1935-06-03

[Stage Direction]
Report of commission appointed to carry out an investigation into the existing facilities in connection with unemployment of exservice men and care and maintenance while unemployed, in English and French-Mr. Guthrie (for Mr. Sutherland).

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of bills:
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have had an opportunity to consider the bill which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) proposed to introduce at the last sitting, to amend the Currency Act. Does the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) wish to say anything further in this connection?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have come to the
conclusion that the bill is not in order. It would involve additional charges on the revenue of the country, and on the authorities which it is not necessary for me to cite there is no question but that the bill is not in order. Therefore I would rule the motion for leave to introduce it out of order.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	On what dates were the following positions in the Department of the Interior abolished; the respective ages of each of the occupants of these positions on retirement and the amounts being paid annually to each of them under the Superannuation Act of 1924?
(a)	Commissioner of Dominion Lands.;
(>b) Assistant Commissioner of Dominion Lands;
(c)	Acting Controller of Timber and Grazing Lands;
(d)	Controller of School Lands;
(e)	Controller of Mining Lands;
(f)	Director of Northwest Territories and Yukon;
(g)	Acting Controller of Ordnance and Railway Lands.
2.	On what date was the position of Director, Lands, Northwest Territories and
(a)	23rd October, 1931	
(b)	21st June, 1931	
(c)	No such classified position.
(d)	9th November, 1931	
(e)	4th November, 1931	
(f)	1st July, 1932	
(g)	No such classified position.
Yukon branch, Department of the Interior
established?
3.	What is the salary range of that position?
4.	Was the position filled after holding a competitive examination?
5.	Were the former occupants of the abolished positions above enumerated or the occupants of any of the other abolished positions in the Department of the Interior given an opportunity to compete for the newly established position?
6.	What was the position held by the present occupant of the recently established position when the natural resources were transferred to the western provinces?
7.	What promotions, if any, has that person received since the present administration came into office?


Mr. MURPHY:: Age	Salary	Annuity on retirement51	85,220	82,560 1556	4,620	735 8756	4,320	2,401 1657	4,080	2,479 4156	4,920	3,300 752.	1st April, 1934.3.	S4.620, 84,920, 85,220.
4 and 5. No. The lands, Northwest Territories and Yukon branch was a consolidation of the functions remaining in the land administration after the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces plus the duties of carrying on under the Minister and the Northwest Territories Council the routine administration of affairs in the Northwest Territories and the departmental business relating to Yukon affairs. The Civil Service Commission authorized the promotion of the chief clerk who was actually in charge of all this work.
6.	Head clerk.
7.	(a) Head clerk to chief clerk, (b) Chief clerk to director, lands, Northwest Territories and Yukon branch.


ARREST OP COUNTERFEITERS
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Have counterfeiters been arrested in Quebec recently?
2.	If so, how many sentences were passed in the connection?
3.	Has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested all those known to have made and passed counterfeit money in circulation in the city of Quebec?
4.	Is it the intention of the Department of

Justice to prosecute those known to have made counterfeit money and who have not yet been arrested; if not, why?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Two cases since January 1, 1935:
(i)	Henri Martin sentenced on two charges:
(a)	making counterfeit coins; (b) uttering counterfeit coins.
Sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each charge to run concurrently.
(ii)	Mrs. Henri Martin (wife of above) sentenced on one charge: uttering counterfeit coins.
Sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
3.	The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have arrested all those known to have made and passed counterfeit money in circulation in the city of Quebec, except certain minors who were implicated.
4.	It is not proposed to arrest and prosecute the minors referred to above, as it is considered they were largely influenced and lead into wrong doing by those already sentenced.


ARCHIBALD DUNLAP
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What position does Archibald Dunlap hold under either the Department of Public Works, or Department of Marine, at the railway wharf at Pictou?

Questions
2.	What are his duties?
3.	What salary is paid him?
4.	How much did he receive in 1934?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	He is wharfinger of the east railway wiharf, freight shed wharf, west railway wharf, and commissioners wharf, at Pictou, Nova Scotia, under the Department of Marine.
2.	Supervision of the above wharves and the collection of tolls and dues leviable for their use.
3.	He is remunerated from the tolls and dues collected: 50 per cent of the first $200 collected per annum, or any portion thereof, plus 15 per cent of all collections over $200 per annum.
4.	$887.15.
farmers' creditors act commissioners


Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What are the names of the commissioners appointed undeT the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, in the province of Quebec?
2.	What are their respective salaries?
3.	Are their travelling expenses paid by the government?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Hon. Justice L. J. Loranger, chief commissioner, and commissioners Joseph S. Royer and Albert Rioux.
2.	The chief commissioner receives no salary as such. The commissioners receive $25 per day for each day engaged on the work of the board of review.
3.	Yes.


REVISION OF STATUTES, 1027
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What are the names of the persona
charged with the revision of the statutes of 1927?	.
2.	When were they appointed?
3.	In what manner were they appointed?
4.	What sum did each such person receive?
5.	Whep did they complete the final report?
6.	What was the total cost of revision of such statutes?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	(a) Right Hon. Sir 'Chas. Fitzpatrick, P.C ,
G.C.MjG., K.C.;
(b)	E. L. Newcombe, K.C.;
(c)	E. J. Daly;
(d)	F. R. Med. Russell, KjC.;
(e)	L. A. Rivet, K.C.;
(f)	H. H. Dewart, KjC.;
(g)	Alex. MacGregor;
(h)	E. R. Cameron, K.C.
2.	(a) December 28, 1923;
(b)	December 28, 1923;
(c)	December 28, 1023;
(d)	December 28, 1923;
(e)	December 28, 1923;
(f)	December 28, 1923;
(g)	August 22, 1924, vice H. H. Dewart, K.C.;
(h)	December 11, 1924, vice E. L. Newcombe, K.C.
3.	By order in council.
4.	(a) $18,448.20 including expenses;
(b)	S 2.125.75 including expenses;
(c)	S 9,675.60;
(d)	$14,275.60 including expenses;
(e)	$10,595.60 including expenses;
(f)	$ 1,449.50 including expenses;
(g)	$ 7,650.73 including expenses.
(h)	$ 8,931.78 including expenses.
5.	November 23, 1927.
6.	S138,473.53.


HECTOR WARREN
Mr. DESROCHERS:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. Hector Warren, of Pointe-au-Pie, was employed by the Department of Public Works as engineer, at Quebec, since 1911?
2.	How long did he remain with the Department of Public Works in the capacity of engineer?	_
3.	Is he still employed by the Public Works Department, at Quebec?
4.	If not. when did he cease to be employed by the said department?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes, since June, 1913.
2.	From June, 1913, to January 24, 1916.
3.	No.
4.	January 24, 1916.


CUSTOMS CRUISER MARGARET
Mr. EULER:: 1.	What was the original purchase price oi the former customs cruiser the Margaret?
2.	At what price was the Margaret sold by the government, to whom and when?
3.	What sum was expended in refitting and equipping the Margaret prior to sale?
4.	From whom was the preventive service vessel Ulna purchased, and what was the price paid?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	$273,360.64.
2.	$18,000. Sold to Mr. F. L. Zimmerman, 98 Montague street, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A., in September, 1932.
3.	$13,100 by Department of National Revenue-annual refit, to place her in commission.
As the annual average cost of maintenance of this vessel for the two preceding years was over $125,000 per anum, it was decided by the R.C.M. Police not to place her in commission, but to dispose of her by sale.
4.	The Margaree Steamship Company Limited, Sydney, N.S. Price paid $55,000.
Motions for Papers


ST-JOSEPH D'ALMA, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who is the present postmaster at St-Joseph u'Alma. Quebec?
2.	When was he officially and permanently appointed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Louis Philippe Simard.
2.	19th January, 1935, by the Civil Service Commission.


CANADIAN NAVT OFFICERS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the total number of officers in the Canadian navy?
2.	How many of such officers are bilingual?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1 and 2. The total number of Royal Canadian naval officers is 98, of which number 8 are bilingual.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DESROCHERS:: 1.	Has the government retained the services of Mr. Antoine Rivard, solicitor and king's counsel of Quebec, since 1930 to date?
2.	If so, for what purpose and in what
cases?
3.	What emoluments or fees have been paid to Mr. Rivard in each case?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.


BRITISH COLUMBIA RELIEF CAMPS
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How many single men were there in the relief camps in British Columbia (a) on January 1, 1935; (b) on May 1, 1935?
2.	What was the average cost per man, per day. in connection with these camps for the past twelve months up to May 1, 1935?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled 'herewith.


INTERIOR DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	In view or the provisions of order in council P.C. 189-1118 dated the 15th May, 1931, directing the Civil Service Commission to make no further appointments either permanent or temporary from outside the service to any positions that can be suitably filled by surplus employees from the Department of the'Interior, how many such ex-employees were reengaged at salaries equal to the salaries they received when retired?
2.	How many appointments, permanent or temporary, have been made since the date of that order in council to the civil service of Canada, not including part time employees, or those paid at prevailing rates?
3.	Is a list of those who were compulsorily retired from the Department of the Interior on account of the transfer of the natural
[Mr. Guthrie.J
resources to the western provinces, still maintained in the Civil Service Commission, and is it being consulted before making new appointments?
4.	How many names appear on such a list, not including those who have reached the age of compulsory retirement?


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES DISMISSED AND REENGAGED
Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	What is the total number of employees of the government at Ottawa who were employed at prevailing rates as labourers and mechanics and were dismissed since the present government came into office?
2.	How many of such dismissed' employees received either superannuation allowances or annuities?
3.	What is the total number of prevailing rate employees of the government who have been added to the several staffs at Ottawa since the present administration assumed office?
4.	How many of those dismissed were reengaged?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. POULIOT (for Mr. Dubois):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, factums, memoranda, evidence and other papers, respecting the investigation held by the Board of Railway Commissioners at Victoriaville. May 16, 1935, and at Nicolet, May 17, 1935.



GLENWOOD AND BROWN S WHARVES, N.B.

Mr. MICHAUD:: For a copy of paysheets in connection with labour performed at Glenwood and Brown's wharves on the Saint John river, New Brunswick, between July 1, and September 30, 1934.



ST-JOSEPH D'ALMA, QUE., POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MEiROIER (St. Henri) for Mr. Cas-grain):
For a copy of the report of Inspectors Pouliot and Beauchamp, of the Quebec postal district, with respect to the inspection of the post office at St-Joseph d'Alma, Quebec, the 6th, 7th and 8th December, 1933.

Mr. IRVINE (for Mr. Garland, Bow River):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, memoranda, and other written material passing between any person or persons and the Post Office Department, recommending the change of postmasters recently effected at Ferguson Flats post office, Alberta.



BRITISH COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT CAMPS

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a copy of all correspondence during the present year between any member of the

Interim Supply Bill
dominion government and any member of tbe government of British Columbia, or the mayor or any member of the city council of the city of Vancouver, or any other individual or organization, with reference to the situation prevailing in the unemployment camps of British Columbia.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I believe an arrangement was arrived at between the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the convenience of hon. members to the effect that as soon as we have concluded what are known as routine proceedings we shall ask to call it six o'clock in order to give hon. members the opportunity of attending the garden party at Rideau Hall this afternoon. We have concluded routine proceedings somewhat earlier than had been anticipated. I understand however that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) intends to ask for interim supply, and if it is the unanimous wish of the house we might proceed to take the formal motions in connection with that procedure before we ask Mr. Speaker to call it six o'clock. Government orders are to be taken at eight o'clock, by arrangement between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL


[Stage Direction]
year 1935-36
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for interim supply providing for a vote of one twelfth, except in a few special cases where expenditures are heavier in the earlier portion of the season. If desirable I should be pleased to enumerate where an additional twelfth is being asked. I would therefore move, if I have unanimous consent;
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I understand that the
leader of the opposition has given his assent to this.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not conferred with the right hon. leader of the opposition, but I am informed that he has given assent.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Before the
motion is put I should like to have my own position dear. I was informed by the right hon. leader of the opposition what the procedure was to be, but he did not mention this. I do not suppose there would be any objection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe the arrangements were made on Friday, as a matter of fact, to ask for interim supply, but I did not move on that occasion, because the Senate will not be in session until to-morrow and it was not necessary to move at that time.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
1.	Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $16,058,144.05, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936.
2.	Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,063,339.90, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several following items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936, namely:

Votes Nos. 4, 5 and 17, civil government;
Vote No. 82, Hudson Bay railway;
Vote No. 89, canals, improvements;
Vote No. 106, public works, ordnance stores at Calgary;
Votes Nos. 129, 135 and 136, ocean and river service;
Vote No. 139, public works, St. Lawrence dredging;
Votes Nos. 143, 147 and 148, lighthouse and coast service;
Vote No. 158, steamboat inspection;
Vote No. 185, Royal Canadian Mounted Police;
Vote No. 202, public health engineering;
Votes Nos. 235 and 246, miscellaneous; chief electoral offices, battlefields memorial.
3.	Resolved,	that	a	sum	not exceeding
$82,633.33, being one-third of the amount of each of the several following items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament,	be granted to His
Majesty, on account, for the fecal year ending 31st March, 1936, namely: -
Votes Nos.	102	and 107,	public works,
armouries Westmount and Montreal, Vancouver public building;
Vote No. 264, miscellaneous-tourist business.
4.	Resolved,	that	a	sum	not exceeding
$278,083.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936, for Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936.
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and concurred in.
3226	COMMONS
His Majesty The King-Reply to Address



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936, the sum of $17,482,200.61 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister if this sum includes anything to cover members' travelling expenditures during the recess?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; that would be provided for in supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 84 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1936.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
At 3.36 p.m. the sitting was suspended until 8 p.m.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the reply of His
Majesty the King to the loyal address of the Senate and the House of Commons reached Ottawa to-day. As this is His Majesty's birthday it occurred to me that this should be read to the house at the earliest possible opportunity, and that opportunity has now arrived. I now present the reply, signed by the King in his own hand:
I thank you with a full heart for the loyal and affectionate terms of your address, which was presented to me by my Prime Minister of Canada at St. James's Palace on the historic occasion on the 8th May, when the representatives of all my dominions overseas gathered to greet the Queen and myself and to offer us their united congratulations and good wishes. So long as we live the Queen and I will never forget that unique and wonderful occasion and the moving words spoken by Mr. Bennett and by those who followed him. In my reply I endeavoured to express the thoughts that filled my heart-thoughts of thankfulness, of pride in all my peoples and of my gladness that their

representatives were gathered together to greet us in our home in the spirit of the family.
Your address recalls the eventful years through which we have passed; the years of war followed by years of economic difficulty and distress. History will never forget how my people of Canada stood side by side with all my other peoples when danger assailed us. At this time of thanksgiving, let us not forget those maimed or widowed by war, or those who are suffering from unemployment in these anxious years of peace. It is only by mutual help that depression can be fought, opportunities for work increased, and happiness and prosperity restored.
Your address speaks also of the changes in political relations that my reign has witnessed. Of my many causes for gladness there is none greater than that, while the bounds of freedom and self-government have been enlarged, so that Canada and the other oversea dominions have now attained the fullest nationhood, yet they remain united by a common allegiance to the crown, and the ties of friendship and brotherhood stand fast as never before. I rejoice that my silver jubilee has afforded a signal example of that family feeling. Let us keep that spirit and together fulfil that great task that is laid on all the nations of the British empire, to hold high the ideals of service, liberty and peace.
I am touched by the kind and affectionate words in which you refer to the Queen, who throughout my reign has shared my joys and my sorrows, my labours and my leisure. I thank you also for your reference to visits by members of my family; through them I am enabled to keep in close touch with the development and progress of my peoples overseas.
I thank you for your prayers, and I pray that the blessing of divine Providence may rest on my people of Canada and give them happiness and peace.
(Signed) George R.I. HYNDMAN COMMISSION
On the orders of the day:


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the
Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) tabled a very comprehensive report by the Hyndman commission dealing with unemployment among ex-service men. Is the minister in position to disclose to the house whether the government intends to refer this report to a special committee of the house or to deal with it otherwise? ?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: No decision
has been arrived at, but I hope to make a statement in a day or two.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In view
of the great interest taken in this report could the minister make available sufficient copies for hon. members, either by stencil or otherwise?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, I intend to ask permission to have this report printed.

Lulu Island Erosion-Mr. Reid



LTJLU ISLAND EROSION-STATEMENT OF MR. REID ON MOTION OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I should like to air a grievance. Some time ago I appealed to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) in connection with a matter which affects many farmers on Lulu island. I have received several telegrams stating that there is grave danger of flooding of their lands and I desire to draw this serious matter to the attention of the government. There is perhaps such a thing as natural erosion of lands which might be termed an act of God, but the erosion to which I now refer, involving some 5,000 acres of cultivated land and over 100 families, has been caused by the action of the Department of Public Works in closing up in 1926 and 1927 certain channels of the Fraser river, thereby throwing the current of the river against the bank of Lulu island. I know that the Minister of Public Works says it is not possible for the department to assume full responsibility in this matter, and I quite realize that no government can be held responsible for all erosion which may take place to river banks, provided of course they are natural. But the matter I am putting before the house is one where the Department of Public Works has interfered with the course of the stream, closing up one channel and so throwing the Fraser river over against the dyke lands in the municipality of Richmond. I claim that responsibility does rest with the dominion government and they should come to the rescue of these farmers. The danger is so serious that if the dyke breaks through not only will over five thousand acres of land under crop be destroyed but the whole dyking system of that district will also be completely ruined. I am again appealing to the minister and to the house to come to the assistance and rescue of the farmers and settlers in that district.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public W'orks):: The hon. member has from time to time corresponded with the Department of Public Works regarding this matter and we have received telegrams from New Westminster and those interested in the situation he has described. Careful consideration has been given to these representations and the
facts, as I recall them from the file, are these. These dykes were built many years ago, and long before the Public Works department made any construction or in any way undertook to control and direct the flow of the Fraser river. They were constructed by the municipalities interested, operating through a dyke commission with, I believe, powers of local assessment against the land's benefit and possibly with provincial assistance. The matter has been referred to the engineering department and they assure me that nothing that has been done by the Department of Public Works in the Fraser river has in any way contributed to the erosion that is now taking place. The responsibility appears to be provincial and municipal, and the Public Works department, while sympathetic. interested and anxious to discharge all obligations that can possibly rest upon the dominion government, feel nevertheless that they are in no way responsible for conditions as they now prevail. This house can well understand that the dominion government cannot undertake to protect private property against erosion, and the only obligation that does rest upon the dominion government is where any works have been undertaken that have been the cause of or that may have contributed to the erosion; and our engineers are very positive that nothing that has been done by the dominion government has in any way aggravated the situation or contributed to the conditions that now exist. Under these circumstances I submit to my hon. friend and to this house that the matter is one for provincial and municipal action and not for action by this government.



DUTIES ON FISHERMEN'S SUPPLIES AND REPAIR PARTS FOR IMPLEMENTS-STATEMENT OF MR. BROWN

Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I might take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the government certain complaints that have come to me. I had hoped that either the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) would be present when I took this matter up, but since we hope that we are approching the end of the session, and as a fitting opportunity might not arise again, I will discuss it now. The question has reference to certain rulings of the Department of National Revenue in regard to the collection of duties. One complaint comes from Prince Rupert, and it seems to be that the Department of National Revenue is imposing a dumping duty upon certain fishermen's sup-
3228	COMMONS
Fishermen's Supplies-Mr. Brown
plies which under the Customs Act are supposed to come in free. It would seem to be a violation of the intent of the law that a dumping duty should be imposed upon these fishermen's goods which are coming in free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does that refer to- to the goods that came from Japan?


John Livingstone Brown: The particular complaint is, I think, with respect to goods coming from Norway, judging from the tenor of the letter. They are certain ropes, nets and fishermen's supplies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are from Japan.


John Livingstone Brown: Another complaint is in regard to repair parts for implements. It will be recalled that some time ago we had a complaint against the Department of National Revenue with respect to the way in which repair parts were being taxed. We did secure from the minister the insertion in the Customs Act of a schedule fixing the duties on repair parts for implements at the same percentage as had formerly been levied before the tariff was revised in 1930. Under item 409q, Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), the duties on repair parts are 10, 71, 6, 15, 171 per cent. These were the duties that prevailed not only on repair parts but on the implements themselves before the duty was raised to 25 per cent in the fall of 1930. There is one other implement, however, regarding which it seems that the Department of Customs has given a different ruling, and that is under section 409 -farm tractor parts for repairs. I am given to understand that the department has ruled that these repair parts are subject to various rates of duty. It will be remembered that farm tractors to the value of 81,400 come in free, and under the ruling of bulletin 3383, file 128273, one would expect that the repairs for tractors would also come in free. But according to the statement made these repair parts have been taxed as follows: bolts, nuts, washers, rivets, 25 per cent and 75 cents per hundred; lock washers, 35 per cent; screws, copper or brass, n.o.p., 35 and 30 per cent; tractor gaskets, 20 per cent; cork gaskets, 32 per cent; asbestos, 25 per cent; paper, 35 per cent.
There seems to have been some confusion as to what constitutes a repair part. I do not see why there should have been any misunderstanding on that point. A repair part might be even a bolt or it might be connected with some other part but in either case the article would constitute a complete repair part. File No. 128273, dated November 12, 1927, reads:

Declares that any article which constitutes a part of a part providing it requires no further fabrication and is not adapted for any other use is entitled to entry as a complete part.
I would like the responsible minister to look into this matter and see that these repair parts are admitted under the terms that seem to have been the clear intent as set forth in the law and that the departmental officials will not be allowed to override the clear intent of the law and impose higher duties on these parts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The very clear statement of the difficulties that the hon. gentleman has in mind will enable the responsible minister to make an adequate reply when the house is again moved into committee of supply. In order that the hon. gentleman's rights may be preserved, whatever may be the case, if an opportunity is desired he may go forward with any amendment he may wish to make or deal with the matter as he pleases when the responsible minister is present. I will bring it to the attention of that minister at once.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Annuities Act, $85,000.
Mr. RALSTON:: Is there under consideration any change in annuity rates or the maximum annuity which may be obtained by one person?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: It will be recalled that the maximum annuity was reduced from 85,000 to 81,200 a year or two ago. It is an arguable question whether it was sound ever to have raised it from the original amount to 85,000. However, that was done. The maximum is now 81,200; the rate is four per cent, and I am inclined to the view that the course of wisdom would be to keep the maximum at $1,200 with the present rate of four per cent. The success that has been attained by the government in the sale of annuities in the last year is very remarkable. I do not say this in any way commending the government or our department for their activities, but when you find that people of modest means have subscribed during the last fiscal year more than 813250,000 to annuities that will take care of them in their old age, the plan of government annuities as at present conceived and carried on cannot be too highly commended.

In my judgment there should be no change in the .plan of annuities, although I know government annuities are sold to applicants in a measure cheaper than are annuities sold by a private company. That has been the subject of debate ever since the Annuities Act was introduced in 1908; reasons and very sound ones were given at that time and have been reiterated since, but the idea of the Annuities Act was to present to those who wanted to take care of themselves in their old age something perhaps a little easier to maintain through governmental assistance by way of taking care of administrative charges than what was made available by private corporations for those who are perhaps inspired to buy annuities away and beyond that class of people to which annuities were presented in the first instance.


James Layton Ralston: I take it from the minister's statement that there is not under consideration any idea of reducing the basis of interest yield on annuities or reducing the interest basis on which annuities are sold below four per cent?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The question of reducing the interest yield 'has been the subject of very careful consideration, and at the present time the government has not in mind reducing it.


James Layton Ralston: Or increasing the price of annuities, basing that price on a lower interest yield?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It would be difficult indeed to forecast what the future may have in store for us, and I would not like to commit the government or any succeeding administration, if I could, to any hard and fast rule. The question of these annuities must very greatly depend upon the cost of money, the cost of annuities and all the factors that enter into the infinite complexities of insurance against old age. But at the present time the matter cannot be stated other than .that the government does not intend to make any changes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Combines Investigation Act, $22,000.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: Could the minister give us by years the number of prosecutions and the fines that have been levied as a result of prosecutions under this act during the last ten years?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I take it that the question asked by the hon. gentleman has to do with fines 'that have been imposed and recovered following investigations under the act?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.
Supply-Labour-Annuities


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The information before me discloses that the first fines were as the result of prosecutions in 1926 and that $200,000 was recovered. The figures for other years are as follows:
Year:
1931
1932 1933.
1936.
Fines
recovered

Those were the fines collected in the years indicated.


John Campbell Elliott: The total for 1926 was about $200,000?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: And nothing for 1927 or 1928?
_ Mr GORDON: No. After the fines were imposed and recovered in 1926 there were no fines, as the result of proceedings, until 1930.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I notice that among the bills introduced by the minister is one to amend the Combines Investigation Act, which will remove the act from the administration of the minister and, as I understand it, put it under the president of the privy council as the responsible minister, the act to be administered by a commission. In these circumstances will the minister require this year the appropriation for which he asked last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As I understand it the legislation to which the right hon. gentleman refers has not been introduced as yet, or at all events has not been passed, and in the interval I think we are quite justified in presenting this estimate. We may never use it, but at the same time it will be there if the occasion should require it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is just as well to have this pointed out at once. I assume the legislation will pass and that the



Supply-La boar-A nnuities
minister hopes it will pass. When it passes the administration of the act will be taken away from the Department of Labour and put under the president of the privy council and a commission. In that event the minister may ask us to make an appropriation for the administration of the act by the commission. However, so long as the committee understand the situation I have no further objection.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The right hon. gentleman is not unacquainted with the history of the Combines Investigation Act, since he had a very great deal to do with it and, down the years, undoubtedly struggled hard with it. The act does .present great difficulties, and I think reference to the public records will disclose that from time to time the right hon. gentleman has made it clear that these matters go forward by orderly, progressive steps. We trust that the legislation which may 'be introduced will be a further progressive step; certainly, while the administration may be removed from the Department of Labour in a sense, that administration by that department has presented some difficulties. This change may not be an improvement, but we hope it will be.
Mr. IL8LEY: I should like to say a word about the administration of the Combines Investigation Act. During the sittings of the price spreads commission we attempted to obtain certain reports made by the registrar, but we were told by the minister that he could not make those reports public. Several members of that commission were of opinion that there was nothing in the act to prevent these reports being made public, and I should like to know from the minister whether that is his own view or whether he is merely of opinion that he has a discretion in the matter, and whether he exercised that discretion against publicity in particular cases under consideration. In order to recall the matter to his mind I will state what one or two of the reports were. One was the report on the alleged rubber combine which was under investigation by the price spreads commission; undoubtedly that report would have been of great assistance to us. Another report was in connection with the radio business. We were unable to secure those reports, and for our assistance in considering the legislation now before the house amending the Combines Investigation Act I should like to find out whether the government takes the view that they are not permitted to make the reports public or whether they take the view that they have a discretion in the matter. In the 
last few years it has amounted to the same thing; we have not been able to get those reports. Speaking for myself, and I think for my colleagues on the price spreads commission without exception, we think that if this is the law at the present time it should be amended. I have just glanced over the amending act and I cannot see that the government have made any provision for making reports public in the future. If that is the case I believe that provision should be made, and I should like to have a statement from the minister in that regard.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the Combines Investigation Act as it exists at present does not contemplate the making public of preliminary inquiries by the registrar. The question of making public preliminary inquiries of that kind was dealt with at great length when the act was first introduced twentydive years ago and subsequently when measures were introduced to amend it. It is quite true that investigations made by a commissioner under the act have been dealt with, in regard to publicity, as the act suggests. With respect to preliminary inquiries it has been the practice-and I think the sound practice-of all governments since the act was passed that preliminary inquiries and reports concerning the business of individuals should not be made public, and I do not think the Combines Investigation Act ever contemplated that they should be made public. The preliminary inquiry is made by the registrar, and the information given him is usually a full and complete disclosure of all the intimate activities of the individual. That being the case it always has been held, not only by this and the preceding government but by all governments since the act was passed, that publicity should not be given to an inquiry of this kind.
With respect to the activities of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying, surely they could not have been hampered in their activities by reason of the nondisclosure of any preliminary inquiry such as I have just indicated, made by the registrar. They had the widest possible opportunity afforded them to take evidence with respect to anybody's business, and certainly they were not hampered in any way by this government. So if a report was withheld from them, which report fell within the class that always has been withheld by every government since the act was passed, I think there should be no complaint on that score.

_____ Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Mr. ILSLEY:: We had in our possession
the reports of an investigation into the activities of the proprietary articles trade association, made some years ago.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That was the report of
the commissioner.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We also had the report of
the registrar. There is no distinction between that and the preliminary report about which the minister has been talking, so far as the ordinary man can see. Moreover there is nothing in the act to prohibit these reports being made public. Perhaps this is not the place to debate the matter, but I should like to ask the minister whether in the legislation amending the act he contemplates making any change in the publicity provision. If he does not, a debate will have to take place on the point.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That will be disclosed
when the legislation comes down.


James Layton Ralston: It is down now; I call
the minister's attention to Bill No. 79.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The matter will stand over until other bills are introduced.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bill is on the order
paper; a draft of it is on my file. It has been introduced and now stands for second reading. Does it make any provision for a change in the publicity provision, and if not, does the government intend to make any such change?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It does not.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The bill speaks for itself.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the minister at least give an answer? He may refer me to the bill and tell me to read it. Perhaps he is within his rights in doing that, although I do suggest he should be more familiar with it. If the minister does not care to answer will he tell me whether or not the government through this or any other bill intends making any changes in the publicity provision?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is a proper question.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I suggest this is not the
proper time to go into details of other bills on the order paper.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: After the election.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member for
Charlevoix-Saguenay says, "After the election"; well, after the election he will quite probably be speaking at long range.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And the minister will,
too-far away from here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration. Employment Offices Coordination Act, $8,000.
Mr. HEAPS:: Will the minister inform the committee as to the total cost of administering the employment offices throughout Canada?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The total cost of maintaining the employment offices is associated with this rather small vote which has to do with departmental matters in the federal Department of Labour, together with a following vote for S150.000 which is authorized by statute and distributed among the provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In addition to the $150,000,
how much is provided for the employment agencies by the provincial governments?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The total cost was
$490,229.97. That amount would stand, less the federal contribution of $150,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many people during
the last fiscal year found employment through these agencies?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The various employment
offices make regular reports to the Department of Labour. During the fiscal year 1934-35 employment offices reported that they had made 385,396 labour placements, 222.719 of which were for regular employment and 162.667 of a casual nature.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What does the minister
mean by the term "regular employment"?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As opposed to casual
employment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the minister refer to a permanent situation,?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not suppose anything is permanent, but the employment provided was such that in the event of a man being normal he might stay as long as he wished. Casual employment, on the other hand is only intermittent, a job here and a job there.


Mr. SPENCER:: What is the number of employment offices throughout the dominion, and how many are there in each of the provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are three in Nova Scotia, four in New Brunswick, seven in Quebec, twenty-six in Ontario, three in Manitoba, nine in Saskatchewan, five in Alberta and eight in British Columbia.
3232	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where are those offices situated in Quebec?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Chicoutimi, Hull, Montreal, Quebec city, Three Rivers, Rouyn and Sherbrooke.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: May I have the same information for British Columbia?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Kamloops, Nanaimo, New Westminster, Penticton, Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Victoria, and Nelson.


Olof Hanson: How many were placed through the efforts of the employment office at Prince Rupert in the year 1934-35?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the figures separated, but I should be glad to have an officer of the department look into the matter and inform the hon. member.


Olof Hanson: How many were placed through the efforts of employment offices in the whole province of British Columbia in the same year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall supply the information later.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I have the same information for Quebec?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Do the provinces meet any of the expenses in connection with these employment offices?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. The federal government makes a contribution of $150,000, by statute, and the provinces employ the office staffs. They are at liberty to add as much expense as they wish, and they do in fact add some.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice that Ontario has twenty-six employment offices while Quebec has only seven. Can the minister give a reason for that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The location of and necessity for the offices is determined by the provincial governments. The dominion government does not exercise any control over the opening or the maintenance of employment offices. It is a provincial matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fair wages and inspection, $11,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: From time to time I have received complaints about the wages paid on government contracts. As I am not aware of what method the government adopts respecting the enforcement of 'the fair wage

clause in government contracts I should like the minister to tell me what the Department of Labour does to see that that clause is properly observed in all government work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Department of Labour is asked by other departments of the government to outline what the wage schedule shall be on any federal government undertaking. The Department of Labour determines what those wage scales shall be and they are incorporated in the contracts of those who are carrying on works on behalf of the federal government. In order that there shall be no departure from the terms of the contract and that the schedule of wages outlined shall be adhered to, the Department of Public Works acting in conjunction with the Department of Labour withholds from the contractor a percentage in each case until the contract is completed so that if there is any bona fide complaint against the contractor that he has departed from the schedule of wages established in the contract there will be moneys available in order that those who may have suffered injury by reason of such delinquency may be taken care of out of the contractor's money. That is the practice that has been pursued, and so far as I know-and I have been very closely in touch with the matter-it has not been departed from.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many inspectors has
the government to see that the fair wage clause in government contracts is being lived up to?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: At the moment I have
not the number of inspectors at hand, but I shall probably be able to supply some information in that regard in a moment or two. The department, however, not only has recourse to those who come under this particular vote but if occasion arises may refer for information to other labour departmental officials scattered across Canada. Those employed directly under this vote number four in all, but as I say the department refers to many soutrces of information, not merely those connected with government activities but to those interested in seeing that the schedule of wages is not disturbed. Frequently reference is made to labour organizations.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister has stated that he waits for a complaint to come in before action is taken by the government. I think most hon. members realize how difficult :t is at times for those who are being discriminated against through the payment of low

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages
wages to lay a complaint in regard to the conditions under which they work. I observed from the evidence given before the price spreads commission that some of the most scandalously low wages were being paid by persons who were working on government contracts. I am not blaming the government entirely for that state of affairs, because in the case I have in mind at the moment the original contractor sublet the contract, and it was sublet a second time. It may be extremely difficult for the government to keep track of contracts that are thus sublet, and it is for this reason that I want to see the government strictly enforce the fair wage provisions of all contracts that it lets; because I believe that when a government lets a contract the goods should be manufactured or produced under such conditions that a government would approve. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, that this vote is not too low; I do not know whether the government have enough inspectors, because if we have to wait always for the person who is employed at low wages to disclose that condition, it will be an extremely difficult task for us to hunt down the shops and factories which are paying extremely low wages. For that reason I asked the minister what steps the government takes to see that the fair wage clause is enforced. He informs the committee that all they do is to wait for a complaint to come in, and then I presume the government takes such action as they see fit. I know of cases where there have been refunds to the employees who have been underpaid, but what I would like to see is such a strict enforcement of the clause enacted by the government that it will be impossible for an employer of labour to evade it on any government contract; andi that ought to be applicable specifically to employers who obtain a contract and then sublet it, and where the goods are subsequently manufactured under what are called sweated labour conditions.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Following the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) with reference to the fair wage clause on government contracts, may I say that although a fair wage clause may be embodied in the contract that clause does not apply the same in Ontario as it does in the province of Quebec. I am referring to contracts made by the Department of National Defence for clothing supplies for the unemployment camps. Those contacts are let at such a low figure that no legitimate manufacturer can manufacture the goods under the minimum wage laws of
Ontario and compete. I am under the impression from investigation that the minimum wage clause inserted in government contracts is being overridden in the province of Quebec, forcing Ontario manufacturers who tender on these contracts to go to extreme measures to lower their costs. It seems to me that the Minister of Labour should make it his business to see that these contracts are not let at sweated labour prices, because that simply forces the manufacturer into a very awkward position, and as I said a moment ago into a position where he is bound to try to get around the fair wage clause in some way.
I should like in this discussion of the fair wage clause to make reference to another branch of government service. I refer to the wages received by rural mail carriers who tender on competitive contracts for certain routes. The per hour rate that is being received by government employees under competitive contracts on rural mail routes is absolutely scandalous. In many cases it is not sufficient to maintain the equipment. In addition often under the contract price, the rural mail carrier receives about ten cents an hour for the time that he actually puts in od his route.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The rate has always been scandalous.


William Alexander Fraser: I am not questioning that. I am looking for some method of correcting it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It was scandalous even in good times.


William Alexander Fraser: I quite agree, but simply because it has been scandalous is no reason why it should continue to be scandalous, especially in view of all that has been stated in the last year before the royal commission on price spreads.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We are all getting better.


William Alexander Fraser: Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to cite one case I have in mind, which is authentic and quite definite. One rural mail contractor has to cross twice a day a sheet of open water about three miles wide, maintain his equipment, and make the trip 312 times a year in all kinds of weather, and sometimes at the risk of his life, for less that twenty cents an hour. May I be permitted to urge upon the Minister of Labour as earnestly as I can that, whether the present method is right or wrong he take some steps to see that the minimum wage remuneration shall be applicable to those who are carrying the rural mail in Canada.

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages


Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to what has just been said about mail contracts, it is undoubtedly true that the contracts are often awarded for rural mail delivery at a very low figure. Not only that, but the lucky man who gets the contract often does no work on it himself but sublets it to a poor slave who has to work for half the price, and the original contractor gets the difference for doing nothing, just because he got the contract. There are many such cases of privileged so-called mail carriers who carry nothing but their cheques and have the mail delivered by another person. Such cases occur quite frequently, and I draw the attention of those concerned to the matter.
Fair wages should apply not only to the laibour employed directly on the contract but to the labour employed indirectly in the manufacture of the materials used. Suppose a firm has a contract to construct a post office terminal in Montreal and the contract contains a fair wage clause. Fair wages may be paid to the men who are working directly on the building, but perhaps not in the case of different material's needed. The contractor, who may want to obtain his cut stone as cheaply as possible, goes to a quarry and offers a price. In order to meet that price it is necessary for the owner of the quarry to work his men under sweatshop conditions. The contractor who is really acting for the government forces the owner of the quarry to pay very small wages to men who must work like slaves. I direct the attention of the minister to this matter.
I would direct the attention of the minister also to the wages paid to lumberjacks. A few years ago these men were able to go into the woods for a few months in the winter and come back with a few hundred dollars. In some cases three or four members of a family would go into the woods and they brought back considerable money. Why was that possible? Because decent wages were paid. It is different to-day. I have personal knowledge of several cases where lumberjacks have returned after a winter's work with only a few cents in their pockets. Many others have had to 'beg their way home; they had nothing to show for their work. I am convinced that even though the price of pulpwood is increased through government intervention it has no effect upon the wages paid. A delegation of pulpwood magnates interviewed the government last year in connection with the price of this commodity, but I think it is a great mistake to give concessions to these men without making sure that better conditions will prevail for the workers. I believe that whole meeting
(Mr. W. A. Fraser.]
was pure bluff. They stated that if they received a higher price for their pulpwood they would pay higher wages to the men, but this was not done. One company refused to accept the agreement and the prices of pulpwood and newsprint fell immediately and the men were no better off than they were before. During the last elections these men were told that it would make no difference if more had to 'be paid for agricultural implements and other things like that because the workingman would receive higher wages under the new government. The results have shown that that was an illusion. The government should try to remedy this matter.
There is another matter I should like to take up in connection with the concentration camps where the men receive a wage of twenty cents a day. What is the use of talking about minimum wages when this small amount is paid to these men?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is not a wage and it was never intended to be a wage.


Jean-François Pouliot: It may be a gratuity, but whether it is called a gratuity, an indemnity or a salary, it amounts to the same thing. I admit that the men also are fed, but the food is much better on the days the inspector arrives than it is on ordinary days. I do not want to be hard on the minister but I must bring these matters to his attention. It is ridiculous to talk about minimum wages when the men in these camps are being paid only twenty cents a day. This is an important matter, but I shall not insist upon it too much if the lumberjacks are treated better. I do not blame only the minister for this but I think he should see that something is done in order that better conditions shall prevail.


William Alexander Fraser: The minister says that he does not call the twenty cents a day received by the men in these camps a wage; he may call it a dole or a gratuity, but is he cognizant of the fact that these men work eight hours a day on the construction of public works? Surely the twenty cents per day plus their clothing and food is a wage. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but in my opinion the Minister of Labour is permitting this legislation to be infringed upon or nullified by having these unemployed men used on the construction of public buildings and paying them only twenty cents per day plus food and clothing. How can this or any other government expect business to adopt ethical practices, through legislation or otherwise, when this government is contracting for clothing manufactured under

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages
sweatshop and unfair competitive conditions? I know of one contract for mackinaw coats which was let to clothing manufacturers in two different provinces and which netted, exclusive of overhead, less than thirty-eight cents for labour. The same applies to the clothing contracts being let by the Department of National Defence for trousers, caps and so on, for use in the unemployment camps. The dominion government

I am not particularly interested whether it is this government or some other government-are letting contracts which have been obtained under the most unfair competitive methods known to the trade.
While I realize that it is not within his jurisdiction may I ask the minister whether he will investigate the conditions that exist to-day under which the rural mail service is carried on, from the local post office to the boxholder. Whatever may have been the state of affairs yesterday, the fact is that conditions to-day are scandalous, and before this or any other government can expect the business men or the manufacturers of the country, either by legislation or otherwise, to improve their methods in relation to labour, it must clean its own house.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think we should have
some further explanation from the minister. He was not in this house during the last days of the last session of the last parliament, but I can well recall that in 1930 hon. gentlemen now occupying the treasury benches were on this side of the house, and for four or five days in one session they took part in a protracted debate in favour of the poor mail carrier and rural mail contractor. They pleaded for the poor man in the country who was getting only a few cents for each trip. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) were quite eager then to have the Post Office Department and the government of that day given an undertaking that adequate remuneration should be given these employees of the government. Now this government has been functioning for five years and apparently the only answer we can get from the minister when we point out the condition that prevails is the statement that contracts are given to the lowest tenderer. This government has inaugurated, we have been told, a new order of things since the new year, and we hear great talk about reform and new deals all along the line. We have been told time and again that things will be changed throughout the country so that no one will be allowed to suffer. Well, I want to bring this government face to face
with the present situation and to remind my hon. friends opposite of the attitude they took five years ago, when they were all in favour of helping the rural mail contractors and everyone else who did any work for the government. My hon. friends at that time advocated a better standard of living for everyone and urged that these employees in particular should be enabled to earn more money. To-day they face an election with the same situation existing and nothing has been done. They promised that if they were returned to power they would look after the mail contractor; they would see that justice was done. Why have they not done anything during the five years they have been in power? I am surprised that the minister has nothing better to offer than the statement that contracts are given to the lowest tenderer. If the condition that existed five years ago was unsatisfactory then why has not the government altered it, with all its talk about reform and new deals? I leave it to the country to judge.


Hugh Guthrie: When I moved in this
house in the year 1929, I think-


An hon. MEMBER:: 1930.


Hugh Guthrie: -1930, that there should be a change in the remuneration paid under the contract system-and if I remember rightly it was that the rural mail carriers should be taken from the contract basis and put on the mileage basis-had that motion carried it would have been done. But my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay and those around him voted it down; they beat us.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why did you not do it?


Hugh Guthrie: They beat us on that
vote. My motion was made at a time when the treasury was full of money-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is a great answer.


Hugh Guthrie: -but now we have struck a depression and hard times, and our policy is to establish the mileage system as soon as financial affairs throughout the country will permit. But my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay voted down the proposal and so did all the members of the Liberal party then in the house. They said, no, they would not allow it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Possibly the motion was voted down under the circumstances.


Hugh Guthrie: There was a division on it.

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages


Mr. OASGRAIN:: My hon. friend and those who led the opposition at that time wanted to have the condition put before the country. At that time what they were doing was playing politics.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you doing?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am not playing politics to-day more than my hon. friends did in those days. I want to bring this government face to face with the situation that exists today. In 1980 the Minister of Justice advocated a certain thing; he said it was necessary and should be done. To-day he accuses me of having been one of those who defeated his motion. In those days, of course, they were catering for the votes of the people. The Minister of Justice says to-day that at that time the treasury was full, and that is true; but since the Tory party has been in power five years the treasury is empty. It is always the same story. When the Liberals are in power they fix things nicely; there is abundance.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have Beau-harnois.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But when the Tory party comes in, within a year or two the treasury is empty and we are up to the neck in debt. We are loaded down with debt.


An hon. MEMBER:: And titles.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And titles too. To-day the position is this. This government, which must soon face the electorate, made promises in 1930. They declared then that things would be changed; no one would suffer; no one who was willing to work would go without work, and every man would get six days' employment in the week; there would be money in everybody's pocket. The Minister of Justice in those days wanted the mail carriers to get more money. Well, have my hon. friends done it? No. Are we not justified therefore, can we be charged with playing politics, when we remind the government of their sins of omission and commission in these five years? The answer the Minister of Justice has given is a poor one, and the answer the Minister of Labour makes is poorer.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I rise to protest. My hon friend says my answer was poorer than the answer given by the Minister of Justice. I have not answered yet.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My hon. friend knows how to take it; he is a good sport. If it was wrong in those days not to give proper

remuneration to these employees, surely it is as bad if not worse for this government to refuse to-day to do something for them, when people are starving and when in the rural districts a few dollars more to a mail contractor would mean quite a lot. The government has been remiss in its duty in the last five years; it has not done the proper thing by the people of the country, and when the day of reckoning comes hon. gentlemen opposite will be put where they deserve to be.


Mr. SANDERSON:: This question of remuneration to rural mail carriers is very interesting. The Minister of Labour was not in the house in 1930 but the present Minister of Railways was. The Minister of Justice, who has just left his seat and gone out, was in the house then. I have a recollection of a speech-I have sent out for a copy of Hansard; it may not be here for a few minutes

that the present Minister of Justice made in the session of 1930 when he almost shed tears as he sat over on this side.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did shed tears.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, I believe he did, in regard to the starvation wages that the poor rural mail carriers were getting under the former administration. Moreover, the speech that he delivered on that occasion was sent out among the tons of campaign literature that was sent from Ottawa on behalf of the *Conservative party in 1930. That is not the whole story. The famous speech made by the present Minister of Justice on rural mail carriers was printed and was sent to every rural mail contractor in the Dominion of Canada, along with the printed promise, one of the many, many promises that the Conservative party made in 1930, that if the King government of that day were turned out of office and a Conservative government came in, every rural mail carrier would automatically have his contract cancelled and be put upon a basis of so much per mile per annum.
This is not a new question at all. It was one that was debated very many times in the session of 1930, and I want to point out now to the Minister of Labour that if he will take the trouble to look over the rural mail contracts, especially in Ontario-and I think the same thing will apply to all the other provinces-he will find that as regards the contracts which have expired under this government since 1930 and have been advertised for tenders, in many instances the contractor of to-day is getting at least a fifty per cent lower rate for the work he is doing than he was getting in 1930.

Supply-Lab our-Fair Wages


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That much?


Frederick George Sanderson: I think on the average it would be at lerast fifty per cent. The present Minister of Justice, who has just left his seat, said at that time: Why did the late King government not raise the price to the rural mail carriers? The price at that time was on a fair basis, but purely for political purposes the opposition of that day under the leadership of the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister and of the horn, gentleman who is now Minister of Justice:, advocated higher rates and promised-and all their followers cheered and banged their desks- that when they came into power they would abolish the contract system altogether and put the rural mail contractors on a basis of $70 per mile per annum.


Mr. McGIBBON:: They are on a basis now of so much per mile.


Frederick George Sanderson: They are not; they are on a tender.


Peter McGibbon: Yes, but if the tender exceeds the price of so much per mile1, they are not paid it.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: What you give with one hand you withdraw with the other.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was wrong about the date of the speech of the present Minister of Justice. I said that it was in 1930, but apparently it was in April, 1929. The Conservative party were just beginning then to make their promises of what- they were going to do if they got into power in 1930. The Minister of Justice made his speech on April 16, 1929, as reported at page 1612 of Hansard of that year. I shall not attempt to read the whole speech, but I shall read a portion of it.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I rise to a point of order. I have listened very attentively to this debate, and I would submit that it is entirely out of order, the item before the committee being "fair wages and inspection" under the Fair Wages Act. Under that act the government has control only of wages on public works-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This is public works.


James Arthurs: -not on post offices or anything of that kind. That is controlled by the Post Office Department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are discussing the whole principle of fair wages.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think it still comes under the rule.


Frederick George Sanderson: I mentioned a moment or two ago that the speech of the Minister of Justice was printed and sent out to all the rural mail carriers. That was not all that was done at that time. A special letter, under the signature, I think, of the then chief organizer of the Conservative party, went out to the rural mail carriers of this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On blue paper.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, on blue paper. This letter went on to say that the Conservative party were grieved and sorry that the rural mail carriers of this country were working for starvation wages, but that if they would see to it that there was a change in government, that is, if they would vote against the Liberal party, the Conservatives pledged their solemn promise that when they got back to power one of the first things they would do would be to raise the pay of rural mail carriers and it would be on a basis of $70 per mile per annum. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not in his seat because I want to read just a portion of the speech which he delivered in the house on April 16, 1929. when the house was in supply and discussing rural mail contracts. This is what he said:
The system which was adopted in the first instance in regard to these rural mail routes was one based on tender and contract. Certain routes were publicly advertised, tenders were called, and as a rule a fairly large number of tenderers responded to the advertisement in the hope of securing occupation as mail carriers in the rural parts of Canada. I suppose that lack of experience had something to do with the unsatisfactory conditions which attended the first tenders and the first contracts, but as time has gone on, conditions instead of improving have gradually become worse until to-day we find a system established throughout practically the whole length and breadth of this country under which certain men who are practically employees of this government-
And I want the Minister of Labour to listen to this particularly.
7-and of this country, for the purpose of carrying His Majesty's mails, are not receiving an adequate return for the services they perform. Indeed, so inadequate is the return to our rural mail couriers that the matter has become nothing less than a public scandal. Year after year this matter has been brought to the attention of this government and' of the present Postmaster General during the discussion of the post office estimates. Year after year the rural letter carriers have requested that their claims be considered and that they be treated on some fairer basis and on some higher standard than anything they have enjoyed hitherto.

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages
Now, the situation I will briefly describe as follows. The figures which I give, it must be understood, will be only average figures; I cannot go into particular cases; but I find that in the report of the Postmaster General for the year ending March 31, 1928, the total cost to the dominion for the "conveyance of mails by ordinary land" is $6,291,180.52. I have been informed by officials in the Post Office Department that this item includes the cost of all the rural mail routes, of all the stage routes, and all the routes known as station-to-post office routes; these are all referred to under one item as "conveyance of mails by ordinary land." Just what part of that single item is devoted to the delivery of rural mail I am unable to say with precision; I can only form an estimate, but information has been given to me that the number of established routes to-day is 4.007, and it has been represented that the average route in Canada at the present time is one of twenty miles. Some routes are a little more than this, some a little less, but as an average twenty miles is supposed to be about right. The average pay for a courier who travels that route of twenty miles is according to my informant in the department, about $800, although according to a statement which I have received from the Letter Carriers' Association the average amount which each carrier receives is only $720. I am taking the higher figure of $800 for a twenty-mile route, which would be payment to the courrier at the rate of $40 per mile over a period of a year.
I need not take up the time of the committee in reading further, but the hon. gentleman goes on to advocate a flat rate of $<0 per mile per year. Then he deals with some figures in regard to maintenance; he gives the prices of hay, oats and bran; he gives the cost of horseshoeing, mentions depreciation and so on. All told he makes out an excellent case for the poor rural mail carrier of that time, and then he goes on to make the definite promise that if the Conservative party should get into power in 1930 they would immediately raise all mail carriers to a basis of $70 per mile per year.
*I think the Minister of Labour should investigate this question and should give ;t his careful and serious consideration. If he will take the trouble to secure from the Post Office Department the average rate paid the rural mail carriers of this country he will find that it is far below the minimum wage paid to ordinary labourers.


William Alexander Fraser: As a
member of this committee I feel it my duty, following other hon. members who have spoken and having regard to the remarks of the Minister of Justice '(Mr. Guthrie), to bring the debate on this question up to date. What happened in 1929 is a matter of record; what has not happened since with regard to rural mail carriers is also a matter of record. Permit me to remind the Min-

ister of Labour that we are now living in a new era, that the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett) has made the statement that the old order is gone. The *right hon. gentleman has said that the day of the open market place is largely gone and that the day of unethical practices and unfair competition is past. Let us start from that; let us adopt that new order; let the Ministe; of Labour see that the Post Office Department pays something better than starvation wages to our rural mail carriers. Let me add to what I have said in connection with the new order, or the old order having gone, that until the government of Canada, the largest employer of labour in this country, adopts fair, ethical business practices in connection with competitive contracts and payment for public service they need not expect any desirable result to accrue from howling from one end of this country to the other that the old order is gone and the new order is in vogue or from anything else; they need not expect any improvement while they continue to set this sort of example to the people. Therefore I should like to suggest to the Minister of Labour that he make it his business, under the jurisdiction that 3 given his department, to see that the rura. mail carriers get a square deal.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What would you suggest?
Some hon. MEMBERS; You are the doctor; you prescribe.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I thank the hon. gentlemen for their very informative replies.


William Alexander Fraser: The
minister has asked me a direct question, and I feel honoured. Permit me to reply that after the next election the incoming government will inaugurate a policy that will provide a fair return for the service rendered by the rural mail carriers.


Mr. MANION:: Just to complete the record, Mr. Chairman, I looked up the motion as moved by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when he was in opposition. It reads:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:	,
"in the opinion of 'this house the present system of awarding contracts for the delivery of rural mail by tender has proved unfair, burdensome and unsatisfactory
That is what my hon. friends say to-night. -and that such rural mail carriers should be appointed by the civil service commission upon a permanent basis with a definite rate of pay-

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages
Again that is what my hon. friends say.
-based upon mileage and the physical conditions of the territory involved, having regard to the amount paid to the other servants of the government for similar employment."
When the vote was taken two of the active gentlemen opposite voted against that motion; I refer to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) and the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), the whip of the Liberal party. My hon. friends know I never criticize; I merely make this statement in order to keep the record straight. Incidentally the vote against the motion was 106. all of them Liberals, so far as I can see; the vote in favour was 70, all of them Conservatives, so far as I can see.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: May I ask a question?
Was that a vote of want of confidence in the government?


Robert James Manion: No, it was merely an amendment on going into supply.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So I would suggest that
both parties have been wonderfully consistent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This only goes to show, Mr. Chairman, how virtuous all oppositions are and how full of vice they become when they are on the government side. There is one point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, and I should like to go back to the matter I raised in the early part of this discussion. I refer to the question of the wages paid on work done under government contracts, and what can be done by the government to enforce the payment of fair wages. I know the conditions under which some of these contracts are let. In one instance which came to my attention, the manufacture of trousers, it was stated that after the goods had been paid for, only 17 cents per pair was left for wages and overhead expenses. Obviously it was impossible for the manufacturer to pay his overhead and decent wages out of that allowance, and as a result the wages were cut down. With the number of inspectors available it would be almost impossible for the government to make any close inspection of all the places where government work is being done to see that fair wages are being paid. I would suggest to the minister, however, that where government contracts are being let they insist that a sworn statement of the wages paid be submitted to the government, and that these lists be carefully scrutinized by the Department of Labour. Many of these contracts are sublet; in fact I belief that happens in most cases, and this would give the government some idea at least as to what was being done under the contracts after they
were let. I should like to ask the minister if he would be prepared at this time to inaugurate a system which would provide that all contractors in receipt of government contracts be compelled to furnish the government with sworn statements of the wages paid under such contracts. May I have an answer from the minister?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The course followed by
the Department of Labour is to see that the fair wages clause is carried out, so far as possible. I can readily understand that possibly in the purchase of clothing or some other material there may be an evasion but despite that it is the policy and the endeavour of the department to see that fair wages are paid not only in the erection of buildings but in connection with the purchase of supplies. I am hopeful that under legislation presented to parliament greater powers may be given the federal government, and that there will be a clearer recognition of the duty to see that within the competence of parliament a lead may be given in demonstrating that fair wages are imperative not only in building trades but in the preparation of supplies and materials. I am aware that at times a condition has developed, one which I do not believe is general, which has indicated that fair wages have not been paid in certain trades, and particularly those trades in which needle workers and allied working people are engaged.
It has been the endeavour of the Department of Labour to check on these matters; in fact, that is what the department has been set up to do. As Minister of Labour I am just following the course pursued by ministers who have preceded me, although I believe I may fairly state that at times I have been somewhat more vigorous than my predecessors. I trust that we shall be clothed with authority to impose greater and severer restrictions upon those dealing with the federal government to ensure a standard of fair and reasonable wages to those employed in government works.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In a way the statement of
the minister is satisfactory, but-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I did not expect it would be totally satisfactory. Do not misunderstand me.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister may have the
finest laws he could wish, but unless those laws are properly administered they are of very little use. I was suggesting to the minister a practical way out of a difficulty which I believe manifests itself from time to

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages
time in the letting of government contracts. In years gone by both Liberal and Conservative administrations have adopted a similar practice in connection with private bills approved by parliament. When private bills for the building of international bridges were before us we inserted a wage clause, and so far as the Canadian side of the bridge was concerned we compelled the contractors to supply the government with information respecting the purchase of goods and the wages paid. If that practice has prevailed when private contractors have sought privileges from parliament, is there any good reason why a similar provision should not be inserted in government contracts? If we insisted upon a manufacturer or producer of goods supplying the government with a sworn statement as to the wages paid by him in the manufacture of those goods, would we be doing any harm?
Mr. 'GORDON:	We are doing that now.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The contractor produces a
sworn statement to the department?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that examined subsequently by government officials?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If that is so I have very
little to add, because I am told that what I am suggesting is to-day an established fact. I hope the conditions which in the past few months have revealed themselves and which have to-night been mentioned by other speakers, the payment of miserably low wages will henceforth be a thing of the past so far as government contracts are concerned.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member for
North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who is one of the foremost proponents of labour, will find that in all factories rates of wages must be posted in a prominent place. The Department of Labour requires a sworn declaration from all those who work on government contracts, and the contractors do not receive the balance of their money until they satisfy departmental officials that the schedule of wages set out has been complied with.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to say
a word or two in reply to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) who, I am sorry to say, has vacated his seat. The minister has stated that on the vote in 1929 concerning rural mail delivery I voted against the resolution. That was a resolution placing the rate on a basis of S70 per mile. I did vote in that way, and I have no apology to make.

I would point out to the committee, however, that in 1929, the average rate of pay to rural mail carriers was very much higher than it is to-day. The rate was on a standard which permitted each contractor to obtain a fair return. I will not say those carriers were being overpaid, but they were paid fair wages for the work done. But under conditions which have existed during the last five years the pay of the rural mail carriers has decreased by at least fifty per cent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. RYERSON:: I should like to hear the hon. member prove that statement, because I know it is not true in .my constituency.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for
Brantford City (Mr. Ryerson) has said that statement does not apply to his constituency, and I must accept his word. In the constituency I have the honour to represent, however, I could indicate contracts let by tender through the Postmaster General where the price has fallen forty per cent, fifty per cent and sometimes almost sixty per cent below the price paid prior to 1930.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay):: On their
own tenders.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member
says, "On their own tenders"; yes, but he forgets that under the government he has supported every man in Canada has been glad to get a little work at any price, and these men have been glad to cut their prices.


William Henry Moore: That does
not prove anything.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, it proves that
this government has not been functioning to the advantage of the people.


William Henry Moore: You do not believe that yourself.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not going to
enter into a controversy this evening with hon. members opposite, but if ever there was a party which asked for the votes of the Canadian people, which made wild promises and then fooled those people, it was the Conservative party of 1930. I have no apology to make for my vote which is recorded as the Minister of Railways and Canals has indicated.


Mr. SHAVER:: Don't explain it, then.


Frederick George Sanderson: H the hon. member
does not wish to hear the explanation he may leave the chamber so far as I am concerned. The government has not a leg to stand on so far as rural mail delivery is concerned. nor can they substantiate the promises made during the campaign of 1930.

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I should like to refer to the enforcement of fair wage laws about which t'he hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has spoken. I agree that while it is essential to have laws on the statute books it is equally if not more essential that they be adequately enforced. In connection with tendering upon government contracts the custom has -been to ask for public tenders, and all who will may tender. I suggest that the government, with a view to enforcing the payment o-f fair wages by those who fulfill government contracts, take into consideration the establishment of what might be called a "white" list. I am not suggesting a "blue" list or a "red" list, but a "white" list. By that I mean that before a contractor or supplier be permitted to tender upon a federal contract he be required to first establish, not what he will promise to do in the future, but that he has been paying a fair wage in the past. It is easy enough to promise what will be done in the future, but unless the contractor has established a name for paying fair wages he should be refused the right to tender. If such a method were followed we could establish a white list or fair list of those who wish to contract with or supply materials to the government or otherwise enter into government contracts.


Mr. VENIOT:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it might not be out of place for me to have a word to say on this question of rural mail contracts. I wall remember how bitterly I was assailed as Postmaster General in 1929 because the government was not paying adequate wages or salaries to those delivering the mail in the rural districts. I remember at that time the motion moved by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), laying down the principle, and I remember also that the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister of Canada, laid it down as a part of the policy of the Conservative party that if that party came into power- this was along the line of the discussion-they would see to it that proper remuneration would be paid to the rural mail carriers. It was advocated at that time that they be placed on the game basis as the mail delivery men in the United States. It was my privilege then to point out that it was impossible owing to the sparsely settled territory in Canada for us to adopt a system similar to that in the United States. I also pointed out that I had been reviewing the whole situation with the object of endeavouring to find some better system of remuneration for the mail carriers in our rural districts. While I felt the system of the United States could
not be adopted in Canada, paying on a mileage basis at a figure which the present Minister of Justice suggested be fixed at $60 or $70 a mile, I stated that with the officials of the department of which I was then head I was reviewing the situation with the object of attempting to inaugurate in this country a minimum tender system. That is, an estimate would be made of what a twenty-mile route or a thirty-mile route or a forty-mile route might cost, and then the department would fix a minimum below which no tenders would be received. But that suggestion which I -made was met with derision by members of the then opposition, who claimed that it was a system which I desired to put into practice in order to give the Postmaster General of that day absolute control of the tender system.
Be that as it may, the matter was still under consideration when our friends opposite came into power in 1930, and although they had made promises, although they had circularized from the headquarters of their organization in Ottawa every mail contractor in the- Dominion of Canada, once they got into power they never attempted to put into practice the system embodied in the resolution moved by the present Minister of Justice.
It has been said that the present government has permitted tenders to come in, and has accepted those tenders, at figures a great deal lower for the same mileage than the contracts existing prior to 1930 and contracts continued after 1930 up to their termination. In 1933, I think it was, I asked for a return of the mail contracts awarded since the present government came into power, and I found that in New Brunswick alone the contracts renewed under the tender system under this government were $30,000 less than what the former contracts had been. I found that in Prince Edward Island the figure was some $11,000 less on these renewed contracts. I found by the return brought down by the Postmaster General that the ordinary mail land service had been reduced over a quarter of a million dollars per year under the tender system. Now if it was wrong, and I was severely criticized in 1929 and 1930 for not giving proper remuneration to our mail contractors, how much more should the present government be criticized when it- is shown that in the province of New Brunswick alone the contract system under this government reduced the remuneration to mail contractors renewing their contracts by over $30,000 in the year 1933.
But let me go further. Not only was the department of the Postmaster General satis-
Supply-Labour-Fair Wages

fled with accepting lower tenders, tenders far below the figure for whieh the same mail service had been performed under the previous government, but the system that prevails under the Post Office Department to-day is such that when a number of tenders come in for a mail contract in a rural district and the tender submitted by the old contractor is somewhat above the figure submitted by a new tenderer, the old contractor is written to and asked if he will not lower his tender to meet the figure of his competitor. In many cases the former contractor, desirous of still having the mail contract awarded to him, is driven by that fact to lower his tender so that it will be equal to or a few dollars below the lowest tender that has been submitted. That system should not prevail. Under the Post Office Act we were compelled to accept the lowest tender no matter who the tenderer might be but during the last few years this act has been set aside and the lowest tender is not always accepted. I feel that a contractor who has given satisfaction should have every opportunity of having his contract renewed under the tender system provided he is on an equal basis with the other tenderers. I deprecate the idea that because another tenderer happens to be lower the old contractor should be asked to go still lower in order to obtain the contract. Had I had the honour of continuing as Postmaster General after the 1930 eleotions I would have brought before the house, as I said I would in 1929, some system whereby mail contractors would be placed upon a more equitable basis and receive a more equitable remuneration for their work. I believe the system which I advocated at that time is better than the present contract system.
To attempt to establish in Canada a system similar to that in effect in the United States would be very impracticable. On the basis of the 1929-30 cost such a system would cost at least $7,000,000 to $8,000,000 more than the figure for that year. I do not intend to labour the matter, but it appears as though the chickens were coming home to roost. When the estimates of the Postmaster General were up in 1929 hon. friends opposite debated this question. Promise after promise was made but the promises have not been carried out. Whether this was because of financial inability makes no difference to me at the present time. Hon. gentlemen opposite made the promises, and five years after they assumed the reins of office is too late to come forward and say, "We cannot carry out those promises because the financial condition of the federal treasury will not permit." In 1929 they seemed
 .
to depend a great deal upon the mail contractors' association for the information upon which they based their argument for a $70 per mile system, and they should have been fair enough to make known to that association at an earlier date that they were not able to carry out the promises made in 1930.


William Alexander Fraser: Is it consistent with the laws governing the Department of Labour that men in the unemployment camps should be employed on the construction of public buildings and receive only twenty cents per day plus maintenance while within a few miles other men are employed on the construction of government buildings under the Labour department schedules?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall not undertake to cover the ground with respect to these unemployment relief camps, because it has been covered at length by the minister in charge of the department. This history of the necessity for the establishment of these camps is well known. It has been said that this is a twenty cents per day wage. Let those who still adhere to that euphonious way of describing these camps have whatever comfort, political or otherwise, they can get out of it; it does not make any difference to me. The reason for the establishment of these camps was the utter incapacity and alleged inability of the provinces to take care of men who were unable to take care of themselves. No one is forced into these camps, and only the transgressors are forced out of them. The men get food and are furnished splendid clothing; they are not overworked and they receive this gratuity. So far as I am aware these camps are better than similar camps which have been established south of the forty-ninth parallel. It was never intended that this twenty cents per day should be a wage. Wherever it has been necessary to erect biddings and employ artisans, the artisans employed are paid the current wages.
Let me point out that these camps do give sanctuary to these men. Men who have been totally and absolutely unable to take care of themselves have been given food and shelter. Every possible step has been taken by those in charge to keep in touch with industry in order that men may be returned to industry without a shaken morale and in good shape physically. The camps have provided a clearing house for almost 24,000 men who have been returned to industry after a more or less temporary sojourn rendered necessary by the stress of the times through which we are passing. Instead of taking sides

Supply-Labour-Old Age Pensions
with those who are perhaps sullenly resentful -as the camps are cleared out we get down to the turbulent class-I think hon. members should recognize the burden which the taxpayer of Canada has assumed quite willingly. We should not forget the efforts which have been put forth by those charged with the administration of these camps and the success which has followed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
Abraham Albert Heaps: When we are considering an amendment to the act for which this vote is requested, I asked certain questions in connection with the boards of conciliation which had been appointed during the last fiscal year. Possibly the minister has this information before him to-night.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: During the last fiscal year seventeen applications were received for boards, but the necessity arose for the appointment of only four. The other applications are taken care of by the conciliation officers of the department when the necessity appears.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are there occasions when requests made for the setting up of boards are turned down?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If it is apparent that the application does not fall within the provisions of the act, then it is refused; but if it appears that there is a dispute as at present interpreted by the act and that there is reason for complaint, great care is taken to see that there is no arbitrary action by the department; and rather than turn down an application for the setting up of a board of conciliation the matter is invariably referred to the conciliation officers of the department in order that their activities may be invoked with a view to having the difficulty ironed out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration Old Age Pensions Act,
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Prime Minister some time ago made some announcement with respect to amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act during the present session. Can the minister give information regarding any intended amendments?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am not in a position to make any pronouncement with respect to amendments to the act.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish to ask the minister a question based on a news item appearing in the Vancouver Sun of May 29, which is the last issue of the paper to have reached us. I will read the whole article, which is only a short one:
B.C. government endorses pension reform.
Announcement that the Old Age Pensioners' Organization has been successful in obtaining endorsement of the provincial government for its proposed reforms in old age pension administration is made to-day by E. R. Vipond, of the organization's executive.
Premier T. D. Pattullo has written to Ottawa, he states, urging that the dominion give earnest consideration to the following suggestions of the pensioners' organization:
1.	Persons over 7-0 should not be disqualified for old age pension owing to having broken their continuous residence in Canada.
2.	The regulation refusing pension where, in the opinion of the board, children should support the parents, should be amended so that aged parents should not suffer hardship because of inability of their children to support them.
3.	That the time is opportune to give consideration to reduction of the age limit at which persons may become eligible for old age pension. The great surplus of labour at this time makes it impossible for elderly people to secure work. Reduction to 60 or 65 would not only give security to this class, but would remove from an overloaded labour market men who have already made their contribution to the work of the country.
Has the minister received any representation of that kind? If so, is he disposed to give it favourable consideration, if any?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No such communication
from the Premier of British Columbia has been called to my attention so far as I can recollect, and1 I believe I would have recollected it had it come to the Labour department. I have had many representations from British Columbia dealing with a multitude of subjects that all present or are said to present problems. If such a communication does come to the Labour department it will of course be given the consideration to which it is entitled, which would naturally be serious consideration.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to add a few words.
There are a number of grievances in connection with the administration of this act, and while some of them are at the door of the dominion government for having changed the regulations that were in force, others are due to the maladministration of the provincial government, or the malinterpretation of the regulations. Bad as they were, they have been made worse by the deliberate misinterpretation of them by the board in British Columbia which is administering the act. Let me give one illustration. The dominion government in their wisdom, and I am not
3244	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Old Age Pensions
complaining about it, made a change in the regulation with respect to the valuation of land. Formerly it was held, indeed it is now held, that a person's income from land should be based on five per cent of the value of that land, and the regulation as originally drawn took the assessed value as the basis of valuation. The dominion government, with the consent of the provinces, and, I believe, actuated by some condition that arose in Ontario, changed it so that it would read that the valuation of the land would be either the assessed value or the market value, whichever was considered to be more equitable. That was done under the present Minister of Labour and I find no fault with it, but in British Columbia they have been continuing to take the assessed value, whicn in some instances was about five times the real value, with the result that some old person has been done out of a pension. 'Generally speaking, the assessed value of land in British Columbia, especially in the country, is grossly in excess of the market value. In the particular cases I took up with the authorities there I pointed out that the government had changed the regulation so that whichever value was found to be the more equitable should be used as the basis. I demanded that the valuation be made on the market value and the answer I received was. no; they intended to adhere to the assesseil value. In my opinion they did so entirely because it saved them trouble. They do not make any investigation into the real market value; all they do is to take the assessed value and they say it is their intention to abide by that. The result is that the particular persons I have in mind are deprived of a pension to this day in consequence of the ruling of the local administration board. And when I put it up to them that the regulation, having the force of law, distinctly made it optional whether the assessed value or the market value should be taken, according to which was the more equitable, they fell back on the ridiculous assertion that I was impugning the integrity of the assessors, because they were sworn to do justice. They declared that they were satisfied that the assessed value must be the correct market value, which of course is the purest nonsense, because it is well known to everyone in British Columbia, that the market value especially at the present time, is far below the assessed value.
That is only one illustration of the maladministration-I cannot use any other word -by which the regulations are twisted to do injustice and to deprive people of the pension to which they are entitled by law.
fMr. Neill.]
The day does not seem to have been a happy one when they have not been able to refuse someone a pension or to deprive him of it for a period of time. The old regulations laid down the rule that when a man or woman was granted a pension it should date back to the date of the application if they were qualified. Now that has been changed and it dates only from the time the officials make up their minds that the pensioner is entitled. And they can drag it on for a year or two years and sometimes three years, and they think their time and energies have been well spent when some poor old person has been kept out of that which at last they reluctantly grant after making investigations and inquiries as to what some distant relation's residence is or what that person's income was during a certain year.
There is another matter of which the department is cognizant. I have discussed it before but I take this opportunity to bring it up again. There is a beautiful theory in the British Columbia board that children can and ought to support their parents, regardless of the estate, means or ability of the children to do so. I have in my files case after case where I have been told in British Columbia, "We will not grant a pension to the person for whom you intercede until that person sues the children." One case was that of a man, and they said: He has a son who is a single man and he can and should be able to support his parents; you have the father sue the son before we will do anything. I went and interviewed the parties. The father was an old man and was getting So a month relief, working it out on the roads. The son was living in a shack about six feet square and he was also on relief, getting $5 a month and working it out on the roads; that was all he had to live on. That was the son the father was supposed to sue so as to get an order of the court stating that the son could or could not help the old man, before any justice would be done to the father. That is the sort of way in which the regulation is enforced, taking advantage, I think wrongly, of the change made by the minister in the regulations by which certain language is used which states that in deciding what a man's income is, they shall take into consideration any income that he may be likely or expected to receive, or words to that effect. These officials out in British Columbia have twisted that to mean any possible sum he may or may not receive. For instance, they say that the father is entitled to "expect" that his child shall support him, because in British Columbia there is a parents' maintenance act

Supply-M arine
which states that there is an obligation on children to support their parents. The way they twist the language, perhaps innocently inserted by the minister, is this: that as long as the father is entitled to "expect" his son to assist him, the son shall do it. When a child who is on relief cannot do it, they say: That makes no difference; the parent is entitled to "expect" that he will do it, and that relieves the board of any obligation. They say to a woman eighty years of age: Go and sue your daughter, your son. Supposing it is a son, you have the daughter-in-law saying: You are trying to take the bread out of my children's mouths when we are desperately hard up and ourselves on relief. Yet these officials say: Go and sue your children before we will give you any recognition of your rights under the Old Age Pensions Act. These are the sorts of injustices that are going on and in regard to which the minister might well have an investigation. I hope what I have just read out is true, namely, that the Premier of British Columbia has taken steps to make a request of that kind. I trust this will lead to an amelioration of those grievances, not only those mentioned in the newspaper, but also those I have cited and several others that I would be very happy to give the particulars of and absolutely prove.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice in the speech from the throne submitted to the house on January 17 last the following:
Better provision will be made for the security of the worker during unemployment, in sickness, and in old age.
I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if there is likely to come before the house this session any legislation which will in some way implement the pledge made in the speech from the throne on January 17 last.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I assume the hon. member has read the legislation that has already been brought before parliament and is in course of being passed. There is not likely to be any further legislation directed toward the subject matter to which reference has been made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister then give to the committee this information:	How
many people in Canada are to-day in receipt of old age pensions?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Labour Gazette, which of course has been distributed to the members, discloses a total of 86,873 persons in receipt of old age pensions at the close of the fiscal year 1933-34.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If it is not too much trouble, could the minister give us the figures by provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This again is all revealed in the Labour Gazette which each hon. member has in his office or room:
Number
Province:	.	of persons
Alberta	 6,286
British Columbia	 8,095
Manitoba	 9,236
Nova Scotia	 6,509
Ontario	 46,281
Prince Edward Island	 1,258
Saskatchewan	 9,203
Northwest Territories	 5
86,873


Mr. MacINNIS:: Could the minister give the total amount paid in old age pensions and the amount paid by provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I regret I have not the amounts divided among the provinces, but during the fiscal year 1938-34 the total expenditure in Canada for old age pensions was $16566.116.74, in respect of which amount the dominion government's contributions to the provinces aggregated $12,313,594.93.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Have there been any negotiations with Quebec and those other provinces in which at the moment pensions do not exist, with the possible end in view of bringing the people of those provinces under this legislation?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The dominion government has passed the legislation. The legislation itself is an open invitation to a province to subscribe to the plan and enact the required legislation if in its judgment this is a wise, just and proper thing to do. So far as I am aware, the dominion government has not urged any province to take advantage of the legislation, nor has it discouraged it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like that point made clearer. The minister says that the government has never urged the idea or retarded it. Would this be a fair thing to say, that any province is welcome to take advantage of the legislation, and that the dominion government would not stand in the way?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Quite so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $258,570; contingencies, $46,800.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should like to ask the minister if he has any statement to make to the committee with regard to the appointment



Supply-Marine
of a deputy minister of marine, which position hias been vacant for almost three years. I have asked this question repeatedly; I hope the minister will not be offended at my asking it again, but I think not only the members of this committee but the people at large look forward to the appointment of a deputy minister in the very near future. We do not know who it will be but we hear prominent names mentioned. It is true that the department has been well run under my hon. friend the minister, although we have offered criticism at times. The minister himself admitted not long ago that his-department suffered because he had not engineers and had to call upon engineers outside the department for assistance, which cost a good deal of money. Perhaps that could have been avoided if a competent deputy minister had been appointed, although the assistant deputy is a very competent gentleman. On the other hand if the minister has discovered that he can run the department as it has been operated for the last three years, without the services of a deputy minister, while maintaining the efficiency of the service, I do not think we should be called upon to vote the salary of a deputy minister.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I am not at all offended at the remarks of my hon. friend with regard to the appointment of a deputy minister, but I do not think the fact that no such appointment has been made has increased the engineering cost in the department. If I look up the public accounts from 1925 to 1930 I find that during that period outside engineers employed by the Department of Marine cost the government more than twice as much as they have cost since 1930, so I do not think the appointment- of a deputy minister could have anything to do with that.
I have no other answer to give my hon. friend that I have not made already. This appointment is a prerogative of the Prime Minister, not of the Minister of Marine, and I suggest to my hon. friend that he should direct his question to the Prime Minister. I am anxious also that a deputy minister should be appointed. I have had to do a part of the work that would be done by such an appointee;
I have done it as well as I could and we have saved as much money as possible in the operation of the department. Without definite knowledge I think I can say to my hon. friend that he may expect the appointment to be made very soon.
Mr. 'CASGRAIN: I am all sympathy for the Minister of Marine because he has had to do all that work himself, without the aid of a 
deputy minister. I sincerely hope that before long, say within the next few weeks, we may hear the good news that a new deputy minister has been appointed.


Alan Webster Neill: I see provision made for a secretary to the wreck commissioner, at S3,120, but there does not seem to be any provision for the wreck commissioner. Who is the secretary? Is he a technical man? Does he perform the duties of wreck commissioner or what has become of the wreck commissioner?


Alfred Duranleau: The position of wreck commissioner was declared vacant under an order in council adopted some time ago which provided that positions which had not been filled by a certain date should become vacant. Up to the present, since the retirement of Mr. Demers, who was the wreck commissioner, we have appointed outside commissioners, and I may tell my hon. friend that we have saved a good deal of money since the adoption of this policy.


Alan Webster Neill: Do I understand that you pick up a naval man in the locality where the accident requires investigation?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, that is what we have been doing, with some success and less expense.


Alan Webster Neill: Then to whom does the secretary act as secretary?


Alfred Duranleau: We have in the department a man who acted as secretary to the wreck commissioner. That man is still in the employ of the department; he acts as registrar for the commissioner appointed in each case.


Angus MacInnis: There is still a wreck commissioner's office, is there not, although there is no wreck commissioner?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say there is a wreck commissioner's office but in the department there is an employee who acted as secretary to the wreck commissioner and who now acts as registrar for the commissioners appointed.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister think he will get as good and efficient service by picking up a man, no doubt recommended by politicians, when the occasion arises here and there, as he would by having a permanent appointee at Ottawa who would have some continuity of policy, at any rate, and who possibly would be more independent than a local man who might have prejudices or influences brought to bear upon him? The minister says this policy is cheaper, but is it more efficient?

Supply-M arine


Alfred Duranleau: As I have said, up to the present we have been very successful; in two or three instances we have appointed judges. I think a few months ago we appointed an outstanding judge in marine matters in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, who made a very extensive and useful report. I can tell my hon. friend that it is the opinion of my officials that this policy is better and cheaper, because we have not had very many inquiries to make. I do not think we have held more than five or six inquiries since the wreck commissioner retired two or three years ago, and I think we are saving money.


Alan Webster Neill: I think it was before the minister's time, but the department at one time kept a suibcommissioner or deputy at Vancouver, and I often protested against that expense; I am glad to see that has been done away with. In the west, and I assume also on the Atlantic, there is a judge who devotes himself to admiralty cases; he is known as an admiralty judge. Would a judge of that character be employed in British Columbia, for instance? If I remember correctly it is Mr. Justice McPhillips in that province.


Alfred Duranleau: As a rule we pick out the best man in the locality. If he is a judge he does not cost very much because, as my hon. friend knows, some judges have no right to make any charge except for their expenses. For instance, when superior court judges are appointed commissioners they receive no fees.


Alan Webster Neill: If the minister is appointing men of the calibre of judges I have no complaint at all, 'because we know their standing and their impartiality. But my point was this: I know how he made the appointment in my district in connection with a port warden and I was wondering if it was along the same lines.


Alfred Duranleau: Oh, no.


Alan Webster Neill: I am glad to hear it.


Alfred Duranleau: We have to make inquiries. In connection with wrecks it is very important to have a judge or a man conversant with marine law so that we may obtain the whole facts.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I cannot agree with the stand taken by the Minister of Marine as a result of which no permanent wreck commissioner has been appointed, because I believe that by appointing wreck commissioners for given cases we are not giving justioe to the parties concerned. The men appointed are selected at random in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec or in the city of Montreal, as the case may be, as the hon. member
who has just taken his seat has said. It may be that those appointments are made upon the recommendation of persons friendly to the administration. On the other hand when we had a permanent official such as Captain Demers we had a man who had held office a number of years, one who had wide knowledge and experience and who based his opinions upon precedents and judgments which had been rendered in similar cases. When we went before that commission a certain degree of jurisprudence existed. I would point out further that where investigations were considered necessary such investigations were held, very often at the instance of the wreck commissioner, who, following the practice indicated by law, called for an examination. I do not know whether the law has 'been changed, but I am of the opinion that the marine legislation enacted last year provided for the services and appointment of a wreck commissioner. I know such provision did appear in the old act. I can recall' instances where in my own constituency vessels had gone to the bottom of the river; in those cases the pilots and all concerned appeared before the wreck commissioner and had to stand an investigation. In those days the law was in force and maintained. To-day the government does not follow the law. It does not order an examination or investigation in the event of a wreck or a collision. That action is taken only at the discretion of the minister who may order an investigation when he believes one necessary. Formerly, when there was even the slightest damage, even in the event of a vessel being scraped, an investigation was held. Captain Demers told me on one occasion upon which I was objecting to an investigation that when a vessel strikes anything even slightly, an accident has occurred, according to statute, the law must be enforced and the commissioner must act. I have known in recent years of damage being done and have made application to the minister, but investigations have not been made, although the law still exists. The practice adopted by the department is not giving satisfaction to the public, and I would urge upon the government a reconsideration of its decision. Surely it can find at some point between the Atlantic and the Pacific a man qualified through ability and experience in marine matters to fill the position formerly occupied by Captain Demers.


Thomas Reid: Is it the intention of the government to put into effect the Canada Shipping Act which was rushed through at the last session? I have particular reference to the use of tackle inspectors.
Supply-Marine


Alfred Duranleau: There are certain parts of the act which are international and other parts which deal with coasting trade. By the adoption of our shipping legislation we have taken the lead and at the present time the other dominions have our act under study and are preparing their own legislation. So far as the international parts of the act are concerned, we have to await the adoption of similar laws in other parts of the empire. As to those parts dealing with coastal trade we hope to have them in force very soon. The matter is now under consideration.


Mr. REED:: Does that apply to tackle inspection?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Two years ago the government was anxious to pass a bill respecting lake shipping. If the matter was so important two years ago it would seem strange that up to the present time the act has not become effective.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Just like the 1930
promises.


Alfred Duranleau: That part affecting our own shipping will be in force very soon.


Olof Hanson: I should like to ask the minister a question regarding an application sent in from the shipping interests of British Columbia respecting navigation lights at Whey Point. Last year I mentioned the matter to the minister, and this year I have the minister's letter indicating that the light will be installed this summer. The fishing fleets are now operating at the north end of Queen Charlotte islands, and we are wondering when we may expect the lighthouse to be erected. The minister has given his word that the navigation lights will be installed. When may we expect the work to be done?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say offhand when the hon. member may expect the light to be installed. I assume the work will be done very soon. I shall be pleased to take note of the hon. member's remarks and shall report to him when he may expect the installation.


Olof Hanson: I have already received a letter indicating the intention of the government to do the work in the present season. The shipping interests out there would like to know when they may expect it and for that reason I should like the minister to look into the matter.
[Mr Reid.]
Mr. CASGiRAIN: Has any part of the Canada Shipping Act passed last year been put into effect by order in council?


Alfred Duranleau: Not yet.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There is a provision in the act under which the government may by order in council put certain parts into effect. I was wondering if the minister had been approached by interests from Montreal and Quebec asking to have certain parts of the act enforced.


Alfred Duranleau: I believe the act states that any part of it may become effective after publication in the official gazette, and I believe requests to that effect have been received from pilots.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: No parts of the act have been put into force?


Alfred Duranleau: Not up to this date, but the matter is under consideration.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Surely the inspection of tackle and other like matters is not international and action in connection with them should not be held over until other nations may make decisions. Six or eight years ago I brought to the attention of the house conditions which existed in western ports. The municipalities apparently had no control over the inspection and we could not get any control because of this act which has been promised for so many years. I would ask the minister why that kind of thing should be held for international action.


Alfred Duranleau: I have already told the committee that the legislation of other dominions does not affect such parts of the act as concern only our coasting trade, such as the inspection of tackle. It is simply a question of deciding which parts of the act should be put into force.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why cannot that be put into force at once?


Alfred Duranleau: As a matter of fact the question has been submitted to the Department of Justice as to which parts are not international in character and could be put into force now, and as soon as I have a report I intend to give effect to it and bring the facts before the house.


Alan Webster Neill: You could bring certain portions of the act into force by order in council, could you not?


Alfred Duranleau: By order in council and by publication in the official gazette.

Trade and Industry Commission


Alan Webster Neill: It would not be necessary to bring them before the house.


Alfred Duranleau: But I would inform the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the consent of the house to return to government notices of motions in order to give formal notice in respect of the resolutions which appear on the order paper at page 23, which are in the name of the Prime Minister. The only object is to expedite them.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By unanimous consent.
The house having reverted to government notices of motions:



DOMINION HOUSING COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish a dominion housing commission and to assist in the construction of houses, and to provide for the salaries of the commissioners and staff, and for the payment of expenditures, and for advances for the purposes of the proposed legislation.
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]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish a dominion trade and industry commission, and to provide that the tariff board shall act as the commissioners with prescribed powers and duties, and that a director of prosecutions be appointed to carry on such legal proceedings as may be required under the provisions of the act.
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.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.58 pm.

[Stage Direction]
\