1934-02-23

CIVIL SERVICE


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That Messieurs Bowman, Chevrier, Ernst, Laurin, Lawson, Maclnnis and Pouliot be con-

Rayon Yam Duty
stituted a select special committee of this house pursuant to a motion adopted on the 16th day of February, 1934, to inquire into and report upon the administration and' operations of the Civil Service Act as amended, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses, and to report from time to time to this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide for the appointment of detective inspectors, subinspectors and assistant veterinary surgeons, and the personnel of the marine section, and to provide for pensions to widows and allowances to children of officers and constables who may be killed while in the performance of duty, and to make further provisions respecting the counting of service of officers and constables with any provincial police force for purposes of pension, and in regard to the duties and offences of the members of the force.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue):: Yesterday the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) asked a question based on a report appearing in a Toronto evening paper which he read as follows:
Toronto importers were startled yesterday to learn that Courtaulds (Canada) Limited, had applied to the customs house here for a rebate of the duty on two large shipments of rayon yarn on the grounds that these shipments had been specifically exempted by order in council.
The hon. gentleman's question was:
I would like to ask the minister if any such order in council was issued, and if so what was the amount of the rebates, and why were they granted ?
My information is that no order in council has been passed respecting rayon yarns imported by Courtaulds (Canada) Limited and no rebates have been paid them on their importations of such materials.



WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the
Prime Minister. In the Winnipeg Free Press of February 21, Mr. M. A. MacPherson, Attorney General of Saskatchewan, and a gentleman who along with the Prime Minister signed the international wheat agreement, is reported as follows:
The computation of yield as between the exporting countries, signatory to the international wheat agreement, was always on a ten-year average.
I have in my band a copy of the agreement itself and it distinctly states that the computation shall be on a three-year average. The difference between these two methods of computing the average yield would amount to about 100,000,000 bushels in our quota. I would like to ask the Prime Minister which of these two statements is correct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall read the hon. gentleman's question in order that there may be no misunderstanding of it. My memory is that the acreage was computed on a three year basis, and the yield per acre on a ten year basis, by the statisticians when the quota was being arrived at. I speak subject to correction; that is my memory, but I will look through the papers carefully and give an answer on Monday.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MAN'ION (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous) asked me a question with respect to the proposed retirement of the Toronto Suburban Railway Company's 4A per cent debenture stock. I made inquiry of the management of the railway, and they point out that the position is that an agreement has been reached with the British Empire Trust Company, acting on behalf of the holders, for the purchase of the stock by the Canadian National Railways on a basis of 25 per cent of the par value. The arrangement is subject to the necessary financial provision being made in the parliamentary budget of this year.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: I
would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). In view of the fact that legislation for the revision of the Bank Act and the establishment of a central bank has been introduced, can the minister
Unemployment Relief

give any information as to whether legislation in regard to agricultural credits will be presented shortly, in order to give farmers the opportunity to avail themselves of its provisions this spring?
Hon. EDGAR N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):	Mr. Speaker, the matter is under
consideration. No announcement can be made at this stage.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Timiskaming North):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to make a
request of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I received information this morning from Chapleau to the effect that the strikers in that locality who have been maintained on relief by cooperation of the provincial and federal governments have been told that the relief will be stopped on Saturday. As there are still a certain number of strikers in that locality I ask the minister to use his influence to ensure the continuance of the relief for at least some time.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the strike at Chapleau among some of the bush workers as far as my information goes has been organized through a branch of what is known as the Canadian Labour Defence League. I believe the locally active men are Minster, Vatchuk and Soula. I may be wrong about that, but that is my information. Efforts have been made from time to time by the Labour department under the Conciliation Act to get the employers and employees together, but we have found that where a strike is promoted under the auspices of the organization I have mentioned there has always been a studied attempt to keep the employers and employees apart, rendering impossible the application of the provisions of the Conciliation Act.
With respect to the strikers to whom the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) has referred, I have no specific information, but I would point out that the administration of relief is entirely in the hands of the provincial authorities, and if they believe for any reason that satisfies them that these men should not under the existing circumstances be kept on relief at the expense of their fellow-taxpayers I do not propose to interfere with their judgment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.



HAVRE ST. PIERRE ICE CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on
Friday last, February 16, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) drew my attention to a telegram which he had just received from the mayor of Havre St. Pierre with reference. to the isolation of this municipality owing to an ice blockade and the shortage of food which resulted. I then stated that I would immediately look into the matter. I wish to inform the house that on the very same day we received a similar dispatch and, since then, we have been in communication with the parties and companies concerned. This morning we were in a position to wire the mayor of Havre St. Pierre, as follows:
If you wish to order the provisions required, so that they may be placed on board the icebreaker Mikula, at present in the harbour at Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, they will be transported to Havre St. Pierre. Make an immediate decision because the Mikula will leave in a few days.
We have also received a communication from Mr. Clarke, of the C'larke Steamship Company, stating that the latter would also dispatch the very next morning, a vessel, the Sable Isle, in order to relieve the people of that municipality. I wish to state that the Mikula will arrive at about the same time as the Sable Isle and will open a way to the wharf of Havre St. Pierre, for this vessel.



DESTRUCTION OF SALMON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, the
other day the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) drew my attention to an article in a paper called The Commonwealth published in Vancouver, to the effect that good edible salmon was taken to sea by the steamship Malaspina and dumped. The report I have from my officers states that:
This salmon was pink canned salmon that had been found by the inspection board as unfit for food. Under the law, canned salmon that is found by the board not to be sound, wholesome and fit for human food must be confiscated and destroyed or used by the fisheries department for purposes other than human food. This last provision was inserted in the regulations to enable the department to use, up to its requirements, such confiscated salmon for fish food at the fish hatchery ponds. The quantity confiscated was largely more than was needed for this purpose and so to save storage charges it was destroyed in the cheapest possible way, that of taking it to sea and dumping it. The total quantity dumped was 1,215 cases, the total quantity confiscated to date as unfit for food is 2,714 cases.

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors



HUDSON BAY ROUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):: I would
like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) to an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 21, under the caption Why Bay Rates are High. This editorial refers particularly to the high insurance rates and the high cost of food supply for the ships. Would the minister care to make a statement in regard to these two items.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I expect to be going on
with my estimates shortly, and if my hon. friend will bring up the matter then I will gladly deal with it.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. MoINTOSH (North Battleford):	I wish to direct a question to
the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon). Has the government under consideration and does it contemplate bringing before parliament at this session any measure further to alleviate the serious conditions affecting soldier settlers, throughout the dominion, especially those of the three western provinces?
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that at the last session of parliament remedial legislation was introduced by myself and approved by this house. That legislation was not introduced without most careful investigation by those charged with authority of directing the soldier settlement board. From the best information I had at that time it appeared that the legislation then introduced was deemed to be sufficiently remedial, as far as the soldier settlers are concerned, to take care of their difficulties.
Of course I have had, and I presume every minister administering that department since it was set up has had, from time to time requests and demands from individuals and organizations, some representative and some not, with respect to further consideration that the government might give to the soldier settlers. At the present time I have not under consideration any further remedial legislation.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the third reading of Bill No. 17, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I should not
like to have third reading given this bill without again protesting against the enactment of an act of parliament simply to appoint for one year a firm of auditors, on whom all parties in the house are agreed. I will not go into the reasons which I mentioned yesterday as to why I think this matter should be kept in the hands of the House of Commons, but I should like to say that an act of parliament is a matter of some importance, and generally a matter .to which a good deal of significance is attached. It does seem a bit of an absurdity to necessitate the passage of a bill through all the stages in both houses of parliament and the obtaining of the royal assent simply to make the appointment of a firm of auditors for one year. I think one has only to mention the fact to show how ridiculous this method of procedure is.


Robert James Manion: As we dealt with the matter rather fully yesterday, when my reply was given to the right hon. gentleman, I shall not delay the house at the present moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries') moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I have no objection to going on with this bill at the moment, but I should like to register a mild protest at the system, from which we suffered last session and which is beginning to be put in practice again this year, of not adhering to the program announced the night before. We were not told last night that we would be going on with this bill to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, we were.


Alan Webster Neill: I have no objection to going on with it, but it would be very convenient

Meat and Canned Foods

if the government would adhere more strictly to the program announced the night before.
I was going to ask the minister-and this might save me from giving 'my views on the bill at the moment-if he could not see his way clear to let this bill go to the committee on fisheries. It is not so simple as appears on the face of it; it would save a great deal of discussion in the house, and I am sure we could readily settle the matter if it were allowed to go to the committee. Could the minister do that?
Mr. DURANlLEAU: I do not think the bill is so important that we should convene the committee in order to study it. This amendment is not of very great importance; we are only asking to be allowed to interfere with the export of canned goods labelled wrongly or falsely. That is all. I think if my hon. friend will study the bill he will come to that conclusion.


Alan Webster Neill: It is the fact that I have studied the bill that leads me to ask that it be sent to the committee. Things are not always what they seem. I do not know whether that is Shakespeare or scripture, but it is so. The minister takes the bill as it is handed to him and makes the best presentation he can, but as a matter of fact there is a great deal more to it than he indicated when he was introducing it. I should like to point out-


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member will wait until the bill goes into committee he can speak on it at length. He has already spoken on the second reading.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I only sat down to allow the minister to speak. I appeal to the minister if that is not so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is out of order in speaking again on the second reading.


Alan Webster Neill: I submit, sir, that the minister interrupted me and in courtesy I sat down to let him answer the question I had asked.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: And having finished his remarks and sat down, the hon. member concluded his speech. If the hon. gentleman wishes to cross-examine the minister or ask questions he can do so in committee, but not at this stage.


Alan Webster Neill: I was within my rights, sir, in sitting down when the minister arose. I am in the judgment of the house; I appeal to the minister himself, or to any other hon.

member. What was I to do when he rose; was I to stand? That is against the rules. I asked the minister a question, and he courteously rose to reply. I submit, sir, that [DOT]this does not deprive me of my right to speak on .the second reading.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Strictly speaking, the hon. member has exhausted his right to speak, but with-


Alan Webster Neill: Then I appeal from your
decision, sir; it is too rank for anything.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I say that with the consent of the house I am prepared to allow the hon. member to go on.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank you, sir. This bill, apart from 'the ostensible reason for its introduction, really goes further and introduces some rather extraordinary powers. In introducing the bill the minister said that its purpose was merely to prevent the export of canned fish falsely labelled or marked, but the bill goes further than that. I will quote the old section, to which the minister takes objection:
Any can of fish or shellfish not labelled or marked in accordance with the provisions of this act or of the regulations-
These are the words to which the minister particularly objects:
*-before being offered or exposed for sale by retail.
Then the section goes on:
-shall be forfeited to His Majesty, and may be seized by any inspector, or by any customs, excise or police officer, or by any constable.
The words to which he objects are those limiting the interference to the period before the goods are offered or exposed for sale by retail. If that is the only purpose of the bill, why not simply strike out those words and let it go at that; so far as I am concerned that would be the end of it. In his remarks, however, and in the explanation given in the bill, the minister goes on to say:
Under this provision, even if cans are wrongly labelled, they cannot be interferred with until they are offered for sale in a retail way.
That is true under this particular section, but it is not true in a general way, as I will show later on; there are other sections that deal with that point. In addition, this bill goes further than the original act in two respects. In the first place it takes in any other offence, since it says:
-and not in accordance with the provisions of this act or of the regulations made thereunder-*

Meat and Canned Foods
That opens up a wide field; you might have a man punished under two sections, first under this section and then under some other section to which it refers more specifically. My second objection, and it is a very substantial one, is that this changes the act in a manner not hinted at and quite unnecessary. Under the old section, if the can did not comply with the act it might be seized by any inspector or any customs or police officer, and presumably the process of confiscation would have to be carried out before some court of competent jurisdiction. Now they have gone a great deal further; these cans are to be confiscated on sight by any inspector or any customs, excise or police officer, or by any constable. There is a great difference. In one case the police officer or inspector can seize it but he cannot confiscate it. Under the new section, which is sort of dragged in

I am sure the minister does not appreciate the meaning of it

the cans may be confiscated on view by any inspector.
What is meant by an inspector? According to the definition, an inspector is an inspector appointed under this act, or a police constable. That does not mean a civil servant; it may mean a political appointee, and the same thing in the case of a police constable. In British Columbia we have a very fine police system, but in some places police are appointed by political influence. Certainly in this instance the inspector is so appointed. Who is the inspector, anyhow, under the act? His duty is to deal with abattoirs for the most part, and that does not make him an expert in the labelling of canned salmon. The point I am trying to make is that it is improper to allow a political appointee to have the power, the enormous power, of confiscating and condemning on view, and on no say-so but his own, perhaps a thousand dollars worth of canned salmon. Hon. members know the type of man some political appointees are, and I say that is altogether too much power to put into their hands. That some such idea wyas in the minds of the people who drew up this bill is evident from the fact that they put the following words in the section:
Provided that persons aggrieved by any such confiscation may appeal by petition to the minister, who may remit the confiscation on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe.
Quite so. What does that mean? It means that a man who has had his stuff confiscated on view by this constable or inspector has the right of appeal to the minister, and he can look to the minister for help. Does the minister want that? Does he want to be made the final court of appeal in cases like that? In many cases it will be shown that the
seizures and confiscations by the local inspectors are so unjust that the minister will be compelled, in the exercise of his judgment, to remit the whole confiscation. What will be the result? There will be, immediately a political howl to say that he was acting under political influence, and that that was his sole reason for so acting. Does he wish to be put in that position? I am sure he does not. It might be quite wrong to say that he was influenced, but it would be said, nevertheless. That shows the drawers of the bill had the idea that they were demanding far too much when they stipulated that a man with no knowledge of law, or even of the subject under discussion, -could condemn and confiscate without appeal, except of a political character, to the minister.
Then there is one further point I wish to make, and it is this, that the penalties are far too severe. The penalty does not apply only to this section but applies to the whole act. In the act are forty-eight sections. It is complicated, and in connection with it there are fifteen pages of complicated regulations. Under any one of these sections, and perhaps for an offence of only a trivial character, a man might have his stuff confiscated. May I repeat that confiscation may result from a very, very trivial offence. For instance, if the article is not labelled properly, an offence would be committed. Suppose the wretched cannery man spells the word "Canada" without one of the letters "a". In that respect he would not be -complying with the act and would be liable, upon the activity of some maliciously inclined person who wished strictly to adhere to the regulations, to confiscation. Some hon. members may say that I have given a ridiculous example, and that such a thing would never happen. May I remind my hon. friends however that sometimes queer things do happen. I recall on one occasion being in court and seeing a man applying for naturalization. His application was thrown out, causing him much expense, and he was told to come back three months later. Why? Because the judge said that the affidavit had been sworn at such and such a place in "B.C.", and he did not know what "B.C." stood for. So far as he was concerned he said it might stand for "Before Christ," and for that reason he threw out the application. May I point out that the applicant had used a printed form in common use.
Turning again to the severity of the penalty, may I say that confiscation for what might turn out to be a petty offence is much too severe. The time of imposing a huge penalty for a minor offence has gone by and it never did work very successfully. We can remem-
Meat and Canned Foods

ber when they used to hang little children for stealing a loaf of bread, but that sort of punishment did not work, and was not just.
Coming nearer home may I say that I remember an instance in British Columbia

and perhaps the British Columbia members will recall it-which I might bring to the attention of the house. There is a practice in that province called pit lamping, and it was becoming a considerable nuisance. Legislation was passed stating that an offender would go to gaol for not less than a month nor more than six months for the first offence. The intention was to stamp out pit lamping in the real Turkish stjde. What happened? The local justices of the peace, magistrates and judges were not going to see a decent man sent to gaol for a trivial offence, and the result was that they accepted the most ridiculous defences rather than send offenders to gaol. The legislation did not work out as it was expected.
I may say that often the penalties are too severe in these small pieces of legislation. The minister has stated that this is a matter of no great importance. Had it been a big bill the leader of the opposition would have given it a hair combing and the legal men on both sides of the house would have spoken. I must say however that in these small pieces of legislation the officials run away with themselves, impose the most drastic penalties and it slips through the house -without being noticed.
One final objection I have is that this legislation is not needed at all. In the explanation it is stated that the legislation is necessary to prevent incorrect labelling, but they go on to say the following:
While section 19 of this act makes it illegal to place any false or misleading mark on a can of fish or shellfish, the only penalty involved is a fine; but in order to protect the industry it is necessary to prevent wrongly labelled goods being sold either in the local or foreign markets.
And so on. From this it would seem they want a penalty greater than a fine. But what is the fine? Let us turn to section 44 of the act, which is as follows;
Every person who violates any provision of this act, or of any regulation made by the governor in council or by the minister under the authority of this act in respect to which no penalty is hereinbefore provided, shall for every such offence, incur a penalty not exceeding five hundred' dollars.
So that from a violation of section 19 of the act he is liable to a fine of $500 and, may I say, $500 is a substantial fine for wrong marking. Five hundred dollars is a lot of

money. The maximum fine for common assault is $20. You could assault your mother-in-law and get away with a 820 fine, and you could assault her twenty-five times for the same money you would have to pay for the offence of putting a wrong label on your product. Or, conversely you could assault twenty-five mothers-in-law for the same price.
Then there is a penalty for contravention of section 37, which is as follows:
No article subject to inspection under this act shall he offered or sold for export or import, or exported or imported, under any name intended or calculated to deceive as to its true nature.
Then, it goes on along the same line. Turning to section 31 we find:
No person shall offer or expose or have in his possession for sale any article subject to inspection under this act unless all the requirements thereof respecting the said article have been complied with.
A breach of any of these sections is punishable by a fine of S500.


Alfred Duranleau: That does not apply to falsely labelled canned goods.


Alan Webster Neill: The section states:
No person shall offer or expose or have in his possession for sale any article subject to inspection under this act-
That applies to canned goods. Then the section concludes:
-unless all the requirements thereof respecting the said article have been complied with.
Now, under section 44 as I have stated an offender is liable to a fine of $500. The explanation in the act says that it is only a fine. Well, that is a careless explanation, and it is careless legislation. I shall show it is not only a fine. There is a liability to imprisonment, and I shall show how. True, section 44 provides for only a fine, and does not stipulate any imprisonment, but let me quote section 48:
Every penalty imposed by this act shall he recoverable with costs before any two justices of the peace or any magistrate having the powers of two justices of the peace under the provisions of the criminal code relating to summary convictions.
I shall not take time to turn up the section as the minister can do it for himself, but under section 739 of the criminal code, chapter 36 of the statutes of 1927, gaol is provided. It specifically says that in a case where the act provides a penalty of fine and no imprisonment, in the event of the fine not being paid, imprisonment can be imposed. So we have the complete picture. Under one of these other sections a man can be sentenced

Meat and Canned Foods
to pay a fine of $500 or go to gaol. I suggest that what should be done is to leave out entirely this confiscation business because they are already liable to a heavy fine and to gaol. Is not that enough?
Further, I object because it applies not only to the section which the minister was told it refers to but to the whole act and amendments. The matter is covered in other sections anyhow. I do not think that the act as drawn is drawn correctly or drawn in a necessary way. No one realizes better than I do the need for having strict regulations to prevent the false labelling of salmon. That is perfectly right and proper. But just because there is need for doing something desirable, there is no need for doing something that is unjust and unreasonable and imposing restrictions upon the industry generally. The cannery owners are having a hard time, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) said the other day, and while it is the duty of the government to see that the law is complied with, it is no part of its duty to impose unjust restrictions and penalties. It is all very well to say that these officers will use common sense in their judgments. We do not know whether they will or not, and we must protect the cannery man in the due exercise of his business. If the minister had allowed this bill to go to the committee it could have been amended along lines which he and his officers would have approved. My objections are reasonable and would have been paid attention to.
I come back again to what I said before. We are passing a law by which any politically appointed constable or inspector can condemn a whole lot of salmon just because of some trivial thing, and the owner has no redress except to apply to the minister, who would very soon get tired of exercising his judgment. It is not fair to the industry or to the minister. It would be all right to have it so that the constable could seize the salmon on sight and go before some court before which the minister and the accused would be entitled to appear. Even a spy in time of war is allowed a trial. This offender is not allowed any trial at all. The constable can confiscate on sight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is just one matter to which I desire to draw attention. It was complained by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that we were going on with business that we had not indicated. Last evening I said that there were "second readings standing which it might not be convenient for the opposition to take to-morrow."
The leader of the opposition said in reply, referring to the two banking measures, " I think it would be desirable to let them stand until Tuesday. Apart from that, I think the other business my right hon. friend mentioned might be proceeded with," and we are proceeding accordingly.


Alan Webster Neill: I took it to read that when the Prime Minister said "There are second readings standing," he was referring to the banking measures, not other second readings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And my right hon. friend said that apart from them it was convenient.


Alan Webster Neill: No, he did not say it was convenient to take the other second readings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All you 'have to do is read what he said, at page 870 of Hansard, namely, "Apart from that, I think the other business my right hon. friend mentioned might be proceeded with."


Alan Webster Neill: If I am wrong I apologize, but I think the Prime Minister will admit that- it is not very clear-is it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seemed to have been so clear that the hon. gentleman provided himself with the necessary material for an excellent speech.


Alan Webster Neill: Knowing the government as I do, I am always ready.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 1-When liable to seizure.
Alan Webster Neill: Just to test the thing, I move, Mr. Chairman, to amend section 1 by striking out in line 11 the word "shall" and substituting therefor the word "may", and striking out all the words after the word "seized" in line 12 and substituting therefor the following:
and may be confiscated on order of any two justices of the peace or any magistrate having the powers of two justices of the peace under the provisions of the criminal code relating to summary convictions.
The effect of that would be that the fish could be seized by the constable and later confiscated by a summary court of two justices of the peace or a stipendiary magistrate or any magistrate having .the powers of two justices of the peace. If the minister would take the trouble to look into it, possibly postponing consideration of the bill for the purpose, I think he would see that that would fully meet the objections that he has in mind.
Meat and Canned Foods


Mr. RALSTON:: I hope that the minister will seriously consider the amendment which has been suggested by the bon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). If I had been doing it, I would have gone further than the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. I share with him the view that we are going altogether too far in the way of putting in the hands of officers who are not judicial officers at all the right practically to convict absolutely innocent persons without a hearing of any kind, and not only convict them, but confiscate their property as well. I know that the minister is not doing this intentionally to irritat-e people, but I assure him that it will be a source of irritation. You have inspectors, constables, customs, excise and police officers, any one of whom may walk into a man's warehouse and1 seize goods not simply because they bear a false or misleading mark but even a mark which is incorrect. Suppose it is a can of clams, labelled "Port Hebert clams" and it should be labelled " Clark's Harbour clams." That could be confiscated. The mistake might have been perfectly innocent and the public would not be hurt in the slightest. I submit that we are going a long distance in the way of giving officers so much power without any judicial intervention whatsoever. If a man commits murder, you have to seize him and bring him before a court to convict him, but if a man uses a wrong label on a can of salmon or fish of any kind his goods are liable to immediate confiscation by any one of the officers mentioned in the act. I submit that the minister ought to give the committee very strong reasons for imposing upon these people a liability which is not imposed upon the general community with regard to offences against statutory provisions. The minister is a lawyer of distinction and I do not believe that he himself will be keen to introduce this anomaly in the administration of penal statutes.


Mr. STEVENS:: My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Ralston), says the minister is now seeking to impose this, what he calls, drastic penalty. May I point out to him that this provision has been in the act for nearly twenty years, for eighteen years at any rate, in a form which I think is even more drastic than the amendment which the minister is now offering.


James Layton Ralston: Would the minister explain in what way?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was just coming to that. It will be noted that the clause in the present act says:

Any can of fish or shellfish not labelled 01 marked in accordance with the provisions of this act or of the regulations before being offered or exposed for sale by retail, shall be forfeited to His Majesty and may be seized by any inspector, or by any customs, excise or police officer, or by any constable.
On the other hand, the amendment provides:
Any can of fish or shellfish that bears any false or misleading mark or that is incorrectly labelled or marked and not in accordance with the provisions of this act or of the regulations made thereunder, shall be confiscated to His Majesty and may be seized and confiscated, on view, by any inspector, or by any customs, excise or police officer or by any constable, provided that persons aggrieved by any such confiscation may appeal by petition to the minister, who may remit the confiscation on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe.
They have the right of appeal to the minister in case they are aggrieved and to me the terms of seizure do not seem to be made any more arduous than they were before. I think it is only fair to point out that in his amendment the minister is not making the act more rigorous but is really providing a remedial measure.


James Layton Ralston: I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has missed the point which appears in the explanatory note on the next page. Whereas previously a seizure could be made if these goods were offered or exposed for sale, under this amendment a seizure can be made in a man's warehouse whether or not he intends to correct the label next day,, to offer them for sale or to put them in other eans. They are subject to seizure if they are found on his premises regardless of whether they are being offered for sale or not. This is the first and a very important difference. It is extending a principle which I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) will agree should not be extended.
Secondly, as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) points out, it is being made imperative that they " shall " be confiscated. This is a duty which devolves upon the officer the minute he sees a can which is incorrectly labelled. Previously they were subject to seizure if they were labelled not in accordance with the regulations but ithe government is going a step further; the head of the camel was well within the tent but he is now getting: in his whole body. The amendment states that they "shall" be seized even though they are only " incorrectly " labelled. I submit that this extension is a serious one and is an inroad upon this industry. It will create a hardship and cause unnecessary irritation. If the

Meat and Canned Foods
minister could give us instances where an amendment such as this were required and absolutely necessary, it would be a different thing but so far we have heard of none.
May I say a further word to the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the risk of being controversial? My hon. friend says that there is an appeal to the minister, but I quite understand that there would have been one in any case. I do not think it is suggested that should an officer seize goods wrongfully there would not be the right of appeal to the minister. I hope the Acting Minister of Fisheries will prove to be more tender hearted than his colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews). Frequently appeals for redress have been made to that department in the case of improper decisions, but redress was not obtained. It is a long distance to Ottawa and once a seizure has been made by an officer it will prove difficult to have things made right. It means a report being made to the central bureau in the province, then a report to Ottawa and perhaps a batting back and forth between the minister and the officers in Halifax or the capital of the province in which the seizure was made. It would be a long time before the man would get back his goods.


Mr. ERNST:: In the case of a wrongful
seizure there would be a remedy through the civil courts.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is wrong
about that. This amendment makes the seizure legal.


William Gordon Ernst: The seizure is only legal
where the articles are wrongfully marked.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has missed my point. The amendment covers incorrect markings even if they are only "incorrect." It may not be done knowingly or wilfully; it may not be put up for sale but the officer must confiscate and this amendment makes the seizure legal and there would be no redress through the civil courts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt to make
an observation which I should have made before? My department does not administer this act but in the matter of internal and external trade we find instances cropping up where there is misrepresentation of goods. Those who are inclined to take advantage of the public frequently will adopt very clever and resourceful dodges by which to achieve their ends. In other words, rarely does the honest and straightforward business man find himself interfered with in a matter of this kind. The difficulty in the administration of
such acts as this is to clothe the officer with sufficient power to administer the act. Quite frequently we are told that such and such a thing is not done but when we study the act in question we find it is impossible to. make them do it. In a very little time I could give many illustrations. This is one of the reasons why the penalties in this type of act are apparently somewhat drastic. We must not pass legislation which is so weak that it cannot be enforced. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni certainly is not disinterested in the canned fish business and I do. not think he would desire so to weaken the act that it would lend itself to abuse.
I shall give an illustration. Recently we were confronted with an instance where Canadian British Columbia salmon was offered for sale on a market abroad. This was described as British Columbia salmon but the labels had' been made in a foreign country. They were so marked but in wrapping the can the label was turned over just sufficiently to cover up. that mark. We were receiving preferential treatment in this particular market through treaty arrangements but we were told that while the fish might be a Canadian product, the wrapping was foreign and, therefore, we were not entitled to the lower rate of duty.. We have, had a lot of correspondence about this matter and have endeavoured to straighten it out. This is the sort of thing that might be done and there is a definite necessity of having an effective measure. I know the difficulties with which the minister is faced in administering an act of this kind.


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce is very reasonable about the matter. I do not attribute to him or to the Minister of Fisheries the slightest intention of irritating anyone or unduly hampering the industry. But I am pointing out that in the matter of principle, the amendment is wrong.
I really think it is wrong to give this right to officers to go around the country and make judicial decisions without a hearing or to-convict without a trial. That is my first point. Inroads on this principle have been made from time to time. The former Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) and I had considerable discussion in this house, either last year or the year before, with regard to the same thing. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said he is ready to accept the principle that that -may be done, but that the amendment should read that way rather than it shall be done. The change he suggests would not weaken the amendment in the slightest. This amendment permits the possibility of the seizure of a
Meat and Canned Foods

perfectly innocent article and the necessity of a man having to go to Ottawa for redress whereas, under the change suggested by the hon. member, the officer would have the discretion of saying on the spot, " No, this is a case where I will not make a seizure." That is, I understand, the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, and the Acting Minister of Fisheries, who is in charge of the bill, might well take the amendment into consideration.
Let me say one thing more. Perhaps it may be said that it has not much to do with this section, but in this connection I cannot help thinking of the incorrect statements that are made with regard to the issue of stocks and securities in this country with no provision for any officer to make a seizure or to take any summary remedy, although thousands of dollars are taken from people by misleading and incorrect statements and for their remedy they have to go to court, and hon. gentlemen know the long road people have to travel to get any redress in that way. When persons have to go to all that trouble and have no protection whatever; when the individual who attempts to practise that sort of thing on the public is let go scot-free; and when, if a person incorrectly labels a can of salmon, such goods are seized, there is discrimination, perhaps not intentional, but it is there, and I think we should pay greater attention to more weighty questions than this if we are really trying to provide summary remedies for some of the evils that beset this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Security Frauds
Prevention Act deals with the very matter to which the hon. member who has just taken his seat refers. When he says that there is no adequate punishment for those who make misstatements, perhaps he overlooks the fact that the law does the very thing that this measure contemplates: the authorities can raid a man's place, take his books, his papers, examine them all; unlock the door, breaking it if necessary, walk right in and take possession of everything. That is the law of this country in each of the nine provinces, the privy council having sustained the validity of the Alberta act and all the other provinces having passed similar legislation.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Security Frauds
Prevention Act. The Mayland case went from the province of Alberta to the privy council as to whether it was an abuse of power to take away a man's papers in connection with stock promotion. I put to the hon. gentleman as well as to the hon. member for Comox-

Alberni this situation:	In this country we
have been endeavouring to establish a reputation for our products. This has not been entirely easy for the reason that other people imitate them and give them a name that would seem to indicate that the products in question came from Canada when they actually did not. The most noteworthy example of this was in connection with our flour and the use of the name "No. I Manitoba hard." The second grievance was in connection with localities that developed a reputation for a particular product and a nearby locality-and when I say nearby, I mean within reason, having regard to distances in this country-put up the same sort of thing and put that name on it so that it might derive the benefit of the reputation enjoyed by the products of the first locality. During the war, for instance, it is alleged-I put it as mildly as that-that a certain quality of dogfish was put up in Nova Scotia and canned and labelled "Scotia White-fish," being then sold in Spain. The result was that if you now tried to sell that sort of thing in Spain, you would not get very far with it. This did a great deal of injury to the business of Canada.
As regards clams, to which the hon. gentleman referred, there would be an offence only if it is alleged that something is other than what it is and the officer, if he finds that it is something other than what it is represented to be will destroy it. That has happened frequently. There is nothing new about the law; as a matter of fact it is very old. This is the right of an officer of the law who used to be called an officer, of the peace, a peace officer. Under the old common law he had to destroy certain things. In this case we are introducing legislation that declares it an offence to endeavour to palm off something other than what it is in fraud of the legitimate and proper producer. That is what it is.


James Layton Ralston: That is not it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the marking on a
box of something which declares the article within is something which it is not.


James Layton Ralston: But not fraud.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we shall describe
it as being eminently honest.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then what is it?


Alan Webster Neill: An incorrect label.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An incorrect label placed there purposely.


Alan Webster Neill: There might be a mistake.

Meat and Canned Foods


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is one of those things in which there cannot be any mistake.


James Layton Ralston: There is nothing in the
statute about fraud.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend knows
it means that.


James Layton Ralston: My right lion, friend
knows better than that. He knows what it means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the hon. member. That is the usual assertion of the hon. gentleman as to what other people think. If he would confine himself to his own opinions it would be so much better.


Mr. McINTOSH:: He does not need to
come back any more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth must be helped by that observation.
This is an endeavour to prevent one class of commodity from being palmed off as something it is not. I admit that this is a very drastic provision, I recall the circumstance when the legislation was being considered and the officers who recommended it did so in the light of the experience they had had. It is so simple, so easy to allege that something is other than it is and this is an effort to stop that sort of thing. My gaze happens to be fixed upon the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) who is a member of the medical profession. He knows the difficulties they have had in connection with proprietary remedies, the passing of them off on the public and the laws they have had to resort to in order to prevent that from being done.
In this case we are speaking of a natural product. These are fish that have acquired certain reputations in certain localities, clams, lobsters, commodities of that kind; they come from certain localities and are known to be better if they come from there than if from elsewhere. If they are incorrectly labelled, this legislation confers upon the peace officer the right to destroy that which has been improperly labelled. That is all; it is drastic..


Mr. HANBURY:: It requires him to do
it; it does not merely permit him to do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It requires him to do it; it is part of his duty. In other words, if someone endeavours to palm off something as other than it is, he is required to destroy it. The word " incorrect " means just what it says-not correct, not true, therefore false.


Alan Webster Neill: Not necessarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A false statement as to
fish, resulting in the destruction of that which is falsely branded. That is the law which is proposed. If it is felt that this will work an injustice, I shall ask the minister to let the matter stand over until we can see the officials of the department who asked for this legislation, and secure the instances that have brought about the necessity for it, for no one desires to place upon the statute books cruel or unjust provisions, but in the last few years in particular we have learned that it is not in stock transactions, not in exploitation of the investing community, but in food and other products and in manufactured goods of all kinds that there has been a tendency for people to take advantage of the high reputation that certain products or commodities have secured in markets for their own advantage. This is an effort with respect to fish to stop this sort of thing, and the word " incorrect," I repeat, means just what it says-not correct and therefore false. That is the position.


James Layton Ralston: That is not intent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If by "fraud" we can
understand the meaning given to it by courts of law, no one knows better than the hon. member himself how difficult it is in a court of law to establish that same thing.


Wilfred Hanbury: To prove intent.


James Layton Ralston: Or knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well knowledge is another way of putting it, but incorrectness is the word. That is broad enough to make men realize that they must think before they put a brand upon anything they produce. I am bound to say that while I realize the drastic character of the penalty, unless we do something of this sort we cannot stop that practice. I am sorry to say it. Because it is so simple to do it. If those who have had more to do with the production of these things than I will look into it they will find what has happened in several cases in recent years. Very serious things have happened, that have hurt the reputation of this country abroad, made it difficult to sell our goods, I could give you case after case of various kinds of natural products, and this is the essence of it all, saying incorrectness does not mean fraud. Any brand that is put upon a box by a producer incorrectly may be taken to be fraudulent, there cannot be any accident in relation to that. That is why I suggest to the minister that to ascertain what the facts are he ask the officers who have had experience.

Meat and Canned Foods


Mr. DUFF:: Before the committee rises- I presume from what the Prime Minister said he is going to ask that the committee rise- I notice this clause which purports to repeal section 27 of the Meat and Canned Foods Act refers only to canned fish or shellfish. May I ask the minister if there are other clauses in the Meat and Canned Foods Act which use the same language with reference to other canned foods?
Perhaps while he is looking it up I may go on and say that as far as I am concerned, if all goods of this character, that are canned foods, are treated alike then perhaps we are on common ground. The Prime Minister has made a conclusive explanation, it may not be as bad as it appears, but certainly there is no reason in my mind why canned fish should be picked out and treated differently from other canned goods.


Alfred Duranleau: As the right hon. Prime Minister stated a few minutes ago, it is in the light of experience that we ascertained that section 27 is absolutely inadequate to maintain the reputation of our canned fish on foreign markets. We think that section 19, even with the fine imposed by section 44, is not sufficient to preserve the quality and reputation of our canned fish.


Alan Webster Neill: Did you every try it?


Alfred Duranleau: We cannot interfere with canned goods wrongly labelled when sold for export.


Alan Webster Neill: Under that section.


Alfred Duranleau: We can sue the party and have him fined to the extent of $500, but as stated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni we cannot interfere, with the sale and export of the goods. Experience has shown that section 27 was absolutely inadequate. We do not want to be too harsh on traders or canners, all we want is to protect the reputation of our goods. I have listened to my hon. friends with interest, and there may be something in their contention. I may add that it is not for his pleasure that the minister under the proposed section takes on his shoulders the responsibility of passing upon appeals of aggrieved persons, but sometimes we have to take our responsibilities, the government has sometimes to perform some duties it does not like. The same is true of members of the house; they have to undertake their responsibilities. I thought in this instance that those aggrieved by a confiscation by an officer would perhaps prefer appealing to the minister instead of appealing to the courts. But as I have already stated,

we do not want to be too hard. I am prepared to consider the suggestions of my hon. friends, and for that purpose I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


William Duff: Before the committee rises
would the minister be good enough to answer my question as to whether this is a special clause in regard to canned fish and shellfish, or if with respect to all canned goods the same drastic treatment is meted out?


Alfred Duranleau: We will consider the whole matter before we bring it before the committee again.


William Duff: The proper thing to do is to
put them all on the same level.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Could not the minister
consider referring this bill to the committee on fisheries, where those opposed to it could have the advantage of meeting the officers concerned and possibly get a better point of view than we can in the house where the officers cannot be present?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think that
is necessary for this amendment. Hon. members have ample opportunity to discuss the matter before this committee. It is only a single amendment.


James Layton Ralston: Before the committee
rises let me say I am glad the Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Fisheries have accepted the suggestion to consider the matter further. The Prime Minister referred to the matter of securities, I only mentioned that as an illustration; but my right hon. friend is not quite correct in the statement he makes with regard to the statute in that respect. When a person in the position of the Prime Minister makes such a statement the house accepts it as authoritative, but it is not quite true that in Alberta or anywhere else the officer has the right to step in and search anyone's premises. The attorney general makes the direction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


James Layton Ralston: Well that is the point
that differentiates it entirely from this case where a police officer or a customs officer makes his decision right on the ground without any direction from a responsible minister of the crown.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because he sees it before him.


James Layton Ralston: But the attorney general, the responsible officer of the crown, is in a very different position from a police officer,
8S3

Supply-Railways and Canals
who may be only a temporary officer in some outlying district. I do not think the cases are parallel. I think the Securities Act which requires the intervention of the attorney-general before a seizure can be made strengthens my contention that we are taking steps entirely out of proportion to the importance of the matter, when we vest in outside officers the right to step into a man's premises and make a seizure of canned fish which may be incorrectly labelled through a mistake while in connection with much more serious offences we require the intervention of a minister of the crown in the person of the attorney-general of the province before any seizure can be made.


Alan Webster Neill: I just want to point out that while the Securities Act allows a man's premises to be raided by a constable, it does not give the constable power to send him to gaol.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It gives him power to
take the stuff away.


Alan Webster Neill: But he has a trial. In this case the constable can confiscate on his own volition. The Prime Minister stressed a good deal the words " fraudulent," and " improperly labelled," but skated over the words " incorrectly labelled."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I dwelt upon that.


Alan Webster Neill: There is a big difference between a false statement and an incorrect statement. I might say I was a statesman; that would not be fraudulent but it would be incorrect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be incorrect. It might be immodest.


Alan Webster Neill: The feature of the amendment that I stress is that it takes the power, the excessive power, of confiscation out of the hands of the little constable or officer and vests it in a court. Is there anything wrong in that? After all it is only summary conviction by two justices of the peace or a magistrate having the power of two justices of the peace. I will never be convinced that it is not wrong to put an excessive penalty on an offence. We might as well go back to the days of the feudal system. Was it not King Henry who was bothered by some priest and said: Isn't there some good friend of mine who will rid me of this turbulent fellow? And they went out and murdered Becket or whoever it was. It is on record that in the old days when they got tired of a politician or a courtier, they would say casually: Take him out and behead him, and that was the end? Do we want to go back to that 74726-56 J
system? In Turkey there was a baker discovered giving short weight, he was put in his oven and baked. The caliph, or whatever you call him, boasted that this one act of severity stopped the giving of short weight bread by bakers. Is that the system we want in Canada? Surely not. Take another instance. If I go on the highway at night with my car on which I have only one light burning I may be stopped by a constable and given a summons and brought up in court, but the analogy would be that the constable could step up to me and say, " your car is confiscated." My car does not cost anything like as much as a thousand cases of salmon. The offence may be merely spelling Canada wrongly, or something equally trivial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would not be wrong.


Alan Webster Neill: Any incorrect labelling would bring it under the act. I do wish the minister would let the bill go to the committee, but since he is going to let it stand in order to look into it I hope the matter will be dealt with properly.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Railways and canals-surveys and inspections, canals, $6,370.
Wilfred Hanbury: I suppose this is just a general item, and nothing specific?


Robert James Manion: That is right.
'Item agreed to.
Railway employees provident	fund-to
supplement pension allowances payable under provisions of Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during period January 1, 1934, to March 31, 1935, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $26,500.


Mr. REID:: I should like to ask the minister if this fund only operates in one part of the country.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Robert James Manion: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: How long since this increase was made?


Robert James Manion: This has been going on now for quite a number of years. It goes back to 1907.


James Layton Ralston: I mean the increase from S20 to $30.


Robert James Manion: That has been going on since 1921.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay railway and terminals-construction and betterments (including E. B. Jost at $2,250) revote $117,500-$550,000.
Mr. GRAY:: Will the minister give us a short account of the business done by the Hudson Bay terminals since the last estimates were passed?


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend mean the business done or the construction work carried on?


Ross Wilfred Gray: I should like to include the business that has been done at that port.


Robert James Manion: During the last year the 'work on the railway and at the port was completed to a large extent, though this item includes a certain amount of money for finishing up the work as far as we expect to go, .though that depends on the future business at the port. If certain lines of business show a great advance there will be other works in the future, necessarily, but at the moment I can say that with this vote the work will be largely completed.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: But you look for a continuous development?


Robert James Manion: Yes, of course. The work done last year included dredging, a certain amount of filling and the finishing of certain works in regard to water supply and such things at the port. On the railway, unfortunately, each year subsidences have occurred, sink holes, as they are called, that have had to be filled in, but each year the number of sink holes has decreased, and it is rather hoped that with the work done this year the road may be able to go on an operating basis. This item is partly for construction.
In regard to the business done at the port I will give what I can from memory, and if

they wish my hon. friends can ask for other details. In 1931 the first boats went in; there were two. In 1932 ten ships arrived and took out cargoes of wheat; last year ten ships also arrived, and in addition there was one ship of the Hudson Bay Company, the Nascopie, making really eleven cargoes outward. As to cargoes inward, in 1931 two of the ships had small excess cargoes of coal which they wished to get rid of in order to make room for a return cargo of a larger amount of wheat, and we took some five hundred tons of coal off their hands. In the second year one cargo-not a very large one- of mixed freight came in, and last year one cargo came in and one cargo of mixed freight went out. All the outward cargoes, except one, have been wheat. In the second year some rolled oats and other grain products went out. Last year a cargo went out in which there were two hundred head of cattle. Perhaps it would be interesting to have some of the details concerning that cargo. There were nineteen and a half tons of honey, a small amount of egg powder, some hay for the cattle, and 150,000 board feet of lumber. That was on the steamship Brandon.


Wilfred Hanbury: How much lumber?


Robert James Manion: 150,000 board feet.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Can the minister say
where that lumber came from?


Robert James Manion: It came from the neighbourhood of Le Pas, although we have taken a good deal of lumber incidentally, for construction work, from British Columbia, when we required fir or cedar for building purposes.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Can the minister tell
the committee whether the rate on cattle shipped to Churchill is advantageous, when compared with the rate to the eastern Atlantic ports?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The operation was carried on under the direction of my department and I have not an accurate memory of just what the rate was, but I can get it and give it to the hon. member when my estimates come up.


Mr. McGIBBON:: As wheat was the chief
export from the port last year, can the minister tell us how many million bushels went out?


Robert James Manion: About two and a half
million bushels of wheat last year, and about the same the previous year.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: Can the
minister tell us what it cost the government to fit up that ship?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall give particulars
of that when my estimates are under discussion. A special provision was made to test it out. I believe the same ship is expected to come back to the port this year, for the purpose of carrying cattle. However, I shall give accurate information when my estimates are under consideration.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Has there been-*


Robert James Manion: May I answer the hon.
member for Muskoka-Ontario? He asked concerning the prospects for the coming year. That is difficult to say, but naturally it is expected that more grain will be shipped from that port than has been shipped in the past. As I have said, about two and a half million bushels, in round figures, went out last year. This year it has been arranged, partly through the work of shippers, and partly through the work, I must say in justice, of the Saskatchewan government, to send considerable traffic through the port. The Saskatchewan government has been very active in attempting to work out traffic for the port. Already the Saskatchewan wheat board have chartered two wheat vessels. The Dalgleish people, who were the first people to send in a ship are sending one in early in the season; it may be the Pennyworth. But there is also another ship the Brandon, which went in last year and is chartered to go in early this year, as well.
In addition to that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce who arranged last year for the shipment of two hundred cattle has arranged that the Canadian Britisher shall go to Churchill upon the opening of navigation. On that vessel will be placed from one thousand to twelve hundred tons of general cargo and two hundred head of cattle for discharge at London. So the prospects are somewhat improved at the present time, and arrangements are in better shape than they have been heretofore. This year my department has not done anything towards chartering vessels for that port. In other years vessels were brought in to a great extent through the efforts of my department. But now, when the port is a going concern, so to speak, it does not appear to me to be the duty of the Department of Railways and
Canals to chapter vessels. That matter is being attended to by shipping agencies themselves and by the Saskatchewan government. Also, as I have mentioned, the Department of Trade and Commerce have arranged for one shipment.
In regard to insurance it may be of interest to mention that the insurance rates on cargoes have been coming down. Each year they have decreased a little. In 1931 they were two per cent; in 1932 one and a half per cent and in 1933 one and a quarter per cent.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: How does that compare with other rates?


Robert James Manion: I would say it is about five times as high as the rate into Montreal.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: How does that compare with the rates into Montreal years ago when the St. Lawrence route was in a condition far different from that of to-day?


Robert James Manion: I have no doubt the early rates into Montreal were just as high as rates into Churchill. I should like to give the freight rates, as well. In 1931 the freight rates out of Churchill for grain were 3s. 9d., whereas out of Montreal they were Is. 6d. That is a little over a third. The following year, 1932 the rate was 3s, and 3s. 3d: out of Churchill, and Is. 6d. out of Montreal. Last year the rate was 2s. 6d. to 2s. 9d. against Is. 3d. In other words in the year 1933 the rates at Montreal were down to about one-half of the rates at Churchill, but about three years ago they were about one-third.


Thomas Reid: What would the total difference be if you were computing the rate on grain?


Robert James Manion: I have not the figures before me, but some time ago I saw a statement, which I am now trying to locate, where rates were figured scientifically, and the figures showed that a ship going into Churchill, and allowing the usual time, and taking into account the shorter haul for grain, and the decrease in that rate as compared with the rate, we will say, from some of the Saskatchewan points right through to Montreal, that the ship could make a better return on its space or on its trips or voyages and that the rates taken, altogether, are lower.


Wilfred Hanbury: By Churchill?
8S6
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Robert James Manion: Yes. But the fact remains of course that the short period of navigation makes operations difficult.


Mr. MARCIL:: It is closed for ten months in the year. What has been the average time of navigation from Churchill?


Robert James Manion: That is difficult to say. This is a subject which usually starts disputes in the house which I am not particularly looking for.


Ross Wilfred Gray: You love it.


Robert James Manion: However, I shall try to give the information. There is, roughly, a period of two months with at each end possibly a period of two weeks-and sometimes without doubt that will be extended. My engineer who is familiar with this subject, much more than I am, has said that the usual period is from August 8 to October 8. However at each end of that length of time there are usually a couple of weeks.


Wilfred Hanbury: A couple of weeks of good gambling.


Robert James Manion: Yes, good gambling. Of course, during that period, for the time being at any rate, insurance rates will be higher.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The navigation period is practically three months?


Robert James Manion: I would not like to say it is three months at the present time although I remember when I made my first trip up there in 1931 I met a delightful old bishop who was and still is up there, Bishop Turquetil. He has canoed the whole north country, and told me he was convinced that the period would be extended to four months.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I think he is about right.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In some years there has been navigation for more than four months?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but it has to be remembered that the shippers, or ship owners, may not take very much chance. I believe it is still in a stage of experimentation, and some time will be required to know how long actually the season will be. So if my hon. friends opposite wish to state it is open for a longer period, I have no quarrel with them.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Does the government receive revenue from the grain stored in the government terminal at Churchill?


Robert James Manion: Yes; my engineer will look up the figures.


Wilfred Hanbury: I understand the government is absorbing a portion of the insurance charges ?


Robert James Manion: No.


Wilfred Hanbury: They were, I believe, at one time.


Robert James Manion: No. So far as I can remember-and I think I am right-we did not at any time absorb any of the insurance charges.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What are the possibilities for further freight reductions out of Churchill?


Robert James Manion: I think it all depends upon * the amount of traffic coming and going. The ships that have come into Churchill so far have come in light, except for two cargoes. Naturally if the ships can get two-way cargoes it will cut down the rates, and as my hon. friends from the west succeed in patronizing the route it will without a doubt cut down the rates. But so far, and I am not saying this in any critical spirit, it has been very difficult to get anybody to ship grain or other commodities through that port. It has been really a struggle. The first two ships received a cargo through my department. The second season we practically had to do the whole thing, and last season we also did a good deal. But this coming season the province of Saskatchewan, and I think I should say this in full justice to the province, is making a really strong effort to get cargoes and I have a statement here from which I quoted a moment or two ago from Mr. Merkley, Minister of Railways, Labour and Industries, who has been taking a very great interest in this route, in which he points out the difficulties that have had to be contended with in getting a boat chartered. In addition, hon. members of this house on both sides, from that section of the country, notably my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Stitt) in whose constituency the port of Churchill is, have been doing everything they can. I can assure the committee that, in spite of what is occasionally said in the press which is not too friendly to us, this department and the government has done everything it can to give the port and the road a fair deal.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is the department at present carrying on negotiations with Lloyd's for a reduction in the insurance rates out of Churchill?

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Robert James Manion: Oh, my hon. friend was referring to insurance rates? Negotiations are going on continuously. I have already given figures showing the cutting down of the insurance rates. That is a matter that comes under the department of my colleague the Minister of Marine, which carries on all the negotiations in regard to insurance rates. It works in association with the Imperial Shipping Committee and has done much good work in bringing down insurance rates. May I in this connection, without speaking politically at all, but just as a matter of justice, say that the Hon. Howard Feguson has worked continuously to bring down the insurance rates at the request of both my department and that of my colleague the Minister of Marine. He has helped to accomplish what has been accomplished, and as the rate has been cut from 2 to H per cent, or nearly cut in two, I think it is only fair that credit should be given to those who have worked hard to bring that about. But I thought that my hon. friend was speaking of freight rates in the first place.
Mr. MclINTOSH: I was speaking of freight rates at first, but insurance rates subsequently.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Gray) asked as to the revenue from the elevator. Last year the revenue from the elevator was 858,000.


Mr. HEAPS:: What are the annual interest charges on the Hudson Bay railway and the port of Churchill?


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I can give the exact figures, but I have them pretty well in my head. The cost of the Churchill developments, including the money lost at Port Nelson, was in round figures 853,000,000. That figure includes the aids to navigation in strait and bay provided by the Department of Marine. My hon. friend, who comes of a race that is very good at figures, can easily see that at five per cent the interest charges would amount to something Like S2,500,000.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Exclusive of interest what
is the cost of operation at the moment?


Robert James Manion: The estimated operating
cost at Churchill this year is $95,000. That does not include the deficit on the railway, which last year amounted to $163,000. In our estimates this year we are only allowing $10,-
000 for the deficit on the railway. In other words, we are counting on a greater amount of traffic.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that just the operating
deficit?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What are the maintenance
charges on the road?


Robert James Manion: This year our vote for
the road, including operating deficit and maintenance-part of it this year would really be capital-is a little over $414,000, nearly $415,000. That is for the road alone. We are hoping that next year, with the ballasting, ditching, filling and such like done, we shall not require as large an amount, because the operation then would be confined to ordinary repairs, wear and tear, and whatever else there might be under the head of an operating deficit.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I would ask the minister
to make a statement following the statement made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) with reference to an editorial in a recent issue of the Free Press pointing out that a possible cause of high rates out of Churchill was the excessive cost of stevedoring and of supplies, and contending that as both these were furnished by the government they should have been furnished at reasonable rates, but the contractors were permitted to come in between and take a shaving on the service.


Robert James Manion: I am quite prepared to
deal with that because I saw the article myself, and in addition two members on this side of the house, the hon. member for Nelson and the horn member for Dauphin, drew it to my attention. If somebody has a copy of the editorial available I shall deal with it verbatim because it is full of errors.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is the reason you are
going to deal with it.


Robert James Manion: Yes, naturally I do not
wish to have errors circulated in the west giving a wrong impression. Of course, I do not imply that the Free Press would think of such a thing as that.
The first point made was in regard to stevedoring, and I will deal with that first from memory, as I recollect the circumstances very well. The department has nothing to do with

Supply-Railways[DOT]-Hudson Bay
the stevedoring. It is true that the stevedoring was done by a gentleman from Montreal, Louis Wolfe, a very outstanding man in that type of work at the port of Montreal. His arangements were made, not with the government-but with the ships or the shipping agents, and we had no control and have no control whatsoever over his contract. Mr. Wolfe naturally could not afford, in view of the short season of navigation, to take a big staff up there, and so to facilitate things as much as possible, and yet to be fair to ourselves, whenever ships had to be loaded or unloaded we loaned him some of our labourers who are ordinarily employed at other works in the port of Churchill. For these men he paid us the wages that we were paying them, and in addition we charged him 35 per cent. That may seem a little heavy, but we had to bring these men into Churchill from different parts of the country, some from places far outside of Churchill, and pay their fare there and back, and we figured that 35 per cent was a legitimate charge, and very much less than the contractor would have had to pay for bringing the men in from different places himself. My engineer tells me that the 35 per cent was figured out by my officers to be the actual cost to us. That makes it even fairer. If the contractor has made a pretty good profit on the stevedoring, that is entirely a matter between him and the ships or the shipping agents who engaged him. We had no connection with him in any shape or form so far as his charges for the stevedoring were concerned. I assume he has the right to a just profit but as to whether or not that profit was excessive, I do not know. That is a matter for the shipping agents and those who are dealing with him to work out. An estimate of his profits was given to me but I shall not repeat the figures because I do not know if they are really correct. These figures do not show a very heavy profit. If they are correct, I think his profit was only fair considering the time he was there and it certainly would have no great effect on the freight rates. Any effect would be infinitesimal when spread over the number of ships which ihe handled. I think I have dealt sufficiently with the insurance rates. While these rates are higher than those charged at Montreal, we have been gradually getting them down and are still working to that end. Another statement is made regarding food supplies and this possibly has prompted hon. members opposite in their questioning. The article reads:

Regarding food supplies for the ships, these are all provided from the government supplies at Churchill.
That statement is absolutely incorrect because the ships bring in their own supplies. They do buy a little fresh food from the government but they pay for that on the same basis as they pay for labour, cost plus handling charges. Last year the total purchases for the eleven ships amounted to only $646. The engineer points out that there was no intermediary to get a rake-off, if I may use that term, a commission or anything of the sort on the handling of the food.


John Power Howden: It is sold direct from the government to the ships?


Robert James Manion: Yes, by our staff up there. We have had to buy a considerable quantity of food for the different camps as a great number of men have been fed. We call for tenders which are put in by large companies who deal in a wholesale way and we get a very good rate. Another statement is to the effect that the business is done through a contractor who is well remunerated. I have dealt with that already and I repeat, that statement is incorrect. Without meaning to be anything but gentle with the Free Press, which is a great friend of mine, I say with all due respect that the statements made in this article are about as incorrect as they possibly could be. I believe the Free Press has been given some misinformation by someone who misread the report of Mr. Kydd, and incidentally I should like to know who has been so busy as to hand out this information. Up until the present I have not seen this report, so the Free Press has secured a scoop.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Is the minister in position to make a statement as to how far he has gone in the construction of the Mafeking cutoff?


Robert James Manion: A survey was made shortly after the elections and I think a report has been made but no construction has been started. In fact, I can say quite frankly that until the Hudson Bay railway does considerably more business than it has been doing, we cannot expect any great congestion and probably will not build this cutoff until some time in the future. As my hon. friend knows, this is to provide a short-cut to Churchill and at the moment there is not very much necessity for this.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
lMr. BEAUBIEN: I gather fro-m the minister's remarks that we need not expect this cutoff for a few years.


Robert James Manion: I would not like to
prophesy so far ahead but it certainly should not be in expectation this year.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: May I remind the minister that an election is expected in the near future. He is one of the ministers who is always very anxious to carry out his promises, probably more so than the rest and-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Order.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: May I remind the minister that should we have an election this year or even next year he will have to get busy so that he can go back into the northern ridings of Manitoba and tell the people that he has done something with regard to the Mafeking cutoff. The promise made by the minister at Dauphin and that made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) at Brandon were both in very definite language and there could be no doubt as to what was meant. Should the minister go back to Dauphin and the Prime Minister go back to Brandon during the next elections this question will be asked and I am afraid they will be put in a very embarrassing position. I certainly would not like to see the Minister of Railways embarrassed in any way as he is one of the most genial members we have in this house.


James Langstaff Bowman: For the benefit of the
hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Beaubien), I may say that the Minister of Railways will always be very welcome at Dauphin. He has always had a very warm welcome in the past and he need not worry about any promises he made during the last elections.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will be warm.
An. hon. MEMBER It will be hot.


James Langstaff Bowman: So far as Dauphin is
concerned, the present member, perhaps with the assistance of the Minister of Railways will do his best to look after the constituency.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: May I inform the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) that the Minister of Railways is just as welcome in the riding of Provencher as he is in the riding of Dauphin. So far I have not seen him there. He was supposed to appear but he did not show up. The people have read a great deal about him; they have seen his picture in the papers and they would like to meet him personally. I do not say that he would not be welcome in Dauphin, I am simply saying that he may find himself in a difficult position. The promise was made that the Mafeking cutoff would be built as a means of curing unemployment, and I am reminding the minister of this in a kind and not a critical manner. That is the only reason why I brought up the matter.


Robert James Manion: I have no desire to enter into a dispute with regard to the Mafeking cutoff, as that matter has been brought up practically every year. I have been reminded by the hon. member that I made this promise and I have always told him that I did not.
I desire to thank my hon. friend for his invitation to visit his constituency and I shall make every effort to do so. For his consolation I may say that during the last elections I visited some ten or twelve constituencies in Manitoba, and we returned nearly ten or twelve members. I hope he will give me a good welcome when I come along to see him.	.


Mr. BROWN:: I hope the minister will carry out his plan and visit my constituency.


Robert James Manion: If I had carried out my plans during the last elections the hon. gentleman would not be here.


Albert Joseph Brown: That is a reflection on the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who came in his place.


Robert James Manion: I will let the Minister of Trade and Commerce take care of himself. I might tell the hon. gentleman that the only thing that saved him from a visit from me was a rain storm. He can thank the storm for interfering on his behalf.


Albert Joseph Brown: The Minister of Trade and Commerce could not say that.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I understand the
minister has had some correspondence from the secretary of a comparatively new organization in the west known as the interprovincial traffic conference. Mr. Smith, the secretary, who at one time was associated with the Saskatchewan government, has been actively engaged in promoting the cause of the Hudson Bay railway. This organization held a meeting recently at Saskatoon, and I should like to quote from a letter addressed by the secretary to the minister. It reads:
For the specific purpose of developing export and import trade through Churchill in a businesslike way, the interprovincial trade and traffic conference, with representatives present from western cities, towns, wholesale and retail
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay

merchants' associations, boards of trade, and the executive officers of the provincial wheat, live stock, egg and poultry pools, met at Saskatoon on January 12, and carefully reviewed the entire Hudson bay situation to earnestly ascertain what steps are necessary to enable the Hudson Bay railway to handle its proper share of the export traffic originating in, and the import traffic destined to, western Canada.
The object of this body is, I think, to cooperate with my hon. friend and to reciprocate in regard to his invitation to the west to try to make further use of this new outlet, they passed a number of resolutions. As this letter is dated only January 16, I was wondering whether the minister had had time yet to consider the matter.. The minister knows one shipment of oattle has gone out via Churchill even with the very poor loading facilities there. I understand there are no modern facilities for bringing coal in by the bay route. A little memorandum attached to the resolution indicates what an interminable time it took to unload coal from the Pennyworth. As regards Churchill coal handling facilities, the resolution reads:
That in order to secure fair and reasonable ocean rates on export grain it is essential that every effort be made to provide coal and all other westbound cargo for ships trading to Churchill.
The attached memorandum reads:
The conference is aware of the time consumed in discharging only 1,000 tons of coal from the Pennyworth last August-five and one-half working days, or less than 200 tons per day-and it is, therefore, obvious that no vessel owner would' quote reasonable ocean rates on coal unless assured of proper dispatch, which evidently is not obtainable at present.
It is, of course, also a fact that Churchill' is the only port in the world without proper coal handling facilities.
I was wondering what the chances were for some of those facilities being provided. Of course, we know Rome was not built in a day, but time is dragging along and it has taken about fifty years to obtain this northern outlet, so that everything in reason should be done to facilitate trade coming in and going out of it. Cattle yards and coal handling facilities are asked for in addition to a request, about which the minister may have heard something, for a storage warehouse to be established at The Pas. The reason given in that connection is that it is to facilitate trade via that route. What hope has my hon. friend held out or has he held out any to Mr. Smith, or can he hold out any hope to us that some of these very necessary facilities will be provided in the reasonably near future?


Robert James Manion: I am glad to say that I can hold out more than hope, because at least some of the things .that Mr. Smith suggests have already been done.


William Richard Motherwell: What are they?


Robert James Manion: I shall deal with them seriatim. I have his letter before me and have looked into it pretty thoroughly; I was already aware of some of the requirements.
As regards coal, the resolution which the hon. gentleman read covers that, and Mr. Smith, to put the matter briefly, suggests that we put in a completely up-to-date coal handling plant. To do that would cost about $300,000. At Churchill we have a coal handling plant, a locomotive crane type of machine, which cost us, in round figures, about $50,000. It is true it is not a particularly up-to-date method, but when one remembers that the only coal that has so far come in to Churchill was taken there by ourselves, this does not encourage one to think of spending $300,000 at this time and I cannot say that we are even considering it. I mentioned this in part a few moments ago: The first year when two ships came in there, one or other or both had some coal that the captain of the ship washed to get rid of because he wanted to have more room for outgoing wheat. To help him, wre took this coal, amounting to about 500 tons, off his hands. That was in 1931. No coal was taken off in 1932 and last year we again took about 1,100 tons of British coal, the reason being that it was a very high type and one of the two dredges which we had there we were shipping around into the St. Lawrence basin in order to transfer it to the Department of Marine. We have done this because we have no need for two dredges at Churchill at present. Those two shipments of 500 tons in 1931 and about 1,100 tons last year, or 1,600 tons in all, which would make perhaps one-third of a cargo, constitute nearly all the coal that has been unloaded at Churchill and we took it there ourselves. Naturally, my hon. friend who is usually reasonable must realize that we would not be justified on that basis, since we already have a coal handling plant there, in spending at the present time some $300,000 on an up-to-date plant.
Any ships coming in there now can be unloaded by the plant we have. It is true it does not unload as fast as a modem plant would do, but in going into the matter some time ago with my officers I found that the slowness of the unloading was due rather to the construction of the ships that come in there than to the plant itself. The keel of the ship has a shaft tunnel where the coal

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
sits upon it in such a way that the lower part of the coal has to be taken out by hand. It cannot be taken out by the clamshell type of coal handling plant and consequently it has to be shovelled into buckets, so that the slowness is largely due to the construction of the ships themselves and not to the plant. This may be of interest and it may be questioned by some of the people who wish to ship in coal; it may be questioned by Mr. Smith and some of his associates.
As I have already mentioned, we were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that 200 head of cattle were handled out of Churchill and they were handled in the ordinary way. It is true we have not any pens at that port, but in this estimate we have a sum of $500 to construct pens there for 200 head. We also have pens at The Pas and Hudson Bay junction, so that we shall be in reasonably good shape to handle any cattle offered for shipment overseas.
Therefore I think, taking Mr. Smith's letter as a whole, we have already attended fairly well to his suggestions and I do not think the government, under present financial conditions, should be asked to move more rapidly than it has already done.


William Richard Motherwell: That is quite satisfactory as far as it goes. Of course I did not know what answer my hon. friend had made to Mr. Smith or what he was including in the estimates, but the results of the cattle shipments were so satisfactory last year, I understand they netted the producers $10 per head more than they would have got elsewhere. That is very substantial these days when the price of cattle is so low. And they anticipate shipping about 4,000 head by that route, so that would justify this new expenditure.
In regard to coal, we cannot expect much coal to come that way if there is such long delay in handling it. It is true there may be something faulty in the ship, but there would be no traffic at all if there were no port or railway, and if the facilities are lacking that would hinder too. This organization is very active in trying to promote traffic by that route, and of course there is always a certain disposition to make sport of a new route, especially one that is seeking to get some traffic that now goes by other routes. That is the experience of all new routes; they have to hustle for their traffic and against many handicaps.
May I mention another resolution that I have? It was addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, if he does not mind my mentioning it on this estimate, lest we
forget it on his. It is with respect to the interior terminal elevator at Saskatoon. I understand it is empty, and they are asking for certain storage conditions similar to what they get at Churchill, so that the wheat could be assembled at Saskatoon during the winter and be prepared to forward on to Churchill as soon as possible in the spring.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will deal with that when my estimates are up.


William Richard Motherwell: The chances are we will forget it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am well acquainted with the point.


William Richard Motherwell: I mean I might forget it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think there is any danger.


William Richard Motherwell: At any rate that is good news about the cattle yards, because with all the disabilities of any new route, if they are helped by proper facilities and proper pens it will be a great encouragement to ship cattle that way, in addition to the $10 extra they get.
Before I sit down might I inquire what the chances are with respect to the insurance rates? That after all is the bugbear there. I do not know the exact rates by the bay route, but they were represented by the minister himself last year as being four or five times higher on grain than by the St. Lawrence route, and the rates on the St. Lawrence are high compared with those for Atlantic ports to the south. So when you consider that these insurance rates are four or five times as high as on the St. Lawrence and the rates on the St. Lawrence higher again than the ports farther south, it is a marvel to me that anything goes out or comes in by the Churchill route at all. Something surely could be done, now that thei'e have been no more Bright Fans looking around for icebergs to nose into, as I think we have lived that down. There is at any rate always lots of deep water by the Hudson bay route; the straits are sixty to one hundred miles wide and not quite that deep, but there is no danger as regards depth of water. The same thing is true in entering Churchill; there is abundance of water even at low tide and abundance of shelter when you are in the harbour. There is no earthly reason that I can see why there should be such ghastly insurance rates by the bay route after at least two years of trial. I fear that until something is done in the way of the government

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
carrying part of that insurance or the establishing of a national marine insurance branch in the marine department, not for that port alone but for all the ports of Canada and doing it at cost, they will all suffer. I do not know about the Pacific coast, but at any rate the St. Lawrence and bay routes are handicapped as compared with the Atlantic ports further south. There is no disability that I know of on the Pacific coast; it is open the whole year round, and like Hudson bay has ample depth of water, and first-class ports. So I urge on my hon. friend that he do not cease from his labours in trying to secure better insurance rates on goods coming into and going out of Churchill. I understand that the provincial government at Regina has succeeded in getting reduced rates from a certain company-I do not know which it is; I got it from the newspapers. I do not know the extent of the reduction, but if a province can succeed in doing something along this line, surely with the larger authority of the federal minister he could do more in the same direction.


Robert James Manion: I think the hon. gentleman was not in his seat when I dealt elaborately with the insurance question. I did point out that a great deal of work has been done and that the rate has been lowered.


William Richard Motherwell: I had to go upstairs for this correspondence; I am sorry.
Mr. MANIO'N: I will say it briefly again. A great deal of work has been done. In 1931 the rate was 2 per cent on cargo; last year it was only II per cent, so that it has been cut nearly fifty per cent, largely through the efforts of the marine department, dealing with the imperial shipping committee, and my own department pressing it upon Hon. Howard Ferguson. Both the government and those associated with the government in that regard have worked energetically to get insurance rates cut, and have succeeded. Without doubt as traffic at Churchill increases the rates will come down; but we are not neglecting it, we are pressing it on every possible occasion. For example I have in my hand figures as to a cargo from Montreal and from Churchill, showing that on a cargo of say 300,000 bushels of grain worth 75 cents a bushel the insurance out of Churchill would be a little over SI 1,000 whereas out of Montreal it would be just under $2,000. That agrees with the figures I gave a few moments ago, Churchill about five times as high; but of course on the other hand Churchill has a very heavy advantage over Montreal in that the rail haul to Churchill is very much shorter. The matter of marine 
insurance rates is not in the control of the government, but the government is making every possible effort, both my own department and the Department of Marine, to have these rates, and freight rates too for that matter, reduced, and without doubt they will be reduced gradually, as they have already been, in accordance with the increase of traffic from the port.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I might take a few minutes to enlighten some hon. members on the situation at Churchill. Some question was raised about the length of the season. May I say that the season at present taken as being the navigation season is that set by the marine insurance underwriters at London, not the actual season prevailing at Churchill. The underwriters say a boat must pass out of the straits before October 15. There has only been one attempt on the part of this government to make any investigation into ice conditions in Hudson bay or straits. That tvas in 1927 and 1928, when the late government

1 give them credit for it-sent a fleet of airplanes there and established three bases in the straits, known as bases A, B and C. Instructions were given to fly the straits every day -that was fit for flying and gather data. I think we are justified in accepting their statements as being at least something towards an accurate representation of ice conditions in the straits, and from their observations I take the following particulars:
Ice first reported, 1927 Base "B"	Base "C"	Base "A"
Nov. 1G, 1927 Dec. 3, 1927 Nov. 30, 1927
Ice first reported, 1928 Base "B"	Base "C"	Base "A"
Nov. 15, 1928 Nov. 28, 1928 Dec. 9, 1928
In spite of this our friends in the old country tell us that boats must be out of the straits on or before October 15. Many captains and other men who know those northern waters, men who are not making guesses-I name only one, Captain Bernier-do not hesitate to say that the season is much longer than the underwriters allow. The point I want to make is that no real investigation has ever been made in late fall and when anyone says that the navigation season at Churchill is from the 7th of August to the 15th of October he is simply using the dates set by the marine underwriters in England, who do not know much more about it than a lot of hon. gentlemen in this house.


John Power Howden: May I ask when the ice forms in the bay at Churchill?

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Bernard Munroe Stitt: An icebreaker could keep the port of Churchill open for perhaps two or three weeks longer than it is open to-day. That is being done in other parts of Canada; you only have to refer to the estimates to see how much is being spent for icebreakers on the St. Lawrence. I am not going into that, however. I think it is safe to assume that Churchill could operate until December 1, and I hope that further investigations will be undertaken. The department keeps a boat in the straits to aid vessels during the navigation season; it is one of the best boats we have, the N. B. McLean, but as soon as the last boat goes out through the straits the McLean is called back to the St. Lawrence, so no investigation is carried on after that date. The only data the government have is from those two years for November and December, and I hope they will carry on their investigations in the future.
With regard to the insurance rates, the minister covered the situation with regard to the discrepancies between Churchill and Montreal. With regard to the advantages of Churchill, I may say that it is approximately the same distance from Churchill to Liverpool as it is from Halifax to Liverpool, and we all know the difficulties that ships experience in going down that long, tortuous St. Lawrence river. The Pennyworth was mentioned by the minister, who said there was some hope of her coming to Churchill next year. I want to disabuse his mind on that score. The Pennyworth, after making two trips to Churchill, piled up on the Isle of Orleans in the St. Lawrence and was a total loss. When in Churchill the captain made it clear to all that he would very much prefer to go (to Churchill than to Montreal. The last boat that carried cattle, the Brandon, made two trips, and the captain stated to me that he could easily make three trips to Churchill in a season, and intended to do so next year if he could get a cargo. That was the last boat out. The Brandon is owned by one of the largest shipping companies in Scotland, but that boat did not carry a penny of insurance on the hull. Yet the captain made two trips and said he hoped to make three trips next year; that is how much he is worrying about the terrors of Hudson bay.
In regard to the cattle I have a statement from the Saskatchewan Co-Operative Livestock Producers Ltd., which may be of interest. It is signed by J. C. Hackney, and states:
The average net return to the producers around Prince Albert from the "Brandon" shipment was $31 per head. Some of the
heavier cattle which were well fleshed brought the higher net returns, in some cases being as high as $36, $37 or $38 per head. Some of the lighter, good quality, feeder cattle brought slightly below $31 per head, no doubt because they were not ready for killing on arrival. Knowing the prices at the Winnipeg market when the cattle were shipped, and also at the time the returns were received for these cattle, we are quite safe in saying that the producers at Prince Albert received $10 per head more than they would have received had the cattle been sold on the Winnipeg market at that time. Some of them would not have realized over $16 or $17 apiece at the Winnipeg market.
So there is quite an advantage in shipping cattle by that route. Just developing that point a little further, someone asked about comparative rates, and I am going to give them. I know my hon. friends from the east do not like it, but they are going to get them anyway. Here are the comparative rates as between Montreal and Churchill on cattle:
	To	To
From-	Montreal	Churchill
Union Stock Yards, St.		
Boniface	$170	$116Brandon	176	112Swan River	202	94Yorkton	202	96Prince Albert	227	100North Battleford	227	108Saskatoon	225	102Regina	. 214	104Moose Jaw	221	108Edmonton	229	126Calgary	. 229	132I think those figures speak for themselves.


Robert James Manion: Were	those rates for cars	
of cattle?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Yes, the	rate per
car of 20,000 pounds.


Peter McGibbon: Just for my own inform-		
ation, could my hon. friend give the rates from these respective points to Liverpool?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: The shipping rate is on the basis of so much per head, and I do not know just how the rates compare out of Montreal. Last j'ear they had distress rates in Montreal, and when steamships are carrying cargoes at less than cost you cannot get a fair comparison. That is what nearly wrecked Churchill last summer. Just when the season opened in Churchill, for some reason the shippers on the great lakes reduced their rate from the head of the lakes to Montreal to 3i cents per bushel, although some of the presidents and general managers of the shipping companies had stated under oath that the bare cost was 6 cents a bushel and that the average cost of carrying grain from the head of the lakes to Montreal for the last ten years was 8 cents.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Mr. HOW  DEN@: May I ask how that shipment of cattle stood the journey?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: They arrived in the old country in first class condition and were sold at the dock right off the boat. I do not think anyone in western Canada would be guillible enough to believe that the distress rates now existing in Montreal, which wrecked that route last summer by charging less than cost to carry grain, are going to remain in force. There is no doubt that the rate on the great lakes will go back to 8, 10 or 12 cents, so I hope the farmers of the west will not be misled by the low rates which were in force last year. I notice also that the directors of the Saskatchewan pool have instructed the pool management to use the port of Churchill even if at times it is cheaper to ship via the great lakes, when freight rates on the lakes are very low, as they were in 1933, which condition the pool and other grain firms recognize as extraordinary and unusual. At present the pool, according to Mr. Gibson, one of the officials in Winnipeg, intends to ship at least 4,000,000 bushels through Churchill in 1934. They have 2,000,000 bushels stored at Churchill now. Mr. Brunswick, manager for Dreyfus in Winnipeg, is at present in New York trying to interest the Dreyfus office there in asking the government to build 2,000,000 bushels storage at Churchill, which they would lease for a long term. The Continental Grain Company are equally interested, and these are the two companies that shipped all the grain out of Churchill in the first two years of its existence. Only last year did the Saskatchewan pool become interested. I sincerely hope the pool will continue to use Churchill, because they represent the people who have been shouting for this route for the last fifty years, and if they are not willing to use it I do not know where else we are going to look for traffic. The facilities are there; they are the very best that money can buy. The port is admirably managed; everything possible is done for those who come there, and I am quite sure that this practice will continue. I hope that in the very near future the government will find it necessary to organize a proper port commission or appoint a manager there who will be given full charge of the port.
May I say in conclusion that in my opinion the best way to get the insurance rates lowered is to have the people interested in this route use it. A large volume of traffic and a low loss ratio will do more to bring down the rates than anything else on the face of 
the earth, and I sincerely hope all the western members will do their part in trying to interest their people in that route, because it means the economic salvation of western Canada.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to delay
my own estimates, but I should like to say a word in reply to my hon. friend. He has been a very enthusiastic supporter of this route; in that I am glad to encourage him and to agree with him, but when he makes the statement that since 1927 or 1928 the government has made no investigation into ice conditions, I must disagree. As a matter of fact, investigations into ice conditions have been going on since 1926, and every year we are spending out of our estimates from $25,000 to $50,000 in connection with the investigation of ice conditions. I have asked my deputy and my engineer to give me some information as to how much the Department of Marine, which operates the N.B. McLean, a very fine icebreaking steamship, spends for the same purpose. They estimate that the Department of Marine spends probably $200,000 per year. So, if the figures for the Department of Marine and my department are correct, it would appear that since 1926 we have spent yearly something like $200,000 or $250,000 investigating ice conditions. I say that to my hon. friend because I wish him to have his information absolutely watertight, as apparently he had not before. I presume his reference was to-


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I referred to late
fall and winter investigations.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is not correct there, because we make a late fall investigation. In fact, in a minute or two I will give him the actual dates when it was considered impossible for ships to go out. We spent from $25,000 to $50,000 upon the Ocean Eagle. The ship of the Marine department is the steamship N.B. McLean. Both ships conduct a very thorough investigation each year. They are endeavouring to get and have been successful in getting data which is of great use to the port. The hon. member was rather severe in his statement concerning my remarks a little while ago as to dates. I knew I would probably get into trouble, but I do not think it is wise to exaggerate in favour of Hudson bay. I certainly am only endeavouring to give the facts, and I suggest, not only to my hon. friend but to any other hon. member in any part of the house, that he will not do any service to Hudson bay, to the port of Churchill or to the Hudson bay route by making statements which are not in accord-

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
anoe with the facts. Of course, I am not attempting to suggest that my hon. friend did so intentionally, but I wish to point out that according to my officers we have had ships stuck in the ice and unable to get out on August 6. So when I gave the dates of August 8 and October 9, I was fair. I gave a date two days later than a date in one season when a ship was stuck in the ice.
One of the important points about the port of Churchill is that it does not matter whether it is Hudson strait, or the harbour itself which freezes up or gets blocked. If you can get through the channel of Hudson strait and cannot get into the harbour your ship is of no use to you. If you can get out of the harbour but cannot get through the strait, again your ship is of no use to you. Your success in navigation depends on the ice condition in both places.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: An icebreaker could
handle the harbour, could it not?


Robert James Manion: To a certain extent, for a
few days. But when freezing begins it freezes up rapidly. I have read a number of reports coming down year after year, and I have learned that once it begins to freeze it freezes rapidly. No doubt it could be kept open a certain length of time if we were sure when the season would end. The dates given to me show that the harbour opens about June 15 and closes about October 20, but ice coming down from Fox channel and Hudson strait blocks the other end. The report of George Kydd, the engineer on the ground, states that in 1933 the following was the condition:	"On
October 22, the river is full of ice." Remember, that is on October 22. Then, on October 10, 1932, he said, "Ice down the river this morning." In 1931, it was October 31 before the ice blocked, and in 1930 it was October 20. I give those figures from the reports the engineer and the deputy have at hand. I had an opportunity to read from them when the hon. member for Nelson was speaking.
I have no desire to give anything but the facts. I do hope the hon. member will bear in mind that between the departments of Marine and Railways and Canals $200,000 to $250,000 is being spent each year in an endeavour to get data. In addition to that it must be remembered that ships are looking for cargoes, and particularly in these days when ships are selling for almost nothing. There is no doubt that men like Mr. Dalgleish, with whom I had the pleasure of crossing the ocean upon my recent trip, are only too anxious to get their ships in there
at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Dalgleish is a very fine old ship owner, a man who has handled ships all his life.
Information I have before me shows that last year the Pennyworth was the first ship in on August 13, and that the last ship departed on October 2. I believe that a conservative effort is being made-and I am not speaking politically-by this government, and a conservative effort was made by the late government, to give everything in the shape of a fair deal to the Churchill route. I believe all parts of the country may rest assured that, having in view the pressure from the western provinces, and particularly Manitoba and Saskatchewan, any government will endeavour to give a fair deal to that route. 'Certainly it is our desire, and I believe it was that of the late government to do likewise. The only point is that I think we should be given a little more credit probably, for what has been done. Certain people, perhaps for political reasons and perhaps for others-certainly not for political reasons in the case of my hon. friend

have belittled the efforts that have been made. I repeat we are making every effort to give the port a very fair deal, and with the improvement in world business, which we all hope has begun, I am sincerely hoping that next year Churchill will have a much greater amount of traffic than it had last year.


Thomas Reid: I	should like to have a
little more information on freight rates. During the course of his remarks I believe the minister gave the rate of 3s. 9d. out of Churchill as against Is. 6d. out of Montreal. I believe those are the figures he gave. The implication was that wheat was being landed as cheaply in the old country through the port of Churchill as it could be through other ports, particularly Montreal. My point is this: I should like to know the freight rates by rail, and as to whether or not the Dominion government sets that rail rate. It appears to me that rates must be very low if 3s. 9d. is the rate by boat and Is. 6d. through Montreal.


Robert James Manion: The rate I was giving was the water rate. In quoting 3s. 9d. from Churchill as against Is. 6d. from Montreal the hon. member was quoting the rate I gave for 1931. The rates through Churchill have gone down since then. In 1933 the rates through Churchill are 2s. 6d. and 2s. 9d. against the rate of Is. 3d. to Is. 9d. through Montreal. It is about half. In 1931, the rates from Montreal were just a little less
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay

than a third of the rates from Churchill. But last year the rate from Montreal was just half of that from Churchill. It is indicated therefore that Churchill has been gaining.
My hon. friend asked a further question concerning railway rates. Of course, the government has not anything to do with that. Railway rates to Churchill have been put on exactly the same basis as railway rates to other parts, from the grain growing sections of the west. They are the Crowsnest rates established at Churchill, just as they have been established to the head of the lakes and west to Vancouver.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is the rate per hundred pounds?


Robert James Manion: It is per quarter.
Mr. BRADETTE Speaking of a comparison of shipping insurance rates from Churchill and Montreal can the minister tell us if during the last three years there has been a decrease in the shipping navigation rates between Montreal and the head of the lakes. I have in mind an article which appeared in some of the newspapers last fall to the effect that certain interests were trying to paralyze the ^ activities at Churchill by lowering the navigation rates from the head of the lakes to Montreal.


Robert James Manion: Without a doubt the rates during the last couple of years from the head of the lakes to Montreal have been exceedingly low. One cargo in fact went down from the head of the lakes to Montreal for 2f cents a bushel, an almost unprecedentedly low rate. But that was only one cargo. Many cargoes, however, went down for 3| cents. The average for the season last year, as I stated in the debate on tolls for canals the other evening, was something under five cents a bushel from the head of the lakes to Montreal.
Referring to the second portion of my hon. friend s remarks, the low rate last year from the head of the lakes by water to Montreal would undoubtedly cut into Churchill, and into Vancouver to a certain extent because the lake route has advantages certainly over Churchill and possibly over Vancouver in that a shipload of grain coming down from the head of the lakes may stop at Port Col-borne or go to Buffalo, continue to Montreal, or stop at Prescott, or be stored at Port Colborne or at Buffalo, and then shipped to New York or Montreal, perhaps get into some of the mills there or be shipped clear across the ocean. It is a route with many outlets, and that is one of the disadvantages that the Churchill route is up against, because once
TMr. Manion.]
grain goes up to Churchill in the fall, when navigation is closed, at is tied up at Churchill until the following year and cannot get out either by water or by rail, for there would not be a haul back by rail, whereas grain coming down from the head of the lakes to Montreal has many outlets by rail at any season of the year, and many different routes by which it may go by water. I do not think it probable that the low rates of last year from the head of the lakes to Montreal will continue indefinitely because it is not likely that the shipping interests will permit operation at such a low rate, but if those low rates did remain, they would undoubtedly cut into the business going out of Churchill, and out of Vancouver to a certain extent.


James J. Donnelly: Does the wheat stored at Churchill during the winter months get a special rate or pay one-thirtieth of a cent per bushel a day?


Robert James Manion: I thought it was a lower rate than Montreal, but my deputy says that it is the same. At any rate it is a very low rate, one-ninetieth of a cent per bushel per day at Churchill, which is the lowest rate at any port in Canada, and a lower rate, as I read it here, than the Montreal rate. At all events it is equal to, if not lower than, the lowest rate in Canada.


James J. Donnelly: That is only for the
winter months?


Robert James Manion: Yes, although we have
been giving very low rates to encourage the port and give it a fair trial.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There are three observations that I would like to make to the minister. One is as to giving credit where credit is due. That is a principle that I think is _ quite correct in public business and in private life. The minister paid tribute to the Hon. Howard Ferguson and to the Saskatchewan government for their services in building up public opinion in favour of the Hudson Bay route and business over that route. It seems to me that the very foundation of the development of traffic over the Hudson Bay railway and route from Saskatchewan to the markets of the old land and Europe has been largely the effective work done by the Saskatchewan traffic council. The council represents the boards of trade of the province, the boards of trade of Regina, Weyburn, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Prince Albert. Yorkton, North Battleford, Swift Current and other cities. This council, as I understand it, has organized the business men of Saskatchewan into a solid business unit for developing business for the Hudson Bay route.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
This council is cooperating with the Saskatchewan government. As the minister has been handing out parliamentary bouquets this afternoon to Mr. Ferguson and the Saskatchewan government I think we ought also to hand out a parliamentary bouquet to the wheat pool, farmers and the business men of the province of Saskatchewan who are doing their best to develop traffic over the Hudson Bay route to the markets of the old world. Perhaps the minister after making reference to the two parties I have mentioned, will also give his support to the good work that is being done by the Saskatchewan traffic council, under the able leadership of Mr. Smith, who is an organizer of splendid ability.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection. I have no doubt that they have been doing good work. I am, however, not so familiar with their work. I remember that a year or so ago some of them called upon me in my office, and through that call I think Mr. Ireland was ultimately appointed by the government of Saskatchewan as traffic solicitor for the Hudson Bay route. I am very glad indeed to give credit where credit is due, but I did not know so much about the work of the council as I did about the work that Mr. Merkley and the Saskatchewan government were doing, and Mr. Howard Ferguson.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was quite sure that the minister would, as he has explained, give credit to the council and business men of Saskatchewan for the good work already accomplished. At the meeting of the traffic conference at Saskatoon last fall a representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce was present and I could readily see that not only the railway department but the Department of Trade and Commerce was quite anxious to further the work referred to.
There is another observation I wish to make namely, that with regard to the pledge that was made by the present government in 1930. I will quote just a line of it. It ran thus:
We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay railway and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily available to every part of Canada.
I do not know whether I should take advantage of this opportunity to say a word in connection with branch line development in northwest Saskatchewan as a link in the development of Hudson Bay traffic. I think I shall make a brief contribution on that subject at some other time. What I want to say now is that in reference to that pledge 74726-57
I asked the minister a question in the house on Friday, February 16, just a week ago today, concerning employment at Fort Churchill. My question was this:
I have a question to direct to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). It is directly connected with possible port development at Churchill this summer. Many unemployed men in northern Saskatchewan are anxious to obtain work at Churchill. Can the minister make a statement that will clarify the situation regarding employment at Churchill during the next few months?
The minister very kindly answered:
I will deal with that matter when the estimates are up. I think there will be plenty of time.
I was wondering if the minister was prepared to make any observations on that matter at the present moment.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and I am very glad that my hon. friend has brought it up because frankly I had forgotten. We have had in the past few years a large number of men at Churchill. Two years ago we had about six hundred of our own men, and last year about 350. In the coming year the number will naturally be considerably decreased1. My hon. friend was speaking particularly of the North Battleford district?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Northern Saskatchewan and especially the North Battleford business and farming area.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend must remember that Churchill is in the riding of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt). My hon. friend has been a member of this house for quite a number of years and he knows that where works are carried on in a particular riding the employees engaged are taken from that riding as much as possible, especially when there are large numbers of unemployed. I think that at least 300 out of the 340 came from the constituency of Nelson. In the coming year we do not expect to have the same number; last year we had from 300 to 350 while next year we will need only about 150. With the exception of a few trainmen who cannot be obtained in Nelson, the large proportion of employees were from that constituency. I think it is only right that that should be done as this has been the policy of all governments. We had to bring in grain elevator men who could not be supplied at Nelson. We brought in some men to work on the tugboats. A few of these men were brought from Nova Scotia, some from Quebec and some from Niagara Falls and other points on the great lakes. Most of the grain ele-



Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
vator men come from the head of the lakes. This is the largest grain centre in the world and best able to supply such men. Some came from Winnipeg. We have endeavoured to scatter this employment, but I repeat that it is only fair that when work is being carried on in a particular constituency, most of those employed should come from that locality, especially when there are a large number of unemployed.
Mr. MicINTOSH: I thank the minister for his statement, but there is another observation I should like to make. This is based on a communication I received from the Hudson Bay Junction board of trade and has to do with a matter brought before this committee this afternoon, namely the building of a warehouse at The Pas. The letter reads in part as follows:
A few weeks ago the Interprovincial Traffic Conference, meeting in Saskatoon, passed a resolution asking the Hudson Bay railway to build a warehouse at The Pas, Manitoba, for storing such goods as binder twine, wire fencing, et cetera, which would be imported by the bay route during the season and gradually sold throughout the balance of the year.
There are two reasons why the government should not expend money on the proposed warehouse at The Pas.
The first is that every pound of freight coming in by way of the bay to consumers on the prairies must pass through Hudson Bay Junction, which is ninety miles nearer the con-sunnner than is The Pas. I need not labour this point, as it will be perfectly obvious to you that the nearer to the consumer the goods can be hauled in carload lots, the shorter distance the consumer will have to pay local freight rates; consequently, the more money he can save. A single instance-taking all factors into consideration, a merchant at Yorkton buying barbed wire in less than carload lots would save eight cents per hundredweight if the distribution were made from Hudson Bay Junction instead of The Pas. In varying degrees, the same thing is true of all commodities.
The second reason is that there are already private companies interested in building such warehousing facilities in Hudson Bay Junction entirely at their own expense, and who are only deterred from doing so by the possibility that the government may be building in opposition to them at The Pas. Where wholesalers or others are prepared to make this expenditure, it would seem to be both unnecessary and inexcusable for the government to make it.
This letter is written by the secretary of the board of trade and is dated February 19, 1934. I have n-o desire to enter into any controversy between The Pas and Hudson Bay Junction in connection with the building of such a warehouse, nor do I wish to interfere in any way with the development of activities at The Pas, which is in the riding
[Mr Manion.] *
of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt), but I thought it would be wise to give the committee these facts in order that it may know any money spent at either place in the future may be spent wisely.


Robert James Manion: The railway is not likely to go into the storage warehouse business. At present there is a shed at Churchill measuring three hundred feet by one hundred and seventy-five feet and having a capacity of about 5,000 tons. Towards the end of the season this could be used for storage. At the present time no railway builds these storage warehouses.


James J. Donnelly: I was rather surprised at what the minister said with regard to the bringing in of coal. He stated that coal brought in to Churchill could compete only within 300 miles of that port. I should like to know if he was referring to soft coal or to Welsh anthracite. This latter coal is used in Winnipeg and I cannot see why it could not be brought in 'through Hudson bay and sent down to Winnipeg just as cheaply as from Montreal.


Robert James Manion: I was referring to old country coal. The figures I gave were not my own but were those compiled by experts. They state that British coal will not compete with Canadian coal beyond 300 to 350 miles south of Churchill. I am informed that coal can be taken up the lakes and shipped to Winnipeg at a rate cheaper than that which would apply to shipments via Churchill. It is a startling fact when one realizes that Winnipeg is about a thousand miles south and east from Churchill. That means a long rail haul, whereas coal being landed at the head of the lakes has a rail haul of only about 425 miles. It can be moved more cheaply from Montreal than it can around by Churchill.


James J. Donnelly: Practically all western cities are using American anthracite brought in through Fort William and the people on the prairies cannot understand why coal could not be brought in to Churchill just as cheaply as American coal can be brought in through Fort William.


Robert James Manion: American coal pays only about 17 cents per ton from the coal fields to the head of the lakes.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 16, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Davies.

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Gobeii in the chair.
Railways and canals-chargeable to capital-
Hudson Bay railway and terminals-construction and betterments (including E. B. Jost at $2,250), $550,000.
James Layton Ralston: Is there at the present
time any aerial service on Hudson bay particularly in connection with ice conditions?


Robert James Manion: There is none at present and there has been none since 1928 or thereabouts.


James Layton Ralston: The minister was asked
this afternoon with regard to a small quantity of coal that came into Churchill. I understood him to say that this coal was transferred to the Department of Marine.


Robert James Manion: No. The' first boat that
came in during the first season had about 500 tons of coal which they wanted to get rid of.


James Layton Ralston: Excess bunker coal.


Robert James Manion: Yes; we took that over
from them. It was only 500 tons, and it did not make any particular difference. That was in 1931. Last year the Department of Railways and Canals transferred to the Department of Marine one of the dredges at Churchill and got credit for half its original cost. To transfer that dredge we needed a high B.T.U. coal because of the small space available therefor on the dredge and the tug; accordingly it was decided to use Welsh coal, so we took about 1,100 tons for that purpose. That is the only coal that has been brought in via Churchill.


James Layton Ralston: The dredge and tug were taken from where to where?


Robert James Manion: From Churchill to the St. Lawrence river, to Gaspe.


James Layton Ralston: Transferred to the Department of Marine?


Robert James Manion: Yes.
74726-57J	;


James J. Donnelly: Can the minister give
us the difference in price between coal laid down in Churchill and that laid down in Montreal?


Robert James Manion: We have not any prices.
I thought my hon. friend meant Welsh as compared with western coal.


James J. Donnelly: What is the price of
Welsh coal laid down in Churchill?


Robert James Manion: It costs us 86.80 laid down in Churchill.


James Layton Ralston: Is that the coal which
was used on the dredge and tug?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The minister spoke of the B.T.U. content of the coal; would it be 13,000 or more?


Robert James Manion: I am informed that the
Welsh was 13,000 as compared with about
11,000	for western coal.


James Layton Ralston: What about eastern coal?


Robert James Manion: No eastern coal has been
brought up there. I should be very glad to get it; I would rather see eastern than Welsh or British coal. That would be a logical movement for coal, but there is no sign of it coming that way. Of course, ships coming in have been from the other side, from Britain, and if they had a cargo, they would bring it from over there. There is no sign of any maritime province coal being brought in. If we are to have competition with western coal I would rather have it with Canadian than British coal.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I was not listening as I should have done this afternoon. Do I understand that cargoes of coal have come in?


Robert James Manion: None except what I mentioned just now.


James Layton Ralston: And this Welsh coal that was used for the purpose of taking the dredge to Gaspe was some that had been bunkered?


Robert James Manion: No, it was brought in for this purpose:	on account of the lower
B.T.U.'s of western coal and the small space available for coal on the tug and dredge, we had to take coal with a high B.T.U. content. Therefore we got the Welsh for that purpose.


James Layton Ralston: Was a cargo or just a small quantity brought in?

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Robert James Manion: It amounted to 1,160 tons or thereabouts. It would not be a cargo, simply a partial cargo.


James Layton Ralston: Just a small parcel
ordered for shipment on some grain boat that was coming over?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Where will the men be hired who are to work in Churchill, and can any man who reaches Churchill get a job?


Robert James Manion: This year we shall require only about 150 men. Last year we had about 350 and the previous year, about 600. This year, as so few are required and as there is great unemployment in the town of The Pas, it was decided that in all probability 95 per cent of them would come from that district, the other five per cent being made up of a few trained men for special tugboat or grain elevator work.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to get an exact idea about the importations of coal via Churchill. Do I understand that the only coal which has been brought in is this 1,100 ton parcel, plus a parcel of about 500 tons left over in Churchill?


Robert James Manion: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: The rest of the coal used there has been western?


Robert James Manion: That is correct. We use about 5,000 tons a year of coal from the west.


James Layton Ralston: Lignite or bituminous?


Robert James Manion: Bituminous.


James Layton Ralston: Has the department looked into the question of cost of bringing maritime coal in there?


Robert James Manion: I am informed that we have no figures. I did not know that we had looked into it at all. It would be a matter of some steamship that might be in the St. Lawrence taking on a load and bringing it around to Churchill.


James Layton Ralston: Not necessarily the St. Lawrence.


Robert James Manion: No, but in the martimes
and the St. Lawrence; in some of our Canadian ports. It is not likely that a British ship would come across and pick up coal there.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any traffic at all between either the St. Lawrence or Nova Scotia and Churchill?!


Robert James Manion: There has been only the Hudson bay steamer, the Nascopie, which goes around annually. A year or so ago a small boat was taken in by Bishop Turquetil for his own use. There has been no local traffic. There have been one or two ships from Montreal that have come into Churchill, taken a cargo and gone back to Montreal, but there has really been no traffic between the two sections.


Mr. VENIOT:: Supplies have also been taken in by water from Halifax.


Robert James Manion: That is quite right, but the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth asked as to the traffic. There have been no cargoes beyond a few taken in at the time of the original construction, some to Port Nelson and the others to Churchill. But at the present time practically everything comes by rail from The Pas.
Mr.	RALSTON:	Is	the	situation such
that all the supplies necessary can be got from the west, that there is no need of the department bringing up supplies say from the maritime provinces or the St. Lawrence?
Mr.	MANION:	No,	we	get everything
from the west.


James Layton Ralston: So there is no prospect
at the present time of having any steamers run from the maritimes or the St. Lawrence, as far as the departmental work is concerned?
Mr.	MANION:	No,	not	as far as the
departmental work is concerned.


Frank Roland MacMillan: Has any
one in the maritime provinces endeavoured to create trade through Churchill from the maritimes?


Robert James Manion: Not that I know of, but
I presume that is a matter that would be gladly gone into by maritime province interests if they had the opportunity. The traffic has been very light. The only outward traffic has been grain, with the exception of a cargo and a half of general freight that went in, and one cargo of cattle and a few other commodities that came out.


Mr. YALLANCE:: Tins afternoon there
was some discussion on this item regarding the operation of the elevator at Churchill. I would like to ask the minister if he has the information at hand as to how many men were engaged at the elevator last year to handle the volume of grain he mentioned. While the minister's assistant is looking that up I would like to ask if they are affected by the ten per cent cut as government employees?

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Robert James Manion: Those employed the year
round would be affected.
Mr. VALLAN'CE:	How many would that
be?


Robert James Manion: It is being looked up.


Mr. HEENAN:: The point that is brought out now takes us back pretty much to where we were the other evening when discussing the principle of the ten per cent cut. I hardly think it is fair that the minister should ask us to vote on an item in which is included salaries or wages. Items involving the ten per cent deduction were allowed to stand the other night, the minister was very decent about it, but now we are asked to pass on an item such as the house and the minister himself previously decided should be allowed to stand.


Robert James Manion: First I will answer the
question of the hon. member for South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance). Thirty-seven is the number.
In regard to the statement of my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), I admit that that was brought up the other night, but none of the other three items that were dealt with to-day included any employees. They were surveys and inspections, printing and stationery, and pensions on the Prince Edward Island Railway. This of course takes in, in addition to the temporary men working there during the summer, some year round men. But I cannot see what difference it makes, because the question of the ten per cent will be decided as a whole, and even if an item carries at the present moment in which there may be a few employees who would be affected, they will be treated exactly the same when the time comes as	those who	come under the civil
government estimates.
Last year when this question arose no item was held	up	except	the	civil governmentestimates. We went on and dealt with all such items as this. With all respect I suggest that	we	should	do	exactly the samethis year. When the question whether or not there is to be a cut is finally settled, certainly if this item should be carried to-night these men will	not	be in	any	different position
from others where the item has not been carried. I should not agree to my department being treated differently from any other. I submit with all respect that there is no reason for holding up the business of the house because of this. I will agree that we should do exactly as was done last year- not deal with any item of civil government. I think that is a good precedent.


Peter Heenan: Can the minister give us
any idea when the government contemplates bringing in some measure on which that matter will be decided? We want to be as accommodating as possible. I think the minister is very reasonable in his request, nevertheless when we pass one item we are passing on a principle. Speaking for myself, as the minister would say, I think we might do as he suggests, but really the house should know something about what is contemplated, rather than just go on promiscuously passing one item and another affecting thirty men here and ten there. These are the items on which I personally detest voting this cut even more than to the civil service generally, because here we have thirty, forty and fifty cents an hour men, and we are passing these items but holding up those that perhaps involve $6,000 or $8,000 a year men. I think the minister will realize the predicament that puts the opposition in. I want to facilitate the business of the house as much as I can-


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Chairman, if my
colleague does not object, might I say with all deference to my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River that I do not subscribe to his point of view that the situation is such as to place the opposition in a predicament. We have naturally and I think properly yielded to their request not to proceed with civil government items involving the ten per cent cut. Coming to the other items, if you follow that idea in its ramifications there are very few votes that we could pass at all, and very little supply we could deal with. I submit to my hon. friend that in having protested against the ten per cent cut he is fully protected. He is not prejudiced in the slightest degree by these items passing, for example the one under review at the moment. I will ask my hon. friend to believe me when I say that every hon. member on this side of the house is just as anxious that the ten per cent cut should not be made effective this year as is my hon. friend or any of his associates on that side. The sole determining factor as to whether the cut will or will not take place is the question of the revenue, and the longer we defer a decision the better are the chances of the civil service to have that ten per cent restored. I may say this, and I say it not as captious criticism but merely as a statement of fact, that the attitude of the opposition in forcing the government to come to a decision in order to make progress in the passing of the estimates is not serving a helpful purpose as far as assistance to the civil service in the restore-

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
tion of the ten per cent cut is concerned. When the heads of the various civil service organizations met me last autumn I explained to them that it would be impossible to come to a decision then, and pointed out that in

asmuch as we have to have the estimates prepared for parliament before a decision *could be arrived at, we would have to set them up on the basis of a ten per cent cut. They quite understood the position and subscribed to it. I was to have a subsequent meeting with them, which will be in the very near future. Let me say this to my hon. friend that whatever action may be taken with respect to the ten per cent cut, it will have to be by specific legislation.


Robert James Manion: And it must be uniform.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: His position will not be prejudiced in the slightest degree if this item should pass in its present form.


Peter Heenan: I do not propose to cover the ground again with regard to the principle, and so on. After listening to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and realizing, not only by his words but by the look on his face as well, that there is some hope of the civil service getting their full salaries again, I will let the matter go as long as I can.


John Vallance: With all due deference to the Minister of Finance, I do not think it is fair to place on us the responsibility for the civil service not being given back the ten per cent deduction this year. I do not think it is fair for the minister, in spite of the kindly manner in which he has broached the subject, to place us in that position.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not wish to place any responsibility upon the opposition other than to indicate that to hasten a decision would lessen the likelihood of that decision being favourable. That was all I said; I did not mention responsibility, and I may say to my hon. friend that I absolve him from any anxiety with respect to any onus he may have to bear in that regard.


John Vallance: That is not the point. I object to the fact that the minister suggests that if we hasten the decision it may jeopardize the chances of the civil service of getting back the ten per cent deduction.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the decision will have to be made by the end of March, will it not?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, or before.


James Layton Ralston: And even if an adverse decision were reached, if the revenues became so abundant that the minister felt the cut could be withdrawn I think he would be able to do it although the first decision had been adverse. I do not think any decision can be made that cannot be recanted if the treasury allows the change to be made.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend appreciates the point. I think; if we are held up in proceeding with supply certainly that will have the effect of hastening a decision, but as I have already pointed out, we will have to have a bill this year in any event.


James Layton Ralston: And before March 31.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-Trent canal-construction and betterments, $39,500.
Mr. MUNN:: Would the minister explain this item?


Robert James Manion: This is for the construction of a supply weir and the raising of the head walls at Big Chute in the neighbourhood of the Georgian bay end of the Trent canal. This is an engineering work the details of which I am afraid I cannot go into, but it is necessary in connection with the power scheme on the Trent canal. I will read one little phrase here:
To correct the unsatisfactory conditions explained above it is .proposed to construct a supply weir in the raceway of the commission's power house about 200 feet above the head gates, and to raise the existing permanent head walls to elevation 654, and connect them to the new weir.


Albert Edward Munn: That is between the Severn river and Georgian bay?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: How much traffic was there on the canal last year?	[DOT]


Albert Edward Munn: Would .the minister give us the maintenance cost?


Robert James Manion: I will give that in just a moment. My hon. friend from Gloucester asked about the traffic. The only traffic on the Trent canal that amounts to anything consists of pleasure craft. There is very little freight of any kind; the traffic is pleasure craft almost entirely, motor boats and so on.


Peter John Veniot: The government can afford to spend $39,500 on a canal for pleasure craft but it withdraws a vote of $25,000 which was to have helped the fishermen in my county.

Supply-Canals-Trent


Robert James Manion: In that regard may I suggest that if the Trent canal were something new I would sympathize with my hon. friend a good deal more, because certainly I sympathize with his fishermen. But as my hon. friend well knows the Trent canal has been ini course of construction for very many years. It was started, I believe, some time prior to confederation, and now it is a case of either keeping the completed works in sufficiently good condition to permit pleasure craft to operate or of simply letting them fill in. We are in the same position with regard to the Rideau canal and one or two others. If we were thinking of building such a canal at the present time for the use of pleasure craft certainly I would support my hon. friend very strongly, but that is not the case. I must add that we have contractual obligations in regard to the hydro-electric development on the Trent canal, as we have on the Rideau and other canals, and incidentally this department obtains a revenue of almost 81,000,000 from hydraulic and other rentals, which is turned into the consolidated revenue fund. It is not mentioned in these estimates but it is an offset against the cost of operating the canals as a whole, which, including upkeep and repairs, amounts to
82,500,000	a year.


Peter John Veniot: What part of this $39,500 is necessary to keep up the power system?


Robert James Manion: All this money is for engineering works for that purpose. There is an income from the Trent canal, from power, of about 890,000 a year.


Mr.   MIJNN@: Did I understand the minister to say that the revenue from the Trent canal amounts to $1,000,000 a year?


Robert James Manion: No, that is from all the canals.


Albert Edward Munn: How much from the Trent canal?


Robert James Manion: About $96,000 a year,
mostly from power leases.


Albert Edward Munn: I know the situation there fairly well, and I think the minister would be wise to carefully investigate the matter before this money is spent on capital account. I think it is a mistake to spend1 another dollar on the Trent canal. As I said two or three years ago, you can sit on the bank for a long time, and you will see no traffic except a pleasure boat going up or down once a week
or once a month. I think it would be a mistake, at a time like this, to spend money on capital account in connection with that unfortunate undertaking.


Robert James Manion: May I assure my hon.
friend that this will be attended to. The passing of an estimate does not necessarily mean that the money will be spent. Of the estimates that actually passed in this house last year we saved nearly $1,000,000; that amount was not spent. This matteT has been thoroughly investigated, and I am informed by my engineers that it is necessary to fulfil our contractual obligations with companies getting the power from that canal, but if there should be any way of avoiding the necessity of spending the money I can assure my hon. friend that it will be done.


Albert Edward Munn: To make sure there will be a chance of dodging this expenditure I would move that this item be reduced to $1. This is something we can very well get along without. We have too many irons in the fire now; we need the money for other purposes, and I think this is simply a waste of money.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment, because we require this work in view of contractual obligations.


James Layton Ralston: Has the minister at hand what those contractual obligations are?


Robert James Manion: I will read the note that has been given to me. I do not like going into details of an engineering proposal, but here is the information:
The works at Big Chute were comprised in the contract for section No. 1 of the Severn division, and included the construction of a weir with head walls of sufficient height for a controlled navigation level above the weir of elevation 651.00. This elevation was fixed with due regard to the required head water level of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission's development then in operation at Big Chute. When the work on the contract for section No. 1 was virtually closed down in 1919, nothing had been done on the construction of the supply weir, and head walls, partly permanent and partly temporary with top elevation 651.25 formed the only control of the fluctuating level above the commission's power house. The result has been that, with the varying load on the power plant, the existing head walls are from time to time over-topped with consequent flooding below, and during periods of heavy loads, the upper pool is drawn below the level that should be maintained for vessels approaching the department's Big Chute Marine railway.
Supply-Canals-Trent

I read the remainder of this report a minute ago. That is the explanation of the matter, and we are compelled by our contractual obligation with the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission to keep it in order.


James Layton Ralston: That obligation was
undertaken in 1919 was it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The engineer states it
was about 1919.


James Layton Ralston: Well then, does the minister really think there is any reason why the work should be done this year rather thaD next year? That is the point about which hon. members are concerned.


Robert James Manion: I do not presume to pass an opinion, but my engineer informs me that there is a danger of a collapse of the engineering work. It might last next year and the year after, but it might not. If one of those dams or other engineering works collapsed a great deal of injury might be done. That is the whole question. Of course, we might be fortunate enough to stave it off for another year or two, but, as a matter of fact, when considering the estimates this was one item which was discussed at length. I considered cutting it out, but my engineers urged it was absolutely necessary that it should remain. I did not like to take the responsibility of overruling their judgment.


Albert Edward Munn: If the Hydro Electric are so keenly interested make them a present of the whole Trent canal.


Robert James Manion: They might not take it.


Albert Edward Munn: We would be rid of an
obligation, and would be doing something for the benefit of the Dominion of Canada.


Robert James Manion: There are many things in Canada of which we would like to make presentations, but I am afraid they would not be considered acceptable gifts.


Albert Edward Munn: Get rid of it. It is costing
over $100,000 a year for maintenance of the Trent canal, and what do we get for it?- nothing.


Mr. LUCAS:: Are there any figures to show what has been the total cost to the country of the Trent canal?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I have them. These figures may not be quite fair, but I have the totals added up from a time prior to confederation. From that date to the year 1879 the figure is $309,000. Then, from 1879 to 1931, inclusive, a period of about fifty years, the figure is $19,500,000. Then, there is an estimated cost for completion. Of course that

is an estimate for the future; since we came into power we have not done anything towards completion. The estimated sum is $3,000,000 for completion through to the Georgian bay. The uncompleted portion extends about forty miles from Georgian bay, and it is not our intention, under present conditions, to complete the work through to the bay. However, over $19,000,000 has been spent between a date prior to confederation and to-day. At the present time the expenditures for staff and repairs amount to over
8200,000	per year, while the revenue is about $96,000.
We must remember, of course, that one of the big industries in Canada to-day is the tourist traffic. Without doubt it has been of great importance. The figures show that last year Canada profited by the tourist trade to the exent of well over $100,000,000, and that even in a depressed year. To be fair, the Trent canal is a very popular tourist route for people coming from the other side particularly, and for many of our own people.


Albert Edward Munn: How do they get in from the other side?


Robert James Manion: They leave at Trenton on lake Ontario and travel from there to within forty miles of Georgian bay.


Albert Edward Munn: I protested two years ago, and I am protesting again against expenditures on this canal system. Before the capital expenditure is made I do hope the minister will make a careful investigation. If he can come back next session and tell us he has decided it was not necessary to make the expenditure, I shall be very happy.


Robert James Manion: In view of having cut down by nearly $1,000,000 last year it is quite possible we may do that.


Peter John Veniot: As I understand the minister, the contractual obligations were undertaken in 1919 or thereabouts, and the work for which he is asking this amount is the construction of a weir and the raising of a head wall so as to control the head level. It appears at the present time that level is not controlled. The varying loads forced the water over the head wall, thereby causing some inconvenience below. That condition has existed for the last eight or nine years-


James Layton Ralston: For fourteen years.


Mr. YENIOT:: Yes, from 1919, and I cannot see any great necessity for expending this money this year, especially under the conditions existing in Canada to-day and at a time when the government feels compelled to

Supply-Canals-Trent
reduce expenditures on undertakings of greater importance to the public in general than this undertaking would be. The minister has said that the canal system is a great tourist highway. I agTee with him that the tourist trade in Canada is of great benefit, but there is not one dollar of this item to be expended for the betterment of the canal for tourist purposes. It has now been made known that the expenditure is to meet a contractual obligation agreed upon in 1919. Yet from 1919 to 1934 not one dollar has been expended to meet the condition which has been prevailing through all these years. In face of the fact that the government feels it cannot expend money which has already been voted by parliament for the expansion of industry in Canada, it should not be spending this amount of money on the Trent valley canal towards the betterment of a condition which could exist for a number of years to come.


Albert Edward Munn: I do not wish to delay the committee, but there is one further word I should like to say. It is well known that the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission have more power now than they need; they have far more than they know what to do with, and I would suggest to the minister that he should go to the commission and, if possible, get out of this contract. Make them a present of it.


Mr. BLAIR:: I wonder if the minister can tell us how many boats were on that canal this year?


Robert James Manion: Although I have not the number of boats, I may tell the hon. member that there were 5,000 lockages.


James Layton Ralston: What was the total
tonnage?


Robert James Manion: They were only pleasure boats; we do not keep track of the tonnage.


James Layton Ralston: I understand the minister to say that the expenditure of $39,500 will not increase the revenue-gaining capacity of the canal.


Robert James Manion: No.


James Layton Ralston: Well then, the situation
is that we have an expenditure of $200,000 for maintenance, repairs and so on, and a revenue of $96,000. We now have a proposal to make a capital expenditure of $39,500, without any increase in revenue. Could the minister give us a general outline of what the arrangement is with the Hydro Electric?


Robert James Manion: I am very sorry that my
officers have not the information and I have not got it in my book. I am informed by the officers, however, as I was before the item was put in, that the matter is a contractual one and the damages that we might be sued for by the hydro might be very much in excess of any costs at the present time. I do not want to pretend that I am any more enthusiastic about this canal than my hon. friend over there or any other hon. gentleman, but Canada in its wisdom, or lack of it, has for the last sixty or seventy years been spending money on this Trent canal, as it has been spending money on the Rideau canal, and while an argument might well be made that neither of them should have been built, certainly from the economic standpoint, nevertheless they were built. I do not wish to use the tu quoque argument, but my hon. friends opposite carried on when they were in power just the same as we are doing. I am not responsible for the agreement.


Albert Edward Munn: Why bring that up? We are talking about the future.


Robert James Manion: I bring it up because it
happens to suit me to do so. My hon. friend sat over here for a number of years and I never heard him objecting then to this agreement.


William Richard Motherwell: He was not here
then.


Robert James Manion: Well, in previous years I
do not remember the hon. gentleman making any particular objection to this expenditure.


Thomas Reid: He did two years ago.


Robert James Manion: He could not have objected hard enough for me to remember. The late government-I am not saying this to justify our action to-day-carried on exactly the same as we are doing. When we were in opposition we sometimes used to ask why the Rideau canal and the Trent canal were kept going, but they were kept going, and we are keeping them going, and if our hon. friends opposite ever have the luck to get into power they probably will keep them going too. I do not like appealing for support of an item which is very difficult to defend, because I admit that the expenditure on that canal is very difficult to defend, but the canal is there and contractual obligations are in existence, and because it happens to be the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario it is none the less a contractual obligation. I have had a few deals with them, and from the standpoint of getting a settlement in the
Supply-C anals-W elland

case of any dispute I have found them as hard a group to deal with as any private corporation. I do not wish to get into any lawsuit with the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario. I ask my hon. friends to let this item pass, and if we do not require to spend the money I shall be very glad indeed to see that it is not spent. I am no more anxious to spend it than any other hon. member. Last year, for instance, we held up the expenditure on nearly $1,000,000 worth of estimates passed by this house, and I shall not hesitate to hold up the expenditure on this if the money is not required to be spent.


James Layton Ralston: I presume that in the past the expenditures that were made were capital expenditures. But I would point out that we are in a very different position to-day with regard to revenues from what we were a few years ago. Then we were not facing what will probably turn out to be a deficit of from $35,000,000 to $50,000,000 on current account. That makes a big difference, and that is why we should be all the more careful about spending money that we do not absolutely have to spend.
With regard to contractual obligations, as I understand it from the memorandum which the minister read, the obligation was not to the hydro, but the danger was on account of the inconvenience to boats of greater draft than could be accommodated if the water was run off over these head walls. That is different from a lawsuit for damages such as my hon. friend suggests might come from the hydro. My hon. friend has not the contract with him, but I would ask if he would be good enough to bring it down and lay it on the table or present it to the committee when his estimates are up again.


Robert James Manion: Very gladly.


Albert Edward Munn: In the meantime let the
item stand.


Robert James Manion: I have no particular objection because frankly I did not have as much information as I would wish t.o have.
Item stands.
Welland ship canal-construction and betterments, $250,000.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Why the enormous
difference in the expenditure this year as compared with last?


Robert James Manion: The chief reason is that
we have built the canal. I did not intend to give my hon. friend a short answer, but the answer in brief is that the canal is finished. This amount of $250,000 is largely for clean-

ing up purposes, to deal with contractors, for instance, who have claims and may get judgments, and so on. Most of this sum, half of it at all events, is for the purpose of levelling off slopes where there have been landslides, and for trimming up fag ends. The canal was opened two years ago, and the work is practically finished. I shall be glad to give any other information but I think that covers the ground pretty well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-improvements, $211,500.
James Layton Ralston: Is this an annual vote?


Robert James Manion: Yes, a general vote for
improvements on the canals throughout the country. My hon. friend knows we have a very large number of canals, the Murray canal, the Carillon and Grenville canals, the Quebec canal, the Lachine canal, Ste. Anne's lock, the Soulanges canal, the Trent canal, the Welland ship canal-


James Layton Ralston: And St. Peter's.


Robert James Manion: I forgot that.


Albert Edward Munn: And the Rideau.


Robert James Manion: None of this expenditure
is for the Rideau canal. It is for ordinary improvements.


James Layton Ralston: Does it include repairs
as well as improvements?


Robert James Manion: I will read the details. It is for the replacement of structures which, in the course of years, have become unstable, obsolete or beyond repair; the replacement of equipment which is worn out; the enlargement or realignment of navigation channels, where such improvements are warranted; the substitution of more permanent construction on works where maintenance of the existing structures involves abnormal costs; general improvements that are necessary for the proper protection of canal property or that will give a reasonable return for the amount expended.


James Layton Ralston: What proportion of this
is to be spent on the realignment and improvement of canal channels?


Robert James Manion: I should say almost none or very little at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services-including salaries of experts employed temporarily, $33,500.
Robert James Manion: We dealt with this item
the other evening for about an hour and a half-

Supply-Canals-Elevators


James Layton Ralston: Was there not an agreement that it should stand on account of the ten per cent cut?


Robert James Manion: It is in exactly the same
position as the item we were dealing with a little while ago. We discussed it very fully the other evening, when I gave all the details down to the last cent, which appear on Hansard, but because of the objection which my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) has just mentioned, and which was made the other evening, the item was held up. But as the item was discussed very fully the other evening, and as I think we should treat all these items uniformly, I trust hon. gentlemen will let it pass so that it will be in exactly the same position as the other items.


Peter Heenan: I think I was one of those who took part in the discussion of this principle last week. If we are going to vote any items concerning the outside services, I do not see why we should hold up any particular one. We are passing item after item with regard to wages and then we are attempting to hold up one particular item. Personally, I am inclined to allow this item to go through, especially as the government has placed itself on record as saying that there is a possibility that the ten per cent deduction will be restored. In view of that statement, I am ready to withdraw my opposition.


Humphrey Mitchell: A question was raised the other day in connection with an engineer who was drawing $6,000 per year. I should like to know if he was subject to the ten per cent deduction.


Robert James Manion: He is not. He is hired by the month at a salary of $500 monthly, with an allowance of $800 for living expenses.


Humphrey Mitchell: Are labourers who are hired temporarily, say for 35 cents an hour, subject to the deduction?


Robert James Manion: Yes. An exception was
made in the case of this engineer because we could not get him for any other figure. I explained the other evening that he was an outstanding engineer and we required one of that type for this work in connection with Beauharnois.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true; on the other hand we may have an outstanding labourer, an outstanding electrician, or even an outstanding minister of railways, but in each case he would be subject to the ten per cent deduction. I do not see why we should differentiate between an engineer and
anyone else, regardless of what value his services may be considered to have. If I remember correctly, special legislation was passed to take care of judges and others in the employ of the government who could not be touched by the legislation in connection with the civil service in general.


Robert James Manion: I can assure my hon. friend that there was no discrimination. This gentleman was hired by the month; he is a temporary employee and this was the best arrangement we could make to get him. The man who had been employed previously was not considered capable of doing this work. We felt we had to have an exceptionally good engineer and we were able to get this gentleman. He stands very high in engineering circles and we thought we were doing pretty well to get him. That is the only answer I can make.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals, elevators and harbours-operation and maintenance, $2,400,000.
Robert James Manion: This is a large item but it covers the whole operation of the canals and elevators, including staff and repairs. There is the Port Colbome elevator, the Presoott elevator and the Churchill elevator and harbour. In this vote is included $1,454,000 for staff, which is largely permanent, and $945,000 for repairs of the canal system and elevators throughout the country.


James Layton Ralston: This vote would include $200,000 for the Trent canal?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


John Vallance: How does the minister propose to make this saving of $338,720?


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will remember, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) promised a reduction of $12,000,000 or $14,000,000. We all had to scrimp to do our share. For example, we were able to dispense with certain services. The bringing in of the Welland canal caused a temporary rise in expenses but after it is settled down and has completed the transition period from construction to operation, there will be a reduction in expenses. Various savings of this kind have been made.


John Vallance: Could the minister give the committee the number of persons employed in the government operated elevators?


Robert James Manion: We operate only the Port Colborne, Prescott and Churchill elevators.
90S
Supply-Canals-Elevators

A few minutes ago I gave the number of men employed at Churchill as 37; I should imagine the total for the three elevators would be a little over 100.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Could the minister give us the revenue which would be an offset to this item?


Robert James Manion: In round figures, the
revenue is just a little under 81,000,000. This revenue would not show in our figures, as it all goes into consolidated revenue.


James Layton Ralston: How does that amount compare with the expenditures for the year ended' March 31, 1934?


Robert James Manion: Of course there is still part of February and all of March, and it is a little difficult to give figures. If the discussion continues I shall endeavour to get the figures, but I oannoit give them at the moment.


John Vallance: Are the elevators operated by the government paying their operating costs?


Robert James Manion: The elevator at Port Col-borne is, but those at Prescott and Churchill are not.


John Vallance: To what extent is the government losing on the three elevators?


Robert James Manion: My officers tell me that
they have not the total figures. I know that last year the elevator at Port Colborne was able to do a little better than meet operating expenses. It was one of its poor years, but it did fairly well. The revenue for the last two years was as follows:
1932-	33
Churchill	 $ 11,000
Port Colborne	 201,000
Prescott	 28,000
1933-	34
Of course the year is not yet completed:
Churchill	 $ 58,000
Port Colborne	 148,000
Prescott	 65,000
It will be seen that the revenues for Churchill and Prescott have risen some and those for Port Colborne have diminished because of the small quantity of grain that was handled last year.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume the three elevators under my hon. friend's department are still under supervision of the board of grain commissioners?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to get an
approximate idea how the $2,400,000 compares with what will be the expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1934.


Robert James Manion: The expenditure for last
year is about $2,500,000, or about $200,000 less than the estimate last year and $100,000 more than the estimate for the coming year.


Peter Heenan: Let me ask this question
again in order to make it quite clear:	In a
vote of this kind there must be a great deal for wages. In the event of the government deciding to do away with the ten per cent deduction, will these men get the benefit?


Robert James Manion: I can assure my hon. friend that I would not consider I was doing my duty in the department if that were not done. I would not agree to other departments, simply because they did not happen to have their estimates passed as early as mine, receiving different treatment from this one.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend inserting that extra $100,000 in order to take it off later, or is there a prospect of increased business even in spite of the wheat agreement?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend perhaps
misunderstood me. I said that the estimate last year was $2,700,000 and the expenditure, about $2,500,000. This year the estimate is $2,400,000.


John Vallance: Is there a possibility
that the Prescott elevator will now be a little busier because of the completion of the Welland canal?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is quite
right. It has been quite busy. The figures I gave showed a better return this last year than previously. We have had at least two or three private companies nibbling around, wishing they might rent it, but none of them has come through with an offer worthy of consideration. If they do, I should be very glad to unload it with some of the other things it has been suggested we might unload.


Wilfred Hanbury: What profit was made in the operation of the Port Colborne elevator? The minister said there was a profit, but he did not give the figures.


Robert James Manion: The revenue for the Port Colborne elevator amounted to $148,000, and the expenditure was $95,000; that would be a profit of about $53,000.


Wilfred Hanbury: Does the profit include
any interest charges?


Robert James Manion: No.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Wilfred Hanbury: What would be the investment in that elevator?


Robert James Manion: About $2,000,000 or 82,-
500,000.


Wilfred Hanbury: No depreciation?


Robert James Manion: No; we keep the repairs in good shape. It has been a very active elevator until recently when the traffic has been decreasing throughout the country and a good deal of the grain has gone via the western route, which fact has cut in on the traffic via the east.
May I point out to my hon. friends that I did not touch the item of civil government that was held up last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
British and foreign news service, $15,000. Mr. HANBURY:	Will the minister please
explain?
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the usual vote to
Reuter's news agency for sending, as they do, a regular dispatch service of commercial and public news to British papers. The appropriation has been less in the last two years than it has been over the preceding ten or twelve.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What British papers are involved in this?


Henry Herbert Stevens: About seventy, I should say.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is that just news from Canada or is it to Canada as well?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
An act to jfiace Canadian coal used in the manufacture of steel or iron on a basis of equality with imported coal, administration of, $G0O.
James Layton Ralston: Will the minister tell us the number of tons of coal on which payment was made, or, to put it the other way, the amount that was paid on coal under this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The year is not of course complete, but prior to December 31 the figure was 65,680 tons and $77,000 was paid out.


James Layton Ralston: For the previous year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was 118,783 tons and $58,797.


James Layton Ralston: Was the rate higher for this year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; it will be observed that the companies cannot get their returns in promptly at the end of the year, and part of the last year is always carried on to the next, so that there is never an exact balance. The rate is 'the same, forty-nine and a half cents a ton.


Thomas Reid: Do any of the plants in the west receive the benefit of that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are no plants in the west using coal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The next item I was going to call is the Canada Grain Act, unless hon. members opposite would prefer it to be held over.


John Vallance: In view of the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn yesterday and the reply given by the Prime Minister, and in view of the fact that the whole wheat agreement might be discussed on this item, might I suggest to the minister that it be allowed to stand?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yres.
Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, administration of, $750.


Peter Heenan: Has there been any change in policy recently with respect to granting licences for exportation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No change in policy.


Peter Heenan: I understand the policy is
that new licences are not granted except on request of the province in which the electricity is being developed.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not a new policy; we have been following that for several years.


Peter Heenan: But that is the policy?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; we are still observing it.


Peter Heenan: Under that policy have any new licences been granted in the last two years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am informed that no
new licences have been granted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions and fairs, $129,244.
Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will the minister kindly explain this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This item is for a series
of small exhibitions and fairs and exhibits in private shops and so forth scattered all over Great Britain and taking place throughout the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
year. For instance there is Canada week, carried on in a large number of centres from time to time. We usually try to put on one week a year, in which case the windows of shops are decorated with Canadian goods and Canadian illustrations and advertisements. Then of course there are certain exhibitions in the British Isles generally at which, as a rule, we have regular exhibits.
Mr. McINTO'SH: Are the exhibitions and fairs to which this item relates only in the British Isles, or do they extend into the European area?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year, of course, we
had the exhibition at Chicago. Occasionally there are exhibitions in other countries that we patronize, but at present there are none in contemplation. It is possible that during the year some exhibition on the continent might look very attractive to us and a small part of the vote be used for it. Usually when there is a large exhibition on the continent or in a foreign country, like that in the Argentine a few years ago for instance, a special vote is provided.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask if part of
this vote is used for newspaper publicity?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Vallance: How many fairs of this type were there in the past year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not a list of the
fairs. It is handled from London. There was one at Birmingham and one in London.


John Vallance: It is all right; never
mind.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: This vote
involves a considerable sum of money, I was wondering what value it has from an employment standpoint. How many people are employed one way and another under this vote?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a very important
vote; I am sorry it is not much larger. I think it would be useful if it were larger. The number of persons employed is about twenty-eight.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There seems to be a
little difference of opinion on this side as to the reply made by the minister to the question I asked him regarding the expenditure of this amount. Was any part of this expenditure used for the Chicago exhibition?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, 815,000 out of the
parallel vote last year was spent in connection with the Chicago lair.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The minister said about
twenty-eight were employed. Are they employed all the time in judt this sort of work?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, they are employed
at this sort of work all the time. There are some very able men among them who are artistic in the making up of exhibits, and when the exhibition is not actually on, their task is to keep the exhibits in good shape. Many of the artistic displays that they make or gather together and arrange are sent out for exhibition, or sometimes loaned-used in ways of that kind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: These employees of the department are part of the civil service of Canada, some in England and some here; is that correct?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Correct.


James Layton Ralston: I remember seeing one of these exhibits in London. Is there cooperation between the department and various producers and manufacturers? Does Canada include in this exhibit the products of private individuals and industries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, yes. For instance in the Olympic show we took considerable space and then manufacturers would rent a portion of that space; but the arrangement of the exhibits, the gathering of them together and so forth, would be under the experts of the department. There is very close cooperation between Canadian exhibitors and the exhibition staff; as far as I have known very happy relations exist between them.


James Layton Ralston: The exhibit is not made up simply of the flora and fauna and natural products of Canada, but includes manufactured products?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, manufactured and natural products, very much so.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister said they rented certain space to manufacturers. Does that mean that there is a certain revenue under this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, we arrange for the space, probably for a maximum area, and then divide it among exhibitors. They pay the exhibition authorities for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Motion picture bureau, $50,000.
James Layton Ralston: What are the activities of the motion picture bureau that the hon. minister contemplates this year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They carry on a very useful work, making films of industrial activi-

Supply-Trade and C ommerce
ties in Canada, as of the fish industry, lumbering and mining, or matters generally having to do with the natural resources of the country. Films are made also that are useful from the standpoint of attracting tourists. Of the industrial films, the automobile film that went out and commanded a great deal of attention is an example. These films, I might say, produce a certain amount of revenue. They are distributed chiefly in Europe but also in other parts of the world-some in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. We think they do very excellent service in a general presentation of Canadian activities and resources.


James Layton Ralston: I quite agree with that, I was asking if the minister had in mind any program for this year-whether any special industry was to be dealt with by these motion pictures?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing special in mind at the present time.


John Vallance: Are these pictures or films released to the general picture industry throughout the country and also in foreign countries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, to theatrical organizations as well as to private persons, groups, societies, educational institutions, and so on.


John Vallance: Is there any revenue
from it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, the revenue runs
about $26,000 or $27,000. Over a period of years, giving the round figures, the revenue has been $18,000, $26,000, $23,000, $29,000,
826,000	and $9,000. I have not the revenue for the present year.


John Vallance: I suppose, coming from the Department of Trade and Commerce, these are pretty much educational, along the line of showing the products of Canada, and are not used for immigration purposes. Is that correct?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The products of Canada and manufactured articles.


John Vallance: But not for immigration purposes?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not now. I imagine they were so used years ago, but not now.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is the distribution trans-Canada in scope or is it confined to the larger centres of population?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A great deal is outside of Canada, of course, and it would be cross-Canada in scope with certain films. I could not say exactly what the distribution is in Canada, but it is pretty extensive.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And as between the
natural resources and manufacturing, are the films fairly equally divided?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should say so. I should think perhaps the natural resources would predominate, but they are fairly equally divided.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister has told us about the revenue from this distribution. I would ask the minister whether the fact that a charge is made for these films perhaps limits the use to which they are put, and I would advance the suggestion that perhaps if there were no charge the distribution would be greater.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Our experience is the reverse. The department, over a great many years, has found that they are appreciated more if there is a small charge. The charge is not looked upon as a profit-making matter, but it is a fair remuneration. We expect a certain amount of expense, but the return helps pay the cost.


Frederick William Gershaw: Do the trade commissioners in different countries make use of these films?
Mr. STEVEiNS:	Yes, they do, and frequently we have expressions of appreciation of the service.


Wilfred Hanbury: Are all these films of a general character or do they sometimes have to do with one particular firm?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The object, of course, is to make it very general. I recall seing one film having to do with a large logging firm on the coast, and I could not discover what firm it was; it was typical of the industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Precious Metals Marking Act, administration of, $4,912.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the minister explain this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is merely the salary of the officer who administers this act. I am sorry to say that the officer, who had been in the service of the country for a great many years, died. A new man was appointed a short time ago; he starts at the minimum salary of that class, and that accounts for the decrease.

Supply-Trade-Publications


James Lorimer Ilsley: What are his duties?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The other day an amendment to this act went through, and at that time I think I described the act fully. This is a very important act, dealing with the manufacture and sale of goods made of precious metals such as gold, silver or platinum, including plated and filled goods, and so on. The act provides rigid and definite standards which, of course, are of the highest importance when dealing with precious metals. The duty of this officer is to administer that act. He watches with the most scrupulous care advertisements and so on, so as to minimize any attempted misrepresentation of goods, and I think his efforts have been successful. For instance, goods may be offered as sterling silver which are not sterling silver at all, or goods may be offered as plated silver when they are merely washed.


James Layton Ralston: Or eighteen carat instead
of fourteen carat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and the various carat weights of gold. AH this is carefully and meticulously watched by this officer to minimize the possibility of fraud.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing of parliamentary and departmental publications, $102,675.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the ordinary printing vote of the department. About $80,000 is for the bureau of statistics, for the printing of the ordinary documents of that branch, while the balance is for the publication of the regular periodicals of the department, such as the grain report, and so on.


James Layton Ralston: Does this include the
annual reports of the departments?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It includes all such documents.


James Layton Ralston: Has the minister * ever
considered whether there could not be some substantial scaling down in the printing of these reports? It strikes me in this way: we come here this session and we get a report for the year ending March 31, 1933, nearly a year late. It does not make any difference what government is in power; that always happens, and it seems to me there might be a great scaling down of those reports, because they cease to be useful for distribution, though of course they are useful as a matter of record. I notice one thing that is being done, and I do not know whether or not it has always been done; cards are sent around and members are asked whether or not they want certain 
reports. Does that mean that the reports are not printed unless requisitions come in, or is the report printed and supplied to those who ask for it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We try our best, by the
card system and in other ways, to keep the number printed down to what may be required, and during the last year or two we have very carefully gone over these publications and kept them down to a minimum. I think we have eliminated all that we dare eliminate. I remember talking it over only a few weeks ago with the head of the bureau of statistics. We went over the matter carefully, and I do not think we could safely discard any documents that we are now printing.
With regard to the annual report to which my hon. friend referred, it does come late for the use of the house, but it is very highly valued in all parts of the world to which it is sent, as an official and representative document of the government. As a matter of record, and in an historical sense, of course it has the usual value which is attached to such documents. I do not think there are any other documents we could discard. Certainly I should be very glad to have the views of any hon. gentleman who might feel that some documents are unnecessary, so that we could examine them and come to a conclusion. Occasionally someone will say that a certain document seems to be useless, but upon inquiry it is found that there are many people who make constant use of it. The other day a gentleman in eastern Canada wrote me expressing indignation at what he considered to be a waste of money; a certain document he had got hold of seemed to him to be of no value. I looked it over and could not recognize any particular merit in it, but when I inquired I found that in a certain branch of industry several hundred people made constant use of it. It is difficult, therefore, to gauge the value of a document until one goes carefully into the matter with those who are handling it. I believe we have minimized useless and unnecessary printing, so far as we can possibly do so.


Wilfred Hanbury: Would the minister
enumerate the publications to which he has just referred, and give us some general idea of the distribution?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could give some of the important ones. There is the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce; the catalogue of the motion picture bureau; the Commercial Intelligence Journal, which is a regular issue, and reprints of the Commercial

Supply-Trade-Publications
Intelligence Journal. Then we publish calendar-year books for minerals, manufactures (non-metallic) and iron and steel (non-ferrous), and the calendar-year trade report. Then there is a publication on prices; "Canada, 1934," and so on. There is a publication on the chemical industries, a monthly bulletin on agriculture, a quarterly bulletin on coal, the quarterly trade of Canada, the monthly trade of Canada and the monthly business review. There is the electricity and gas annual report and the weights and measures annual report. Then there is the annual publication of vital statistics, and in addition to that theTe is a preliminary report, which is in fact a rapid survey report.


Wilfred Hanbury: Of what?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of vital statistics. The
same thing applies to many other publications. Then there are publications for fruit and fur farms, fisheries, forestry; the lumbering, pulp and paper, and textile industries, and general manufactures. Then there are statistical reports on transportation, steam railways, electric railways and canals; reports on internal trade prices and price indices; financial statistics, provincial finances, and educational statistics. There is a review of business statistics, and a number of contingencies.


Wilfred Hanbury: I understand there is a
revenue from many of these publications?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but it does not
amount to much. We make a small charge, such as ten cents, or twenty-five cents, and in one or two cases fifty cents. For the year book we charge one dollar. Necessarily, however, many of these documents are sent free of charge to educational institutions, universities, schools and so on.
Mr. McINTOiSH:	With regard to the
belated publication of, say, the annual blue book reports, may I ask the minister if the publications could be issued earlier?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I confess frankly to my
hon. friend that when I laid the annual report on the table the other day I felt a little ashamed. I believe that while I could not present it until the opening of parliament, it was ready last autumn. I must confess that when I did present it and saw that it was dated 1933 I thought at the time I was going through a more or less useless formality.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	As these reports are
very important for reference purposes I think we must have them. If the members could have them as soon as they are published it would be a very great convenience, and the reports would be of greater value to them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think there should be
no difficulty about that. In connection with the Canada Grain Act, the report of my department and one or two other reports, there is a statute stating that within fifteen days after the opening of parliament such reports must be laid on the table. That was the formality I went through the other day. I will say this, that if any hon. member desired a report we would certainly send it to him immediately upon its completion, which would be some time I imagine, in the late summer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The list of publications the minister gave in answer to the request of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is most interesting. I fancy few hon. members knew there were as many publications as are shown in the list. Is the list published or made available in any other way?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should be very happy
to furnish any hon. member with a list.


Wilfred Hanbury: May I suggest to the
minister that every member of parliament would be interested in having that list, as would every newspaper in Canada. The preparation of this information obviously costs a great deal, and the purpose of its publication is to educate the people of Canada as to what we have and are capable of doing. I believe every member of parliament and all newspapers should have a list of the publications, with rough details showing the contents of each publication.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall have a complete
list sent to hon. members, and a brief statement showing the nature of the publications.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I
believe this is the vote which my right hon. leader criticized somewhat caustically last session.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is the next one.


William Richard Motherwell: Publicity and advertising.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is not advertising.


William Richard Motherwell: It is out of this
vote that the handbook, " Canada 1933 " is published?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.
Mr. MOTHERW7ELL:	I referred to it
incidentally in my remarks on the address in reply, and I believe it is only fair that I should draw the minister's attention to it at this time. I refer to the porcine picture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Once again.

Supply-Trade-Publications


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I thought the minister would have embraced the opportunity right off the bat to explain it, but I think I can understand his not seeing the ludicrous mistake himself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can give a complete
explanation of it, but I think it is wholly unnecessary.


William Richard Motherwell: I referred to it
only once, and this is the second time. I assure the hon. minister I should draw his attention to it, because I have been in public life long enough to know that extraordinary things happen in office life for which one might think there was no explanation, and this w'ould seem to be one of them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The explanation is very
simple, and may I say to the hon. member that it is most annoying.


Ross Wilfred Gray: What is?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should prefer not to say much about it.


William Richard Motherwell: You do not need to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When this was compiled-


William Richard Motherwell: I will not press it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When this was compiled we sent to the Department of Agriculture and they in turn sent us photographs bearing the proper legends. The photographs were sent to the bureau, and an official of the bureau, upon his own responsibility, changed the legends into their present ludicrous form. I am not certain that it was not done maliciously. I think perhaps the gentleman has enjoyed very much the embarrassment to which I have been subjected by his ludicrous action, and if I were certain of it there would probably be some wigs on the green. It was a miserable, despicable thing to do, unworthy of any official of the department, and it was wholly unnecessary because the Department of Agriculture gave the perfectly correct technical description. I may say to the hon. gentleman that I never saw it at all. Had I seen it I would have been very prompt to discern the mistake, as I have had a long experience in matters of that kind, much more so than the hon. gentleman thinks, even to the point of extracting them.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has described this incident quite as graphically as I could have myself. I am sure he never thought we would let this pass without some-bod}' drawing attention to it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should think it is a celebrated case by now.
'sMr. Stevens.]


William Richard Motherwell: This gentleman must have been a bad Grit, and he has no doubt been dismissed by this time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I have not yet inquired what his politics are. I am afraid to.


William Richard Motherwell: Do you think he is still in the employ of the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do you think he ought
not to be? I rather think so myself.


William Richard Motherwell: I would not like to pass judgment without giving him an opportunity to be heard. Probably he had nothing to do with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to give him an opportunity to be heard some of these days.


William Richard Motherwell: When my hon.
friend ventures into the field of agriculture it would be wise to submit anything like this to the Minister of Agriculture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We got it from him.


William Richard Motherwell: Did he proofread it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A minister cannot possibly have time to proofread all the documents.


William Richard Motherwell: I guarantee that no such rough necked hog was ever raised on the experimental farm here at Ottawa.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was supplied by the experimental farm. May I say to my hon. friend that the proofreading must be left to the officials. My hon. friend himself as minister did not proofread his documents.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a technical matter about which my hon. friend was not expected to know very much.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I happen to know a good deal about it, more than my hon. friend thinks.


William Richard Motherwell: Somebody was lacking in knowledge, anyway. As regards the animal itself, it is a rough necked son of a gun that never saw the experimental farm. On the farm they have as fine a type of Yorkshire, not geldings, but hogs as are to be found in Canada. That does not explain it at all. This gentleman with the sleight of hand accomplishment must have changed the photograph too.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, he did not change the photograph too.

Supply-Trade-Publications


William Richard Motherwell: They must have gone into the back township for this chap because he looks more like a wild boar from the hills of Hungary than a Yorkshire brood sow.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask the minister if under this vote or the following one comes the expenditure for getting out the typewritten or mimeographed weekly or daily or monthly bulletin under the auspices of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am under the impression that it comes under this vote.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to ask if the minister has any idea of what it costs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not very much. I think I answered a question on the subject in the house not long ago.


Alan Webster Neill: I have here the answer which the minister gave, and it is because of that answer that I wish to ask for information. The answer given to the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond) was that there were 383 copies issued and that the average cost per issue was $6.30. If they can get out that stuff for $6.30 it is very remarkable because I have made a rough estimate of the contents and it runs to something like three million words for each issue. If they can get that out for $6.30 with paper, ink and other supplies, and clerical labour, it is indeed remarkable. What about the time of the man concocting all this? You could not send out that stuff-you could not typewrite or mimeograph three million words for $6.30. Surely there is some mistake.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, there is no mistake. The answer is correct. It is all mimeographed, of course, but the material from which it is compiled is the material which finds its way into the regular reports of many branches of the bureau of statistics, and the bulletin is a rapid survey and digest of this material which is passing through the bureau, brought into the form of the bulletin for the convenience of the press and those who receive it. The cost is correct, but that does not include the salary of the official who compiles or extracts the information from the general material. This is not all the work he has to do; he has other work.


Alan Webster Neill: I congratulate the minister if he can get out three million words, buy the envelopes and put the bulletin into them and send them through the mail for $6.30 an issue.
74726-58^


Henry Herbert Stevens: We handle that sort of thing very expeditiously down there. It is thoroughly systematized.


Alan Webster Neill: Of course the expense of getting the material together must be very much greater. The minister was kind enough to say he would welcome any comments by which the expenditure on advertising could be cut down. These bulletins when they first came out were not unreasonable. They were much fewer in number than now, and while some of the information given was small, going into petty stuff, the bulletin possibly served a useful purpose. I remember reading, for instance, that the export of whisky from Canada to Syria in one year amounted to nine dollars' worth, and it also gave the exports of women's hairnets to Palestine, or something like that. That may be useful to some people, but it is not very likely. The purpose of these bulletins, if they have any purpose at all, is to furnish appropriate and useful and accurate information that may be of assistance to importers and exporters. I do not think I am out of place when I say that those three qualifications are essential -that the information should be appropriate, useful and accurate. Let me give an illustration, one of two picked here and there, glancing over some of the bulletins, of what I think might be eliminated, to put it plainly. I read two sentences:
The quantity of goods and services exchanged times the prices of these goods and services constitutes one side of the familiar equation of exchange. In its original form the equation was as follows: MV=PT, where M denotes money and deposits and V the velocity or turnover of money and deposits, P represents prices and T the physical volume of business.
I do not know if the average business man gets much information out of that. Here is another example: It says that Three Rivers in Quebec and Sydney in Cape Breton at the 1931 census had a population under twenty years of age of 46 per cent, but not satisfied with that, it works it out fractionally, giving: the percentage for Three Rivers at 46-75 and. for Sydney at 46-33 of people under twenty-years of age. We are paying somebody to woi-k out to the second decimal point fractions of that character. What use is it after they have arrived at the precise figure, unless' to incite a competition among other towns to try -to have more young people? Here is another example:
Millions of sausage wrappings sent to Germany from Canada.
Many millions of sausage skins, not the artificial variety but the old-fashioned sort, v-ent to Germany last month to make frankfurters. Occasionally the smart young Nazi calls them "hot dogs" when he treats his Schatz.

Supply-Trade-Publications
I do not know whether that is a proper word; the responsibility is the minister's. It goes on:
Give them a size of three inches and they would stretch out to a distance of about 475 miles, pretty nearly one-fifth of the distance between Halifax and Vancouver as the crow flies.
That might be very interesting if it appeared in a school book or something of that kind, but why should we be paying for the dissemination of knowledge of that kind? There is page after page of closely typed matter which looks to me to be very much like propaganda. The exports to different countries are gone into in very great detail. Among some of the countries given is Albania, to which we exported $91 worth of goods in nine months. That is $10 per month. To Lithuania we exported $1,000 in nine months; to Yugoslavia, $393. Some of the imports by countries are given for the nine months' period. In the case of Korea it is $36, or $4 per month. It is stated that in the corresponding nine months in the previous year there were none. In the case of Paraguay it is $15 with nothing in the previous nine months. All this is very interesting, but it lends itself to what I suggest, meanly perhaps, is propaganda. They will be able to say: Look at the enormous increases. What percentage of increase is it when it goes from nothing to $36 in nine months? All this does not seem to me to be very useful.
Unless the information is accurate it is going to do harm, and I should like to point to some instances of inaccuracy. It gives the number of births, deaths and marriages in seventy cities and towns in Canada with populations of 10,000 or over. But it gives the precise number, and then goes on to say that they show a decrease of 7i per cent in births. 4 per cent in deaths and an increase of one per cent in marriages. These figures do not give any real data. Certain towns may have increased in population; there may have been more births and marriages because of an influx. The figures are absolutely useless as a comparison. They do not compare with anj" other town or any other country. If there had been a comparison of the percentages it might have meant something, but it does not.
We come now to what may be a more popular item, the difference between nightshirts and pyjamas. We are told in electrifying words that the old-fashioned nightshirt is by no means out of date and that a huge quantity of that commodity is made every year in

Canada. They then continue and say that the use of nightdresses is increasing more than pyjamas if factory output is a true indication. Nightdresses are not nightshirts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly, they are not. The hon. member can look it up in the dictionary if he has not any domestic knowledge. Nightdresses increased 57 per cent while pyjamas increased by only 14 per cent. They got jumbled up between nightshirts and nightdresses.
We come now to something that is of more interest to British Columbia. The information given in this instance is very misleading. The figures given of the export of salmon to the United Kingdom for the quarter consisting of April, May and June, 1933, are 17,665 hundredweight, while the Commercial Intelligence Journal give a figure for the same period of 8,360 hundredweight, or less than half. For the quarter including July, August and September, the bureau gives the export as 55,420 hundredweight while the Commercial Intelligence Journal gives it as 27,180, again less than half. For the month of September the bureau gives it as 18,441 hundredweight, while this typed bulletin gives it as 11,822. For the nine months ending September the bureau gives it as 85,763 hundredweight while this typed bulletin gives it as 53,688. The Commercial Intelligence Journal has the same figure as I checked up as carefully as I could. One can imagine how an exporter or importer would be deceived by figures like that, and it makes one wonder just how accurate the rest of the bulletin is. There is a Methodist hymn which says:
If such the sweetness of the stream,
What must the fountain be?
If this is the accuracy of the stream, what can we gauge that of the fountain to be? How accurate is the whole thing? How useful is it? I cannot see the usefulness of information that the number of sausages produced placed end to end would reach so far. If it is not useful and if it is not accurate, what is left? I do not suggest that the minister is to blame, but I think he should look into the matter. This is the sort of thing that people depend upon. We do not care whether the exports of pyjamas and nightshirts have increased but we do want accurate information as to the exports of salmon. The figures in one periodical issued by the government should not be half of

Supply-Trade-Advertising
those appearing in another. I suggest to the minister that he check these things up. Also perhaps the reduction of the size of this bulletin would prove of value, as people might then take an interest in it. If the minister would like them, I will send over the details.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will read them in
Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $100,000.
James Layton Ralston: Will the minister give us particulars of this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the general vote for advertising. It covers a weekly news service in Latin American countries; a service through the marine department and the Canadian Press for Pacific liners as well as a similar service for Atlantic boats; advertising in newspapers and periodicals, and so forth. There is no special advertising campaign in view at the present time; this is just the normal advertising vote.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What proportion of this vote is spent in Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year out of $173,000 there was $75,000 spent in Canada, and about $100,000 in London.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Was the $75,000 spent
largely in newspaper advertising?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In Canada, yes. In Great Britain it takes the form of newspaper advertising, special display advertising such as the apple display which is widely known, and other forms of advertising.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Could the minister state what proportion of this amount was spent in western Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be hard to state accurately, but I understand it was a substantial portion. I could not make even a fairly accurate estimate.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Couldi the minister indicate the proportion paid to daily newspapers and that paid to the weekly press?


Mr. SI EVENS:: It is divided up between daily newspapers, trade publications, agricultural periodicals and foreign advertising. Roughly, that is the division of the vote.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That means that the
money spent in Canada so far as straight newspaper display advertising is concerned was paid entirely to the daily newspapers of the dominion. Is that correct?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I have not the
amount spent in connection with weekly newspapers; it is included in the general item of miscellaneous and I could not say just what that is, but I would say that the division would be that perhaps a larger amount is spent in advertising in daily newspapers than in the weeklies.


Thomas Reid: Is it under this appropriation that advertising that appears in the press for contracts comes?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to repeat to the minister under this item a suggestion which I made to the house some time ago, that he take into consideration the exchange of students between other countries and Canada. I have particularly in mind Japan, China and South American countries. As the minister knows, we have in British Columbia, where climatic conditions are suitable to people of those other countries, a very fine university which, he knows, is quite capable of extension, and the industries we have there are such that we could educate these people from other countries in the use of our products. I suggest to the minister that he give this matter serious consideration. Under present world conditions it is of the utmost importance that every effort be made to interest other nationals in the products of our country, and although this may be a long-term method, I know of no other that would accomplish more over a period of years than the encouraging of people of other nations to come here to learn our customs, language and methods of doing business.
With that suggestion I am again going to couple one that an exhibition ship be fitted out and maintained to visit the countries to which I have referred, and perhaps others, to demonstrate to their peoples what we have for sale to them, and at the same time let them demonstrate to us what we can purchase from them in exchange. I am making this suggestion to the minister and I ask him to give it very careful consideration. He will realize that something must be done if the world is to continue along its present economic course, and nothing more effective could be done over a period of years.
Supply-Trade-A dvertising


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I briefly state that efforts along the line my hon. friend has mentioned have already been made. In the case of one eastern university students have been brought from South America, an exchange of students having been arranged. In the case of certain industrial firms some student apprentices, I suppose we might oa.ll them, were brought here for the purpose of studying Canadian methods of business and carrying Canadian good will back to their countries. I shall be pleased to look into the suggestion further, because it has great merit. One of the difficulties has been to get universities interested. This must be done, of course, through the agency of institutions of learning of that kind.
In regard to the exhibition ship, I should be happy were our finances in such a condition as to warrant a substantial expenditure for advertising abroad in the form either of a ship or exhibits or publicity of some sort, but, frankly, the government has been faced with the very serious obligation of keeping its expenses down to a minimum and I have been forced to reduce my estimates more than I should have liked. I have a good deal of sympathy for the suggestion made and shall keep it in mind. If conditions improve, I shall ask for something more in the supplementaries if my colleagues will be good enough to support that view.


Wilfred Hanbury: I am glad to have the assurance of the minister in that regard, and he may be sure that he will receive every measure of support from the Liberal party, which believes in the extension of our markets. We are not necessarily, as the minister knows, only a Canada first party, and while we also have our creed, perhaps it would not be the " my creed " which the minister published some time ago. We believe in the extension of markets, and I say to the minister that if he will insert in the supplementaries a substantial, indeed, a quite substantial amount, there will not be a word of criticism from this side of the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is very encouraging.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not entirely satisfied with the far from informative answer given by the minister in regard to the daily papers in which this advertising was placed. There are only a few daily newspapers in each province. Could the minister not give us the names of the daily papers in which this display advertising is placed? I think the house is entitled to that information.
[Mr. Hanbury.l


Henry Herbert Stevens: The total amount for the daily papers is $4,752. There are about thirty of them, so that it does not really amount to very much. The papers are as follows:
Halifax Herald and Mail.
Charlottetown Guardian.. .. Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph..
Quebec L'Evenement	
Montreal Gazette	
Montreal Herald	
Montreal Star	
Montreal La Patrie	
Ottawa Citizen	
Ottawa Journal	
Hamilton Spectator	
London Free Press	
Toronto Globe	
Toronto Mail and Empire. . . .
Toronto Telegram	
Toronto Monetary Times.. .. Windsor Border Cities Star..
Winnipeg Free Press	
Winnipeg Tribune	
Winnipeg Der Nordwester. . Winnipeg Canadian Farmer.. Winnipeg Canadian Voice. .
Regina Star	
Calgary Herald	
Calgary Albertan	
Edmonton Journal	
Edmonton Bulletin	
Vancouver Province	
Victoria Colonist	
New Westminster British
Columbian	
Penticton Herald	
o 00	60
. 153	36
65	10
77	40
90	00
168	48
78	12
273	42
112	50
116	64
117	18
156	24
156	24
338	52
338	52
338	84
196	00
142	56
207	36
143	00
309	75
75	96
129	00
91	14
128	40
89	40
208	32
84	63
100	00
86	24
$ 4,752	92


Ross Wilfred Gray: I want to enter a mild protest in respect to what has been done in western Ontario, where I find that the only newspaper listed is the London Free Press.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Windsor Border Cities Star


Ross Wilfred Gray: The editor of the London Free Press is a past president of the Conservative Association of Western Ontario. The minister is leaving out a very fine paper in the same city as the Free Press-the London Advertiser.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the minister for the information with regard to the daily newspapers in Canada. What amount was spent in the leading weeklies of the dominion and in what papers was the advertising placed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not a list of the weeklies with me.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Was any amount of this appropriation spent in the national or larger weeklies of the country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a miscellaneous
item and I cannot tell my hon. friend the amount.

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will the minister bring down that information some other day?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall be very glad to do so.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I want to protest
strongly against the amount which is spent in the daily newspapers of Saskatchewan. I understand the only amount stated was paid to the Regina Star. This is an out-and-out Conservative paper. In Regina there is a leading old-time Liberal daily, the Regina Leader, a splendid newspaper. There was no money paid to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, another leading daily paper of northern Saskatchewan. I think if this appropriation had been spent fairly and judiciously, with the desire to get the best results, a certain amount should have been paid to each one of these papers-I would not say to the Liberal papers as opposed to the Conservative or the Conservative as opposed to the Liberal; but to get the best results for the Canadian people at large it certainly should not all have been paid to one paper, and that -a supporter of the government


James Layton Ralston: Has any amount been spent under this item, or is any contemplated, for advertising, publicity or propaganda in
respect of the wheat agreement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not want to say that nothing will be spent, but as far as I know there is no suggestion of it at the present moment. There might possibly be some expenditure; frankly that has not been in my mind, but my hon. friend's bringing it up suggests to me that it may possibly come out of this.


James Layton Ralston: I may say it is suggested to me; I do not know myself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not at the moment in contemplation under this vote.


James Layton Ralston: And I suppose the answer stands as my hon. friend has made it with regard to the expenditure for this year. Has any amount been spent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


James Layton Ralston: Or will any be spent under the vote for the year ending March 31, 1934?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is this advertising distributed on a patronage basis?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, not exclusively.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The reason I ask is, following up what my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth has said, that in the city of Halifax the only paper included is the Herald. The Chronicle is left out.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If not exclusively it looks as if it were inclusively.


Albert Edward Munn: I might enter the same complaint as regards Victoria and Vancouver. In Victoria we have two leading dailies, and the Conservative one is getting the patronage. In Vancouver we have two leading dailies, and the Conservative paper is getting it there. It looks as if there was a little patronage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we lean a little that way.


Albert Edward Munn: You acknowledge it, then?


An hon. MEMBER:: It will not be long now!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Weights and measures inspection service including the international bureau of weights and measures, $300,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the usual item for this branch, which is a self-supporting branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $351,000.
James Layton Ralston: I have nothing in particular to say on this item, but it is a large and important one, and the committee is pretty sparse. Would the minister mind letting it stand?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no objection to
meeting my hon. friend's view in that regard.
Item stands.
Commercial intelligence service, including miscellaneous expenditure in connection with Canada's trade, $639,687.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Is that the item from which the trade commissioners are paid?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Olof Hanson: Will the minister tell us how many trade commissioners Canada has at the present time and what they are paid?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the number of commissioners is thirty-eight.


Olof Hanson: What is the average pay?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They vary. One is $3,780 with a living allowance of $2,500. One gets
920	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
$5,760, one of the oldest commissioners we have, and a living allowance of $1,500. Another gets $4,380 and a living allowance of $2,500. Another gets $5,040 with living allowance of $1,500; another $4,980 with a living allowance of $2,500. The living allowance varies according to where they are.


James Layton Ralston: Where is the last one?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The last is in Australia. The salary varies according to the time they have been in the service and their standing in the service. Here is another at $3,180 with a living allowance of $3,000-that is the minimum salary for that class; another at $4,980 with a living allowance of $2,500, and another at $4,980.


John Vallance: How much of this item is set aside to promote the sale of wheat abroad, if any.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no special amount set aside for the sale of any given article, but all the commissioners are kept constantly informed, and shall I say, stimulated to watch the opportunities for marketing not only wheat and flour but other products. But we have particularly emphasized wheat and flour as a major item for their care and interest.


Olof Hanson: What number of countries are represented by the trade commissioners?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Great Britain, Argentine, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, British West Indies, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hongkong, India and Ceylon, Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Netherlands East Indies, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, South Africa; and in the United Kingdom, London, Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, Belfast and Dublin; and in the United States we have an office in New York.


James Layton Ralston: Have there been any reductions in or additions to the number of trade commissioners in the last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were two retirements, but the assistant commissioners were advanced to take their place. There has been no reduction in number.


James Layton Ralston: No offices have been closed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not this year.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any closing in contemplation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


James Layton Ralston: Or the opening of any new ones?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are opening an office in Singapore. We have a trade commissioner at Batavia, Dutch East Indies, but we believe he will do better service if his office is in Singapore. He visits Singapore now. So we contemplate opening that office, but it will not increase the staff because the assistant will look after Batavia and the commissioner himself will be at Singapore. It merely means a division of that territory.


James Layton Ralston: The Commercial Intelligence Journal was included in the vote we just passed, was it ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the printing vote. I
named it at the time.


James Layton Ralston: I suppose the salary for
the officer who prepares it is in this vote?


Henry Herbert Stevens: His salary comes under
civil government.


James Layton Ralston: Will the minister permit
me to speak of one other matter, in connection with the Commercial Intelligence Journal? I have gone over it carefully, and it seemed to me that the journal might be made even a little more useful than it is if it could indicate something more with regard to our own tariff changes or the changes made as the result of valuations for duty purposes. There is a great deal of information given with regard to changes in other countries, but it seemed to me it would be a more complete compendium for the purpose of reference, and so on, if information could be given with regard to our own tariff adjustments.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Commercial Intelligence Journal is chiefly used by exporters; its primary object is to keep Canadian exporters posted as to conditions abroad, and it is organized and systematized pretty thoroughly first with the idea of not making it so voluminous that it cannot be readily absorbed and secondly in order to present the information in a uniform manner. There are certain matters that interest exporters all the time, and we try to keep them posted on those matters. Then there are certain other matters that obtrude themselves unexpectedly, and we try to keep them advised in those matters. We could add the information that my hon. friend mentions, but that would be of very little use to the exporters and would merely add to the expense. While perhaps it would be useful to members of the house or to students of trade matters generally, it is not looked upon as necessary in regard to the function which the journal seeks to discharge.

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence


James Layton Ralston: I would regard it as of
assistance in helping us come to conclusions and helping us size up our external trade both ways.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give the matter
consideration.


James Layton Ralston: May I just emphasize
that this is one of the publications that is right up to date. It is not like the annual reports of which we have been speaking, which are like last year's birds' nests. They are not very much good by the time they are published, though I say it with all due respect to the departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are all the same.


James Layton Ralston: I realize that, but this is a publication which is up to date, and it seems to me that if we could get the essential information gathered together under one pair of covers it would be very helpful. The Department of National Revenue issues a monthly report which is exceedingly helpful because it is right up to date, and the Department of Trade and Commerce issues a monthly summary of trade which is excellent. It seems to me that if we could get some publication-I do not care what it is-which would contain all the tariff changes up to date, so that we would not learn three months later that a change had been made, it would be very helpful.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will take note of my
hon. friend's suggestion.


Olof Hanson: When the minister mentioned the countries where our trade commissioners are stationed at the present time it struck me that the Scandinavian countries, with which we deal to a large extent, are not so well served. I took a trip over there last year, and I was told that the business between Canada and Denmark and Sweden would increase greatly if we had a trade commissioner there.


Mr STEVENS:: We have one at Oslo,
in Norway, who covers Norway, Denmark and Sweden. He visits Denmark regularly.


Olof Hanson: I have met the
trade commissioner, and he tells me it is impossible for him to cover the territory adequately and do justice to the three countries. I think it would be to our advantage if we could open up a new post for Sweden and Denmark.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We would like very much to extend our service, but we must have regard to the cost. I feel that we are covering the territory pretty well.


James Layton Ralston: What are the other large items, in addition to the salaries of trade commissioners?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is an item for office rents, which of course are substantial, amounting to 154,000 in round figures. Then there are allowances for house rent, totalling $25,000. Communications take up $13,000, which I think is a very modest figure when one has regard to the constant cable service we must maintain, and the great distances that are covered. Then there is the cost of travel and removal, which is estimated at $30,000. Most of that is for travel, for the commissioners covering their territories. Many of these territories are very extensive; in the case mentioned a moment ago, the commissioner at Oslo frequently goes to Denmark and Sweden. The commissioner at Hamburg travels all over Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Austria-Hungary, so he covers quite a territory.


John Vallance: A few moments ago I
asked the minister how much of this item was spent to promote the sale of wheat abroad I am not objecting to the item at all, but I should like the minister to explain, if he can, why in 1933, countries such as the Argentine, Russia and Australia increased their sales in the British market while, to almost the same extent, Canada's sales decreased. Their collective increase amounted to some $17,000,000, while Canada's decrease was just about the same. Can the minister give any explanation for that condition?


Henry Herbert Stevens: One of the main reasons
why the Argentine increased its sales of wheat and other products, of course, is the depreciation of the Argentine currency in terms of gold. In regard to Russia, their exports are on the basis of simply getting rid of them, no matter what they get for them, so there really is no yardstick by which the value of those exports can be measured. In the case of Australia we have had an Australian pound that has been at a very heavy discount in comparison with the pound sterling and in comparison with Canadian currency in relation to the pound sterling, which of course gave them some advantage in the world market. Then of course you must remember that Argentine and Australian wheat is offered at a lower figure than Canadian wheat is offered at, and in itself is not as good as our wheat. Those are reasons which might be advanced offhand.


John Vallance: I do not wish to enter into a discussion of the wheat agreement, but how are we going to meet this comppf,t'on
922	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
even when the wheat agreement is brought into operation? Are they going to pay us a higher price because of the quota we are to be permitted to place on those markets?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The answer is that they are paying a substantially higher price now because of the quality of our wheat. In regard to the wheat agreement, which we hope will work, it is not a simple matter, as anyone knows who has given it any thought. It is perhaps one of the most difficult things to be attempted in the way of international agreements with regard to trade, and there are many difficulties to be overcome. But the quota is fixed; it is conceived to be within the consumptive power of the importing countries, and we believe it is. Within the ambit of that consumptive power we get our quota of 200 million bushels, and I expect that we will get pretty well up to that figure. I am hoping there will be an adjustment in world conditions next year which probably will increase that. When we consider the export of wheat we must bear in mind that in the last eight years conditions in Europe have changed greatly. I believe one might say they have changed permanently; it looks that way. The fear of dependence upon external sources for supplies of food has had a tremendous influence on the people of Europe. I believe it is the condition we must admit is there, and probably will be maintained. On the other hand, if conditions in Europe do materially improve-and there are indications that they will-'there may be an enlargement of that market. These are things however which are entirely beyond our control.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: May I ask the minister if there have been any special activities in regard to the selling of wheat in the orient, particularly China and Japan? I well remember the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when in the session of 1931 he said we had a big potential market in the orient for the selling of wheat, and that to some extent it was taking the place of rice. Is there any activity in that section of the world?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Every possible effort has been made in that direction. There is one answer, however, and it is this: If the wheat can be sold to Europe under that fixed quota there is no harm done, even if exports to another section do not increase, provided the hole there is filled by someone else. What has happened in recent years, based on the information I have just given, is this: Australia has greatly increased its exports to China. Australia's wheat is more suitable for the 
Chinese market than ours is. The Chinese people want a wheat with a high gluten content. They use it chiefly for the pastry type of food which they call noodles, which is one of the main articles of diet made in that country from flour. The use of bread in northern China is increasing, but not to a very great extent. Then, a further consideration is that the Chinese people themselves produce a large quantity of wheat. Sometimes we get the idea that China does not produce wheat. Although it is not known precisely what they do produce, because they have no fixed system of statistics, it is roughly estimated that they produce about 600,000,000 bushels.


William Richard Motherwell: They are the fourth or fifth largest producers in the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and it is quite possible they may produce much more than that We do not know just how much is turned out; I have given the figure which is commonly used. The United States made a contract with China, on a credit basis, for the shipment of some of their western wheat. Their wheat grown in the states of California, Oregon and Washington is a soft wheat similar to that grown in Australia; it is not the hard Canadian variety. They do not export any hard wheat from the United States to China. They had a very serious surplus on the Pacific coast, and because of that they made one three-year and another five-year contract with China. They have not filled that contract, I may say. The demand has fallen off, and there has been an equalization in or a lessening of the spread between the depreciated currency of the far east and the American dollar, a factor which has stimulated the export of American wheat, but has materially checked the importation of wheat from other countries. That is the situation at the moment. We have done everything we can do to encourage the disposal of wheat in the orient. We have not however gone to the extent of giving our wheat away, as some people have suggested we should do. The reason we should not do that is, in my view this: The wheat flour business of China is controlled for all of northern China at Shanghai, by wonderfully efficient and comprehensive business organizations. There is no reason to believe that if Canada were to give 10,000,000 or 20,000,000 bushels of wheat to China for its so-called needy people in the interior, the wheat would ever reach them. We have gone into that matter very carefully, having been waited upon by kind hearted people who suggested something of the kind might be done. But there is no use in Canada's

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
giving 10,000,000 or 20,000,000 bushels of wheat to China if that wheat may fall into the hands of persons who, though not necessarily in need, would probably profit by it. Having carefully explored all these possibilities we do not know of anything we could do which would increase our sale of wheat to China. Of course we do a very nice business with Japan, and we are watching it very carefully.


Thomas Reid: Is it not a fact that the matter about which the minister has been speaking is really one of currency? He has mentioned the Australian wheat as being very acceptable to China, but if he will look over the record of five years ago he will find that we were selling far more wheat to China than either Australia or New Zealand. I believe the whole situation can be traced to the currency problem.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The wheat about which
the hon. member has been speaking was sold at a time when we had a great deal of cheap wheat. When we had a bad season with resulting tough and rusty wheat we used to send it to the orient, because that was one of the markets that would take it. Hon. members will find, if they check back, that when we had a lot of cheap wheat our exports to China increased.


John Vallance: In view of what the minister has just said, namely that China is usually in the market when wheat is cheap, may I say that in February last wheat hit a low mark, as low as it had been in the last forty years. Is the minister prepared to make a statement with regard to an offer which was made to this country by an organization which offered to finance 50,000,000 bushels of wheat into China. Is that true?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member has asked that question before.


John Vallance: But the minister did not answer it before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend asks it with a look in his eye which would seem to indicate there is something terrible about it.


John Vallance: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I remember an individual waiting upon me. The reason I hesitated before, and still hesitate to some extent to make an answer, is that the precise details of the discussion are not very well fixed in my mind. The information I shall give is accurate, but it may be incomplete. A certain gentleman did wait upon me, and we discussed the situation, as I have discussed it with many people, and gladly, on many occasions. He did not disclose that he was representing any organization. I am not saying he was not, but certainly that fact was not left on record, or in my mind. As a matter of fact, what made the whole thing an impossibility was that the price of the wheat was to be twenty-nine cents per bushel. .


John Vallance: Was the grade stipulated?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. 2 grade, at twenty-nine cents per bushel.


John Vallance: F.o.b. Vancouver?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. There, again, I am speaking subject to correction, but my recollection is that it was a Winnipeg price. Yes, it was a Winnipeg price, because I remember in figuring it out in my mind I decided it was a figure we could not consider. That is substantially the story. In any case, the whole affair was incomplete; there was no definite offer made; and then, of course, there is the further point that we are not selling wheat. The pools and the dealers and the ordinary firms own, control and hold wheat, and can sell it at any time. Of course we invited these people to go to the wheat centre, at Winnipeg, and discuss it with pool authorities, and the exporters and owners of wheat in Canada.


John Vallance: To the minister's knowledge did they do that? Did they go to Winnipeg?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am again uncertain. So far as I can recollect they went to Winnipeg, and the men in the grain business did not take them seriously. That is my recollection.


James Layton Ralston: Is there a commercial intelligence officer in Washington?


Mr STEVENS:: There is Mr. Mahoney who looks after the commercial attache's office.


James Layton Ralston: The Department of Trade and Commerce has no one there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


James Layton Ralston: And in New York?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Hudd has been there for some years.


James Layton Ralston: And Tokyo and Paris?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In Tokyo Mr. Langley is the chief representative of this department, holding the title of commercial secretary; in Paris, Colonel Barrie.


James Layton Ralston: Both under Trade and
Commerce?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.
'	,	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence


James Layton Ralston: Are there commercial attaches at the legations in Tokyo and Paris?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In Tokyo, Colonel Langley is. Colonel Barrie is not known as a commercial attache, but he is always available to the department through Mr. Roy.


James Layton Ralston: Both are in a different category from Mr. Mahoney at Washington, who is directly under External Affairs?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Langley is both.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Langley's office is in the legation in Toksm and he works in close cooperation with the minister.


James Layton Ralston: But paid by Trade and Commerce?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and does all our work.


Frederick William Gershaw: Canadian millers are often in a position to supply low-grade flour at a very low rate. Are our trade commissioners in a position to find out when there is a demand for this flour, and if so, do they keep the Canadian millers informed as to the possibilities?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We certainly keep ourselves advised and pass the information on to all our commissioners in all parts of the world.
I do not quite know what my hon. friend has in mind, but I would point out the export abroad of low-grade Canadian flour is of no great advantage to Canada except that it may get rid of a certain amount of material; but as a medium for advertising Canadian wheat and flour it is an injury rather than a help.
I say that frankly to my hon. friend because I remember distinctly an instance being brought to my attention some years ago where a lot of low-grade flour was shipped to the orient, and it certainly did the reputation for our flour considerable harm. So I should not think there is much advantage in the suggestion, except that in a year when there is a great deal of tough or frosted wheat, and when we are so short of higher grade wheat that we must mill a certain amount, then, of course, we have simply to do the best we can. Fortunately in not many years lately have we had that type of grain, so that the situation has not often arisen.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: The question I had in mind has been partially answered by the minister's reference to the Commercial Intelligence Journal. I used to think that there should be some reference in the Commercial Intelligence Journal to the promotion of the sale of wheat abroad. I quite under-
stand now that it is probably more for the benefit of industries in this country, but I would ask the minister this question: Does-he through his department make particular efforts through the agency of the trade commissioners to popularize the use of Canadian wheat abroad for the making of better bread: and everything else that would go towards making people use more Canadian wheat, and: a better quality of Canadian wheat in order to get a higher standard of bread?
With reference to Canada carrying out its-part in connection with the world wheat agreement, I understand that a certain amount, of publicity or propaganda is now being used to promote the wheat agreement in western Canada. I would ask the minister whether or not money is being spent by his department or out of any of these appropriations in that kind of publicity in the prairie provinces-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I answered that a moment ago. We are not spending anything on that at the present time.
May I correct a statement I made a few moments ago when I said that Colonel Barrie was not known as a commercial attache. In his official description I find that he is described as a commercial attache. At the same time I can confirm what I said a moment ago, that he is under this department and his salary is paid out of this vote.
In regard to advertising Canadian wheat and pressing its sale abroad, we -have done a great deal in that direction. Shortly after I took office, and on several occasions since, I wrote personal letters to each of our trade commissioners supplementing what is ordinarily done through the department, pointing out to them the necessity of keeping to the very forefront at all times the marketing of our wheat and flour. I did that, not that I wished to disregard other commodities, but rather because it was an item of such supreme importance to Canada that I felt I was justified in doing it. Then in Winnipeg, in a laboratory attached to and under -the Board of Grain Commissioners, we had a chemist make a series of scientific tests of our wheat and flour, ascertaining the baking qualities, and so forth. He made a series of comparisons showing that a certain percentage of Canadian flour mixed with flour made from, we will say, French wheat, Italian wheat, English wheat, and wheat of other countries in certain proportions, would give certain results. The scientific data was all set forth and photographs were made of the bread baked at these tests. The whole -thing was set out in a very attractive little brochure which was

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
sent to every trade commissioner, and they were specially instructed in the technique of this subject, and also specially instructed that they must give every possible attention to the utilization of the information contained in the brochure for the purpose of encouraging the use of our wheat and flour. I merely mention these things to show that in these ways and otherwise we are doing the utmost we can in that direction.


William Gilbert Weir: The minister is satisfied that that scientific information has been put out to the people?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, yes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I should like to point
out to the minister, who is chairman of the mass buying committee, that a certain anomaly exists in our internal and external trade in regard to flour. In our section of the country, when we buy flour from. Winnipeg or the west, we have to pay more for it than people in Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver have to pay; and if my information is correct, people on the European continent, in London, Liverpool, and at Havre in France, can buy our flour more cheaply than we can buy it. Surely that is an anomaly that should be remedied; the Canadian consumer should not be penalized for buying Canadian flour. I thought it well to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, who is chairman of the committee investigating certain matters pertaining to our commerce, with a view to seeing whether we can avoid being penalized by having to pay a higher price than people abroad for our own Canadian production.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have already made
a partial study of that question and the material we have accumulated has been passed on to the committee.


James Layton Ralston: I want to follow up the
question I asked of the minister a few minutes ago with regard to the relationship between the department and the gentlemen in the capitals where we have legations. I am speaking particularly of Washington. I take it from what the minister says that Mr. Mahoney is under External Affairs altogether.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Right.


James Layton Ralston: What I am anxious to see done, and I am sure the government is too, is that there shall be gathered together in one department all the information with regard to external trade, and particularly with regard to what is happening from time to time now in the United States, especially
with regard to codes and tariffs. I make no complaint, because I was treated with the greatest courtesy, both by the minister and by Mr. Mahoney when I was in Washington. They put themselves out and gave me the fullest information and have kept me informed since that time. From my experience during the past few days I feel that I ought to be able to go to some department to find out the latest developments in connection with the different codes which might affect Canadian trade, as well as the latest information with regard to legislation and tariffs. The Minister of Trade and Commerce may get this information direct from Mr. Mahoney; I do not know. H he does, it would prove of great benefit to me as I would know where I could get it.
No doubt the Prime Minister, as Minister of External Affairs, and probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce, know that quite recently legislation was introduced into the American congress to provide for an embargo on all fish products into the United States. This is of particular concern to those engaged in the fishing industry. The departmental officials gave me the best information they could, but there does not seem to be any place where such information is concentrated. If I may say so, I think it ought to be concentrated in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Let me give one instance. The lobster code has recently been prepared. In that code is contained provisions with regard to measurement which may seriously affect our industry, although we do not think so. If that information were immediately available in the Department of Trade and Commerce it would prove to be of great assistance. In connection with tariffs, there is a possibility of the application of section 3 (e), I think it is, of the American act, whereby if it is found that importations are taking place under such conditions or in such quantities as to prejudice the commodities dealt with by the code, action may be taken by the president. Information as to wrhat action may be taken or may be threatened to be taken under this section should be easily available to those interested in these industries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are supplied constantly with ail this information by Mr, Mahoney and we keep a close check on all legislation, moves, and so on passed or made in the United States, as well as in other countries. All this information is available at any time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty has been
that in countries where legations have been set up the governments will deal only through
926	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
the legations and not through the trade commissioners. Since I have held office difficulty has arisen as to the status of our trade commissioner in Paris. He found it difficult to approach the government about any matter concerning trade except through the legation. I do not know whether there is any international rule governing this, but that is the fact. The rule here is that information as it comes into the Department of External Affairs is sent to the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, or whatever department may be affected. We cannot ask foreign governments to depart from their settled rules of procedure; we have to follow the rules they prescribe.


James Layton Ralston: I was not thinking of an endeavour to influence governments; I was speaking more along the line of having news and information made available.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As it comes here it is
always available.


James Layton Ralston: Has the minister received any information during the last two or three days with regard to this legislation putting an embargo on fish?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is very difficult for me to express any views on that subject. All I can say is that it is being watched with care and everything consistent with neighbourly relations is being done to protect Canadian interests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No item in any code
promulgated thus far by the United States has imposed any restriction upon Canadian trade.


James Layton Ralston: I am not talking about
codes that have been promulgated.	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just stating that.
The discussions which take place between Ottawa and Washington cannot be considered in this house until finality is reached. To do so would violate a fundamental principle of relations between outlying representatives of the government and the government. Once more I repeat, it is a matter of singular satisfaction that not one single item in any code promulgated thus far has imposed restrictions upon Canadian trade. In connection with the trade in alcoholic liquors, we had practically a monopoly as our commodities complied with the regulations while the commodities of other countries did not.


James Layton Ralston: Every code promulgated
so far has preserved carefully the provisions of section 3 (e) which states that if goods 
are imported under such conditions or in such quantities as injuriously to affect the producers under that code, application may be made to the president to prohibit importations or to provide for licensing restrictions. While the Prime Minister is quite right, there is always the sword of Damocles held over our head. I was not referring to codes but rather to news as to the progress of information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously it is such news that could not be supplied.


James Layton Ralston: We could have news
about it.


William Richard Motherwell: If it is understood that we are to be given an opportunity to discuss the wheat question when the Canada Girain Act is under consideration, I shall have nothing more to say to-night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would come more
properly under that bill.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 26, 1934