But if the provincial officials are at fault I would be just as ready to blame

S upply-A griculture-Fruit
them. I am a Liberal, but not Liberal enough to swallow any unjust practices, even if they come from Liberals. I ask for justice, and that is all. Even if the inspector at fault had been nominated by the provincial government I would rise and protest against his action, because we are looking for justice and I believe that on both sides there is the intention to help the farmer.


Robert Weir: With reference to
the inspectors being appointed by the provincial government I hope I made no statement that would lead anyone to think that I was even implying that this inspector was one of the provincial government appointments. The only point I was trying to make was to show the effort and concern on the part of the provincial government that this v'hole matter of inspection should be tightened up and to assist in that they had appointed twenty-one inspectors. I must differ however, with the hon. member when he says the punishment would be too severe. I do not think it is so much a matter of the punishment being too severe as whether or not the man is qualified for his job. If the statement attributed to him was made I do not think he is qualified for the job, and even at this time I think steps should be taken to remove him.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to bring to the notice of the minister a matter of which he has pebhaps full knowledge, and that is in regard to the apple bearing trees especially of western and central Ontario. My information is that owing to the abnormal sub-zero weather of last winter about fifty per cent of the apple trees have been killed. Has the minister any information in regard to that? I want it to be thoroughly understood, Mr. Chairman, that in bringing this matter before the minister I do not blame the government for this destruction. The government gets blamed for very many things without that. I am mentioning the matter because I thought the minister might have some statement to make.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: The government made no promises about the trees.


Robert Weir: I am afraid it is all too true that the sub-zero weather on a number of successive days has been very injurious to the apple trees not only of western Ontario but of eastern Ontario. There are those who feel not only that this year's fruit crop will be very seriously affected, if not in some cases wiped out one hundred per cent, but that the apple trees themselves because of the particular time at which the sub-zero temperatures came, will be killed. But I think it is too early yet to make a statement such as that. Our people have investigated the bark of the trees to the cambium layer, and their investigations have shown them that in some instances it has almost been destroyed, that this layer adjoining the bark through which the sap passes is injured and the bark can be pulled off readily by the hand. But personally I think it is too early to make any estimate of the lasting damage that may have been done to the apple tree. Certainly, however, there has been very serious injury.


Frederick George Sanderson: I suppose I may take it from the minister's remarks that he and his department are fully aware of the situation and have it under consideration, and that they will consider it in the light of how the interests of the apple growers may be affected.


Robert Weir: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand that there has also been some injury to the apple trees in Nova Scotia but not to anything like the same extent as in Ontario. Would the minister care to say anything about the extent of the damage in Nova Scotia? I know that officers of the department are making a survey with a view to getting definite information.


Robert Weir: There has also beer some injury in Nova Scotia, but as I stated of Ontario I do not think anyone is in a position yet to say definitely how far-reaching in quantity or lasting in damage the injury has been.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Are there any reported instances of trees being killed outright in Nova Scotia as in Ontario?


Robert Weir: We do not think anyone is in a position yet to say definitely that a tree has been killed outright.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Coming back to the question of inspectors, I would like to know if it is the policy of the department to have the fee for the carload inspection of table-stock potatoes pay for the cost of that service. I understand that the fee for inspection at the present time is five dollars per carload. The reason I raise this question is that in our province, as the minister knows, the potato industry is a very important one, and last season was a very hard one for handling potatoes and keeping them free from frost. A request was made especially in the larger towns that a full time inspector of table-stock
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit

potatoes be employed. We took this matter up with the department and with the head of the branch and we were told that because of the policy of economy that was being followed in every branch of the government they could not see their way clear to appoint a full time inspector at Summerside. The difficulty there was that each day potatoes were being taken in from the farmers at a great many different points and it was impossible for the man in the warehouse to tell whether the potatoes were touched with frost or not. A request therefore was made that a full time inspector be appointed who could go from warehouse to warehouse and from point to point and test out the potatoes to see if they were free from frost. I regret that the department could not see its way to do this, and the result was that only when a carload was ready were the inspector's services called in. I would ask the minister if it is the policy of the department to endeavour to have the five-dollar fee pay for the cost of the inspection service, or is the department contributing anything over and above that fee to the cost of the service.


Robert Weir: The fee charged does not cover the inspection, and there is no effort being made at the present time to charge a fee that would cover the cost of inspection.. The request for a full time inspector to which the hon. member for Prince has referred came towards the end of the season when there was very little work to be done. Consideration is being given to the advisability of having a resident inspector, not a full time inspector, who could be called upon to make an inspection when any person desired it, and who would be paid for the actual time that he took in making it. We will bear in mind for the future the observations that the hon. member has just made in reference to this matter.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I thank the minister for his explanation, but I would point out that the inspector at Summerside was practically compelled to give his services to the different warehouses and at the different points where potatoes were being taken in, and I regret to say that he received nothing for those services. He lived in the town of Summer-side and I do not think he refused his services to any warehouse or at any point where potatoes were being taken in, but the difficulty was that he was compelled to give his services free, the only service that he was paid for being the car inspection service. I bring the matter to the minister's attention because it was brought very forcibly to my 
attention by the large shippers there, who felt that this man gave them a service which they did not feel they should pay for, as it' was a government inspection, and which the government felt they could not pay for because they were paying him on a carload inspection basis.


Eugène Fiset: With regard to seasonal inspectors, has the minister received any recommendation from the government of Quebec looking towards the employment during the season, while students are studying in our agricultural colleges, such as the one at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and at Rimouski? If so, at what time should these applications for such work be sent to the department, and are they to be sent direct to the federal department or through the provincial government?


Robert Weir: My information is that there has been no request from the provincial government. We do receive requests or suggestions and we ask the agricultural colleges which the students attend to give us a statement indicating their estimate of the students, based on their work in college and their attitude towards the work, as an assistance to us in making selections. ~


Eugène Fiset: Then the application must come direct to the department at Ottawa.


Robert Weir: Yes.
Mr, YOUNG: This vote includes an item of $4,500 to the Canadian horticultural council. What is this council and why is it entitled to the money?


Robert Weir: I should remember that, because I have answered it once or twice each year for the hon. member. They gather information and combine the requests,, the advice and the suggestions from the fruit industry from one end of the dominion to' the other, those actually engaged in production and in the trade. In connection with the administration of the Department of Agriculture we have found them very helpful in giving us further contact and a further picture of the problems of the fruit growers. They are always willing to give us any assistance, and through them we feel that we are getting more directly into touch with the trade than we could through our own department.


Mr. YOUNG:: That is rather enlightening; we grant $4,500 to certain people to tell us what they want. Has the minister taken any steps to find out whether or not this organization has ceased its political activities?

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit


Robert Weir: I should appreciate it very much, if the hon. member feels that they have political activities, if he would tell us whether these activities are C.C.F., Liberal or Conservative. As far as I am personally concerned I have never at any time had any reason to believe that they were politically minded. They are representative of the trade and, I believe, absolutely non-political. I know that they have not at all been hesitant in criticizing and in offering suggestions as to the improvement of the administration at times during the present term of office of this government, but I cannot too emphatically state that as far as my observations go there has not been the slightest tendency on their part towards anything political.


Edward James Young: Perhaps the minister has forgotten that a couple of years ago the fruit growers of Ontario withdrew from the organization because they said that the council had turned it into a political organization through their political activities. A few years ago there used to be a similar grant, somewhat larger, to the dairy council, and that was withdrawn because they were politically active. The dairymen objected to this at the beginning, but now I understand they do not want to have the grant back because, they say, they feel themselves freer and better off without the money. Has the minister approached the horticultural council to find out whether they too believe that they would be better off without this grant?


Robert Weir: Did the hon. member say that the grant was withdrawn from the dairy council because they were political?


Edward James Young: I understand so.


Robert Weir: No. The grant was withdrawn, I believe, during the present administration's tenure of office, and that had nothing to do with the withdrawal, because I did not feel at any time that that body ever was any more political than the horticultural council. With reference to the remark that the producers of Ontario withdrew from the membership of the horticultural council for political reasons, it came to my attention some two or three years ago that the Canadian horticultural council was not representative of Ontario and I made very careful inquiries; for it is because we feel that they are representative that we attach so much importance to their advice and opinions and, more or less, guidance; and the information I gathered was that the body set up
independently of the Canadian horticultural council was not the actual commercial producers of fruit but rather the amateurs in gardening and in other phases of horticulture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc., also grant of $17,010 to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $393,200.
Frederick George Sanderson: What does the vote mean by fertilizer control?


Robert Weir: This vote is for this particular branch of the department and for payment of officials, and for the administration of the Fertilizer Act. In addition, some of the money is used to defray one-third of the freight, up to fifty cents a ton, on lime fertilizer in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and in the maritimes, the provinces included paying their share of it. A check is also made as to the composition of the fertilizer to see that it is up to standard .


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the minister aware that the price of fertilizer has gone up considerably in the last year?


Robert Weir: I understand it has, yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: Can the minister explain why?


Robert Weir: I am informed that it is due partly to the increased cost of production and also the increased cost of raw materials imported. I must confess I have not looked into the matter.


Frederick George Sanderson: My information is that as soon as this government increased the tariff on fertilizer coming from the United States the Canadian producers or manufacturers of fertilizers increased their price. Has the minister any knowledge of that?


Mr. MYERS:: The hon. member is somewhat mistaken with regard to the price of fertilizer. When I was at home at Easter I got my price list from our potato growers' association. I happen to have in my room the price list for last year. I took the trouble to compare the two, and while ammonia is S2 a ton dearer, the other three ingredients, potash, phosphate and soda, are from S3 to $5 a ton cheaper than they were last year. That is in Prince Edward Island.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am going only on
the information that I get from the farmers in my constituency and from the minister tonight. In the face of the information which
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit

I have and the information which the minister has given the committee to-night that there has been an increase in the price, the situation in Prince Edward Island may be local, but I am speaking of the farmers of Ontario and in particular of western Ontario.


John Howard Myers: The hon. member must not forget that I am a farmer and a buyer of fertilizer.


Frederick George Sanderson: Has the hon. member any more information than the minister has on the matter?


John Howard Myers: I imagine I might have
because I buy fertilizer and I do not think the minister does.


Robert Weir: I am pleased to
say that as regards my farming operations the soil is fertile enough that it does not require fertilizer. But there is no difference of opinion. I understood the hon. member for South Perth, when he raised the question of increased cost of fertilizer, to refer to his locality-


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Robert Weir: -and I understand in that locality there has been a slight increase in the cost.


Frederick George Sanderson: I well remember, and I think hon. members and t'he country will remember, that when the increased tariff was put on fertilizer, the Prime Minister stated in regard to not merely fertilizer but everything, that if he and the government found after this increased protection was given that manufacturers in Canada raised their prices, the tariff would be taken off; I ask the minister to look into the matter because my information is that there was a substantial increase in the price of fertilizer to the farmers of western Ontario following the increase in the tariff on fertilizer coming into this country. Will the minister look into that?


John Howard Myers: Does the hon. member for
South Perth .not know that there is absolutely no tariff on the ingredients that enter into the fertilizer mixture? We can import acid phosphate, potash, soda and ammonia without any tariff at all. When they are imported and mixed in Canada, they enter free of duty. There is a duty on ready mixed fertilizer coming into the country, but there is very little of that coming in. There is surely not one tariff in Perth and another in Prince Edward Island; the tariff must be the same. [Mr. Sanderson. 1


Frederick George Sanderson: I quite agree with my hon. friend that the tariff is the same, but I think he and I are at cross purposes.


John Howard Myers: Not at all.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not pretend to
know anything about the price of fertilizer in Prince Edward Island, and I do not think he knows anything about the price in Ontario.


John Howard Myers: But the tariff would be the same in Ontario and Prince Edward Island; it is free.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, but the price is different, and I am well aware of the fact that the farmers in my constituency have paid more for their fertilizer since the tariff was raised on fertilizer coming into Canada.


John Howard Myers: But there is no tariff on
fertilizer coming in.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, there is.


John Howard Myers: There is on ready mixed
fertilizer but not on the ingredients.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend is mistaken. There is no tariff on each ingredient, but there is on the manufactured commodity, that is the fertilizer ready to put on the ground.


Edward James Young: Will the hon. member for
Queens tell us what the tariff is on the mixed fertilizer and what is the cost of mixing it?


John Howard Myers: I understand the tariff on
mixed fertilizer is ten per cent.


Edward James Young: What is the cost of mixing
the ingredients?


John Howard Myers: I suppose they would be
mixed in a plant at a cost of roughly $1.50 a ton. The farmers in Prince Edward Island are possibly a little ahead of those in Ontario. We do not believe in using a ready mixed fertilizer that carries in it a filler which is worth absolutely nothing. We import the ingredients and we mix them ourselves. In this way we get the genuine article and we pay no tariff.


Edward James Young: Will the hon. member say
that the ten per cent tariff does not more than pay for the mixing?


Robert Weir: I would say that
if it more than paid for the mixing, mixing stations would be established here.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I think the minister
could clear up this question if he were kind enough to tell us how much fertilizer was

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit
imported in the form of the ingredients and how much in the compounded form. Then we would know what quantity was imported in the simple form of phosphate or nitrate or potash and how much was imported in the compound form of mixed fertilizer, and what duties were paid last year on the importation of mixed fertilizer. This information is very important.


Robert Weir: I have not the
information before me, but I shall be glad to take note of this as a question and to supply the information as far as it is possible for us to do so. I am sure at least the majority of hon. members who have spoken have been sufficiently engaged in business to realize that the matter of a rise in price requires careful consideration before we could decide whether it was due to any one particular factor.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I can scarcely agree with the hon. member for Queens-


John Howard Myers: I would not expect it of the hon. gentleman.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: *-that the fertilizer does not cost us a little more in Prince Edward Island since the ten per cent tariff was imposed. My hon. friend will agree that large potato growers import the ingredients and do the mixing themselves, but he and the committee must not forget that throughout Prince Edward Island and the rest of the maritimes there is a very large proportion of small farmers who cannot go to the trouble of buying the different ingredients and mixing them themselves and who have to buy the ready mixed fertilizer on which they pay a duty of ten per cent. If I had time to go to my room I could produce figures to prove what I am saying. A large quantity of mixed fertilizer is brought in every year, and I think the minister, before his estimates go through, should give us the information. The point I wish to make is that the smaller farmer, the man who is least able to pay this ten per cent duty, is the man who is compelled under the present arrangement to pay it. As we all know, under the former Liberal administration fertilizer was put on the free list and everyone could import it in any form he chose. The farmers in my province could order a car or a steamer load of mixed fertilizer from any part of the world, bring it in there and unload it free of duty, but under present conditions they are forced to do the mixing themselves or to pay the ten per cent duty. I am not sure, but I think some of the ingredients also carry a duty. The hon. member for Queens
might be able to give us that information. I believe some of them cannot at present be imported free of duty. The point I want to emphasize is that the man who is least able to pay is the one who has to pay the increased price.


John Howard Myers: The hon. member for Prince is so politically minded, as has been mentioned before, that he can hardly get away from politics.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Be fair.


John Howard Myers: I am very fair.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is liberal minded.


John Howard Myers: I may inform the hon. member that in making the statement that there is a tariff on some of the ingredients he is absolutely wrong. There is no tariff on acid phosphate, ammonia, soda or potash. There is a ten per cent tariff on ready mixed fertilizer, but as far as Prince Edward Island is concerned my information is that we have not imported a bag of ready mixed fertilizer in the last three years. We have a mixing plant in Prince Edward Island and the ingredients are brought in and mixed there. The hon. member said if he had time to go to his room he would be able to show that fertilizer -I think he was speaking of mixed fertilizer -was dearer this year than last.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I did not say that.


John Howard Myers: Then I misunderstood. I want to inform the hon. member that I have figures from the potato growers' association of Prince Edward Island for 1933 and 1934 for 4-8-8 and 4-8-10 and 4-8-12 ready mixed fertilizer, and in every case they are from $1 to $3 a ton less in price this year than last. Probably he has those figures himself.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The argument of my hon. friend is not very strong, because raw material used in any manufacturing industry at the present time is away down in price, and therefore the price of the product should be less. Does my hon. friend contend that we, in Prince Edward Island, are in a position, with potatoes selling last year at six cents a bushel, to pay a higher price for fertilizer than we were when fertilizer was coming in free and potatoes were selling at SI a bushel? The whole difficulty is that the price of mixed fertilizer has not been reduced to the point that it should be, considering that the raw material can be brought in for almost half the price it cost a few years ago, as is the case with the raw7 material for almost every other manufacturing industry. So my hon.
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit

friend does not get very far with that argument. But Prince Edward Island is not the only place on the map that uses fertilizer. If the hon. gentleman looks up the returns he will find that there are imported into Canada large quantities of mixed fertilizer on which a ten per cent duty is paid, and if he is not paying it other farmers throughout Canada are.


John Howard Myers: I am glad the hon. member for Prince agrees with me on this, that the price of fertilizer is lower this year in Prince Edward Island than it was last year. He differs from his colleague the hon. member for South Perth in that regard. So I am glad that for once I have the support of the hon. member for Prince, something I very seldom get.


Robert Weir: As I stated before, I think any business man, before making a sweeping statement, should realize that many factors would have to be looked into before he could be satisfied as to what particular cause led to an increase in price. The argument of some hon. members apposite is that the price has increased due to the putting on of a tariff by this government. Following that argument further, how is it that fertilizer is now from S3 to S5 a ton cheaper than it was when this government came into power? I do not say it was the putting on of the tariff that caused the reduction, but it certainly would go to show that it has not increased the price. We have given the assurance that the matter will be looked into, and any information which has been asked for that can be brought down we shall gladly furnish.


Mr. BROWN:: When the minister is getting that will he also get information as to the price of the ingredients?-because that is one essential factor that must enter into the problem.


Robert Weir: That is the point I tried to make.


Edward James Young: The hon. member for Queens, who seems to be familiar with the situation, told us that there is a mixing plant on Prince Edward Island. Could he tell us the output of that plant and the number of men employed? Then we will know how much that plant is costing us.


John Howard Myers: I have not the total output. They employ about twenty men.


Robert Weir: My information is that the cost of mixing the fertilizer is in the neighbourhood of $1.50 a ton, and that before the tariff was put on there were no mixing plants to any extent, on Prince Edward Island
fMr. MacLean.l
in particular. Therefore the protection given has led to the establishment of mixing plants, which in turn has perhaps been one of the chief factors in reducing the cost. But as I said, all the information that we can gather in this connection will be brought down.


Edward James Young: Can the minister tell us the price at which it sells?


Robert Weir: That depends on the grade.


Edward James Young: Say a standard grade.


Robert Weir: Of what fertilizer?


Edward James Young: Well, the kind they mix in Prince Edward Island.


Robert Weir: I think the hon. member and I are both quite a way from home.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Might I suggest that he give the one that costs $1.50 a ton to mix?


John Howard Myers: They all cost the same to mix.


John Vallance: So that the cheap
fertilizer costs just as much to mix as the most expensive? While that is being hunted up may I ask the minister another question? I notice there is a $50,000 decrease in this vote. Would the minister mind separating these items and telling us how much is given to each of the purposes included under item 42?


Robert Weir: Office supplies, $9,000.
Publications and stationery, $14,490.
Travelling, headquarters staff, $6,000.
Subventions to provincial agencies covering part of the cost for promotional work to provide assistance with seed fairs and seed distribution, $39,000.
Market reporting and extension service,

Development of domestic and export markets for seeds, feeding stuffs and fertilizers, $1,500.
Organization of feeding stuffs and hay and straw standardization, $2,000.
Administering the Inspection and Sale Act, special commodities, binder twine, etc., $500.
Laboratory and Inspection Services
Maritime provinces, $26,980.
Quebec, $38,301.
Eastern Ontario, $22,865.
Western Ontario, $56,914.
Manitoba, $36,998.
Saskatchewan, $37,691.
Alberta and British Columbia, $42,951.
Chemical laboratory, Ottawa, and analytical fees to outside chemists, $10,000.
Grant to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $17,010.
Reestablishing the quality of export wheat in former drought areas and continuing the distribution of forage crop seed in the prairie provinces, $30,000.

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit


John Vallance: I would like to ask
now, in view of this $50,000 decrease, what services are going to be curtailed or eliminated, if any?


Robert Weir: There is really no
service being curtailed. There is a lesser demand for inspection services, buit all demands I believe are met. There are certain economies in connection with travelling expenses and laboratory work; we are doing more of our own work since setting up the laboratory in the building previously occupied by the national research council. One of the chief items in the reduction is the decrease in travelling expense by supplying the cars with gas and oil and garage services. That has reduced that item to 1 [DOT] 9 cents a mile in certain cases, I believe.


John Vallance: I do not know whether I am in order, but in going through the estimates I find under details of civil government in agriculture that the services of certain individuals are being eliminated this year. That does not Show in this vote?


Robert Weir: That is right.


John Vallance: It is unfortunate that
we cannot discuss the civil government vote while we are discussing the departmental vote. For instance, under the previous item, "fruit, including grant of $4,500 to Canadian Horticultural Council," I find in the cavil government list that the position of chief of the fruit markets division is being eliminated this year, though it existed last year. I am not blaming itthe present government, but I merely say that it seems that the civil government for each department might be discussed while the departmental estimates are under consideration. When we come back to civil government we will start all this discussion again, and we will consider the reason for the elimination of the chief of the fruit markets division. I realize that this item has nothing to do with civil government, buit when the civil government estimates are up for discussion we will have simply a reiteration of what has been said to-night.


Mr. LUCAS:: I should like to ask the minister if any of this amount voted for seed, feed and fertilizer control is applied to the prairie provinces. No doubt the minister is aware 'that in the last few years many experiments have been carried on in connection with the use of fertilizer in the growing of grain, and I wonder if the minister has any information as to what progress is being made.


Robert Weir: The provinces are consulted, in reference to a part of this vote which is in the nature of subventions, as to what undertakings they think would best serve them respectively. In the west there have been very few requests in connection with fertilizer; apparently they feel that they have other uses for any subventions that might be given under this vote. In Alberta our work in connection with fertilizers consists of examining the composition of the many different brands of fertilizer offered for sale so that the farmer may know whether or not he is getting the fertilizer best suited to his district and whether what he gets corresponds with that is advertised in connection with that particular brand of fertilizer.


John Vallance: Just before the item passes I should like to get a little further information from the minister. When he was itemizing this amount of $393,200 I thought I heard him say that it included travelling expenses.


Robert Weir: That is of the headquarters staff.


John Vallance: Does that include the expenses of your chief inspectors?


Robert Weir: No.


John Vallance: Then under what vote is the expense account of the chiefs of divisions, such as the chief of the fruit markets division?


Robert Weir: His expenses would come out of the headquarters staff expenses.


John Vallance: So that we are now privileged to discuss his expenses but not his salary; is that so?


Robert Weir: I would say yes.


John Vallance: I would ask the minister if he does not think it would be far better, in the interests of the committee and also, I would say, in the interests of a minister administering a department of government, to have these things lumped together? When this item passes we will have voted the expenses of this individual; then we must turn to civil government to vote his salary. It seems to me it should be the other way round; we should vote his salary first and then vote his expense account, because his expense account is of no use if he does not get his salary.


Robert Weir: This vote does not include salaries of the headquarters staff.
Mr. VALLANCE I realize that.

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit


Robert Weir: I realize the force of what the hon. member has said.


Eugène Fiset: Is not the minister mistaken? In the civil government vote you have first of all the salaries and secondly the contingencies, and in the contingencies is included the travelling expenses of the headquarters staff. In this item is included the salary of the staff outside of your headquarters staff and the travelling expenses of those officials.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should like some information with regard to the assistance given the various provinces in regard to seed. Last year or the year before I directed a question to the minister with regard to seed that was required in a certain part of my county, and at that time I think the minister stated that it was not within the province of his department to supply seed unless it was absolutely required, and at the request of the province. Was any such request made and was any such assistance given in cooperation with any provincial government?


Robert Weir: When I stated that seed was furnished only at the request of the provincial government my reply had reference to commercial seed, so to speak. Under this item no assistance is given by way of supplying commercial seed to farmers in drought areas, or farmers who cannot purchase seed themselves; so far as I know this government never has supplied seed in that way to the farmers of any province. This vote is divided in several ways. A certain amount is given each province, to be used by the province, together with its own money, to assist in improving the seed in that province, for example. In the west they wish to use that subvention in order to get better seed in the drought area, which in the past was one of our best sources of supply for good seed. The provinces have felt that this is the most important work to be done with this money, and they have asked that the subvention to those provinces should be used to furnish a better and purer supply of seed for those areas. So we pay the freight on carload and less than carload lots of pure seed from the northern districts to assist the people in the south to get that seed at a lower cost. For example, after the harvest last fall, following a survey, all the pure Marquis and Reward seed that was available was kept on hand and, with the assistance of this subvention, was sent to the south. This is not done in connection with commercial seed, however. In the eastern provinces they feel that the best contribution we can make towards the

improvement of their seed is to use this money to assist in the purchase of small seed cleaning plants. I believe the division is much on a set basis. I hope I have made myself clear.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For what purpose is the grant of $17,010 given to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association? Is that a similar association to the horticultural council?


Robert Weir: No, it has to be used in a different way The Canadian Registered Seed Growers' Association conduct the registering of the pure seed grain, grasses and so on, throughout the dominion. It is to assist them in carrying out that work that this money is used. It rebounds to the benefit of all farmers in all provinces of the dominion, and brings about a uniform standard. If a farmer in Quebec wishes to have a variety of pure registered seed from British Columbia, for instance, he knows the exact quality of seed he is getting. He would not know however if there were separate legislation in each province. Their work is along the line of the Canadian National Live Stock Records Association.
Mr. CASGRAIN'. They have a branch in the province of Quebec?


Robert Weir: Yes, they operate in each province.


John Vallance: To what extent is the federal seed branch being utilized in the west, where so much seed is necessary in the drought stricken areas?


Robert Weir: I am informed that . the whole staff has been placed at the services of the province to inspect all grain being shipped for seed.


John Vallance: In view of the fact that the chief of the branch is sitting in front of the minister I should like to know if there has been any difficulty in the finding of necessary seed of good quality to take care of the demands of the western provinces?


Robert Weir: Yes, there has been, and especially in connection with seed oats.


James J. Donnelly: Who has charge of distribution, the province or the dominion?


Robert Weir: The relief commission.


James J. Donnelly: There has been a great deal of complaint about the handing out of seed. Farmers who have seed in elevators close to their farms have been obliged to

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit
drive thirty or forty miles to get seed. They cannot understand why this is necessary. They are given an order to go to another town a long distance away despite the fact that there is plenty of seed right in their own elevator.


Robert Weir: We have no information regarding that condition, and I cannot think that the circumstances described by the hon. member can be general, because the funds of those in charge of the work are a matter of serious consideration. I should think the condition described would add to the cost. However, we have had no complaints along this line.


James J. Donnelly: I can assure the minister that I am speaking correctly. I know of instances where men have had to drive twenty or thirty miles to other towns in order to obtain seed when, as a matter of fact, there has been seed in the elevator of their own home town. They are unable to understand why they are put to this inconvenience.


Grote Stirling: Shall the item carry?


Edward James Young: No, not yet. A few moments ago I asked the minister to tell me the prices at which fertilizer sold. Although he was unable to give me the information I have obtained it from another source. I understand it is worth from $22 to $25 a ton and the duty is ten per cent.


Robert Weir: What fertilizer?


Edward James Young: The fertilizer used in the growing of potatoes in Prince Edward Island; I do not know the technical name of it. These are the prevailing prices. The duty is from $2 to $2.25 per ton and we are told the mixing costs $1.50 per ton. None of it is imported in the mixed state. It is mixed on the island in an establishment maintaining a staff of about twenty men. While the cost of mixing is $1.50 per ton the additional cost to the farmer is $2 per ton which means that we are taking $2 out of the pockets of the potato growers and giving only $1.50 to labour.


John Vallance: I should like to follow up the remarks of the hon. member for Willow Bunch. Is all the seed that is purchased by the relief commission inspected by the dominion seed branch?


Robert Weir: It has been impossible to inspect all the seed in the small country elevators. Of course as the hon. member knows all the grain bought for seed is cleaned as well as possible but it is im-
74726-133J
possible to inspect all the wheat in some of the small country elevators. However the whole time of the staff is devoted to that work and we have increased the number on the staff. Every reasonable effort is being made to ensure clean seed.


John Vallance: During the recess I was in the west, and as a result of what I saw I should like to substantiate the -remarks of the hon. member for Willow Bunch. In the community from which I come quite extensive quantities of good seed were available, yet seed was brought in from the northeastern section of the province. The minister will know as well as I do that there are some portions of the northern section of the province which are not as free of weeds as are the prairies, especially that part of the prairie which lies within my own constituency, and it is regrettable that such a large volume of wild oats, sow thistle and Canadian thistle should be permitted to get into the prairie country. It may not be difficult to deal with these menaces once they are established, but every effort should be made to prevent them from invading those portions of the prov inces where they exist only to a very limited extent.


Robert Weir: I am informed that oats purchased for seed are cleaned and shipped out. In -connection with driving great distances I can say only this that I have difficulty -in understanding why the condition complained of should exist. My understanding is that the relief commission works through the municipalities, and as the municipal officials consist chiefly of farmers I should think they would have a keen appreciation of their responsibility in connection with bringing in unclean seed. I have no doubt however that the hon. member is speaking from knowledge, owing to the fact that he has only recently returned from that section of the -country. We are giving every possible assistance to ensure that clean seed is made available.


John Vallance: In order to be quite
fair I shall give the minister a concrete illustration. I should like to state however that I do not blame the relief commission. It is because of the fact that many farmers want only 60, 70 or possibly 150 bushels of seed. A portion of the municipality of Luseland is adjacent to the village of Superb. To-day there are oats available in that village. The farmers in that section wonder why they cannot get oats from the village instead of travelling eighteen or twenty miles to Luseland. I
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit

appreciate the position of t'he minister and the difficulties with which the relief commission are faced in connection with handling this huge problem. I believe however that the difficulty is accentuated because of the fact that people living down in the southwest section may have to go to the northeast in order to get seed.


Robert Weir: Of their own municipality?


John Vallance: Yes, of their own municipality. In fairness to the minister and to the commission may I say that that seems to be the great difficulty.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which some time ago was placed before his department, namely, that of ithe sealing of seed oats shipped out of our province. For a number of years we have been shipping under seal seed oats to the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick. This seal was affixed by an official of the department. A few years ago the Department of Agriculture compelled our farmers to put their oats up in this manner, and- required the sealing of the sacks. For some reason this year they have been refused the privilege of having their sacks sealed and have had to ship out their grain with the sacks unsealed to the same people they have been shipping to in former years. This has created some suspicion in the minds of the farmers who have been buying seed for a great many years, and our business men find it hard to do business in the way they formerly did. I should like to know from the minister what pressure was brought to bear on the department to change this practice and withdraw from our farmers the privilege of having their seed grain sealed in sacks as formerly.


Robert Weir: Formerly, when it
was necessary to seal the sack, that was an assurance to those who were buying the seed that the grain in that sack was from a seed crop that had been field inspected and designated as pure as to variety. I believe that due to pressure from farmers and perhaps some of the seed houses in Prince Edward Island, and the enthusiasm of one of our seed inspectors in that locality, it was felt that the community could perhaps best be served by sealing what looked to be and was clean commercial seed, but without any guarantee as to the variety. They wished that to be sealed, and with a certificate given, I believe. Many people thought it meant that it was practically the same as registered seed.

So far as pressure being brought to bear on the government to make the change is concerned, as soon as this matter was brought to my attention-I cannot say how it was brought to my attention-1 thought that it was not to the advantage of the farmers in Prince Edward Island, who have a decided advantage in being more or less isolated as they are, and I thought it would be a very simple thing for them to develop a supply of perhaps one hundred per cent pure seed that no other province could. Because of that I myself took the responsibility of doing away with sealing and of giving a certificate for commercial grain that was clean but whose purity we could not certify without growing it, and instead to give a certificate under seal only for pure field inspected grain. Here again I must reiterate that the farmers of Prince Edward Island have a very great advantage and opportunity, and I am sure that they will give full support to the policy of endeavouring to develop their registered seed grain almost one hundred per cent.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It is quite true that they have developed to a great extent the growing of pure seed and that they have followed tlhe field inspection service very closely. There is a large quantity of field inspected grain which is ready for shipment every year. But this was another matter apart altogether from the field inspected grain. It was a privilege that the farmers had when they brought in Banner oats, even if they could not certify that it was field inspected. The practice of affixing the seal was approved by the dealers. I would ask the minister if there have been any complaints from the receivers of this grain in the different provinces, that it was not true -to its name, or why was the practice discontinued?


Robert Weir: I do not recall
whether or not there were any complaints from the receivers of the grain, but the information given to me when the matter first came to my attention was that Prince Edward Island had shipped in the amount of registered pure seed grain that they were growing, that they had not as high a percentage of pure registered grain as they had had before this practice crept in. The hon. member states that a farmer brings in a bag of clean Banner oats. We feel quite certain that in a great many cases they were not Banner oats although they were sealed as Banner oats, and because there was no assurance that the farmer was getting what he thought he was getting, and that Prince Edward Island

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit
was losing the opportunity, situated as it is, to have almost one hundred per cent pure variety of grain at practically no additional cost to themselves, I took the responsibility for the action.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, at the session of parliament which was called to ratify the treaty resulting from the Imperial Economic Conference agreements, the government boasted and took credit for all the advantages which we would derive from such a treaty with Great Britain. We were told that the government, by granting a preference to Great Britain on chemical fertilizers imported into Canada, was rendering a very great service to the farming class. We protested at the time because the tariff was also being increased on chemical fertilizers imported from the United States. I simply wish to give to the house the list for the fiscal year 1933 of the products imported from the United States and the United Kingdom. As you may note, in most cases, the British preference granted on the various ingredients Which enter into the composition of chemical fertilizers served absolutely no purpose, because none were imported from Great Britain.
Let us take, for instance bone dust, charred bone and bone ash. We imported from the United States 26,437 cwts. of this ingredient and from the United Kingdom, 4,352 cwts. We imported from the United States 631,385 cwts. of phosphate rock while none were imported from the United Kingdom. We imported from the United States 1,640 cwts. of kainite or German potash salts and German mineral potash, while none came from the United Kingdom. We imported from the United States 347 cwts. of cyanamide of lime or lime nitrogen, while none was imported from Great Britain. We imported from the United States 6,413 cwts. of muriate of potash, While none was imported from Great Britain. Take as another instance, nitrate of soda. We imported from the United States 282,079 cwts. while we only imported from the United Kingdom 103 cwts.
I have a longer list; however, I shall dispense from reading it to the house. I simply wish to point out the fact that the Imperial Economic Conference agreements have been of no benefit to us so far as chemical fertilizers, unless it be an increase in their prices, because we increased the duty on the ingredients imported from the United States and, in most cases, all these ingredients are imported from that country.


Robert Weir: I understood the hon. member to say that a tariff has been
placed on the ingredients, imported from the United States and other countries, which are used in this country to make fertilizer. My information is that no duty has been placed on such ingredients.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: What about mixed fertilizer?


Robert Weir: Yes, but not on the ingredients used to make fertilizer.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: There are many ingredients that are not imported.


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member asking how many ingredients are imported?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I know; that was what I stated in my remarks, which were based on an answer given by the government in the house.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is supposed to be good, but sometimes they miss the mark.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Last session or the session before, the government, I suppose, was grateful to the opposition for the remarks that they made against the tariff on nitrate of soda. A little later, in the course of the following session-I think it was last year-I ventured to ask whether this question had been settled with the British government. We had a definite promise from the genial Minister of Finance that he would take this matter up with that government, and the only information I could secure was that it had been settled to the entire satisfaction of the farmers. That was not a very satisfactory answer. May I get a definite statement from the minister to-night? Has the question been finally settled, when, and on what basis? Are there still any duties on nitrate of soda? Quite often, looking up the bluebooks, you will find that nitrate of soda does not usually come under the head of fertilizers. There are many ingredients entering into the manufacture of fertilizer and into the mixing of the product, which ingredients are not included under the distinct head of fertilizer. Will the minister inform me definitely whether the tariff has been entirely removed from nitrate of soda?


Robert Weir: I am informed that there is no tariff on nitrate of soda.


James J. Donnelly: I understood the min-[DOT] ister to say a little while ago that the distribution of seed was in the hands of t'he municipalities. I think he must be misinformed.	*
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit


Robert Weir: I said the relief commission, and I understood they cooperated with the municipalities.


James J. Donnelly: The man who requires seed goes to the municipality and puts in his order with them, and the municipality then make up the order and send it to the commission. The order is sent back to the man telling him where to go to get his seed, and this is where the mix-up occurs; the man has to go to a distant town to get the seed. However, the question I want to ask the minister is this. Is the seed sold by grade or is it all sold at one price? Are there grades-No. 1 northern, No. 2 northern, No. 3 northern, and so on? Of the seed wheat handed out, some of it is grade 1 northern and some grade 3 and grade 4. Some of it is a very poor variety. How are the prices arrived at for the different grades?


Robert Weir: I am afraid I cannot answer the hon. gentleman's question. My impression is that so far as wheat is concerned, outside of registered seed, it is sold on the commercial grading of the wheat by [DOT]the relief commission, but I have no definite information. I cannot say how the wheat is graded.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I do not wish, sir, to detain the house; however, the agricultural situation is most deplorable at present. Glancing over the agricultural appropriations during the years this government has been in office, I note with regret that they show a decrease of more than $3,292,658.12. Taking into consideration the years of hardship through which we are passing, it strikes me that we should not have decreased but rather increased subsidies for the Department of Agriculture. Thus, in 1931, we find a decrease of about $375,000; in 1932, an increase of $414,000; in 1933, a decrease of more than $2,000,000, and in 1934 a decrease of nearly $391,000, while in 1935 in the estimates under consideration, we note a further decrease of more than $850,000.
I am aware that it may be a difficult task for the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to convince his leader that large votes are necessary to carry on the work of his department; however, such a large decrease in the course of five years is altogether uncalled for, especially at a time when a back to the land movement is advocated.


Robert Weir: As the hon. mem-,
ber has stated, there has been a very considerable reduction in the estimates for this department, but it has been made possible to a great extent by reorganization and the

reduction of expenses and not by any depreciation in services. On top of that there have been formulated policies that have given to the farmers, to a considerable degree, benefits which previously they had not enjoyed, particularly with respect to live stock. But in the reduction of the estimates, the test we have always kept before us has been that it should not mean a reduction in services which would in any way have a depressing or an injurious effect on the farmers or their agriculture.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Then the minister approves of this very considerable reduction in his own estimates.


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I am glad to hear that.


William Richard Motherwell: 
Robert Weir: I stated on a previous occasion that the standard for these estimates was that there should not be any reduction in services that would materially affect in a damaging way the farmers. Let us take the item under discussion. The hon. member for Melville has stated what the reduction has been in the last three years. One item alone, that of the registered seed growers' pool in Moose Jaw, in the appropriation to which the hon. member refers was a very considerable amount for the year. I have not before me what the payment was, but my recollection is that it was somewhere in the vicinity of 850,000. That is a very large item in accounting for the decrease in the vote. Another item of decrease in this particular vote is, as the hon. member knows, that due to the succession of crop failures in western Canada, there has been a considerable decrease in the demand for services for grain inspection which was perhaps one of the greatest services in agriculture in the western provinces prior to the crop failures. Similarly in different parts of the dominion there has been a decrease in the demand for inspectional services. On top of that, as I stated somewhat earlier in the evening, we have made very considerable reductions in travelling expenses and by doing our own laboratory work for the inspection of fertilizer, feeds and so on, by taking over a building that had formerly been occupied by the national research council. I have no hesitation in saying that with this decrease in the vote the services that are given to the farmers or to agriculture are still very efficient.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has
saved the situation by now claiming that there has been no material reduction. I like that term much better; it was the one he used last year. That is a very safe, flexible term to use and the hon. gentleman can get by with it; but I do not like the statement that there is no reduction in services, because nobody accepts it.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I do not quite agree, sir, with the hon. minister in connection with the tuberculine test. If my memory serves me right when the discussion on the agricultural estimates took place, about this time, last year, I requested that these tests be continued in the county of St. John's-Iberville. The hon. minister replied that they would be carried out, probably at the beginning of the year. Last autumn, in October or November these tests were begun in my county and ceased about the middle of November, the excuse given was that there was no veterinary surgeon.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The same
excuse was given to me.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: There are veterinary surgeons in the county of St. John's-Iberville just as there are in the county of Brome-Missisquoi, who are well qualified to carry out this work and would be very willing to act for the department of agriculture. These tests should have been continued last autumn, because it is unfair that farmers should not be reimbursed for the outlay due to the wintering of their cattle. May I point out to the hon. minister that the most auspicious time for these tests is from the end of August to mid-winter. If these tests are carried out during the entire year, it certainly is not to the advantage of the farmer who has been put to considerable expense in wintering his cattle. It is unfair to deprive him of his cattle in the spring when he might derive some benefit from them.
I note that the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) is interpreting my remarks to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, I would kindly request him to insist that the minister carry out these tests in the autumn instead of in the spring.
Again this year, there has been a decrease of $144,000....


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It will
always continue as long as they are in office.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The hon.
minister contends that the number of tuberculosis cattle has decreased. I shall take his word for it, however, on the other hand, the tests were in the past carried out every year in the county of St. John's-Iberville. Very large amounts were expended in the eastern townships to rid the -herds of diseased cattle, and I am convinced that the money would have been uselessly expended had not these tests been continued systematically. I think that it is over three years since tests have been carried out in the county of St. John's-Iberville. I do not know whether the county of Brome-Missisquoi has been similarly dealt with. At all events, I trust that the hon. minister will consider my remarks in the proper light, because my intention is not to criticize but simply to obtain justice for the farmers of my county.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I want to join with the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville in what he has said. I do not know whether we are still on this item for seed, feed and fertilizer control, but I find there is a decrease in the estimate and like the hon. member for Mel-

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit
ville and the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville I want, on behalf of the farming community I have the honour to represent, to protest against these decreases year by year. The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville spoke about the test in his constituency and I have a similar complaint to bring before the government this year. I do not know whether the test was carried on in my constituency last year, but I had occasion again last year to make the same representation that I made the year before, and have done every year I have been in the house, in 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934 since the present government came into power. In 1929 there was a zone formed in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay to be operated with the county of Chicoutimi. The district was organized and the tests were made and carried out thoroughly in the county of Chicoutimi but were not carried out in my riding last year at this time as far as I remember, and when I was in my riding recently I do not think I had any evidence from the people who spoke to me that these tests had been made. I should like to know why they were not made. Last year when I was speaking on the same subject-


Mr. DUPRE:: Will the hon. member allow me to interrupt? We do not want to insist, but I understand we are discussing now item 42, which is seed, feed and fertilizer control. I am afraid this question is very far from the item under discussion.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Well, the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville spoke about it.


Maurice Dupré: It is very far from the item under consideration.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: All right; I shall start over again in a few minutes. Then we will be in a position to get the information later on.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: While on
this item would the minister give us some information in regard to crested wheat grass? A couple of years ago in the agriculture committee he told us something that to me was rather interesting with regard to that grass. I saw a small patch of it growing last summer in a very dry district in my constituency and it appeared to me that it was quite successful there. Has the minister any information to give in that regard?


Robert Weir: I think it is a safe statement to make that the hope for crested wheat grass and what it will accomplish is even greater than I stated to the committee a year ago, and I recall that in that statement fMr.' Casgrain.]
I	was quite enthusiastic. As the hon. member has indicated, especially in districts where there is a great lack of moisture, crested wheat grass is particularly suitable. Even in our Manyberries station, where there is a considerable area that had been abandoned by farmers on account of lack of moisture, experiments have been made with crested wheat grass, brome, sweet clover, western rye grass and some other grasses, comparing them as to the growth they make with a limited amount of moisture. In those experiments crested wheat grass showed itself much superior to the other grasses. One noticeable thing about these iplots was that in the crested wheat grass plot there were practically no weeds; its tendency to absorb the moisture was so great that there was not sufficient moisture left for the weeds to make headway. Another advantage of this grass is that it is a cool weather grass as well as a dry season grass; when the snow goes off in the spring it is as green as it is perhaps at any time of the year. Also it is a very palatable grass, and it has a high yield of seed. In the fall when the cool weather comes on it seems to take new life, because it is particularly adaptable to cool weather and remains green and maintains a fine growth until covered by snow. Another important characteristic that it has, especially important in very dry areas, is that when even western rye grass will not withstand the drought and can be easily knocked out by the roots, and brome grass withers and often dies, the crested wheat grass seems to become dormant, but responds to the very slightest degree of moisture. One of the hardest tests that crested wheat grass has experienced was in a seeding that took place on the lawn of Professor Harrington in Saskatoon. He had a cement sidewalk running through his lawn, both sides of which were seeded with crested wheat grass, particularly the fairway strain, which is one of our most likely strains for fairways on golf courses and for laying down sod in western Canada. It is a strain that is rich in foliage and spreads more than some of the other strains of crested wheat grass. One side was watered and protected, on the other side the children of Professor Harrington and his neighbours played and it became almost like a pavement. Then towards the middle of August it also was watered and protected, and it responded very quickly, and before the winter set in showed an excellent growth.
It has always been realized by those interested in diversified farming, particularly in the west, that the need was for a domestic

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit
grass. We believe that in almost every respect crested wheat grass will meet that need, not only in the dry areas, but it also stands up well in the northern areas. At the Indian Head forestry station some years ago two pounds I believe were seeded, very sparsely, and there were threshed from this patch 1,320 pounds of seed. That also is another very important characterictic of this grass, its high yield. Another most important feature is that you can allow the seed of crested wheat grass to mature and then cut and thresh it and the stalks of the grass still remain green and palatable, unlike western rye and other grasses of that nature which if allowed to ripen in the least become woody and dusty and not palatable.


Albert Joseph Brown: As far as the experiments
have gone would the minister advise using it with a nurse crop or by itself?


Robert Weir: It depends a good
deal upon the locality. I would say that while of course any grass does better if seeded with a nurse crop, in the locality where the home of the hon. member for Lisgar is it would not be necessary in a normal season to use a nurse crop with crested wheat grass. It germinates very readily; it has a quick growth and it does not need to be seeded to any great depth; the shallower it is seeded the better. In that district in the normal season I would say that a nurse crop is not at all necessary. Sow it early.


Robert McKenzie: I thank the minister for that explanation, because I have been greatly interested in crested wheat grass. I think it was two years ago I made inquiry and found the seed was not available. I wonder if it is available at the present time.


Robert Weir: Commercial quality seed is available in considerable quantities. There comes to my mind a gentleman who has made a fine success of growing this grass in Alberta, Mr. Moore of Bindloss. I purchased considerable seed from him last year for my own farm, and it was very satisfactory as was also the price. A selected strain like the fairway strain is not so plentiful; there is a limited supply, and the present price is fifty cents a pound.


Albert Joseph Brown: I think it can be got at the university at Saskatoon.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Will the department
have any seed of that grass for sale?


Robert Weir: The department is
always a source of inquiry for grass seed. It has a list of those who have grasses for sale.
I can give that information, or if the hon. member would have his correspondent write to the central experimental farm at Ottawa they would put him in touch with anyone who wanted the grass. If he himself knows anyone who has a supply for sale and will give that information to the central experimental farm I believe there is a big demand for it this year.


John Vallance: I had a note to ask
about this crested wheat grass and how much seed was available. It seems to me that on an occasion such as this we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to discuss with the minister just such things as this. Another prominent and I think useful seed has been developed, although it is only in its infancy as yet. I had the honour and privilege, I may say, yesterday or the day before of discussing this with the minister, and it just goes to show what you can do when you have a minister in charge of a department with the work of which he is very familiar. On his own farm to-day the minister has available a quantity of seed oats, and I think it would be interesting to have him tell us about these oats. They are a new or at least an outstanding variety of the hulless oat known as the Laurel, and in the discussion I had with the minister he was kind enough to promise to deliver some of these oats to my farm. It would be interesting to many of us if the minister would say a few words with regard to this variety, as to how well adapted it is for use as feed and for what other purposes it may be used.


Robert Weir: If I had known the hon. member was going to say this I think I would have quoted him a lower price on the oats. Work has been carried on for a number of years in different countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and particularly in Canada, in the development of the hulless oat. The difficulty has been in getting a strong enough straw and in getting an oat that would give a sufficiently high yield. It is believed now that these difficulties have been pretty well met by the oat mentioned by my hon. friend, the Laurel variety of hulless oat. It is particularly strong in the straw and yet not too coarse to be used for green feed for horses, cattle and calves. Since it is a hulless oat it makes better feed, especially for cattle, than oats having the hulls on, and those who are engaged in live stock farming will realize the wastage in feeding oats with hulls without crushing them, particularly in regard to cattle. That is one of the chief advantages
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit

of hulless oats as a green feed. Horses are particularly fond of it, and our experience has been that they do better on it than on other forms of green feed we have used. The yield is not quite as high as in the case of such oats as Gopher, Banner and Victory, yet it is quite a high yield; with a normal crop it runs to fifty, sixty or perhaps seventy bushels per acre, and a measured bushel of a good sample of hulless oats should weigh in the neighbourhood of fifty pounds. It is an early maturing variety and, contrary to what one would expect, the oats cling to the straw when it is quite ripe.


John Vallance: May I just ask a question suggested by my good friend from Vancouver Centre. He would like the minister to tell us if the new variety is good for oatmeal.


Robert Weir: I am glad that question has come up. One of the great advantages of the hulless oat is that it has been made use of for some time by homesteaders. It is particularly adapted to the making of porridge by soaking without even having it ground. It is grown by homesteaders, pioneers in outlying districts, because of that quality, and for the reason that it has no hulls it is very suitable for feeding young pigs.


James J. Donnelly: I notice that part of this vote is for grants to seed fairs. Can the minister tell us what seed fairs receive these grants, and how much they receive?


Robert Weir: Some of this money goes to each province for seed fairs. I am sorry we have not a list of the seed fairs receiving grants. I should be glad to send that list to my hon. friend, showing the grants paid in all the provinces or just in the province of Saskatchewan, if that would satisfy the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Live stock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions, $1,518,302.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will the minister explain the reason for the decrease in this item?


Robert Weir: In the reorganization of this branch a saving of something like $300,000 has been made chiefly by combining six branches into three and consolidating the services so that officials have a freer hand to do work which is not so closely defined as hitherto has been the case. There has been practically no reduction of service except in connection with cow testing, which is different from R.O.P. testing. The

provinces agreed that they should undertake cow testing, which gave us an opportunity to make further efforts in connection with R.O.P. testing. We have had many comments to the effect that this reorganization has improved the services given.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has there been any decrease in the amount allotted to the province of Quebec for fairs and exhibitions due to the reduction in the item?


Robert Weir: No, the grant is the same as it was last year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How much does the province of Quebec receive under this vote for fairs?


Robert Weir: A very large share in comparison with the other provinces. I have not the figures before me.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister any idea how much is paid out of this vote for exhibitions and fairs in the province of Quebec?


Robert Weir: I have not the total, but I can get the amount for each fair and give it to the hon. member.


John Vallance: I notice this item includes assistance to fairs and exhibitions. This is rather a large item, and I wonder if the minister could tell us just how this money is to be spent.


Robert Weir: The vote is made up as follows:
Field services	$540,084
Market services	 256,684
Poultry services	 266,797
General services	 175,237
Exhibitions	 279,500


John Vallance: At this point would the minister give the committee some information with regard to the regional fairs that were brought into existence by the minister during his administration, particularly as to how they were received?


Robert Weir: We tried out the
policy of regional fairs at first by having one fair in each province and the results were satisfactory. The following year we allotted the grant to a different fair in each province. The satisfaction expressed especially by farmers was such that last year we offered regional grants to all so-called class B fairs except in cases where such interfered with provincial plans. As I said before the farmers felt that the fairs had had a very good effect in stimulating people other than professional show people to exhibit.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock


John Vallance: Is it the intention of
the department to increase the regional fairs this year or to maintain or curtail them?


Robert Weir: It is not the intention of the department to curtail them but on the whole to leave them as they were last year.


John Vallance: With the same grant?


Robert Weir: Yes. In one or
two isolated districts it may be possible that there may be additional regional fairs.


Robert McKenzie: I should like to know if there will be any change this year in the grants for class B fairs in Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: No.


William Thomas Lucas: How many of these regional fairs are there in Alberta?


John Vallance: Would the minister
enumerate the fairs, and tell us where they are held?


Robert Weir: They are as follows:
New Brunswick:
Woodstock, Fredericton, Chatham.
Quebec:
Quebec regional, St. Hyacinthe.
Ontario:
Leamington, Port Arthur, Lindsay.
Manitoba:
Carman, Dauphin, Portage la Prairie. Saskatchewan:
Lloydminster, Melfort, North Battleford, Prince, Albert, Weyburn, Yorkton, Estevan. Alberta:
Lethbridge, Red Deer, Vegreville, Vermilion, Camrose.
British Columbia:
Chilliwack, Armstrong, Kamloops.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister an extract from the March 12th issue of the publication L'Action Catholique. My translation is as follows:
One or our readers sent us a copy of the following letter which he received from one of the government services:
"February 25, 1934.
Dear Sir:
We have received your letter of the 13th instant, asking for a French copy of our report.
We regret to inform you that owing to the expense and lack of funds we no longer publish Our report in French.
Yours truly,
Canadian National Live Stock Records.
W. Brant,
Accountant."
Would the minister give an explanation in this matter?


Robert Weir: The Canadian
National Live Stock Records is not part of the federal Department of Agriculture. Originally each breeding association had its own registration. It was felt after some time that by a combination of their efforts they could give a cheaper and better service. With that in mind practically all the breeders have so combined. The Holstein breeders are not included; they continue to operate their own bureau and have their own registration office. The letter to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Kamouraska does not apply to the Department of Agriculture.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Do they not receive a grant?


Maurice Dupré: May I add a word? If the hon. member would look at a later edition of the same publication he would see therein a letter addressed by Mr. Charles Fremont confirming my colleague's statement, pointing out that the federal government had nothing whatsoever to do with their activities, and stating further that the only reason for not issuing any more French copies was that they had no funds.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I do not find fault with that. But if the Canadian National Live Stock Records Association is receiving an increased grant from the government they may be in a position to have the French copy published. However I have no criticism to offer.


Robert Weir: I should be glad to discuss this matter with the Canadian National Live Stock Records Association. I know that the hon. member who has just spoken is deeply interested in agriculture and has special influence with some of the breeders' associations of the province of Quebec which would benefit from printing the publications in the French language. I should hope that between the two of us, even with their depleted finances, it might be possible to have the copies printed in French, because I heartily agree that the publication would be beneficial to the French farmers who, in recent years, particularly, have shown great interest in the improvement of their live stock.
Progress reported.
Relief Act, 1934


UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures -Mr. Gordon-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
we are now proceeding with the relief legislation. I suppose it will be a relief to the government when we have finished with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not at all.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, it will be a
relief to me, and I believe to all of us. I shall not speak very long. As a matter of fact I do not know why we are again in committee on this measure at this time of night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall explain. When this afternoon I moved the house out of committee on the measure, so that we might proceed with supply, I stated, in response to the Speaker's usual question, "When shall the committee sit again?" that it would sit this day. I therefore have moved the house into committee, and unless the committee desires to adopt the amendment I shall move it up again.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a little late in the day, but I suppose we may as well put in full time. At six o'clock I had begun to make some observations. I did not give the right hon. gentleman much chance to reply, but I feel like asking him if he considered my proposals good ones. I do not know whether he listened to them or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I could not see for the life of me why he could not give the amount of the line of credit that the government had guaranteed Mr. McFarland in connection with the handling of his wheat activities on the Winnipeg grain exchange. The information will be quite incomplete if that item is left out. We want the total. That is what I am after. I want to be able to say: The government spent $110,000,000 for relief and two or three hundred million, whatever it is, under the same act, under the guise of relief. The excuse for not giving information regarding the guarantee is that it would hurt the price of wheat. Of course I would not want to hurt the price of wheat. It is bad enough now. But what possible effect can disclosing the amount of this guar-

antee have on the price of wheat? What was the line of credit that was given up to the end of the last grain year, the first of August say? Was it the same all through? How much of it was used? I am not wanting to get at the amount of wheat held by Mr. McFarland. That is not the point at all. We pretty nearly know that, and it does not make any difference.
I want to assure the Prime Minister that I have often used this guarantee, in speaking to the people of the west, as an indication that the government was desirous of helping the farmer, although I had some grave doubts as to its advantage, for the simple reason that to the extent it kept up the price and kept our price out of line with competing countries, to that extent we frequently lost sales, because when your price is out of line with competing countries then they will get the sales. In looking for something this government has done I have used that guarantee both out in the west and in this house and said that the government should be given some credit for desiring at least to improve conditions. Why then cannot we be given the amount and extent of this guarantee? Other guarantees have been given by other governments and there has been no hesitation in stating the amounts. Our own government in Saskatchewan as already indicated, guaranteed a line of credit for the co-operative elevators and published the amount freely. From Washington from month to month we got at least the amount of the guarantees that were made a few years ago for a similar purpose. Why should that information be concealed here? I think what I am urging is as much in the interests of the government as of anybody else. As I say, I have used this guarantee as one of the few things which this government has done on behalf of the grain market. Even if it did not affect the price much if any, their intentions were good. Why this concealment? Why this star chamber method of doing business? Why this hole-in-the-corner method in regard to finance?
The government has taken the ground that we should cultivate better ethics in business. The Prime Minister's colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in discussing the question before the committee on mass buying and in his Toronto speech, took the ground that the chain stores and the mail order houses had departed from what was the proper thing in business ethics. But

Communters Canada-United States
what are we to say of this kind of business ethics, using the credit of the country on behalf of a guarantee for promoting better marketing, and doing it in this clandestine manner? Is that good business ethics? Would it be in anybody else but the government? Would it be good business ethics for a private member of this house not to report candidly in his private business affairs to the shareholders or the people whose money was involved? I plead with the Prime Minister. Jt is not his usual practice to do business in a slithery way like this, and it is not the teaching and preaching of the government. It is not what they are out to inculcate in the minds of the people of Canada through the Stevens committee. They are practically merely saying: Do not do as I do, but do as I say. I want to know if it is out of order to press too hard for this information simply because the matter has been before the banking committee. Actually the matter was settled in the banking committee although that committee has not yet formally reported to the house. It was decided in the committee not to ask for the information, but having the Prime Minister of Canada now before us I plead with him to give us this information I am asking for. It is for himself to decide, but if he does not tell us I am afraid his blood will have to be on his own head; it will not be my fault because I have been asking for the information for several years.
Progress reported.


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