1935-04-11

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.^-Mr. Ernst.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turnbull for the concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on industrial and international relations, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Cotnam.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said when on a former occasion this motion was discussed, and at which time the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) moved an amendment to the effect that the report be returned to the committee from which it came.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 58, to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CAHAN:: 

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 56 for the relief of Emma Gelfman Goldman Stokolsky-Mr. Heaps.

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

Mr. LAFLECHE:: How much has the government paid to Mr. Elzear Beauregard, solicitor of Montreal, for professional services between 1921 and 1930?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 

MR. ELIE BEAUREGARD *


Joseph-François Laflèche: What amount has been paid by the government in legal fees to Mr. Elie Beauregard, solicitor of Montreal, between 1921 and 1930?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There may be duplication here, Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer to question No. 3, asked by the same hon. gentleman, and that question appears to be repeated as question No. 5. I think both questions may now be answered with the information I have given.


Mr. SPEAKER:: No. 3 is answered, but No. 5 will stand.


RIVIERE-DU-LOUP, QUE., WHARF EXTENSION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Referring to sessional paper No. 200, reference No. 91 of February 25, 1935, when was the plan contained therein and showing proposed inside extension of Riviere-du-Loup wharf (a) drafted; (b) signed, and (c) received by the Department of Public Works in Ottawa?
2.	Before or after the said plan showing proposed coppered steel sheet piling was drafted, signed and received in Ottawa, were any soundings taken around the said proposed piling?
3.	If so, when and what are they?
4.	If not, why, and how did the government (a) figure out, and (b) approve the estimated cost of that work, as it appears from vote No. 114 of the estimates for 1935-1936?
5.	Is there any regulation in force in order to have plans drafted for the extension of wharves without preliminary soundings being taken ?
6.	If so, since when?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	The plan contained in sessional paper No. 200, reference No. 91 of February 25, 1935, is a photostat made from a print submitted .by the district engineer to illustrate his report .dated March 15, 1934. It is a copy of the plan which accompanied his report dated August 30, 1930, and showing soundings of dredging operations in front of the wharf at Riviere-du-Loup. He used a copy of this old plan, on which he added in outline the proposed extensions in. front and in the rear of the landing-head of the wharf, dealt with in his report of March 15, 1934.
2.	Soundings were taken in connection with dredging operations in 1933, which information was available to the district engineer in preparing his comparative estimates for wharf extensions, including the steed sheet piling projects.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.
5.	Plans for wharf extensions are always based on preliminary soundings.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


RIVIERE-DU-LOUP, QUE., WHARF PILING
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Does the plan of the proposed coppered steel_ sheet piling of the proposed extension to Riviere-du-Loup wharf contained in sessional paper No. 200, reference No. 91 of February 25, 1935, show the length of the western side of that piling (a) outside the wharf; (to) inside the wharf?
2.	If not, what are they?
3.	Does it show the length of that piling from east to west?
4.	If not, what is it?
5.	What is the proposed length of the east side of the head block of the wharf including that of the proposed piling?
6.	Has the department ascertained the nature pf the bottom of the river right over which it is proposed to construct such piling, in order to describe the nature of the footings required for its structure?
7.	If so, when and' what is it?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 to 5. The plan shows in a general way the existing landing-head, measuring 50 feet in width at the east and west ends, and 260 feet long to be enclosed, as well as the proposed triangular extension to the rear, with steel sheet piling extending around a length of some 620 feet of wharf face.
Questions

6.	Borings have been taken around the landing-head of the wharf.
7.	Barings made in May 1933; bottom for penetration of steel piling consists of sand, clay and stones.


AID TO DRY DOCKS
Mr. COWAN:: 1.	What dry docks in Canada are receiving aid from the Dominion of Canada?
2.	What amount was paid to such dry docks authorized by statute or otherwise in each of the years 1921, to date?
3.	When do the grants authorized by statute cease ?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Bank of Canada
3.
Dry Dock	Termination of Subsidy
Saint John, N.B	January 1, 1959-date of payment of last instalment of $24,520.27.
Montreal, P.Q	December 31, 1948-date of payment of last instalment of $52,500.
Port Arthur, Ont	October 5, 1937-date of payment of last instalment of $2,100.
Burrard Dry Dock at
North Vancouver, B.C. April 1, 1960-date of payment of last instalment of $9,429.55. Prince Rupert, B.C.. .. March 10, 1943-date of payment of last instalment of $76,970.88.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. COWAN:: 1.	What are the totals of the income tax collected in each of the years 1929 to 1934 inclusive?
2.	What is the amount collected in each province for each of the said years?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Return tabled herewith.


ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY
[Stage Direction]
On the order of government notices of motion:	[DOT]
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am responsible for the preparation of this address, and I find there are two slight corrections I should like to make. I therefore suggest that I should hand to the clerk of the house a corrected copy and have it reprinted to-morrow, so there will be no doubt as to the actual terms of the address.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay):	In an article appearing in today's newspapers it is stated that the convention of mayors, which met some time ago in Montreal, has sent word to all the mayors of Canada stating that so far they have not received any answer from the dominion government. I think this has reference to the proposal made by that conference that the government should assume the entire cost of unemployment relief. I should like to ask the government if they have an answer to give and, if so, when it will be given.
Right Hon.   S@: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I sent an answer to Mr. Houde, mayor of Montreal, who is chairman of the continuing committee-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I sent an answer to His Worship the Mayor of Montreal, who is chairman of the continuing committee of the conference, which I think must have crossed the statement appearing in the press. That answer will have been received by now.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Might I ask the leader of the government if he would be good enough to give the public and the house the answer he has sent the mayor of Montreal. It is in the public interest, I believe.


George Halsey Perley: Certainly it will be made public. I have not the letter with me at the moment.
BANK OF CANADA REPORTS On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: I should like to present a request to
the right hon. leader of the government. In the last four issues of the Canada Gazette there have appeared the weekly reports of the Bank of Canada, in English only. Would the right hon. gentleman be good enough to see if it would be possible to have these reports published in both languages?


Right Hon.   S@: I will cause inquiries to be made of the Bank of Canada, and give the hon. gentleman the information as soon as we obtain it.
DATE OF BY-ELECTIONS On the orders of the day:


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the
acting leader of the house whether the report appearing in the press this morning is correct, that the date for the six by-elections to fill vacancies existing in this house has been fixed as August 19?


George Halsey Perley: That is quite
correct.

Imports oj Butter


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to say to the government that I am sure the electors of these constituencies will be tremendously pleased to learn that their only opportunity of being represented in this parliament will come after parliament itself is dissolved.


THE KING'S SILVER JUBILEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Yesterday the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) made inquiry with respect to the distribution of silver jubilee medals which will be available for public purchase. I find that the master of the Royal Canadian Mint, acting on behalf of the Royal Mint at London, has received a quantity which he has arranged to be distributed through the T. Eaton Company Limited, the Robert Simpson Company Limited, the Henry Morgan Company Limited, the Hudson's Bay Company and Mappin and Webb of Canada Limited.
RUMOURED JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay):	On page I of the Montreal
Gazette of to-day's date I read the following: M.P. slated for bench. Montreal judgeship may go to Sullivan or Duranleau.
Has the government any information to give the house as to wTho is likely to win this race?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: No information.
IMPORTS OF BUTTER On the orders of the day:


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) and the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). Imports of butter into Canada from the United Kingdom are not due as suggested by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville, to the butter being "exported in transit," if by that the hon. member means shipped from an exporting country on an alternative bill-of-lading. Shipments of butter from exporting countries to the United Kingdom are not diverted to Canada while in transit.
In reply to that part of the hon. member's question as to whether imports from the United Kingdom are due to the fact that the United Kingdom is "producing more butter than they can consume." the answer is in the negative. The reason butter is imported from the United Kingdom is as follows. The tariff on butter entering Canada by direct shipment from New Zealand and Australia is, under the agreements with those dominions, 5 cents per pound while the British preferential rate of tariff applicable to shipments of butter from the United Kingdom is 8 cents per pmind. Six to eight weeks are required to secure delivery in Canada of butter on direct shipment from Australia or New Zealand and deliveries in Canada of butter from the United Kingdom may be secured in about ten days time. For this reason buying from the United Kingdom is less speculative and if imports of butter into Canada during the late winter or spring months are necessary, Canadian importers prefer to pay the higher rate of duty and import from the United Kingdom rather than to risk buying so far ahead as is necessary in order to secure the lower tariff rates on direct shipments from either New Zealand or Australia. Below is a statement showing monthly imports into Canada of butter from the United Kingdom and other countries, and exports from Canada for the eleven months ending February 28, 1935, as requested by the hon. member from Laprairie-Napierville; also similar information for the year ending March 21, 1930. asked for by the hon. member from Compton:
[Sir George Perley.j

_______________________________________________Privilege-Mr. McKenzie
Imports of Butter into, and Exports of Butter from Canada, Years Ending March 31st
			Imports					
Month	From United Kingdom	From United Kingdom	From Other Countries	From Other Countries	Total	Total	Exports	Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.1929	1934	1929	1934	1929	1934	1929	1934April	873,264	396,872	1,625,477	320,038	2,498,741	716,910	54,300	13,300May	248,024	34,832	2,395,543	3,352	2,643,567	38,184	110,200	3L600June	90	33,432	423,966	750	424,056	34,182	135,300	51,300July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	350 5,600	5,600 11,200 21,112 8,400 11,216	146,589 383,258 414,950 1,907,870 3,022,730 6,268,028	442 611 628 1,803 1,135 1,051	146,939 388,858 414,950 1,907,870 3,022,730 6,268,028	6,042 611 11,828 22,915 9,535 12,267	142.900 150.900 195,000 150,300 101,700 78,800	43,500 47.800 32,700 64,100 36,900 32.8001930	1935	1930	1935	1930	1935	1930	1935 ,January	
February	5,656 5,600	7,537,195 8,037,006	313 544	7,537,192 8,637,006	5,969 6,144	61,300 56,100	35,800 30,000March	1,344	Not available	8,028,091	Not available	8,029,435	Not available	71.S00	Not availableTotal	1,128,072	533,920	40,790,700	330,667	41,919,372	864,587	1,309,400	419,800


BUTTER RETURNED TO CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
'Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	As the minister is dealing with
butter, perhaps he will give me the information asked for in question number 19 of the orders of the day of yesterday. When this matter was under discussion yesterday I directed attention to the fact that this question had been answered twice by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews). I do not want another answer from that minister, I would like one from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). I should like full information for the period from 1930 up to the present.
Robert Weir: During the discussion on my estimates I stated that of the butter shipped to tthe United Kingdom from this country something in the neighbourhood of 3,465 boxes had been reshipped to Canada from the old country. These boxes would not appear in the records of the Department of National Revenue because the butter had not changed ownership. I believe the information given on that occasion was correct and as the butter had not changed hands it would not be dutiable when returned to this country. This is all the information I have on the hon. member's question.


Mr. POULIOT:: The minister has no further information about the matter.


Robert Weir: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: I might tell him that this did not occur on the estimates, it was a question asked on the orders of the day.
PRIVILEGE-MR. McKENZIE (Assiniboia)
On the orders of the day:


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege:	A
return was tabled yesterday in reply to a request from me for the names of those appointed by the government since they came into oflice at salaries of 85,000 and over, and also the increases in salaries of $500 and over made since July, 1930. The return made is incomplete and inaccurate. The information from the Department of National Defence states that there were no increases in salaries but in this connection I should like to refer to the discussion which took place when the estimates of that department were under consideration. At that time the hon, member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) asked if the chief of staff had been given any increase in salary and the minister replied, as reported on page 1547 of Hansard, as follows:
With regard t<5 the chief of the general staff, his salary was increased two years ago from $8,000 to $10,000, less ten per cent.
I should like to know why that information does not appear in the return. In connection with the radio commission, the return gives three appointments which were made at salaries of $5,000 and over but it does
2624	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Woodsworth


EASTER ADJOURNMENT
[Stage Direction]
not mention the three commissioners who receive salaries over the amount stated. The return does not mention the appointments made to the Bank of Canada. If the information appearing in the press is correct the salaries in this case are very much in excess of S5,000. No mention is made of the appointments made to the supreme court or to judgeships throughout the various provinces. I am not blaming the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) for the incompleteness of this return but I ask him to endeavour to give the house the accurate information.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will direct the attention of the various departments to the criticism of the hon. gentleman.



' PRIVILEGE-MR. WOODSWORTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question
of privilege. Just before I entered the house last Monday the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) rose to a question of privilege and quoted a speech which I had made in Montreal. I do not think that this should have been introduced as a question of privilege as the statement was not made in the house. However, the statement was put on record and I desire to say now that the newspaper account was very abbreviated and not altogether correct. 'What I had tried to say was that on three recent occasions the Liberals had voted with the government in opposition to certain policies which we in this corner thought fundamental. I gave as one occasion the request of the mayors to address the house and I tried to point out that it was technically a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The statement was made and I have the right to set myself right in this matter. The fact is that the mayors were prevented from appearing before the house. The second occasion was the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), and the third was on the motion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) for the nationalization of not only the central bank but the chartered banks. I do not like to reflect on the newspapers but in this case the report was very abbreviated.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to accept the apology as far as it goes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No apology whatever.



PROPOSED RECESS FROM WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, UNTIL MONDAY, MAY 20

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker, I intend to put in a
notice of motion to-day which will appear in to-day's votes and proceedings to the effect that when this house adjourns on Wednesday, April 17, it stands adjourned until Monday, May 20, at three p.m. daylight saving time.


Mr. DUFF:: Lost.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I protest against this long adjournment as I think it is very unfair to the members from western Canada. It will take them four days to get home and an adjournment on Wednesday evening will prevent them from participating in the Easter exercises. If the house adjourns at all, I think it should adjourn on Saturday evening.


Mr. HANBURY:: I concur entirely in what has just been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). It would appear to the members from British Columbia that the only members whose convenience is being considered in connection with this recess are those from Ontario and Quebec. If the members from British Columbia are to have a recess, or as some call it a holiday, they should be given the same consideration as other members. I hope the government will reconsider this motion and let the house sit on Saturday to adjourn on Saturday evening, if they insist on an adjournment at all.


George Halsey Perley: I regret that the
hon. gentleman finds some difficulty in connection with this matter. There is before the house sufficient business to occupy us until Wednesday if we are to have as much as possible accomplished before the recess. I suggest to members from British Columbia that they pair with each other. There is no reason why they should not pair on both sides and go home for the holidays.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Get rid of them.


Wilfred Hanbury: I suggest to the leader
of the government that the members from British Columbia are interested in what takes place in this house and wish to be here when the house is in session.

Price Spreads Commission



PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the. day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish again to
raise a question of privilege-not a matter of personal privilege but one affecting the privileges of the house. A few days ago, I directed the attention of the government to what appeared to be a serious violation of the privileges of the house in the giving out, to a portion of the press of the country, of some of the report and the recommendations of the royal commission on mass buying and price spreads. In reply the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) mentioned that the government would look into the matter. I have been expecting to hear from the government as to the results of its inquiries. I think this house is entitled to know how the recommendations of the commission were given in advance to a portion of the press. May I say that since I raised the question I have had an opportunity of comparing what appeared in the press with what is in the report, and it is perfectly clear that the press must have obtained the report from someone who had the report in his possession. I think we are entitled to know who that person was, and I would ask the government if they have inquired into the matter.


Right Hon.   S@: All I can say is that the
question is still under consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend, I do not want to have to make many inquiries, but I shall inquire each day until I get a definite reply.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I would ask the right hon.
gentleman under what circumstances he got a copy of the report. It has not been tabled, and not distributed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was published in the press.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But my
right hon. friend said he had a copy of the report. I shall have to inquire into that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As given in
the press, yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As given after tabling in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: We know where it came from.


Ernest Lapointe: That would make it
worse, not better.


Hugh Guthrie: Just one word on this. I agree entirely with the attitude taken by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in regard to the publicity that has been given this report, but I understand that a question has arisen as to whether the commission, not being a committee of this house, is bound by the rules of parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The rules of ethics.


Hugh Guthrie: No, but the rules of parliament. Now, I am inclined to think that it is merely a matter of propriety on the part of the commission, and I think it is very improper to give out that information. I was consulted by a royal commissioner on one occasion as to whether he might make public, a few days in advance, certain findings that had been signed by the commission, and I told him distinctly no, and he did not make it public. That would be my view. But it is not a parliamentary rule because it is not a parliamentary committee, and judging it only as a matter of propriety, I suppose the commission would have a right to exercise its own judgment. But personally I think it is very improper-


William Duff: Absolutely.


Hugh Guthrie: -and we should find out how it happened.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The members of a royal commission are sworn on entering upon their duties, and I am informed that the oath was administered to each member of this royal commission.


Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: On a matter of privilege, as chairman of the royal commission on price spreads, I wish to refer to a statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in this house on Tuesday, relating to the matter of reports as to the deliberations and findings of the commission getting into the public press. Without reading it in full, I wish to refer to this part of the right hon. gentleman's remarks. Speaking on the 9th instant, the leader of the opposition stated:
I should like to suggest also when the government are considering the legislation that is to be based upon the recommendations of this commission, with respect to unfair practices and unethical proceedings, it might consider whether it is not possible to enact some legis-
Price Spreads Commission

lation which will prevent unfair practices and unethical proceedings on the part of the chairman of committees of this House of Commons when dealing with price spreads and mass buying, and on the part of some member or members of royal commissions when they are dealing with the same subjects.
In the first instance, I wish to point out that I was not chairman of the special committee of this house dealing with the matter of price spreads and mass buying. I was appointed chairman of the royal commission on price spreads on October 29 last, and throughout the deliberations of that commission I continued to act as chairman. The commissioners met on Tuesday morning last and signed their report at eleven o'clock. At four o'clock on Tuesday afternoon the report of the commissioners was handed by me to the Hon. Mr. Hanson, Minister of Trade and Commerce. Up to that time no authority was given by the commission as such, or in any way as a commission, for the release of any portion of that report or anything in respect to its deliberations. Since the question is raised in the house, naturally it reflects upon all members of the commission. It reflects upon the staff of the commission. I think that at this time it would be unfair for me to enter upon any denial or any statement, so far as I am personally concerned, inasmuch as such a statement would just bring it down to ten more members of the commission who would have to make statements. But I am in entire accord with the point of view expressed by the leader of the opposition and as expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to the impropriety-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Minister of Justice.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: -the Minister of Justice-as to the impropriety of such a report getting into the press before it was tabled. Speaking for myself-and for the members of the commission, as far as I know -I would welcome a complete investigation into the question, by what method or through what channels that report was published. I would point this out also. Not only was the publication of it unfair to the commission as such, and unfair to the staff personnel, but it was unfair to a large section of the press as well. Representatives of the press came to me as chairman, time and again, pointing out that certain information was appearing in the press and asking for reports. I told them my views on the matter, and those views I have maintained throughout. Yet some sections of the press obviously had exact copies of parts of the report and published them, while other sections of the press had not the

same facilities. Let me say this. Personally, as chairman of that commission, I regret the publication of its report in part, in advance of the complete publication. I would welcome a full and complete investigation.


Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: I think I should be permitted to add a word. I am wholly in accord with the sentiments expressed by the chairman of the commission, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). I think I am expressing what is in the minds of myself and my colleagues on this side, the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), when I say that we would like to have an investigation into this whole occurrence, so that the public may know in what way this matter got into the press prematurely.


Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: May I add this word? When I
was in Toronto on Monday night, I read in the Toronto Daily Star of that same afternoon a complete report of all the recommendations of the price spreads commission. I want to assure the house that so far as I am concerned I at no time gave any information to any member of the press in reference to any of the contents of the report or the proceedings of the commission.


William Duff: Who is the Judas?
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) :	Lest some hon. members may think
I am the guilty party, I wish to assure the house that I am not guilty.


Mr. JEAN LOUIS BARIBEAU (Champlain) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish
to assure you that I am not the guilty party and I would welcome an investigation to find out who he is.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are
proceeding by elimination!


Mr. A. M. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: As this seems to be a sort of testimony meeting, as a member of the royal commission I want to say that I have not yet seen the summary that appeared in the press and I do not expect to see it until the report is tabled in the house. I know nothing at all about these reports that have got out.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: As the
member of the commission who has not signed the report, I wish to express my hearty approval of everything that the chairman and the other members of the commission have said.

Butter Returned to Canada
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand) I just want to add my word. This process is rather a narrowing down, and if I do not, as the rest have done, make a categorical denial, I am afraid some suspicion might fall upon me. However I want to say, as the rest of the members of the commission have done, that at no time have I given out any information regarding the character of the report.


Mr. THOMAS BELL (Saint John-Albert):: As I think I am the last one on the list, I may be considered guilty if I do not make a denial. I am heartily in accord with the remarks made by the chairman of the commission.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Following
up my .previous observations, I think the action of the other members of the commission in themselves individually making denial, relieves me from the reservation that I made at the opening of my remarks when I said that I did not want to enter a denial because I thought that to do so might carry some implication. I feel myself relieved now from that reservation, and I beg to state to the house without evasion, equivocation or mental reservation of any kind that as chairman of the commission I neither gave out any report nor any authorization therefor, nor had I any personal knowledge in any way, shape or form of how any report or reports got into the press.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are there any other members of the commission who have not yet declared in the house where they stand on this question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Peace River.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have not given out any part of the report nor have I discussed it with anyone.



ARGENTINE CORN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): If I might be jtermitted to change the subject, I would like to direct to the government a question which concerns thousands of farmers in the counties of Essex and Kent. It is necessary that I should make some explanation. Last year we grew in those two counties six million bushels-
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Mr. GOTT:: In view of the fact that the Argentine is going to have 400.000,000 bushels
of corn available for export during the season of 1935, will the government take ample precautions to protect the corn growers of Essex and Kent counties?


An hon. MEMBER:: Of all Canada.


Eccles James Gott: Yes, of all Canada. Will the government prevent the Argentine from flooding the Canadian market with cheap corn?
I do not expect an answer to-day. I would like them to give consideration to the matter.



BUTTER RETURNED TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: For the sake of getting a proper understanding of the situation, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews). The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) stated that because butter shipped from Canada to the old country and reshipped to Canada had not changed ownership, it would not appear in the records of the Department of National Revenue. What I want to know is: Is that really the practice? My experience as a former collector of customs has been in past years and is that no matter what the goods may be that are shipped to England or any other country and then returned to Canada, even if they do not change ownership, they must come in on an export entry from Great Britain and an import entry through the customs of Canada. I understand that is the law.


Robert Weir: The information I gave to-day
was the information obtained through my department.


Peter John Veniot: My question was directed
to the Minister of National Revenue. He should give the information.


Robert Weir: I repeated the
information to-day for the benefit of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot).


Peter John Veniot: I want the information
from the Minister of National Revenue.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I feel it my duty to renew my request of yesterday for interim supply. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the house to go into supply.


William Duff: Now that the Acting Prime Minister
(Sir George Perley) has given us an intimation that at some time in the near future he will introduce a motion to adjourn for the Easter
Interim Supply Bill

recess, I have much pleasure in consenting and agreeing with my colleague from Nova Scotia, the Minister of Finance, to grant him interim supply or anything else he may ask in reason.


Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Speaker, before you leave
the chair, I would like again to submit to the acting leader of the government that he take into serious consideration the situation of hon. members from British Columbia. I see no reason why, if he wishes to meet their convenience in any way, the house could not sit to-morrow morning and all day Saturday so as to let the members conclude the business and this house begin the recess on Saturday night. I would like to have an answer from the government.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Mr. RHODES moved:: 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
$820,889.37, being one-sixth 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:- _
Vote No. 33, Administration of justice;
Votes Nos. 35 and 36, Legislation;
Vote No. 67, Canadian Pension Commission;
Vote No. 154, Topographical and air service bureau;
Vote No. 189, Government of the Yukon Territory;
Vote No. 190, National Parks and Migratory Birds Convention Act;
Vote No. 196, Sheltered employment;
Vote No. 200, War veterans' allowances;
Vote No. 205, External Affairs (Paris);
Vote No. 226, Miscellaneous unforeseen expenses.
3.	Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $278,083.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of each oi 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.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have just one observation to make regarding what the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) has

said about butter. There were some shipments of Canadian butter to England which are called Canadian exports to the United Kingdom-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I rise to a point of order. I asked for unanimous consent, and unless unanimous consent is given we may not proceed. If my hon. friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) proposes to exercise under these ciroumstances the right to enter into debate it follows that every other hon. member of this committee can do the same*, therefore we would not have unanimous consent and could not proceed. In these circumstances I ask my hon. friend to bear in mind the amenities that arise in respect to a matter of this character, otherwise I shall have to move the committee out.


Jean-François Pouliot: In reply to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) let me assure him that once more I am ready to oooperate all I can, and will not insist for the moment on the matter of shipments of Canadian butter from Great Britain. But may I ask the hon. minister if the public works estimates will be taken afterwards? If so I shall dispense with further remarks now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly this interim supply has no bearing on, nor does it impair in the slightest degree the right to discuss these items in supply.


Jean-François Pouliot: But may I ask the minister if the public works estimates will come after this .to-day?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think that is the intention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RHODES moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, 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 $17,157,116.75 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Resolution, reported, read the first and second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 59 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1936.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time.
Mr. RHODES moved that the house go into committee on the bill.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just one question to ask the hon. gentleman. I understand this supply is for the month of May, one-twelfth of the total for the year, and that it is understood that there will be no governor general's warrants issued while parliament is in session or during the adjournment?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can give my hon. friend no undertaking with respect to the issue of governor general's warrants other than to intimate that none may be issued while parliament is in session, and parliament will be in session although adjourned.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 55, to provide for the rehabilitation of drought and soil drifting areas in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Jean-François Pouliot: Is the bill published in
French, as well as in English?


The CHAIRMAN:: I am advised that it is.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish .to delay proceedings in the committee, but I should like to mention a certain matter affecting the Red river. In the last few years the flow of water in that river has been so small that the situation is becoming serious, so far as the residents along the river are concerned. I believe the minister knows the district very well and would appreciate the conditions. In that Red river area it is very
________Rehabilitation of Drought Areas
difficult to get water, unless it be obtained from the river. I should like to know if under the present measure action would be taken towards damming the river at different points so as to raise the water level. If the river were dammed at points twenty-five miles distant it would be possible to have at least three or four feet of water in the river at all points. The situation is very serious, due to the water being at such a low level. The river water is about the only water available to the residents along the Red river, because the well water is not of good quality, due to the fact that it contains quantities of iron and salt. Could the minister give any information as to whether or not anything could be done, and whether or not he would take this matter into consideration.


Robert Weir: This matter will be placed before the advisory committee which will deal with all points mentioned.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will they have power
under this measure to investigate a situation such as I have described?


Robert Weir: I cannot say whether or not the point raised by the hon. member would come under provincial jurisdiction. If that were the fact some authority would have to be received from the provincial government. The hon. member will note that a representative of the provincial government will sit on the advisory committee. All matters, with the exception of those which it has been considered should not be proceeded with in the present year, will be placed before the advisory committee before any work is done. The matter about which the hon. member has spoken will be brought to their attention.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The river is still classed as a navigable stream. Any time bridges are built permission has to be obtained from the federal government. I have no doubt the matter I have raised could be considered under the present measure.


Peter John Veniot: I am not rising to oppose
the bill because as a matter of fact I strongly favour it and realize that something must be done. Section 1 states: "This act may be cited as The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act." As I understand it it will have the effect of caring for drought areas and conditions of sand drift. I should like to see this work extended. There are certain sections along the Atlantic coast of the maritime provinces where sand storms take place, and when that occurs sand drifts on to the farms, in some instances

Rehabilitation oj Drought Areas
rendering the land unworkable. I should like to see a provision placed in the bill whereby a situation such as I have described might be considered. Would the minister kindly consider the point before the bill passes.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: Yesterday afternoon, when the minister was discussing the resolution I wondered how the commission or the authoritative body would be in a position to have actual control of or to carry out some of the regulations which might interfere with the ordinary plans of individuals in particular areas. In other words how will the commission obtain power to deal with these matters?


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member
referring to farmers?


William Gilbert Weir: Yes.


Robert Weir: Only by their consent.


William Gilbert Weir: What will happen if they do not cooperate?


Robert Weir: No work would be done and no action taken in that particular part. However may I say we have received applications from entire municipalities and from councils -promising to cooperate. We do not expect any difficulty in that regard. As a matter of fact, due to the great number of applications, the difficulty will be to decide which would be the best ones to take. I would assure the hon. member however, that there will be no compulsion in the matter.


William Gilbert Weir: Of what nature are the applications?


Robert Weir: They are from municipalities asking that those municipalities or townships be chosen as the areas in which the demonstrations might take place.


Mr. BROWN:: I understood the minister to state yesterday that he proposed to set apart one township in each province.


Robert Weir: Fractically a township.


Albert Joseph Brown: Working within a township regard could be had only for cultural methods and some tree planting. Within the boundaries of a township they could scarcely carry on work such as the damming of streams which, of necessity, would -have to be conducted over a larger area. They could^ not perform any conclusive experiments within the small area.


Robert Weir: In that small area there would be individual farms or groups of farms which -could ibe benefited by small dams to collect the run-off of water. Or, on the other hand, such work might be done in connection with small streams.


Mr.   HOAVDEN@: Following up the interrogations of the hon. member for Provencher may I ask i-f the commission will have power to deal with conditions such as those obtaining in the Red river area. The hon. member mentioned that some miles south of the city of Winnipeg this river formed the water supply for the people in that part of the province. However there is no possible chance in the wide world of the Red river forming a water supply for the people north of the city of Winnipeg, because from that city, on to lake Winnipeg, the river is simply a cesspool of sewage and infection. As a matter of fact just now -the Red river is not capable of carrying away the sewage from the city of Winnipeg. That is a very great menace. I was going to say it is a very obnoxious matter, but it is -more than that. The Red river of Manitoba has become a cesspool from the city of Winnipeg -to lake Winnipeg. Generally speaking I believe our whole country is drving out. At one time Manitoba was the site of a tremendous lake, but all that remains of that lake at present is a couple of comparatively small lakes, lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba, and they are shrinking yearly. Hundreds of -thousands of acres of swamp land once covered with water are now as dry as the proverbial whistle. I believe it will be necessary for this federal government to deal not only with a limited portion of the country, as it is proposed at present, but that in the near future we will have to take into consideration this very serious situation in the province of Manitoba, to say nothing of the other western provinces. We will have to try to find some way to provide more moisture for the country.
The question I wanted to ask the minister was whether this commission will have power to investigate the conditions that exist in regard to the Red river.


Robert Weir: I should say they would have power to investigate and recommend, but if hon. members will notice the amount that is to be expended in connection with this scheme they will appreciate that very little of a practical nature can be done with regard to a problem so vast. At least, however, the setting up of this committee

_____________Rehabilitation of Drought Areas
will provide a medium which will bring this serious condition, together with the need for some action, to the attention of the people of Canada as a whole.


Mr. HOW  DEN@: Before leaving the matter I believe it cannot be too strenuously and forcefully impressed on the commission that will be formed that there is need to deal with the conditions that exist along the Red river in the province of Manitoba. Certainly at the present time that river is stinking to heaven, and it is a very decided menace to the health of the people of that province.


Mr. DONNELLY:: As I understand the
minister a committee will be appointed to investigate and recommend, to certain districts or certain people, what should be done. I understand that there will be three districts set aside in the province of Saskatchewan, and the minister also said he had received applications from a number of municipalities and that it was the intention to take over a whole township. Will this committee only give information to the people who own and work the land; will they pay these individuals to do what they recommend or will they only supply them with seed? Will the minister give us some information as to how this will be worked out? Will the commission just tell the farmers what to do and not pay any more attention to the matter; will they give them some remuneration, or how is it proposed to do this work?


Robert Weir: The officials of the department have been collecting information in connection with this area for some time, and they have carefully gone over the applications that have been received from different councils and public bodies suggesting that the work be undertaken in various localities.
I think this whole matter has been boiled down as well as it can be at present. It will be submitted to the advisory committee set up under this bill, and under that advisory committee there will be an executive committee. This work will be administered by the experimental farms branch under the Department of Agriculture, and they will have their own officials there to supervise it. In the illustration stations and farms-not the townships-the same principle will apply as has applied in the past to illustration stations. That is, men will receive certain remuneration for which they will agree to carry out certain work, and they will be supplied with seed. Previous to the introduction of this bill very careful consideration was given whether that should not also apply to all these farmers in the townships. It was
felt that due to the extent of the area, the necessity of having the cooperation of every person in it, and the fact that undoubtedly some farmers in almost every township will have a good deal of summer fallow in excellent condition, in the first year it would not be fair to ask these farmers, for instance, to give up part of that summer fallow and follow some definite, hard and fast rule with reference to farming. We have different types of contracts drawn up which will be considered when we go to western Canada. We feel that everything is in the best possible shape to expedite the work. In regard to the townships, recommendations are to be made to the advisory committee in order to obtain their best advice as to the steps that should be taken, and it is also hoped that in each township there will be set up a committee, either elected or appointed, of the best farmers, to cooperate with the officers of the experimental farms branch.


James J. Donnelly: It has not been decided definitely whether or not the township work will be taken up this year?


Robert Weir: Yes, that will be
taken up this year in cooperation with the farmers, but we felt that we could not come to a definite decision this year until we consulted the farmers in the townships, as to how far we should go in trying to carry out one definite plan. It is different with an illustration station, of course; in that case only one or perhaps two farmers would be involved, and if we could not agree with them we could get another location and find other farmers who would agree to our terms.


James J. Donnelly: With regard to these
illustration stations or these private individuals, are they to be picked out here and there, or how are they to be selected?


Robert Weir: This whole field
has been carefully surveyed and studied during the entire drought period, and particularly during the last two or three years, with a view to selecting the farmers who have met with the greatest success in their work even under these conditions. We have lists of those farmers, and from those lists the selections will be made.


Albert Joseph Brown: May I say that I think the best hope of success for this scheme lies in the commission devoting their greatest attention to cultural methods such as strip farming and the reintroduction of grasses that will put fibre back into the land. I think the commission would be wise to devote the greater part of their energy to that end. In

Rehabilitation of Drought Areas
speaking on this matter yesterday I intimated that I had very little faith in the efficacy of either tree planting or the damming of streams, with regard to bringing about any increase in precipitation. While the planting of trees is a good move undoubtedly it will mean a number of years before any results can be achieved. No doubt the damming of streams will be all to the good also, but I do not think we can hope for any great result with regard to the amount of precipitation. I do think, however, we cannot lay too much emphasis on the need of experimenting, with the aid of the experience and help of the best farmers, along the lines of better cultural methods, such as strip farming and the introduction of grasses. I think in that way we may obtain the best results.


William Gilbert Weir: The minister
referred to certain petitions he had received from municipalities urging that something be done, and even volunteering the use of farms.
I understand that where a township or other area is selected, this commission will be in position to go in and take charge of the work undertaken.


Robert Weir: With the consent of the farmers in the particular area.


William Gilbert Weir: Would the petitions already received indicate that that consent will be forthcoming?


Robert Weir: I would say, yes.


William Gilbert Weir: I understand that the petitions received from the municipalities would indicate that.


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Gilbert Weir: I notice that the railway companies, the mortgage companies, the provincial governments and so forth are to be represented on this commission. I suppose these different bodies have endorsed the project and have agreed to give their cooperation and support?


Robert Weir: The individual
farmers and ranchers have not been definitely selected nor will they be until we go west. A number have been asked to come in but there is certain information we would like to have before going further in this regard.


William Gilbert Weir: How about the provincial governments?


Robert Weir: There will not be any difficulty in that connection. It has not been decided as to whether it would be better to ask them to name representatives from the departments of agriculture or from other de-

partments. In Manitoba there is the question of water rights to be considered and in Alberta there are the ranching privileges to be taken into account. It will have to be decided whether the representatives will come from the departments of agriculture or from other departments.


James J. Donnelly: I believe in the usefulness of dams and reservoirs. Practically four-fifths of the moisture which falls in the province of Saskatchewan is drained out by the rivers and creeks. I think the building of dams is the most important thing that could be undertaken. Some of the farmers have been building small dams for themselves and in many places community projects have been undertaken. The province has permitted the building of roads to some of these dams, but after all they are only small affairs to benefit a few farms. The large works which must be undertaken will require considerable money which should be provided by this government. Crop rotation and the kinds of crop may prove to be of some benefit, but in my opinion they are very doubtful. I am very sceptical as to the good which may come from planting trees but the building of dams will prove to be of inestimable benefit. Could the minister tell us whether this bill will provide for the building of dams as well as for the taking over of land, the rotation of crops and the demonstration of proper methods of farming?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The practice of taking a preliminary canter on the first section of a bill has become so general that I suppose I will have to do the same thing myself if I am to be in on it. In looking over this bill which has just been placed in our hands I cannot find anything new or startling. We do not want anything startling as we have had enough of that, but I cannot find anything different to what has been tried out already in a smaller way. Perhaps the only new thing is the advisory committee. This looks like the economic council but I do not see that the minister is a member thereof.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is a brain trust but what we need is a rain trust.


William Richard Motherwell: The first minister
is to be the chairman of the economic committee and I have enough confidence in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to want to see him on this committee instead of having merely two members of the department. In a big affair like this we should have the head of the department as chairman. Last evening

_____________Rehabilitation of Drought Areas
in the two or three minutes I had at my disposal I made what I thought were some encouraging remarks on the resolution stage of this bill but the receiving and reading of the bill has been something like having a pail of cold water thrown over me. Before I suffer further disappointment I should like the minister to enumerate the remedial measures provided by this bill, outside of the advisory committee, which have not been tried out already by the provincial governments during the past 25 years. Private individuals have also been actively engaged in trying to conserve water by dugouts and dams; in fact, they started that work.


Robert Weir: First, with reference to the request made by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). On every occasion I have taken care not to paint too glowing a picture or give the impression that we hope to do what might be considered as the impossible thing. For example, as far as the building of dams and the planting of trees is concerned, no person is in a position to say that these things will have the tendency to produce rain. We hope to use the information we have in the best possible way and to go as far as we can to ensure greater economic security for the people in these districts should these climatic conditions oontinue, or, if for a time they do disappear, with greater rainfall, to prepare them to meet a similar condition should it recur; because, although the government of Canada and the provinces as well as the people have been very anxious to pour money into this great area, I am sure we all feel, whether we are outside the area or in it, that we cannot look forward, as has been suggested, to rain coming this year. So that should we have a number of bounteous years, and make no provision, should another dry period ensue, the only solution would be for the dominion to pour money again into the same area. As we have stated before, the fundamental thing we have in mind is to see whether, from the knowledge we have, supplemented and backed up by dominion finance, we can, give the farmers a very definite demonstration as to whether or not certain things will assist them, which they feel might be of advantage if they had the money, so as to enable them to go ahead. One of the difficulties with some of the farmers is this. For the first two or three years they achieved a fair success, but now their resources are so drained that they cannot do the things which they themselves believe would make them self sustaining.
The hon. member for Melville has said he sees nothing new in this. I believe his leader
said on one occasion this session that there is nothing new in the world, and with that statement I am inclined to agree in many respects. Those of us who know the people of western Canada agree that they do not want any great flare to be made about this. They want something substantial. They want us to go slowly, but they do want us to tackle these problems and to answer some of the questions that have been in their minds as to whether or not it is worth their while to remain in certain areas or to move out of the district. The only information we have is information obtained from other countries, and which we have collected. Where a man has not been successful through his own operations, to the extent that he should be, the reason has been that the districts around him have not followed the same cultural methods that he has.
As regards the observations of the hon. member for Willow Bunch, with respect to the question of water as compared with cultural methods, if we take steps that insure a water supply either for small communities or for larger communities, that will be one of the best things we can do to bring about greater economic security. I believe that about a thousand or more applications have been received for assistance in the building of small dams. The work might be done by the farmers themselves, but often the difference between success and failure, from the standpoint of the benefits derived from dams, depends on how the dam is put in, where it is, and on the engineering work in connection with it. As regards the labour, the people in the locality will themselves do the work-that is, apart from the engineering work. It is felt, in view of the difficulties in which they find themselves and the fact that their resources are depleted, that some assistance will have to be given these people in the way of material where necessary, and also in connection with the work they are doing.
As regards tree planting, there are two schools of thought. Some people hold that it is impossible to reap any benefit from the planting of trees in the wider shelter belts. They seem to think that it constitutes a trap for weeds, and others believe that they are killed out in the prolonged dry periods. We all agree however that we have in the west, both in the nursery station at Indian Head and in the substation at Saskatoon, men best qualified-and this is recognized not only in Canada but on the American continent-to give expert advice as to how far we can go in the planting of trees; and we shall be guided in that connection almost entirely by
2634	COMMONS
Rehabilitation of Drought Areas
their advice, together with what is known to have existed in western Canada, where certain farmers have been successful in the use of shelter belts which have withstood the drought.
The hon. member for Melville said that the Minister of Agriculture should be chairman of the advisory committee. That was also discussed in the drafting of the bill. It is under the administration of the minister, so that in that way he has full authority over the recommendations at least of this advisory committee. There is provision for two representatives from the federal Department of Agriculture. One of these is the director of the experimental farm system, because the actual work done here will be carried out under that branch of the department, and it is felt that he or the assistant director should be ex officio chairman, because meetings might be called at times when it would be difficult for the minister to be present. It was considered that this would ensure greater continuity.


James J. Donnelly: Is it intended to build
dams outside these townships scattered in different parts of the province?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Gilbert Weir: Will it be necessary to obtain consent? Suppose a dam flooded a large area of land. A railway might be involved, and who is to compensate those who own land or property which is covered?


Robert Weir: That would be investigated before the dam was built. We have at the present time a sufficient number of applications, together with the consent of the people affected, to give little concern in that regard for the first year.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister assures us that there is nothing new in this bill, and is not in favour of making any spectacular estimate of what may be done under it. I agree with him, but he is a little late in making that pronouncement. This has already been heralded all over Canada as a great reclamation movement which will beneficially affect even the landscape and the climate. It has been talked about, written about and dreamed about, and I feel quite sympathetic with the minister in his intentions. But I am still further sympathetic with him that his friends should put him in wrong so much by making such extravagant prophecies as to what will be done. There is not a man in this house, familiar with that area, who does not know that the minister is undertaking a

tremendous task, and we believe the time has come when this effort should be made or that we should abandon that part of the country to wild life or give nature an opportunity to replace the grass and other [DOT] covering which was taken off by the husbandman, and which it may have taken millions of years to produce. The settlers took it off in about a quarter of a century and now, in a large part, it is a waste place. More than that, it is likely to damage areas further east and north of the worst affected area. I approve of the minister going at the problem, because the time has come when we must do something or get out, and I am not one who thinks that it should be the latter. This bill which is preceded by a resolution is, I suppose, a part of the reform policy of the government, but as already intimated it is merely an evolution of what has been under way for the last quarter of a century. It is true there is this brain trust, if I may call it so. That is what it is meant to be, and I hope it will be a brain trust with real practical brains. But there will be this difficulty. The minister is not on this committee but he will have to accept the responsibility for any action or inaction thereof; besides there is sure to be a difficulty in regard to getting decisions unless more local, practical farmers are appointed on it.
I believe in this policy of rehabilitation, and I want to say a friendly word with respect to every feature of the bill if I can do so conscientiously.
Prior to last June, I do not think the word "rehabilitation" was in the government's vocabulary as applied to this area, neither has it been in former years. But we have never before had such a scourge as we have had during the last five or six years. In former years, only one or two years and sometimes only one would be dry at a time, and the following year there would be double the crop. For instance, 1914 was one of the very worst' years we had in that area and indeed over much of northern and eastern Saskatchewan, but it was followed in 1915 by the most remarkable crop we have ever seen. When that happens, we forget all about the former bad years. Now we have had six dry years in succession and the minister has at last broken new ground by bringing down a bill to provide for an advisory committee. I approve the name of the bill; I believe in having an advisory committee on this matter, but I would like to see on it more practical farmers from the area concerned, men who must know a great deal more about the problem than anybody else.

______________Rehabilitation oj Drought Areas
In addition to that, there is a sum of money to be associated with the scheme, and that is good too, but all that, with the exception of the committee, was available before. However, this is really a start and to that extent we would commend the minister. But he speaks of the length of time the government have been preparing for this and the data they have secured. Well, if they had the data and if the seasons have been growing worse instead of better, why did they not start in 1931? I remember hearing the Prime Minister on the first day of June, 1931, announcing from his seat in the house that a national calamity had stricken the southern prairies of the western provinces and everybody was visibly impressed by his statement that this was a national calamity. Why has the government not acted nationally prior to this year? In a couple of months or so, by next July, four years will have elapsed since that statement was made, and it is left until now for the government, recognizing the national nature of this problem, to take steps by bringing down this meagre bill. This is the result of four years' cogitation. I must confess I feel disappointed. I was, I suppose, infected with the same virus or bacteria or whatever you choose to call it that other enthusiasts were affected with who read the glowing description in the Toronto paper to which I referred on a former occasion, stating that the minister was to take this area under his wing as a sort of little crown colony affair and was going to do wonders. Those papers did the minister an injustice; we all know he cannot do that. All we can do is to do our best and leave nothing undone that is within our power in the way of expenditure or the appointment of this committee to advise or any other committee or individual that would like to tender advice.
1 would like to make this suggestion at this stage; I am afraid the minister has started off on the wrong foot. I remember quite distinctly that the premier of Manitoba got busy early in connection with this proposition, more than a year ago, and I should like to have seen the minister show a little stronger disposition to cooperate with the provinces. Of course he tells us that he is cooperating, but we would like to see some more practice of that nature and some more evidence of cooperation than merely a pious wish to cooperate. As a matter of fact the minister is invading what is strictly provincial work. It is true that in a small way, in an experimental, demonstration way, the dominion was in it before and was recognized as being within its jurisdiction. But now, to go into an area of that proportion without the closest consultation with the three provinces concerned,
I think is undiplomatic. Questions regarding production are essentially provincial in character. There is no law delineating where provincial powers and activities in agriculture stop and those of the dominion begin, but over a period of many years there has grown up between the dominion and provincial departments of agriculture a practice that allocates questions of production to the provinces. This is invading that field to greater extent than has been the case previously that I think the first thing to do, if I might so suggest, would be for the Minister of Agriculture to call the provinces together, take counsel with them and say: Here, I want to help you further than I have done in the past, to aid you in such a way that we shall have some business intercourse with the rural municipalities; in order to do that we must have your assistance. The municipalities are of course the creation of the province, and I do not see how in the world much is going to be accomplished if such a course is not taken. For instance, there is the establishment of grazing areas. In my estimation one of the first things that should be done in that area is to segregate as much as possible those lighter lands that are more predisposed to drift and on which nothing can be grown in a dry year. Lands with lighter subsoil and of a gravelly nature, that are hit worse in a dry year, should be seeded down as rapidly as possible. How is the federal government going to acquire those lands without invading provincial rights? I do not want to raise that difficulty, but it is there just the same. Many of those lands are reverting to the municipalities or the provinces now for taxes; how can the dominion government handle them unless they have the cooperation and very close cooperation of the provinces? Unless these matters are attended to at the outset, we shall have three provincial governments, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, each running little shows of their own, and on top of that the federal government running theirs; that is what it will mean. I cannot help thinking the dominion is now taking a step in the direction of invading provincial aedtivities in the matter of production to an extent that it did not do before, and yet not to a sufficient extent to be of any use except as a natural evolution of what has been taking place in the past. Therefore, unless we get those areas seeded down as quickly as possible and thereby make those dust storms, subside-because not only is damage caused to the area from which the dust blows, but also to the area on to which the dust is blown,-our little activities as described in this bill will never be noticed;
2636	COMMONS
Rehabilitation of Drought Areas
the dust will blow faster than the remedy can overtake it.
We do not need to go to Arabia or the Sahara desert to see what happens; all we have to do is to' look across the United States boundary and see right in the panhandle of Texas, Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma and a number of adjoining states, the terrific storms of dust occurring now as we talk taking not only the top soil, but the subsoil in some places to a depth of two or three feet. That is what is happening to the south of us and that is what will happen in our country unless effective measures are taken right away. The point is this: will this legislation bring about the desired result? It is good as far as it goes, but I am afraid you will never see it in the midst of one of these storms that are liable to occur any day in that territory, as has occurred in a relatively small way even this spring. I suppose there has to be a beginning with all things, but one should at least start diplomatically, start with a feeling that everyone interested is backing you, and particularly the provincial governments, who are all actively concerned about this problem and have their plans already worked out. It may be that the minister has conferred with them, but not as far as I know. Such conference it seems to me should have preceded any action. For instance, do the provinces know about this bill? Were they consulted about it? What is their opinion about it?
I have nothing further to add except to congratulate the minister on breaking new ground, introducing a new term in relation to this area so far as the government is concerned, the word "rehabilitation." But I trust they will back it up by something more substantial in the way of remedial measures than are provided for in this bill.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am not a western
member, but this is a matter of national concern, being before this federal house. A few minutes ago the Minister of Agriculture mentioned the personnel of the commission. I notice it will consist of thirteen members, which is a very bad number, perhaps some will not want to sit on it.
Mr. CAS'GRAIN:	Why not add one from
Quebec and Ontario?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The whole is greater
than the part and in a case of this nature all sections are interested. I do not think it would be in order to offer an amendment, but I think the government should include representatives from other provinces, or at any rate one for the three maritime provinces, one for Ontario, one for Quebec, and

one for British Columbia. Something could be learned from their experience. They have erosion in Quebec, just a few miles northeast of here, and1 there is also quite a lot of erosion in northern Ontario. As this is really a national matter by reason of the fact that we are going to spend $3,500,000 for that board alone, and that three provinces are represented and different bodies within those provinces, I believe it would be well for the government to have every section of Canada represented on that commission. I make this appeal to the minister knowing he will readily see my viewpoint. If the west suffers the industrial east, as some call it, is also going to suffer. You cannot have a large section of this country living under trying conditions without it affecting all the rest of the population. So leaving the number thirteen aside, of which I am not superstitious at all1-if I were on the commission I would gladly sit notwithstanding that- all the provinces should be represented in this national scheme.


Robert Weir: The fact that this
is under the experimental farm system gives assurance that all scientific knowledge and the results of reasearch will be made available to the commission. I do not believe it was brought to their attention that the number was thirteen, but what we had in mind was keeping the commission as small as possible so that it would not be unwieldy, so long as we had all parties represented that could add anything to the project, and especially could bring before their own people the problem we were endeavouring to solve.


William Gilbert Weir: Having in view
the possible extension of the drought area I would ask the minister if he has given any consideration to assistance in providing grass seed. I understand some branch of the Department of Agriculture has a policy of giving out free seedling trees, stipulating the conditions under which those trees shall be planted. I am very much impressed with the idea of the use of grass, and if some provision were made whereby assistance could be given towards providing grass seed at low cost and stipulating that it be seeded on summer fallow it would be a step in the right direction and help to prevent the extension of this drought condition, especially with respect to drifting.	_
One word in reference to the observation of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) regarding the work of the Canadian Conservation Institute, set up in Winnipeg as a voluntary organization for creating interest in

______________Rehabilitation of Drought Areas
this drought problem and trying to interest the public all over Canada in it, in fact not only all Canada but I think some work has been done in the United States. Is any effort made under this bill to bring in the services of that body?


Robert Weir: All their information and service will be available. We called a meeting some time ago in Ottawa at which some of the prime movers of that committee were present. The whole point is that as I said, we do not want this committee to become unwieldy.
With reference to the supply of grass seed, a policy has been in effect for some time whereby free grass seed is given in the western provinces to selected farmers on condition that they will return the same quantity of seed for further distribution. In eastern Canada-I might explain before the question is asked-we do not give that assistance, the reason being that in the east they feel that they can make better use of the money in buying seed grain cleaners, et cetera. We follow very much the recommendation of the premiers. In the west they recommend what I have just stated.
I noted what the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) stated yesterday with reference to the near-dried-out area, and the importance of taking steps to try to seed down certain areas while there is sufficient moisture to get rapid growth. One difficulty is to obtain a supply of suitable seed. That is what I had in mind when I made the statement on this in connection with my estimates, that we believe it is absolutely essential to get a sufficient quantity of seed so that we can almost afford to waste it in giving it away, once we have demonstrated beyond doubt where it should be used to the best advantage. We have practical control of all the best seed that we think suitable, at least of sufficient of it for our needs, and it has been put out where it will grow and multiply most rapidly and it will still be kept under control with the aim of having within another year from half to three quarters of a million pounds of the best kind available, together with much larger quantities of seed clover and brome grass, though perhaps not so much of the most hopeful strain of brome grass.


Mr. HOWDBN:: I realize that strictly speaking we are not considering means of dealing with the drought menace in the west, but a bill for the appointment of a commission to act in the matter. However, there are one or two points which I think should
be mentioned here and now. For the last fifty years m Manitoba we have been doing our best to drain off the water. The province is furrowed with deep ditches. We have a fairly ample and abundant supply of water in the spring, but soon after the freshets set in the water is gone. I realize that this is a provincial matter but it seems to me that if the province would take means to block a number of these ditches it would have a very beneficial effect.
There is another matter. There are, or there were a few years ago, hundreds of flowing wells, actually hundreds in the vicinity of Winnipeg. There are a great number of dairy men and milk producers in that vicinity and none were satisfied Unless they got running water. They bored wells some of which were hundreds of feet deep. The water is running away, and no doubt that fact is having a very unfavourable effect so far as the moisture condition is concerned. The point which is causing me the greatest annoyance is that mentioned only a few moments ago by the minister, namely the circumstances in connection with tree planting. Just as in the past fifty years we have been doing our best to run the water off, we are now doing our best to cut down all the trees in the province. At one time the city of Winnipeg used to be heated in the winter time by coal. That was a proper procedure

and may I say right here that I have neither coal nor wood interests. However because wood has been cheaper during the past few years thousands of cords of it have been brought to Winnipeg to heat the city during the winter months. Although it is brought from low-lying districts of the province, we have no assurance that in the future those districts will not be as dry as other districts now are. Certainly we have no assurance that the trees will grow again. I realize that this is not a matter with which the minister may be able to deal, but I hope what I have said may reach the ears of members of the government in Manitoba. I do not know whether or not they have ever considered the fact that they are cutting down all the trees in the province, and that if they continue the time may soon come when we shall have none left. I sincerely trust my observations may reach them, and it is for that reason I have risen to speak.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I was told by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) that the new commission would be composed of fourteen representatives, and for that reason I say the minister could not urge the objection

2638	COMMONS
Rehabilitation of Drought Areas
of unwieldiness if four new members were added to it. How much more interesting it would be for the rest of Canada to have on that commission members who would be gaining experience which could be applied in their own provinces. Were I a promoter of the bill I would most certainly make this recommendation, one which in its application would 1 believe prove very beneficial and would be regarded highly by the rest of the country. The subject matter of the bill is considered to be of national importance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Committee.
William Richard Motherwell: Could we not have more local farmers on the advisory committee? I am not taking exception to any who are on as provided in the bill; I think probably the classification has been well made, but may I point out to the minister that the live stock men on the committee would almost surely counteract the grain farmers' influence by way of reclamation. If one were to ask the average rancher what he thinks he would probably tell you this area should never have been opened for homesteading at all-none of it. Inasmuch as we cannot revert to the time thirty years ago when it was all ranch property, we have to deal with it as it is. I was wondering if the minister had gained any information from his experts, a number of whom are well posted on this area, and if they believe it would be better to let nature take charge of these lighter land areas composed of soils which tend to drift and which except in good years, cannot produce crops. Would it not become covered by whatever verdure nature may supply, such as Russian thistles, cacti, sage brush or any other plant indigenous to dry areas? Then through time grasses would appear. Nobody knows where they come from, but the fact is they do come. We know the birds distribute seeds, and other seeds are blown in from neighbouring districts. There is an area between Medicine Hat and Brooks about eighty miles in length which at one time was under cultivation and which now has a first class sod, affording good pasture just by letting it alone. Of course the longer the land has been under cultivation, the slower will be the process of regrassing carried on by nature. It seems to me anything would be better than repeatedly stirring up these light soils and allowing them to be blown away. Not only are those particular places injured, but the drifting soil causes injury where it may light as already pointed out.

If there were a few more dirt farmers on the committee I believe the results would be more satisfactory. They are the men who know the country and have been struggling against odds to try .to make it go in the tilling of the safer wheat areas. Their advice would be valuable in ascertaining what would be best to do, and whether it would be wise to attempt to seed artificially by means of domestic grasses .or to let nature do the seeding with anything it wishes to produce, in order that the nakedness of old mother earth might be covered up. I must repeat my belief that even at the risk of it being a little unwieldy there should be more dirt farmers on the committee.


Robert Weir: With reference to the first point raised by the hon. member for Melville, may I say we have the information of ranchers and farmers, as well as officials of the department, to the effect that we can give great assistance and can speed up to a considerable extent the reclamation of this land to a point where it may be suitable for pasture and ranch property. The Tilley area to which the hon. member referred, was used for a great many years, was then abandoned and is now covered by grasses. The type of grass which seems to have made the most rapid gain is the sand grass, which is really the natural grass found on very light land. I agree entirely with what the hon. member has said about .the cultivation of land which was too light to give much promise of a continuation of heavy crops, about the working out of the fibre which was in it, and bringing the soil to a point where it greatly resembled a desert.
The purpose of the undertaking is simply to investigate, to demonstrate what can be done .and the best way in which it can be done. However the .actual physical setting aside of certain areas for either ranching or farming is the prerogative of the province. The information which we obtain will be made available to the provinces. Perhaps it is not quite fair to make1 that statement, because the committees in each of these provinces have for years been working together. The experimental farm officials are not the only ones who have been gathering information. The federal representative sits in with the provincial representatives, and those from the various universities in western Canada. Once a year at the meeting of the national advisory committee on agricultural services we have a joint meeting at which all the work is re-

Supply-Public Works
viewed. So we believe we have complete cooperation all along the line, and have facilities whereby all available information may be used. May I repeat-because this point does not seem to be understood-that this work is done not by federal or provincial representatives, or by colleges, but by joint committees working together. The work has been so successful and so deeply appreciated among the officials themselves that I believe they sometimes forget whether they are connected with federal or provincial departments, or with the universities. In order to get the best results some person or persons had to be placed in charge of the work which, after all, is only a very considerable extension of experimental farm research work.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the minister touched on a very important matter when he said the responsibility of setting aside these badly drifted areas and devoting them to grass and community pastures is really a prerogative of the province. In making that statement he indicated that the most important thing that should be done immediately is a provincial duty, if I understood him aright. Therefore I was wondering if the minister would consider the advisability of assisting the province financially in converting these areas into community pastures in order to have the drifting stopped as quickly as possible. That would be in addition to the other activities that are provided for and which have been more or less under evolution and trial for twenty-five years. I do not think there is enough grass seed in Canada to seed the areas that should be closed out as quickly as possible.


Robert Weir: No doubt about
that.


William Richard Motherwell: That is a provincial duty, and it seems to me that would be a great step forward to leave this to the province but assist them financially in doing so. Of course this advisory committee will have to be consulted. They will know more about the local details than I do, because I have not been in that area for some time and I would not care to prescribe in particulars. At the same time I know there are areas where you cannot grow grain and other areas where you can. We want to salvage and rescue the good areas and convert the others into something more useful than sources of drifting sand. Would the minister consult the Minister of Finance and his other
colleagues in regard to doing something financially to take care of these prospective pasture areas with which the province has the primary duty, as he indicated?


Robert Weir: We have been doing, and under this scheme it is intended to do, just exactly what the hon. member has suggested. Realizing the importance of having almost unlimited supplies of these grass and clover seeds in connection with this work, we have made a survey as to where they can be multiplied most rapidly. We have practically taken control of sufficient of the best of the seed that is available to ensure this supply in the shortest time possible. I think there is no necessity of dwelling longer on this fact, that this is really part of the project. Next year we may require a larger vote in this connection to adopt whatever means may be necessary to multiply a larger quantity of grass seeds that we will keep on hand. It is intended that this grass seed shall be made available as soon as sufficient quantities have been multiplied, and of all the grasses of which there are sufficient quantities, as soon as we have discovered the best possible use to make of it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Public buildings-Nova Scotia-
Bridgetown-public building, $39,000.
Halifax - maintenance of immigration quarters, $25,000.
New Waterford-public building, $44,000.
Oxford

public building, $30,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. I desire to communicate to the committee some first hand information I have received from the municipalities whose representatives came to Ottawa not long ago, in regard to unemployment relief, since I understand that to a large extent the money to be spent by the Department of Public Works is intended to relieve unemployment. There were sixty-
2640
Supply-Public Works

eight municipalities represented in that delegation. Information has been received from fifteen; information is to come from eight;
Municipality-
Belleville, Ont	
Buckingham, P.Q. . .
Chatham, Ont	
Grand'Mcre, P.Q.. . Kitchener, Ont. . ..
Mimico, Ont	
Ottawa, Ont	
Riviere-du-Loup, P.Q, St. Hyacinthe, P.Q.. St. Jerome, P.Q.. .. Saint John, N.B.. .. St. Thomas, Ont.. .. Stratford, Ont.. .. Ville St. Pierre, P.Q Walkerville, Ont.. ..
The total population of these fifteen cities in New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario is 329,813. The total number of registered unemployed is 15,794, and the total number of unemployed labourers is, 8,965. Mayor Davis of Chatham, Ontario, has stated that for the purposes of accuracy one should add at least one-third to cover the unemployed not registered.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: There are other items under Labour in connection with which this matter could be better discussed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am giving the complete information which I have received to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). My opinion is that no policy of public works should be inaugurated until the government has full information as to the classification of the unemployed according to their trade or profession. May I submit certain figures in order that the committee may have some information as to the number of unemployed who are employable? I do not intend to give all the figures I have in connection with the trade or profession of these unemployed, but I shall give a general summary. In order to save the time of the house, I am having these statistics stencilled. Each hon. member will receive a copy to-morrow.
The total number of unemployed in these fifteen cities is 15,794. If we add one-third, as suggested by the mayor of Chatham, it will make 20,000, in rough figures. Each unemployed head of a family is generally the support of five people, so if we multiply this figure by five, it gives us 100,000 unemployed out of a population o.f 329,000. The number of labourers unemployed is more than one-half the total number. It may be said that this ; information is not complete. I agree with
there is no information from		six and no
answer has been	received yet	from thirtynine. The information is as follows:		
	Number of	Unemployed
Population	unemployed	labourers13,790	420	1884,638	89	6814,569	676	4196,461	272	17530,793	1,530	4046,800	372	121126,872	8,500	5,7898,499	326	14913,488	235	1438,967	358	25147,514'	1,095	65115,430	804	22317,742	602	1764,185	122	7610,105	393	132
that statement, but on the other hand these figures demonstrate that it is possible to obtain full information. Information is to come from the eight following municipalities:
Chicoutimi, Quebec Hull, Quebec Joliette, Quebec Montreal, Quebec Sherbrooke, Quebec Toronto, Ontario Three Rivers, Quebec Verdun, Quebec.
Every hon. member has received copies of the correspondence which I had with Mr. Trepanier, leader of the council in Montreal. At first this gentleman stated that the convention of mayors had complete information as to the trade or profession of the unemployed, but later he admitted that that statement was not correct. He says that he will ask General Panet to get the information. His Worship, Mayor James Simpson of Toronto, referred me to a Mr. Fred Bancroft in Montreal. I found it rather strange that I should have to go to Montreal to obtain information in connection with Toronto. This shows how lightly some of these gentlemen treat this matter. I mentioned this to Mayor Simpson and I was told that Mr. Bancroft was his personal representative. The mayor of Toronto has said that he will see that the information requested is supplied. All this goes to show that when the mayors knocked at the door of this house they were not prepared to answer some pertinent questions which might have been asked by hon. members. This remark does not apply to all the members of that delegation but it does apply to those who did not have the information requested and who refused to get it together. I should like to pay a tribute to the mayors who have sent the information already or

Supply-Public Works
who have said that they will send it later. No information is yet available from the six following municipalities:
Campbellton, New Brunswick Cornwall, Ontario Laehine, Quebec London, Ontario Pointe Claire, Quebec Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
The municipalities which as yet have not answered my letter of April 1 are the following thirty-nine:
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Amherst, Nova Scotia
Sydney, Nova Scotia
Glace Bay, Nova Scotia
Moncton, New Brunswick
St. Lambert, Quebec
Quebec, Quebec.
Longueuil, Quebec
Laprairie, Quebec
Sorel, Quebec
Farnham, Quebec
Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Quebec
Mont Joli, Quebec
Thetford Mines, Quebec
Shawinigan Falls, Quebec
Waterloo, Ontario
Sarnia, Ontario
Vankleek Hill, Ontario
Wingham, Ontario
Niagara Falls, Ontario
North Bay, Ontario
Goderich, Ontario
Sudbury, Ontario
Windsor, Ontario
Simcoe, Ontario
Winnipeg, Manitoba
St. Boniface, Manitoba
Kildonan West, Manitoba
Regina, Saskatchewan
Wilkie, Saskatchewan
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Edmonton, Alberta
Calgary, Alberta
Lethbridge, Alberta
Victoria, British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
New Westminster, British Columbia
Revelstoke, British Columbia.
I hope that these municipalities will soon give the required information. As soon as it is received it will be copied and communicated to all members of this house as well as to members of the press gallery. It is time a general survey was ma.de of the unemployed in this country, and it is essential that we should begin with the basic facts; we should start with the a, b, c, so to speak, in order to know just where we are. At the present time we are in the fog. In the past five years, at least fifty times, I have insisted on the importance of classifying the unemployed according to trade or profession. Last year the Prime Minister agreed that it was a very sensible suggestion and finally this year the suggestion has met with the approval of the Minister of Labour. I have taken advantage of the visit of the mayors to Ottawa to ask
these sixty-eight municipalities to give me the information asked for. It will be very representative of the unemployment problem throughout Canada, because the capital city of each province was represented in that delegation; and if we have those figures we shall know the number of unemployed who are employable, according to trade or profession, in the larger cities of the country. It is for that reason that I have taken a few minutes to mention these facts to the committee. I maintain that it will be impossible for the government to draft any constructive policy with regard to the relief of unemployment until the unemployed are so classified. Each one must be considered individually, just as the soldiers were looked after individually when they were wounded on the battlefield. It is the only way to deal with the problem, and I hope that if some of the municipalities already referred to were reluctant to give the information asked for, some means should be taken, either by this government or by the provincial governments, or by federal and provincial governments together, if there is an interprovincial conference, to see that the information is secured. That information, as soon as it is secured, and if compiled by the bureau of statistics, would give the government an opportunity to draft a policy which might be of duration for the relief of the unemployed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I allowed this item to stand at the request of some hon. gentlemen and I told the bouse that when it was resumed1 I should be prepared to give full information in connection with the undertakings of the Department of Public Works under the provisions of the Public Works Construction Act, 1934. I think it fair and proper to give to the committee at once a brief, concise and fairly complete resume of the activities of the Public Works department under this act, together with the expenditures and the balance of the appropriation still available.
As will be recalled, the object of the act was to provide work, thus in a measure to relieve unemployment, to stimulate the building industry and in a general way to encourage the construction industry at large. The objects of the act are set out in the preamble and are quite familiar to the members of this committee. The act provides that the work shall be allocated or allotted by order in council to such department as may appear proper, such department as can best carry it out in the public interest. Under that section of the act the following allotments
Supply-Public Works

were made: Public Works, $28,436,374.48; Marine, $7,150,080.80; National Defence, $2,560,050; Interior, $2,145500; Indian Affairs, $500,000; Railways and Canals, $279,500.
Then there is an item at the end of the schedule, the sum of $500,000, to supplement specific items where required, and that has been all used except the sum of $544.72. There are special items amounting to $618,000 which are not allotted. These added together account for the whole $39,690,050 mentioned in the act. The special items that have been allotted are only two in number and are: Fort Resolution, breakwater and wharf extension, $18,000, and Windsor, Ontario, elevator, $600,000, which has not been undertaken for reasons the details of which it is perhaps not necessary to go into at this time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Department of Trade and Commerce and other departments are considering whether it is advisable to proceed with the work, and for that reason it has not been allotted to any particular department. As regards the amount allotted to the Public Works department, the following are the details:
Buildings, $19,113,354.
Harbours, $6,752,520.48.
Bridges, $525,000.
Telegraph lines, $45,500.
Department-
Indian Affairs.. ..
Interior	
Marine	
National Defence.. .
Public Works	
Railways and Canals
This gives a total of $26,436,374.48. The expenditures allotted to the Public Works department, as at March 31, 1935, amounted to $5,203,046.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Expended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Expended up to March 31. In that connection I think it proper to point out that this bill was passed on the 30th day of June, 1934, and plans had to be prepared in connection with buildings and undertakings, specifications drafted and contracts awarded. Then of course there has been since that time the winter season in which work had to be suspended. In addition to that it must be borne in mind that while this amount is the actual expenditure, a considerable sum in addition has actually been earned, because estimates for contractors are delayed. They are not sent in until the end of the month and sometimes, after that, there is checking and further delay. There is involved of course the drawback. So that in addition to the amount shown as actually expended a considerable sum has been earned.
I can provide the committee with the particulars of the expenditures in each of the departments prior to March 31, 1935, as follows:
Expenditures to March 31, 1935 $ 177,158 07 913,920 44 975,637 15 420,940 64 5,203,046 39 162,677 26
Outstanding commitments in addition $	185,101 16
51.461 30 2,337,204 56 1,076,545 85 13,971,135 52 116,766 09
Total
$	362,259 23
965,381 74 3,312,841 71 1,497,486 49 19,174,181 91 279,443 35
Totals


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Would the minister
kindly give again the total expenditure to March 31?-because I have received from the Minister of Finance a statement which does not correspond with the figures my hon. friend is giving.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the statement my hon. friend has is not of the same date. I think he will find that his is a month earlier. I got mine up to the last date that was available, March 31. The figure of the total expenditure of all departments is $7,853,379.95.


John Campbell Elliott: I might say that the
statement furnished to me was to February 28.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount of contracts awarded by public tender by the Public Works department is $14,285,326, of which I can give a detailed list if the committee would like to have it.


James J. Donnelly: Public tender?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Public advertisement and tender.


John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister give
the name of the contractor in each case, and if convenient it would help the committee if he would give the number of the order in council awarding the contract.

Supply-Public Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can give that. I assume it might be well to give the number of the item. The list is as follows:
6.	Barrie, Ont.-Reconstruction of Bayfield street wharf:
Order in council August 18, 1934, William Bermingham & Son, $11,407.
9. Belleville, Ont.-Dredging:
Order in council July 11, 1934, Randolph McDonald Company, Limited, $16,900.
Order in council August 18, 1934, extras, $2,376-Total, $19,276.
14.	Brooklyn, N.S.-Breakwater extension: Order in council September 12, 1934, M. A.
Condon & Son, $58,696.
15.	Brooklyn, N.S.-Dredging:
Order in council July 14, 1934, Southern Salvage Company, $20,045.
Additional dredging authorized October 21, 1934, $3,180-Total, $23,225.
17. Burlington Channel, Ont.-Reconstruction of pier:	.
Order in council July 11.	1934, Ontario
Construction Company, Limited, $9,987.
20.	Cantie, Que.

Building for immigration and customs purposes:
Order in council August 31, 1934, E. Hubert, $15,000.
22. Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Que.-Wharf repairs: Order in council July 18, 1934, Francis River Dredging Company, $13,990.


John Campbell Elliott: I assume they were all
let to the lowest tenderer except in a few cases where some change was made in that method. Would the minister mind giving to the committee the cases where contracts were not let to the lowest tenderer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think I can
give that, but if I may be allowed to complete the whole statement, I shall be glad to do that. So far the contracts have all been let to the lowest tenderer. The list continues:
25. Champlain dry dock, Que.-Keel blocks: Order in council July 30, 1934, La Fonderie St. Anselme, Limited, $15,973.
32. Dalhousie, N.B.-Post office:
Order in council August 6, 1934, George Eddie Company, third tender, at price of lowest tender Stewart Construction Company, $31,428.
Fittings-Order in council February 9, 1935, J. & D. A. Harquail Company Limited, $1,111- Total, $32,539.
38.	East River, N.S.-Dredging:
Order in council August 13, 1934, Beacon Dredging Company, $17,003.
39.	Edmonton, Alta.-Royal Canadian Mounted
Police barracks:
Tenders have been received; contract is not yet awarded as the matter is before council, $248,944.
41. Escuminac, N.B.-Breakwater extension: Order in council 26th July, 1934, Harold M. Price, $22,232.
43. Father Point, Que.-Wharf reconstruction: Order in council August 18, 1934, L. Lemieux, $20,811.
Extras authorized, $855-Total, $21,666.
45. Fort William, Ont.

Public building:
Order in council August 6, 1934, Pigott Construction Company, $288,395.
47.	Fraser river, B.C.-Improvements wing
dams:
Tenders have been received; order in council April 5, 1935, Coast Quarries Limited, $47,104.
48.	Fraser river, B.C.-North arm, dredging: Order in council August 6, 1934, B.C. Bridge
and Dredging Company, $58,657.
54.	Georgetown, Ont.

Public building:
Tenders due March 26th. Matter before
council, contract not yet awarded, $39,125.
55.	Grand Etang, N.S.-Extension of west pier: Order in council July 26, 1934, Morrison and
Thorne, $9,416.
56.	Grand Riviere, Que.-Harbour repairs and
improvements to jetty:
Order in council August 18, 1934, William D. Buckley and A. J. Urquhart, $27,170.
57.	Guelph, Ont.-New public building:
Order in council January 17, 1935, Tope Construction Company of Hamilton, $146,450.
60. Halifax, N.S.-Replacement of machine shop:
Order in council March 25, 1935, Brookfield Construction Company Limited, $87,269.
71.	Hamilton. Ont.-Harbour improvements,
piers, floats and pile clusters:
Order in council July 14, 1934, Russell Construction Company, $11,720.
Extras, order in council October 20, 1934, $5,300-Total, $17,020.
Dredging, order in council August 6, 1934, Canadian Dredging Company, $18,050. Additional amount, $4,807-Total, $22,857.
72.	Hamilton, Ont.-Public building:
Order in council February 19, 1935, Yates Construction Company, $1,663,000.
Additional, order in council April 6, 1935, $6,782-Total, $1,669,782.
74. Hantsport, N.S.-To complete siding to wharf:
Order in council August 6, 1934, R. & A. Parsons, $14,627.
83. Kingston, Ont.-Paving La Salle causeway: Order in council July 18, 1934, J. S. Grant and Company, $13,086.
Further extension, $2,249

Total, $15,335.
85.	Kincardine, Ont.-Reconstruction of north
wall:
Order in council July 18, 1934, Henry & Ross, $13,481.
86.	Laeolle, Que.-Building for immigration and
customs purposes:
Order in council October 6, 1934, F. E. Girard, $20,000.
Additional amount, $1,060-Total, $21,060.
90. London, Ont.-Public building:
Order in council March 11. 1935, Pigott Construction Company, $1,031,429.
92.	McAdam, N.B.-Public building:
Order in council July 26. 1934, New Brunswick Contractors Limited, $18,881.
Additional reinforcing floor, $1,175-Total, $20,056.
Fittings, order in council January 7, 1935, Canadian Office & School Furniture Limited, $865.
93.	Marie Joseph, N.S.-Wharf:
Order in council August 30, 1934, C. J. Walker, $6,912.
Supply-Public Works

94.	Malagash, X.S.-Wharf extension:
Order in council July 19, 1934, R. A. Douglas, $23,455.
95.	Malloeh's Beach, N.B.-Breakwater:
Order in council October 11, 1934, Wilson &
DeWolfe, $19,958.
97.	Midland, Ont.-Pier "C" retaining wall "F"
and floats:
Order in council August 16, 1934, Russell Construction Company, $89,943.
Additional steel, $1,488-Total, $91,431.
98.	Moncton, N.B.-Public building:
Order in council August 6, 1934, Acme Construction Company, $443,585.
Additional storey, $120,000.
101.	Montreal, Que.-Public building, addition: Order in council December 3, 1934, The A.
Jamn Building Company Limited, $1,295,525.
102. Montreal, Que.-Notre-Dame de Grace
postal station:
Order in council July 26, 1934, L. G. Ogilvie & Company, $98,390.
Addition to building and some other additions, $31,441.25.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I had just reached item 103.
103.	Montreal, Que.-Postal terminal building: Order in council August 22, 1934, Duranceau & Duranceau, $1,443,692.
Order in council November 15, 1934, excavation by hand, $56,308.
Foundation, order in council February 11, 1935, Anglin Norcross Limited, $257,750, of which $89,000 from Duranceau contract.
Order in council April 6, 1935, extras to Duranceau contract, $3,440 for grading and $4,698.54 concrete platforms. Total, $8,138.
110.	Nanaimo, B.C.-Assembly wharf:
Tenders due March 20, 1935, Lowest Pacific
Engineers, Limited (not yet awarded), $176,086.
111.	New Toronto, Ont.-Public building: Tenders due March 29. 1935. Sent P.C.
April 2, 1935. Lowest Dickie Construction Company, $75,655.
113. Northwest Cove (Tancook), N.S.-Break-water extension:
Order in council August 25, 1934, R. A. Douglas, $8,770.
115.	Oakville, Ont.-Dredging:
Order in council July 11, 1934, C. S. Boone Dredging and Construction Company, $19,200.
116.	Oshawa, Ont.-Harbour improvements: Order in council July 26, 1934, R. C. Hoffman,
wall and dredging. $76,249.
Additional piling, $1,958-Total, $78,207. Order in council August 30, 1934, additional work on contract, $13,740.
Order in council July 14, 1934, W. J. Trick (for shed), $4,869
117.	Ottawa, Ont.-Postal terminal building: Order in council March 11. 1935, A. W.
Robertson for superstructure, $609,625, and The 
Foundation Company of Canada, $76,714, $686,339.	'
118.	Ottawa, Ont.-Central experimental farm: Administration building; tenders due March 5, 1935. Lowest H. Dagenais, sent P.C., $126,739.
121.	Ottawa, Ont.,-Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Building:
Order in council December 18, 1934, U. Boileau Limited, $1,198,000.
For alternative system of heating, $6,670- Total, $1,204,670.
122.	Ottawa, _Ont.-Royal Canadian Mint, new
refineries:
Order in council January 23,	1935, H.
Dagenais, $358,400.
Order in council March 1, 1935, H. Dagenais, addition to mint, $53,910.
125. Owen Sound, Ont.-Harbour improvements:
Wall and dredging:
Order in council September 1, 1934, Hill & Sibbald Limited, $27,251.02.
Order in council November 8, 1934, extras authorized, $15,550.
Extras, $292-Total, $43,093.02.
127. Pointe au Pic (Murray Bay), Que.-Wharf extension:
Order in council October 20, 1934, Hill & Sibbald Limited, $117,072.
129.	Port Arthur, Ont.-Repair and complete
section of breakwater:
Order in council August 6, 1934, Canadian Dredging Company, $139,250.
130.	Port Burwell, Ont.-Reconstruction of
west wall:
Order in council July 26, 1934, Farley & Grant, $12,953.
Additional w-ork authorized August 25, 1934, extension to contract, $1,557-Total, $14,510.
131.	Port Daniel East, Que.-Wharf reinforcement:
Order in council July 26, 1934, L. Lemieux, $18,997.
132.	Port Grcvillc, N.S.-BTeakw-ater extension: Order in council July 26, 1934, R. A. Douglas,

133.	Port Hope, Ont.-Wharf extension:
Order in council August 6, 1934, Hill and
Sibbald, Limited, $22,696.80.
134.	Port Stanley, Out.-Repairs to harbour
works:
Order in council July 14, 1934, Cameron and Phi-n, $13,752.18.
146.	Ri-mouski, Que.-Wharf -extension:
Order in council July 19, 1934, La Cie
Senterre, $14,617.10.
147.	Riviere Ouelle, Que.-Wharf reconstruction:
Order in council August 30, 1934, L. Levesque, $29,957.
149.	Sorel, Que.-Repairs to wharf:
Order in council October 18, 1934, Cummins Construction Company, $75,866; extras authorized, $1,825-total, $77,691.
150.	St. Andrews, N.B.-Wharf repairs:
Order in council August 6, 1934, W. A.
McVay, $19,318.

Supply-Public Works
151.	St. Andrews Lock and Dam, Man.-Reconstruction of spare lock gates:
Order in council September 28, 1934, Carter-Halls-Aldinger, $24,124.
152.	St. George, N.B.-Dredging:
Order in council July 14, 1934, T. O'Leary (sublet to Saint John Dredging Company), $12,699.
158. Sarnia, Ont.-Warehouse on wharf:
Order in council August 6, 1934, R. McKay, $20,682.
160.	Shippigan, N.B.-Wharf extension and repairs:
Order in council July 19, 1934, F. T. Landry, $20,018.
Authorized September 16, 1934, additional crib work, $1,610-total $21,628.
163. Sydney, N.S.-Warehouse extension:
Order in council July 19, 1934, Chappells Limited, $8,572.
Authorized October 23. 1934, additional work, $1,023.30- total, $9,595.30.
167.	Timiskaiming Dam, Que.-Reconstruction of
Quebec side:
Order in council July 19, 1934, T. C. Gorman Construction Company, $455,176.
168.	Toronto, Ont.-Customs building addition: Order in council February 5, 1935, Redfern
Construction Company, $547,900.
169.	Toronto, Ont.-Postal Station "D":
Due March 26, 1935, order in council April 6, 1935, The Jackson Lewis Company, $125,000. 171. Toronto, Ont.-New dock at marginal way: Order in council December 19, 1934, Dominion Construction Corporation, $690,661, of which department pays $487,201, and harbour commission, $203,460.
178. Wallaceburg, Ont.-Public 'building:
Order in council October 6, 1934, Schultz Construction, Company Limited, $39,095.
181. Winnipeg, Man.-New public building: Order in council March 11, 1935, Carter-HaJ'ls-Aldinger, plus $4,500, alternative system of beating and plus $5,000 for band excavation, $1,417,229.
183.	Winnipeg, Man.-Post Office addition: Order in council January 7, 1935, Carter-Halls-A.ldinger, $264,899.-Total public tenders, $14,285,326.65.
Then the total amount of contracts let by local tenders was $937,557.66. The list is not so long; I might give it:
2. Amherst, N.S.-New public building, excavation:
Authorized 24.11.34 Rhodes Curry, $2,330.
7.	Beauport, Que.-Public building:
Order in council 5.2.35, P. Mathieu, $16,365,
8.	Berthierville, Que.-Public building:
Order in council 4.2.35, E. Tellier and A. Mousseau Fils of Berthierville, $42,420.
11.	Boissevain, Man.-Public building:
Order in council 18.12.34, Dring Bros., $17,500.
12.	Bow River, Alta.-Retaining wall:
Order in council 3.12.34, Mannix & Owens, $59,197.	. .
Order in council 14.1.35. additional to contract, $32,495-Total, $91,692.
16.	Burke Falls, Ont.-Public building:
Order in council 18.12.34, H. L. & Paul Gomoll, $22,900.
39.	Edmonton, Alta.-Royal Canadian Mounted
Police barracks, excavation:
Authorized 25.10.34, Ed. Clark, $2,460.
40.	Elmwood, Man.-Public building:
Order in council 2.3.35, G. A. Baert, $23,984.
49.	Fredericton Experimental Farm, N.B.-[DOT] New dormitory:
Order in council 3.11.34. A. & R. Forbes, $49,988 plus extra $1,486, $51,474.
51. Gagetown, N.B.-Public building:
Due April 18th, estimated cost, $7,000.
53. Gananoque, Ont.-Wharf and dredging: Dredging, order in council 27.10.34, Canada Dredging Company, $11,135.
Order in council 27.11.34, additional dredging from supplement vote, $2,100-Total, $13,235.
Wharf, order in council 27.10.34, Mitchell & Wilson Limited, $10,881.
73.	Hamiota, Man.-Public building:
Order in council 17.11.34, Imperial Building and Supplies Limited, $7,863.
103. Montreal, Que.-Postal terminal building, foundation:
Order in council 11.2.35, Anglin Norcross Limited, $257,750, of which $89,000 from Duranceau contract. $168,750.
Authorized 25.2.35, purchase and demolition of Workman building, W. J. Lajeunes.se & Company accepted, $2,250.
114. Norwood Grove, Man.-Public building: Order in council 3.12.34, Claydon Company, $17,823.
Authorized 21.12.34 for deeper foundation, $2,621-1Total, $20,444.
124. Outlook, Sask.-Bridge across the south Saskatchewan river-substructure:
Order in council 5.2.35, Bird Construction Company, $134,522.
154.	St. Joseph, D'Alma, Que.-Public building: Order in council 5.2.35, Maltais & Gagne,

155.	St. Lambert, Que.-Retaining wall:
Order in council 14.9.34, Baillergeon &
Poirier, $25,781.82.
Order in council 15.11.34, extra to contract, $13,300-Total, $39,081.82.
159. Selkirk, Man.-Bridge over Red river

substructure:
Order in council 11.2.35, Macaw & McDonald, $79,817.84.
161.	South Bay Mouth, Ont.-Wharf:
Order in council 8.11.34, L. R. Brown & Company, $9,613.
182. Winnipeg, Man.-Extension Deer Lodge hospital:
Order in council 6.10.34, Couture and Toupin, $114,060.
177. Victoria, B.C.-Little Saanich observatory, improvements:
Order in council 6.10.34, Corp. Saanich, water main, $20,000.
Order in council 6.10.34, A. Lockley, road. $6,850.
Order in council 6.19.34. Coast Construction Company, underbrushing, $3,500.
Authorized 3.11.34, Canadian Fairbanks Morse, pump, $2,340.
Authorized 3.11.34, A. Lockley, concrete pump house, $645.
Authorized 3.11.34, Coast Construction Company, more underbrushing, $2.440-$35,775-[DOT] Total for local tenders, $937,557.66.
Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: I wonder if my hon.
friend would speak a little louder.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 131.	Port Daniel East, Que.-Wharf reinforcement:
Bulkheads, $850.
Repairs to flooring, $600-total, $1,450.
132.	Port Greville, N.S.-Breakwater repairs: Authorized 25.1.35, $500.
143. Quesnel-Barkerville telegraph line, B.C.- Reconstruction:
Order in council 19.7.34, $6,300'.
157. 'Saguenay river, Que.-Dredging near Chicoutimi:
Order in council 26.7.34 by departmental plant, $22,000.
162.	Summerside, P.E.I.-To take over a further section of the Canadian National Railways wharf and repair same:
Order in council 22.8.34, $16,400.
175. Vancouver, B.C.-Stanley Park, bank protection:
-Order in council 26.7.34, $14,000.
184.	Winnipeg Beach, Man.-Rebuilding breakwater :
Order in council 13.7.34, $18,500.
185.	Yukon Telegraph System-Shifting line between 8th and 9th cabins and replacing bridges across Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks:
Order in council 19.7.34, $6,200.-Total for day labour works, $470,836.
Then under harbours and rivers we had a vote of $2,500,000, oif which $2,224,118.59 has been, spent leaving a balance of $240,881.41. Under public buildings generally there was assigned to the Public Works department $1,650,000, all of which has been spent with the exception of $17,783.71.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I have given a fairly comprehensive review of the expenditures. To summarize it, the net result is that about $10,000,000 of the round sum of $40,000,000 has been either expended or earned, leaving approximately $30,000,000 to be expended during this year, of which all but about $6,000,000 in round figures has been undertaken. The only large buildings not yet undertaken are at Halifax, the records building at Ottawa, the public building at Regina, and the public building at Vancouver. I cannot close without saying that I think this result has been very satisfactory indeed, considering all conditions. During the current year the expenditures will be much larger than they were in the past.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. CASGRAI'N:	Under this program or
the new one? The elections are on.

Supply-Public Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am glad my
hon. friends agree with that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We needed it before
but you would not do it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This seems to
be very popular on the other side Of the house. I endeavoured to point out this afternoon that this bill was not passed until June 30. The plans had to be prepared and the winter season intervened. As I have intimated, we have spent about $10,000,000 and I think we have done remarkably well. Contracts have been awarded for the construction of the larger buildings and during the current, year the expenditures will naturally be much heavier.
I want to say that this could not have been accomplished without the work of members of my staff, who, like the minister, have foregone their holidays, have worked after hours and have given their most loyal and wholehearted cooperation. I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the house for the many helpful suggestions they have made. I have not been able to adopt them all, but I have done my best. I suggest that the committee hear the other ministers who I believe will have a shorter story to tell. I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) can give a good account of what he has done with the little money he has had. I believe the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy*) and possibly the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) will have statements to make. The committee would then be in possession of full information in case there are further questions to be asked.


James J. Donnelly: When the $40,000,000 program of public works was being considered last year we complained bitterly that Saskatchewan was not receiving its just share. The population of this province is one-tenth the population of Canada, and we should have received something in the neighbourhood of $4,000,000. All that we did get was something like $675,000. Was this because of the elections on June 19 when the Conservative party was obliterated? Perhaps that is why we did not receive our just due. We were told that we would receive consideration in the way of grants from the general votes. Apparently all that has been done is to make provision for the construction of a building in Regina which they do not know where to place or what to do with. They are also going to build a bridge over the Saskatchewan river in order to let the settlers get up north. In my opinion there is no other part of the Dominion of Canada which needs work as
much as Saskatchewan. N>o other part of Canada has suffered as much. No part of the province of Saskatchewan has suffered as much as the dried out areas in the southern part, and yet not a dollar is being provided for these areas. Last year $400,000 was allotted to a building in the city of Regina and $275,000 to the construction of a bridge over the Saskatchewan river. I should like to know if the contracts to be awarded for these two projects will stipulate that local labour must be used, or will the contractors be permitted to bring in labour from Winnipeg and other outside places? Will the minister tell me if they have started to demolish the old building in Regina and what value has been placed upon it?
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds): I would remind my hon. friend that the allocation of the works provided for by that program was not made on a provincial basis; it was based on the requirements of the dominion as to buildings and other services. If my hon. friend will consider just what the dominion has done for Saskatchewan in order to meet the exceptional conditions confronting that province, I think he will agree that much has been done. I am sure he would not expect us to construct buildings which were not needed.


James J. Donnelly: Where did the minister get the information that they needed a $400,000 building in Regina?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We had the
reports of our officials and architects. I think the services are needed there.


James J. Donnelly: What are you going to do with it when it is completed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Let me answer, please. A local architect was employed to prepare plans and we expect to invite tenders in a short time. Tenders will be called for the old buildings, or the contractor may include in his tender a bid for its removal. There will be competition in connection with it. All these contracts contain a provision that the contractor shall employ a reasonable quota of local labour and returned soldiers.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Only Tories?


John Campbell Elliott: I was just going to suggest what the minister has just suggested, that probably it would be advisable to have a report from the different ministers before continuing the discussion. Some of us think there should be some criticism offered but perhaps we should hear the ministers.
Supply-Public Works


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Before we proceed I think it only fair to direct the attention of the minister to a most cruel and probably unworthy suggestion which is being made throughout the country that a far greater proportion of the total vote is being spent on works in ministers' constituencies than in other parts of the country. I think the minister should straighten out this matter and give the committee the proportion of the total vote which is being spent in the constituencies now represented by ministers of the crown.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds) I have not figured out the expenditures on that basis; I did not anticipate it would be required. I have no objection to preparing a statement along those lines and presenting it to the hon. gentleman and the committee.


Mr. SANDERSON:: When the minister is preparing that information he might include the constituencies of supporters of the government.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall take that into consideration.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: 
Ernest Lapointe: I support the suggestion of the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). I think we should have the full story from the other ministers. I should like to hear the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau).


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I am pleased to answer the call immediately. I do not need to repeat the general statement made by the Minister of Public Works in connection with the works provided for by the act of 1934 and to be carried on under the administration of the Department of Marine. As has been stated, the numbers of the schedules put under the administration of my department are: 1, 26, 28, 61, 87, 104-


Ernest Lapointe: What is that?


Alfred Duranleau: -105-


Mr. CAS  GRAIN@: Will the minister state what the works are?


Alfred Duranleau: No. 1 is aids to navigation, repairs and improvements under the Marine department, and the amount is $71,900.


Mr. POWER:: Where?
(Mr. Elliott. 1


Alfred Duranleau: The work undertaken under that item is in connection with the Main-a-Dieu. Nova Scotia, lighthouse and dwelling. The estimate was $7,000 and the contract was awarded to J. N. MacDonald, by order in council passed November 8, 1934, for $6,718.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the number of the order in council?


Alfred Duranleau: The number is 2789.


Charles Gavan Power: Has it been produced?


Alfred Duranleau: The orders in council passed in connection with general items like No. 1 have been tabled.


William Duff: Were tenders called for by public advertisement?


Alfred Duranleau: Tenders were called for-


William Duff: By public advertisement?


Alfred Duranleau: from different firms.


William Duff: Who are the firms?


Alfred Duranleau: Four firms tendered,
J.	N. MacDonald, Louisburg, $7,775, was awarded the contract, his tender being the lowest. Next was J. Craig MacDonald, Miracut, Nova Scotia, $8,425. There were tenders also from Charles Beaver, Louisburg, Nova Scotia, $9,145, and Edward McDonald, Louisburg, $9,780.


William Duff: All good Tories.


John Campbell Elliott: Do they all belong to the same firm?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend from Quebec East laughs, but if he goes to Quebec he will find that under the Public Works department, in connection with provincial works, all those from whom tenders were invited are good Grits.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a great answer.


Alfred Duranleau: The next item is the lighthouse at Sheet Rock, Nova Scotia.


William Duff: Where is that?


Alfred Duranleau: The order in council was passed on September 1, 1934, and the contract awarded to the McDonald Construction Company, Limited, for $7,915.


William Duff: Is that the same McDonald?
That must be the McDonald from Bras d'Or


Alfred Duranleau: All first class contractors. That is the McDonald Construction Company, Limited, of Halifax.

Supply-Public Works


William Duff: I know them; they are good
Tories.


Mr. QUINN:: Good anyway, whether
Tories or not.


Alfred Duranleau: Next is Whitehead,
Nova Scotia, lighthouse and fog alarm. The order in council was passed October 26, 1934, contractor Stanley Millar, and the amount is $4,695. We have paid $3,212.20 for engines and $187.80 for inspection, the total being $8,095, while the estimate of the department was $13,500.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the number of
the order in council?


Alfred Duranleau: I will give it in a
minute. In connection with the Louisburg fog alarm repairs, the work was done by day labour by the department, the amount being $2,000. Next is the Baccaro, Nova Scotia, light erection. The work was done by Shelburne Woodworkers Limited for $1,850.


Peter John Veniot: Public tender or private
invitation?


Alfred Duranleau: In all the expenditures were $2,008; the estimate was $4,000.


Peter John Veniot: Public tenders or private
invitation?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: I will tell my hon.
friend immediately-


Peter John Veniot: I asked the minister
whether it was by public tender or by private invitation and his answer was, " no." What does the "no" apply to? Does it apply to public tenders or private invitation?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the details here.


Peter John Veniot: Why did the minister
answer "no" when he says he has not the details?


Jean-François Pouliot: He did not mean "I
know."


Alfred Duranleau: As a rule, tenders
were invited from a great number of contractors, reliable local contractors, except in connection with special works, in order to safeguard the public interest.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister please
give the names of those to whom invitations were addressed to tender-invitations to the wedding of the minister and the new system of doing public works.


Alfred Duranleau: As I have told the
committee with regard to this item of $1,850, I have not the details.


Peter John Veniot: You should have.


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the details as to those from whom tenders were asked.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there an order in council? Will the minister mention the order in council in every instance where there is one?


Alfred Duranleau: There is no order in council as a rule for contracts under $5,000.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister produce
the names at some future time if he has not the details now?


Alfred Duranleau: The names of the
contractors, the tenderers?


Peter John Veniot: The persons invited to
tender.


Alfred Duranleau: In this particular
case?


Peter John Veniot: In every case.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be pleased to inquire and let my hon. friend know.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of
privilege. There are a number of members here listening to the explanations given by the minister. My question of privilege is this: I regret very much that this hon. gentleman, like several of his colleagues, comes here without the information we want, and we have to swallow all the ministers give us without being able to secure the proper information. As a member of parliament representing not only my own constituency but Canada at large, as every one of us does, I strongly protest against that method of procedure adopted this year by several ministers. In order to save the time of the committee, I shall not name them all now, but I cannot do otherwise than protest. I regret very much that ministers of the crown come here with their deputies and other departmental offioers and are unable to answer the questions put to them by members of the house. We hear complaints about the tremendous amount of work which the ministers have to do, but this is because they do not do the proper work at the proper time. They complain and they cry like babies: "We cannot do all that; we work day and night." Why do they have to work day and night? They are like students who do not work during the whole year and who put their heads under the water tap on the eve of the examinations in order to keep awake while studying. This is the way the
Supply-Public Works

ministers do. The senior member for Ottawa suggests: "C'est dur en l'eau"-It is hard in the water. I hope the minister wil) not persist any more in his present course. We will wait until he has proper information to give us. The act comes under five departments; it is a five-headed monster. There should be one head to control every expenditure, but it is controlled by five heads. Is this because the contracts are to be awarded by ten hands? This is a shame. I regret the Prime Minister is not present, because he would tell the Minister of Marine just as he would have told the other ones: How dare you come to the house without proper information? Further, I regret that the acting Prime Minister is not present, because he would say to the Minister of Marine: How dare you! I will not say to the Minister of Marine, because as he knows I have a high regard for him-and it is on that account I speak to him in this way-what I would say under similar circumstances to one of his colleagues, but no minister, either English or French speaking, should come before this parliament and exhibit such ignorance of his own department. I am sorry for the minister. He must realize thgt what I am saying is true. He must know that in order to give information to the representatives of the people of this country, he must first inform himself. On a matter of privilege I strongly protest against the way in which the Minister of Marine has proceeded so far, and I hope no minister will dare to submit any expenditure to the house unless and until he is fully prepared to answer any questions in regard to the matter.


Alfred Duranleau: I thank the hon. member for Temisoouata (Mr. Pouliot) for his kind words towards me. I notice that he has a great regard for the Minister -of Marine. But I think he has made a fuss about very little; it is about an expenditure of SI,800 when the estimate was $4,000. However I have before me all the orders in council for all the works I am now submitting to the committee, and if my hon. friend will allow me to give the list of those works, he will see that his remarks were wholly unjustified.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege. I protest against the word "fuss" used by the minister. May I explain my point? The amount is not in question; it might be $10,000. I am objecting as a matter of principle. The minister must understand that it is most important to give the information asked for by hon. members. I shall not press the matter further, but if the minister speaks so lightly of the very serious objec-

tions which have come from this side of the house, it will be necessary to point this out to the chair so that the minister may be called to order.


Alfred Duranleau: With regard to Sandy Beach, Quebec, this is for repairs to the pier, steel sheet piling protection. The contract was awarded to Ludger Lemieux Limited by order in council of January 14, 1935.


Charles Gavan Power: The number?


Alfred Duranleau: Number 87.


Charles Gavan Power: Has it been produced?


Alfred Duranleau: It must have been produced, because, as I have already told the committee, all orders in council passed under general items for special works have been tabled.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to know when.


Alfred Duranleau: I will ascertain. I am quite sure that it was tabled some time ago. The amount is $5,950. As regards Caron Point, Quebec, a light done by day labour under our agency, the estimate was $3,500 and the work was done by the department for $1,625.


William Duff: May I ask why there is such a disparity between the estimate made by the minister's officials and the amount spent on the work?


Alfred Duranleau: It is proof that the
officials have done the work very economically.


William Duff: No, that is not the answer.
The minister stated that his officials made a certain estimate. For instance in that item of $1,800 the estimate was $4,000. In respect to the item the minister last mentioned, if I understand him aright, $3,500 was estimated and only $1,600 was spent. Surely there must be something wrong with the estimates of the officials when there is such a disparity. Will the minister explain why there is that great difference?


Alfred Duranleau: I did not ask that information of the officials. If the work had cost a great deal more than the estimate we would have been justified in asking the men in charge of the work why the cost was so high. In this instance it was so low that we were satisfied. Probably the man in charge found that he could do the work cheaper than the estimate and succeeded in doing so.


William Duff: A pretty poor excuse.


Mr. GO BEIL:: You have to have something to growl about.

Supply-Public Works


Alfred Duranleau: There is another
item, Carmanash Point, B.C., repairs to buildings, done by day labour, $807. The estimate was $1,300.
Pachena, B.C., lighthouse dwelling. Estimate, $S,000. The contract was awarded by order in council 2101 of September 1, 1934, to A. W. McMillan for $7,724.


Mr. NEILL:: Is the work completed?


Alfred Duranleau: No; we have spent to date $5,422.
Prince Rupert, B.C., repairs to building and gas buoy. Estimate, $1,500; done by day labour for $1,447.75.
26. Charlottetown, P.E.I., marine wharf. Estimate, $20,000. There were two orders in council, No. 1566 of July 19, 1934, and No. 3041 of November 30, 1934. The total expense was $22,150 by day labour.
28. Chicoutimi, Que., water system, roads, et cetera. Order in council 2228 of September 21, 1934. Contract awarded to Jean Angers, general contractor, Chicoutimi, for $130,082.06. The estimate was $153,500.
61.	Halifax, (Camperdown) N.S., operating house for radio direction finding station. Order in council 2524 of October 26, 1934. Contract awarded to George A. de Young, $12,545. Estimate $12,000.
62.	Halifax, NB., pier "B", fire prevention and cargo handling equipment. This work has not been undertaken yet.
63.	Halifax, NB., quay walls, ocean terminals, order in council 2975 of November 27, 1934. Contract awarded to Western Waterproofing Company, $8,724.10. Estimate, $12,000. There was also $1,150 allowed to the harbour commission of Halifax for engineering services. The total amount did not exceed $10,000.


William Duff: What kind of work was done for that amount? "Quay wall"-locked it up, do you mean?


Jean-François Pouliot: Key West, Florida-and Mae West.


Alfred Duranleau: The work done was reinforcing and protecting the face of the quay walls of ocean terminals.


William Duff: It would not go very far.


Alfred Duranleau: Item 64:
Halifax, N.S.-
Bulkhead and pier, site for fish processing plants re cold storage plant. Estimate, $286,000.
Contract awarded to T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia), Limited, by order in council January 31, 1935.


William Duff: Was that called for by public tender?


Alfred Duranleau: It is order in council No. 26.


William Duff: Was it called for by public tender?


Jean-François Pouliot: Is this firsthand information, or just hearsay evidence?


Alfred Duranleau: Tenders were asked from T. C. Gorman Nova Scotia Limited; The Foundation Company of Canada Limited; Kilmer, Gibson and Van Nostrand, Limited; the MoDonald Construction Company, Halifax; the Dufresne Construction Company, Limited, Montreal and J. P. Porter and Sons, Limited.


Jean-François Pouliot: Victor Drury is president of The Foundation Company, is he not?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think so. I would not be positive, but I do not think Mr. Drury is president of that company. I think Mr. Chadwick, an outstanding engineer, is president of that company.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is the smoke screen.


Alfred Duranleau: Then we come to item 68 of the schedule:
Halifax, N.S.-
Reconstruction of wooden conveyer galleries, berths 25 and 26 in steel, by order in council January 14, 1935.
Works to be under the direction of J. S. Metcalfe & Company, Limited, who are employed as architects and engineers of the works.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the number?


Alfred Duranleau: No. 3179.


Charles Gavan Power: It could not be that number in January; the number is too large. Is it January, 1934?


Alfred Duranleau: No, January, 1935. But I believe there must be an error so far as the number of the order in council is concerned. I have only a copy, and it is not very clear. However I shall ascertain the fact and give the correct information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the estimated amount of the expenditure?


Alfred Duranleau: The estimated amount was $360,000. These works are not yet completed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Are they being done by contract?


Alfred Duranleau: No, this was a special work, and the harbour commissioners-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So say all of us.
Supply-Public Works


Alfred Duranleau: -made the report that they wanted to .put those works under experts.


Mr. OASGRAIN:: Expert Conservatives.


Alfred Duranleau: As a matter of fact there are only one or two firms in Canada which build grain elevators.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the other firm?


Alfred Duranleau: J. S. Metcalfe and Company, Limited, is known to be probably the best firm for drafting, planning and supervising works of that kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Second best.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think any
hon. member in this committee will contradict that statement. The harbour commissioners of Halifax also thought the best thing to do was to put those works under J. S. Metcalfe and Company at cost plus; for that firm had designed and supervised the work for the original galleries at Halifax.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is that at a rate of ten per cent?


Alfred Duranleau: As hon. members
know, this company has built elevators throughout Canada. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre must know about Metcalfe and Company, and must know that they have built grain elevators in Vancouver, Fort William and Montreal. Almost all the grain elevators in the city of Montreal were built by that firm, and I think the best thing we could have done under the circumstances was to have the work done at cost plus a percentage.


Milton Neil Campbell: What is the percentage?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the percentage for the plans, specifications, supervision, and so on, was ten per cent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is
the "and so on?"


Jean-François Pouliot: If the minister would
permit me to say so, one fact strikes me in this performance, namely that up to the present the minister has refused to recommend to the Prime Minister the appointment of a deputy minister of marine. To-night he uses the services of the Deputy Minister of Public Works, a man who has to serve five ministers. It is a most absurd circumstance when we find that in order to effect a certain economy the minister does not make provision
for a deputy in his department. He has an acting deputy. Now the Minister of Public Works has to lend his deputy to the Minister of Marine so that the Minister of Marine may be informed regarding the matter in hand. It is an absurd situation.


Mr. SPENCE:: Oh, not so bad as all that.


Jean-François Pouliot: It must be very bad to be understood by the hon. member with the blue glasses. Mention has been made in this chamber that the Minister of Marine should have a deputy who would have the time to get information about what is going on in his department. The minister has no deputy. He seems to refuse to get information about his own department, and now he comes to the house with an empty portfolio and has to crave information from the Deputy Minister of Public Works. It is an absurd state of affairs and I must strongly protest against it. May I suggest that the Minister of Marine should wait until he has obtained a deputy before presenting his estimates to the house.
He has assisting him to-night the Deputy Minister of Public Works, a man for whom I have great consideration, a man who has to serve five ministers. He has to instruct five ministers regarding the construction programs in their departments. There are five so-called heads who do nothing, and one other head who does everything. No minister seems to know anything about what is going on in connection with the construction programs in the departments of Marine, Public Works, National Defence, and so on. They know nothing; the deputy head of the Department of Public Works is responsible not only to his own minister but to four others as well for this work. As my hon. friend from Quebec South says, he is just as good as Doctor Dafoe was with the Dionne quintuplets, but something resulted in the case of the Dionne quintuplets while nothing results in the case of these ministers. Since this sitting began the minister has been standing up with his mouth closed for twice as long as he has had it open, when he was supposed to be giving us answers. This is most extraordinary, and the minister reads papers just as they would be read by a child going to school learning his A.B.C.'s in a book.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: And some of his supporters are proud of his success. This is a very sad thing. I hope the minister will wait until he is better acquainted with his department before proceeding further. I hope he will understand the matter himself before he at-
[Mr I. A. Mackenzie.]

Sup-ply-Public Works
tempts to go further. This shows the absurdity of this scheme. The government undertook too much. If five ministers of the crown are unable to familiarize themselves with the construction program-


Felix Patrick Quinn: Send for you.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I will not say anything to my hon. friend if he is happy. These five ministers should familiarize themselves with the affairs of their own departments. Why is the minister so much embarrassed? At sea he is a great admiral; on land he is not so good, particularly with regard to the construction program. He should stay on the open sea and look after the boats; he should undertake no work on land unless the boats are in dry dock. When he attempts to deal with the construction program he is at a loss. I say that program should come under the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Marine has shown to-night that it is utterly impossible for him to become acquainted with all these matters which should come under another department. He is not himself when he attempts to deal with this question. Let him step aside and leave the responsibility for the construction program to his colleague the Minister of Public Works; let the Minister of National Defence and the othera do the same. The hon. gentlemen ought to mind their own business and look after their own departments. Let them be competent in their own affairs, and the country will be the better off.


Alfred Duranleau: The next item is with regard to Halifax, Nova Scotia, the extension of pier No. 9 northward for a coal berth, and so forth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What does "and so forth" mean?


Jean-François Pouliot: You see what I told you, Mr. Chairman; the minister is unable to go on.


Alfred Duranleau: The work comprised the extension of present pier No. 9 northward for a coal berth or for use as an industrial site. Tenders were asked from different firms, including J. P. Porter and Sons Limited, the McDonald Construction Company Limited, the Northern Construction Company, and J. W. Stewart, Limited, J. C. Gorman, Limited and Foundation Maritime, Limited. The oontract was let to J. P. Porter and Sons by order in council dated January 14, 1935, No. 3223.


Charles Gavan Power: That was last year, was it not? May I ask how it happens that this order in council passed January 14, 1935, is No. 3223 while another order in council passed on the same date is No. 87?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say. This does not come under my department; it is up to the clerk of the privy council.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask the minister if it could be that number for the month of January?


Alfred Duranleau: It appears to be that number. I have a copy here, signed by E. J. Lemaire, clerk of the privy council, and the number is 3223.


Charles Gavan Power: That would mean something like 200 orders in council per day if they were numbered consecutively, but another one passed on the same day is No. 87.


Alfred Duranleau: It may be that the order in council was prepared during 1934 and retained its old number; I cannot say. That is the number that appears on the order in council.


Charles Gavan Power: I direct the minister's attention to the fact that this order in council has not been tabled as yet, and that only five of the others have been tabled.


Alfred Duranleau: 
Charles Gavan Power: Number?


Alfred Duranleau: It is No. 2377. These works are under process; they were not completed last fall and will be continued this spring. The next item, 104, is for the repaving of certain surfaces in the harbour, done by the Montreal harbour commissioners under the act, by day labour, for $534,000. This work is not completed; part of it was done last fall and it will be continued next spring. Then schedule No. 105, Montreal, reconstruction of eleven raceways at Windmill Point pier. The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer by order in council number 2908, dated November 27, 1934. The price was $165,918. These works have not been completed.
The next is number 106, Montreal, covering protection works against sifting or filling

Supply-Public Works

of the material supporting grain elevator number 3 between Laurier and Tarte piers. The estimate was S378,000 and the contract was awarded to Angus Robertson Limited, the lowest tenderer, for $254,450. This was covered by order in council No. 1014, dated August 30, 1934.
The next is number 107, Montreal, railway track embankments between Imperial Oil Company and Marien street, Montreal east. The estimate in this case was $75,000 and the contract was awarded to H. J. O'Connell Limited, the price being $58,400. They were the lowest tenderer and contract was awarded by order in council 2826, dated November 8, 1934. These works were not completed last fall.
The next is number 108, Montreal, raising the fronting wharf of sections 38, 39 and 40 of the harbour. The cement work was awarded to E. G. M. Cape at a price of $27,377 and the filling work was awarded to H. J. O'Connell Limited at a price of $46,400. With the engineering fees the total amount involved is $84,187, and the works have been partly completed.


Charles Gavan Power: WThat are the dates and numbers of the orders in council?


Alfred Duranleau: Order in council number 2827, dated November 8, 1934.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the other one? There were two contracts.


Alfred Duranleau: Both contracts were covered by the same order in council.


Milton Neil Campbell: What was the engineering fee?


Alfred Duranleau: The Montreal harbour commission was allowed $3,300 for engineering.
The next is 109, painting the steel structure of harbour bridge. The estimate in this case was $60,000. The paint was purchased by the harbour commission and a contract awarded for the labour. This was covered by order in council No. 1934, dated August 24.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who got the contract for the work?


Alfred Duranleau: The contract was awarded to P. J. Leduc & Company, at a price of $49,500.


Jean-François Pouliot: Were tenders called for?


Alfred Duranleau: Tenders were called for from a certain number of firms.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Were they public or private tenders?
| Mr. Duranleau.]


Alfred Duranleau: It was not by public advertising but a selection was made of a certain number of reliable firms.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Who is doing business under the name of F. J. Leduc & Company?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not sure. This company complied with all requirements and filed the necessary deposit. The engineers of the harbour commission report that the work done was first class.


Paul Mercier: Has this company ever carried out any other contracts for painting?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. F. J. Leduc is an outstanding engineer in Montreal and he has done similar work before. This was very dangerous work as the men had to work three hundred feet above the water.


Paul Mercier: Has the work
been completed?.


Alfred Duranleau: This contract was for only one coat and it is completed.


Paul Mercier: How much was spent for the first coat?


Charles Gavan Power: That fellow is going to be a
turncoat after the elections.


Alfred Duranleau: The amount spent was $85,672.


Paul Mercier: For the first coat?


Alfred Duranleau: For the first coat.


Paul Mercier: And the contract was for $49,000.


Alfred Duranleau: The contract for the labour was for $49,500. The harbour commissioners, for the department, supplied the materials.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who sold the paint?


Alfred Duranleau: Is my hon. friend interested in knowing that?


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely;


An hon. MEMBER:: Who sold the brush?


Alfred Duranleau: The order in council is dated August 18, 1934, No. 1869.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that just for the paint?


Alfred Duranleau: The firms are: International Paints of Canada Limited; Canada Paint Company Limited; Thorpe-Hambrock Company Limited.

Supply-Public Works


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the amount in each instance?


Alfred Duranleau: As to the labour, tenders were asked from Southern Working Company Limited; Federated Construction Company Limited; F. J. Leduc and Associates; Nicole Gentile; L. Knight; R. F. Walsh & Company Limited; James Pitcher and C. J. Pott Company Limited.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who made that selection?


Alfred Duranleau: The harbour commissioners were entrusted- with the works under the act.


Jean-François Pouliot: But were they told by the Minister of Marine not to ask for tenders by public notice?


Alfred Duranleau: They were told to give the names of reliable firms who could do the job. It was a very difficult job and we wanted tenders from reliable firms in Montreal in order to obtain the lowest price possible so to safeguard the public interest.


Jean-François Pouliot: Were these names submitted to the minister before tenders were called for, -or were they sent by the minister to the harbour commissioners of Montreal before tenders were called for?


Alfred Duranleau: I am quite sure that the names of these firms were not sent by the harbour commissioners to the minister. It may be that the commissioners consulted the minister before asking for tenders, but I am sure that the minister did not send any names to the commissioners. I think my hon. friend will admit that the number of firms is large enough to safeguard the public interest and to ensure proper competition.


Jean-François Pouliot: You see bow it goes, Mr. Chairman. There is a small circle of friends and everything is done in the ring. It is a close corporation; they have their pets. The minister has his pets and he sees to it that they are favoured to the exclusion of others when tenders are to be called for. This is no tender. The minister cannot tell the committee that there is no other arrangement between the men he. has already mentioned in order to defraud the exchequer of this country. I am always afraid of what is done behind closed doors. When tenders are to be called for they should be called for in the regular way-open to all, with public notice. Everyone will agree with me on that. Why were a few favoured in this instance with regard to labour? And I would ask the same question with regard to the paint. How is it that just a handful of men or a handful of corporations can secure contracts behind closed 92582-169J
doors? The Minister of Marine was playing on words when he said, "I will- not say I sent narn-es to them"; but on the other hand he was frank -enough-and I congratulate him on this-to admit -that v-ery probably a conversation took place between himself and the commissioners of Montreal before such tenders were called for .and before the contracts were awarded. That is all I have to say about it except one thing. I will ask this question of the minister: Who are the .members o-f the firm -of Leduc -and Company? Is it a limited company or a partnership?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think that
F. J. Leduc and associates are an incorporated company, but Mr. F. J. Leduc is an outstanding engineer of Montreal, a consulting engineer for many companies, and he has been also a large contractor. The public interest was safeguarded with that name alone, F. J. Leduc, civil engineer, and the way the work was done is proof that he was absolutely competent to do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: The competent men who
did this work were the 'Caughnawaga Indians, not F. J. Leduc. They did the painting and received payment from -Leduc. Leduc is a former employee of the city hall, Montreal. He is a civil engineer but he has not the least experience as a contractor. His name is there to make a show. May I ask the minister whether Leduc's name is a sort of blanket? Does the minister not know other partners in the organization of F. J. Leduc & Company?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not remember
the names. I remember that he had two or three foremen who were experts in the matter, but I do not remember the names. We do know however that he had the best men on the job, and I want to say to my hon. friend that he is entirely mistaken when he says that only Indians worked on the job-entirely mistaken. A small number of Indians were employed; that is quite true. The Indians have the right, to be employed as any other citizens of this country have, and they, were practically the only ones who wanted to climb to the top of the bridge, nearly four hundred -feet from the level of the water. I want to pay that tribute to the Indians of Caughnawaga.	\


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not blame them; I say that they are very good. But what the minister has said about the name of the Leduc firm reminds me of the delightful operetta, the Merry Widow:	*
Lo-lo, Do-do, Jou-jou,
Clo-clo, Mar-got, Flou-flou!
The name it does not matter,
I take the first to hand!
Supply-Public Works

In this case the difference between the minister and the composer of that delightful operetta is that in the Merry Widow the name did not matter and in the contract the name mattered very much; that is the difference between the Minister of Marine and that great Viennese composer. 'But we. will not press the matter any further. Everything is behind not only closed doors but also the open blanket. May I ask one question of the hon. gentleman? He read us a list of names of people who received tenders. Did they receive tenders with regard to the labour only? I refer to the $49,500 contract.


Alfred Duranleau: Tenders were asked only for labour.


Jean-François Pouliot: How is it then that the hon. gentleman has read a list of paint companies, companies that sell paint? He read us an order in council with numerous firms that sell paint.


Alfred Duranleau: I did not understand my hon. friend; I thought he was referring to the list of contractors that I have just given to the committee. According to the order in council quotations were asked from different paint suppliers. The order reads:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 14th August, 1934, from the Minister of Marine stating that with respect to item 109 of the schedule of the Public Works Construction Act, 1934, that tenders based on specifications prepared by the chief engineer of the Montreal harbour commission to the satisfaction of the department were invited from the following firms who submitted quotations in accordance with the conditions laid down, as indicated below and in the attached schedule.
I gave the names of the different paint companies who supplied the paint. As a rule we ask for quotations and when we have the lowest price, then if the other firms are willing to supply paint at that price, in order to encourage all those paint factories we divide up the order at the lowest price.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: When the minister
says " different companies," I suppose he means companies that are not indifferent to his government.


Alfred Duranleau: I think all the paint manufacturers have no political colour, and I would say as a rule they have supported the Liberal administration and they were encouraged by that administration. As to the names of all those from whom tenders were asked for the labour, I think my hon. friends will admit that many of them are veil known Liberals.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There are some Conservatives also who are directors of those companies.


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose my hon.
friend would not ask this government to request prices only from Liberals.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, but let him give
a chance to all.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend should go to Quebec and ask how Mr. Taschereau deals with public works.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We do not have to
go to Quebec. We are discussing federal public works.


Alfred Duranleau: I know my hon.
friend does not like to discuss Quebec matters; but in fairness to all the firms doing business in Canada, others than those that are encouraged by the Liberal administration of Quebec should receive some encouragement from this government.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member read
three words which impressed me very much. They are as follows: "as indicated below." I would like to know what the indication below was.


Alfred Duranleau: I gave the names a
minute ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a moment, please.
What was the amount of the tender sent to the harbour commissioners of Montreal by each one of the firms of which the minister has given the names?


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member
means for the supply of paint, of materials?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: Quotations were asked from the International Paints, Limited, a well known and a first class manufacturer of paint; the Canada Paint Company Limited, and I think my hon. friend will admit that that firm has no particular colour and is a first class firm.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know; 1 am
open minded in regard to the matter.


Alfred Duranleau: Also the Thorp
Hamrock Company Limited. Those are the three firms. Does my hon. friend want the price paid?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, the tenders. The figure I want is the tender sent by each one
fMr. Pouliot.]

Supply-Public Works
of those Anns' Were tenders asked of those firms and what was the answer of each one of them, so that we may know what price was submitted to the harbour commissioners or to the Department of Marine for paint?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot answer my hon. friend this evening on that particular point, because I have not the records before me. I would have to bring down a pile of records in order to give all the information asked for by my hon. friend, but if he insists on having the quotations, I shall be pleased to supply them to him either by letter or otherwise.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not ask the minister to come to the house with a covered wagon to transport all the files he has in his department. When there is a contract for paint of such importance as to amount to $86,000, we are entitled to know to whom tenders have been sent and what answers have been received by the harbour commissioners or the government. I am speaking now not to waste money but to save it, and it is in order to save money that I regret very much no public notices were given of those tenders. For instance, there are very important hardware merchants in Montreal such as Raymond Hardware, Durand, Lariviere, Deserre. They are good firms. The question is not whether there are some Liberals and Conservatives in partnership in any firm. What interests us and the only rule with regard to awarding contracts-
Mr. DURAiNLEAU: These materials are bought from the manufacturer, not from dealers.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a very good
answer. It was worth while fighting for such a long time to get that answer from the minister. The minister did very well if he bought from the manufacturers. That is what he meant, that he bought from the manufacturers themselves and not from an agent? He bought from the head office? That is fine. I do not blame him for that. But now that I have that information may I ask from whom tenders were received for labour and what was the quotation by each one of those ' firms to the minister or to the harbour commission?


Paul Mercier: When was the order in coucil pased for buying the paint, and what was the number?


Alfred Duranleau: No. 1869 passed on August 18, 1934.


Paul Mercier: And for the work?


Alfred Duranleau: The same order in council.


Paul Mercier: When does the department contemplate giving the second coat of paint to the bridge?


Alfred Duranleau: We expect to give it during this season.


Paul Mercier: Is there another order in council for that?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not sure. I may state that the tender of almost all the tenderers had a price for the second coat, but Leduc & Company were the lowest of the reliable firms, those who complied with the conditions, even for the second coat.


Mr. MERCIER (iSt. Henri):: What wages were paid by that firm to the painters?


Alfred Duranleau: There was a special schedule from the Labour department which was followed by the contractors.


Paul Mercier: That is very general. What I want to know is how much was paid per hour to those men for painting the bridge?


Alfred Duranleau: I did not ask any
report from the contractors as to the wages paid, but the report was that they complied with the schedule of wages set by the Labour department.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who made that report?


Alfred Duranleau: It was a verbal report made by the harbour commissioners- by the engineer. If there was any complaint made against that firm as to the wages paid I should be very pleased to inquire, but I never heard any complaint about that.


Paul Mercier: We have no grievance. What was the salary paid to those men?


Alfred Duranleau: I can supply a list
to my hon. friend if he wants it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister tell us
the amount of each tender besides that of Leduc, with the name of the firm?


Alfred Duranleau: I told my hon. friend that I have not those records with me. If my hon. friend wants to get that I shall be pleased to supply it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister.
Usually when he speaks that way one can rely on him to give the information. I hope
Supply-Public Works

I shall get it soon. Is it not a fact that the Leduc tender was not the lowest, and that it was accepted after the company reduced its tender below the lowest?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend is
mistaken as to that. I think there was another firm that tendered-not a firm, an individual who tendered at a lower price than $49,500 but that individual did not comply with the requirements, no deposit was made as security, and the report of the harbour commissioners was that his financial standing did not warrant their awarding the contract to him, and especially for another reason; as I told this committee, the work was really very dangerous and the tender was a great deal lower than the estimate. If that man had done the work at the price of his tender he would have lost about $15,000 to $20,000. His financial standing was not satisfactory and he did not deposit any security. It was stipulated that the tender was to be accompanied by a cheque for at least ten or fifteen per cent of the amount of the tender. The amount of Leduc's tender was $49,500. I know there was another firm that tendered at $49,900 and I think another firm for $55,000 or $58,000 and a couple of other firms had higher tenders. I say that subject to correction.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not true that the
lowest tenderer did not send a cheque, as is the rule, after he learned that he had no chance whatever to compete with Leduc & Company? The reason he did not send a cheque to the harbour commission was that ne was notified that it was impossible for him to secure a contract when the Leduc company had made a bid.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who informed him?


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon.
friend is badly informed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Drawing on his
imagination.


Alfred Duranleau: No, I would not say he is drawing on his imagination, but I would say he has received some information and wants to get more. I think he has been wrongly advised, because at the price stated in the tender of that individual I do not think he dared send a cheque. If I am rightly informed, Leduc & Company did not make any money. I think a list of the wages paid would show that they made practically no money; it was all paid in wages. It took over two months for the work, two or three hundred men at high wages.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, there is not so
much imagination in that as the minister thinks.


Alfred Duranleau: No, I did not say
that; someone on this side suggested it was my hon. friend's imagination. I said no; I said that my hon. friend has some information but he is wrongly informed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad to receive that tribute from the minister. I appreciate it very highly. My information is first hand information. What I knew was that a tender had been sent to the harbour commission about $10,000 or $15,000 less than the amount paid to Leduc & Company, and the only justification for the stand of the minister in the matter is to say that the lowest bidder would have lost money. That man was making a bid one-third less than that of Leduc, and in order to favour Leduc the Department of Marine and the harbour commission awarded the contract to them, paying $15,000 more than it was worth. When the minister says it is very difficult work he forgets that the work was not done by Leduc, it was done by the Indians of Caughnawaga. If the man who made the lowest bid had secured the contract he would have employed exactly the same men, but it would have meant a saving of $15,000 to the Canadian exchequer. It is the same as that stovepipe letter box of Amedee Lesieur, which was worth 75 cents and the Post Office Department paid an average of $2.75 each, buying ten thousand of them, meaning a loss of $20,000 to the Canadian exchequer. I regret that such a practice flourishes in the harbour of Montreal and I hope we will not see anything further in the estimates voted for the current year. I hope no money is voted in the future to give any contractors an opportunity to make excessive amounts of money at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.
I have the admission from the Minister of Marine that because one tenderer filed the lowest tender he was refused. Why? Because there was a pet who was asking for a chance. That man got $15,090 more than the contract was worth. It is just favoritism, and favoritism of the worst shape and description, and a waste of the people's money. How many pounds of sugar would have to be taxed in order to pay that favorite contractor his $15,000 more than the work was worth. I regret it.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask my hon. friend to keep quiet. If he tells his electors that

Supply-Public Works
during the time we were complaining of such futile, ridiculous and wasteful expenditures he was laughing and making jocular remarks, he will be sorry for it. I can imagine I see the electors of Inverness waiting for the mail in order to receive Hansard and to read what their member is doing in the House of Commons. I can see those good old fishermen of Inverness, those dear old sturdy people with their good wives and their children waiting for Hansard to see what their member of parliament has been saying in the House of Commons. With tears in their eyes they will say, "Is that our Isaac? We don't recognize our Isaac any more. We can't believe with our eyes that this is the man who was elected on the promise to defend the rights of the fishermen and the good people of Inverness, because he is making such silly jokes in the House of Commons."
Mr. M A CD OUG A L<L:	All I wish is that
you would come down and campaign against me. In that event I would surely be elected, because our people are intelligent.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is all right for the
hon. member to speak in that way, but it is just because his electors are intelligent that they will not care for him at the next election. But to conclude my observations may I say that at last we have learned through the mouth of the Minister of Marine that one tender was $15,000 less than the contract price. If the minister had seen to it that the contract had been awarded to the lowest tenderer that much money would have been saved to the country. The minister states the lowest tenderer was not solvent. He knows very well, however that any contractor who would hold a contract from the federal government could go to any bank and get any amount of money. Moreover the contracts are paid in instalments, and for that reason I say the argument of the minister cannot stand. I regret it for him; I regret it for the exchequer of the country; I regret it for the man who would have made a decent profit and at the same time saved money for the Canadian exchequer; I regret it for all of us, and hope it will not happen again.


Alfred Duranleau: No department or
public body asking for tenders would consider for one moment a tender without any security. If a tenderer does not comply with the specifications prescribed, namely that the tender is to be accompanied by a certified cheque or by cash for a certain amount of money, to act as security, invariably the tender is set aside. I do not
believe the hon. member is serious when he blames the Minister of Marine for having set aside that tender, when he was so directed by the harbour commissioners, the engineers of the Montreal harbour and his department. The specifications were not complied with; that was the main reason. As a supplementary reason I gave the fact that investigations showed the financial standing of the individual in question was not good. If the report of the harbour commissioners had been different and the price had been what was wanted, then we might have asked this gentleman to supply the necessary securities. However the price was over $15,000 lower than the estimate, and I must tell my hon. friend that according to the officials of my department and the harbour commissioners of Montreal $50,000 was a very low price to be paid for the labour of applying that coat of paint on the Jacques Cartier bridge. I would not be surprised if I were told that Leduc & Company have lost money in that enterprise.


Jean-François Pouliot: They may have said so,
but it is not true.
Mr. DiURANLEAU:	I have figured that
in view of the number of men they had on the job and the length of time the work necessitated they must have lost money. However as they are outstanding engineers it is probable they will not tell. I am under the impression however that they have lost money on the job. Therefore I say that my hon. friend is unfair when he states that the man who tendered at $15,000 less would have made a reasonable profit. That man would have lost at least $15,000 to $20,000, and he could not afford to do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I leave it at that, sir.


Charles Gavan Power: Quebec?
Mt\ DURANLEAU: Yes, we have now come to Quebec. The first item is No. 13,7:
Estimate, $463,000. New transit sheds, to replace old sheds Nos. 24 and 25 on pier No. 1. Contract awarded on November 8. 1934. to Delphe Maranda and Company, $354,754.92. Order in council 2824.
The works were started last fall, and I think they have been under process during the whole winter. They are still working at the construction of those sheds.


Ernest Lapointe: Have tenders been called only once, or twice?


Alfred Duranleau: I may be mistaken, but my recollection is that tenders were asked twice.
Supply-Public Works


Ernest Lapointe: There must have been some reason for that, if my hon. friend recalls that tenders were asked twice. Would he say why that was done?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not sure that tenders were asked twice, but that is my impression. Probably the prices were too high in the first instance. I know that tenders were requested from Delphe Maranda; Romeo . Vachon; Colonial Construction Company, Registered; Cummins Construction Company, Montebello; Joseph Nolin, Amedee Latulippe, Amedee Demers, Abel Ratte; Morton Engineering and Drydock Company, and the Frontenac Lumber Company. The contract was awarded to Delphe Maranda for $355,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Why were tenders asked from a firm in Montebello for a work in Quebec city?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose that was a very important work and we wanted proper competition for it.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say he wanted competition. When I first called attention to this matter on February 26, at page 1201 of Hansard, my hon. friend said tenders had been asked from a certain number of private firms, and I asked why public tenders had not been called.
I quote from Hansard:
Mr. Duranleau: Because, as the house was told last session, these were relief works, and we thought it was better to have


Alfred Duranleau: Is that Louis Letour-neau?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I believe he is a member of that firm.
If you adopt the policy you mentioned in the house it is this company that should have the contracts to be given for that kind of work.
Hoping that you will give this letter your best attention, I remain,
Yours sincerely,
The original letter, in French, was as follows:
Cher M. Duranleau,
En reponse a une question que je vous ai posee l'autre jour, vous m'avez dit a la Chambre que vous n'aviez pas demande de soumissions pour les travaux au havre de Quebec afin que ce soit des entrepreneurs locaux qui obtiennent le contrat et fassent faire les travaux. Subse-quemment, j'ai eu une liste que vous avez de-posee indiquant que des soumissions ont ete de-mandees a sept entrepreneurs.
Sur cette liste, les principaux entrepreneurs de la cite de Quebec ne sont pas inclus. Je

*' yj
Supply-Public Works 

vous envoie les noms d'un certain nombre d'en-trepreneurs et de compagnies de construction, tous de la cite de Quebec, a qui, je n'en doute pas, vous enverrez des demandes de soumissions pour les travaux a venir. Voici cette liste:
Frs. Jobin, Inc.
C. Jobin, Ltee
Arthur Frenette
Emile Frenette
La Cie Deslauriers, Ltee
Magloire Cauchon, Ltee
National Dock & Dredging Corp.
J. C. Peters, Reg.
T. E. Rousseau
Paul A. Fackney
F.-X. Lambert
C. Emile Morissette, Ltee
James Ruddick & Co.
Emile Cote, Enr.
La Construction Canadienne Mathieu & Sylvain Poudrier & Boulet.
Quant aux travaux de creusage et de dragage, nous n'avons a Quebec qu'une compagnie locale et c'est la National Dock & Dredging Corporation. Si vous adoptez la politique que vous avez indiquee a la Chambre, c'est cette compagnie qui devrait avoir les contrats a etre octroyes pour ce genre de travaux.
Esperant que vous donnerez a cette lettre votre meilleure attention, je demeure,
Votre bien devoue,
On March 29, 1935, I received a reply from the minister, which I wish to place on Hansard, so that the country may know the policy of my hon. friend. This letter also is in French, and I will give the English translation: Dear Mr. Lapointe:
I have received your letter of the twenty-first March with regard to tenders called for the works in the harbour of Quebec, and I have taken notice of the list of contractors who have not been invited to tender, which you sent me.
Allow me to rectify a slight mistake in your letter. The list which I tabled in the house on the sixth March does not include only seven names of contractors, but ten.
I believe that all the responsible contractors are entitled to their share of encouragement with regard to public works, and by public works I mean those carried out by the provincial governments as well as those carried out by the federal government. As the provincial government of Quebec long ago adopted the practice of keeping its contracts for a certain class of contractors it is only fair that the contractors from Quebec who have been always neglected should receive a little encouragement on the part of the federal authority. Obviously there are cases in which we can appeal only to a restricted number of contractors who have been specializing in a class of work or who own the only necessary equipment.
I pray you to believe, at all events, that the list of contractors who have been invited to tender by the department which I lead will always be long enough to secure a sane competition and safeguard the public interest.
Yours truly,
Alfred Duranleau.
The original letter, in French, is as follows: Cher monsieur Lapointe,
J'ai bien re?u votre lettre du 21 mars au sujet des soumissions demandees pour les travaux dans le port de Quebec, et j'ai pris connaissance de la liste des entrepreneurs qui n'avaient pas ete invites a soumissionner et que vous avez bien voulu me faire tenir. Permettez-moi, ici de rectifier une legere erreur qui s'est glissee dans votre lettre: la liste que j'ai deposee en Chambre, le 6 mars, ne renferme pas seulement sept noms d'entrepreneurs, mais dix.
Je crois que tous les entrepreneurs responsa-bles ont droit a lour part d'encouragement flors-qu lls'agit de travaux publics. Et par travaux publics, j'entends ceux qui sont executes par les gouvei nements provinciaux tout comme ceux qui sont executes par le gouvernement federal.
Comme le gouvernement provincial de Quebec a depuis longtemps adopte la pratique de reserver ses contrats h une seule categorie d'entrepreneurs, il n'est que juste que les entrepreneurs qu^bcois, qu'il a toujours negliges, reqoi-vent un peu d'encouragement de la part des autorites federales.
II se presente evidemment des cas ou 1'on ne peut faire appel qu'a un nombre restreint d'entrepreneurs qui se sont specialises dans un genre de travaux ou qui seuls possedent 1'outillage ne-cessaire.
Jo vous prie de croire, a tout evenement, que la liste des entrepreneurs invites a soumissionner par le departement dont j'ai la direction sera toujours assez longue pour assurer une saine concurrence et sauvegarder 1'intdret public.
Votre tout devout,
Alfred Duranleau. L'honorable Ernest Lapointe,
Chambre des communes,	.
Ottawa.
I wish to place this correspondence on Hansard so that the house and the country may know that my hon. friend is limiting the public works, and the invitations to tender, to those friends of his whom he believes have been neglected by the government of Quebec. I am not here to pass judgment on the policy of the government of Quebec; I do not know what it is. I protest against the action of this government. My hon. friend is wrong when he states that similar things were done before; they were not to my knowledge. Two years ago a public building was to be constructed in my constituency and the lowest tenderer, who got the contract, was one of the Conservatives mentioned by my hon. friend as having been given an invitation to tender. This man did splendid work and his political leanings had nothing to do with his being given the contract.
This program of public works voted last year was for the purpose of relieving unemployment. We had a sort of inflation to provide the 840,000,000 required for this work. We were always told that there was to be no

Supply-Public Works i
politics in the carrying out of this program, and my hon. friend had no right to grant these contracts in the way he did. The general law is that tenders should be requested by public advertisement. It is quite true that in the Public Works Construction Act of last year reference is made to tenders being asked for before a contract is awarded by governor in council, but I claim that the general law should apply. The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) criticized this matter last year and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) made the following statement, to be found on page 4422 of Hansard:
But although it is not provided that public tenders must be called for it does not follow that they will not be. The principle has not been abandoned. These works have to be carried out under the direction of the governor in council, and assigned to the particular department and the minister which may appear to be best equipped to carry them on. Already, in anticipation of the passing of this bill, a large number of advertisements have been published by the Public Works Department calling for tenders, and there is no reason to assume that the government is abandoning the well established and sound principle of inviting public tenders. I can assure my hon. friend that the government are as sensible of their responsibility in this matter as any member of the opposition can be.
I protest against the new system introduced by the Minister of Marine for the granting of such important contracts. He is doing away with the safeguard of calling for public tenders.


Charles Gavan Power: So far as any works to be carried out under his jurisdiction are concerned, does the minister intend to encourage only his own friends to tender? I am not criticizing the policy at the moment, I simply want to know what the minister intends to do.


James Houston Spence: What did you do?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When the Liberals were in power it was public tenders all the time.


Alfred Duranleau: An inquiry was made some time ago on this same matter and I said, no. I think this answer is confirmed by the list I have just given to the committee. I will state quite frankly that I was advised by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) but I have been told that there are firms on this list known as Liberal firms.


Charles Gavan Power: Which ones?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know them all but I will mention the Morton company.


Charles Gavan Power: Are they Liberals?


Ernest Lapointe: Who told you they were Liberals?


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend were told the names of those interested in this company, I think he would agree that the majority of them are Liberals. I do not want to discuss this point further at the moment. However, I would say to my hon. friends from Quebec that the Liberal administration of that province has carried on a certain custom for a number of years. If I understood the statements made by the, hon. member for Quebec East some time ago in the city of Quebe-c, the hon. member is a great friend of and even responsible for the Liberal administration of Quebec. He stated that there was only one Liberal party in all the provinces of Canada. He stated there was solidarity between the Liberal administration in Quebec and the Liberal members of this house. He stated there was the same solidarity as far as the Liberal administration of Ontario is concerned. My hon. friend wanted to know why tenders had not been asked for from the firm of A. Deslauriers Limited. I will ask my hon. friend- to get the information from his friends of the Quebec government and tell this committee what amount of money has been paid to this firm during the last fifteen years by the Quebec administration. When I was a member of the Quebec legislature I can remember the public buildings which were built by this company. In many instances no tenders were called for by the Taschereau government; at times the work was awarded simply by verbal contract. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid to this company by that administration. My hon. friends say that we were not justified in withholding opportunities to bid from other contractors, but I contend that the public interest was safeguarded as a large number of firms were called to tender. I do not think the hon. member for Quebec East was serious when he asked me to call for tenders from the different firms mentioned in his letter. Tenders were called for from ten firms which I understood were reliable, and- the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer. The amount involved, $356,000, was a very low price. I ask the hon. member to get from his friends in the Department of Public Works at Quebec a list of the public works which were undertaken during the last five years, a list of the firms who were asked to tender, the contractors who secured the contract and the subcontracts, the amounts paid to all these contractors and subcontractors, and-1 think my hon. friend will easily learn, what I am stating to this committee, that the custom was established by the Liberal administration and approved by my hon. friend from Quebec East -entirely approved. I have never heard a

Supply-Public Works
word either from my 'hon. friend from Quebec East or from the hon. member for Quebec South as to the methods employed by the Liberal administration of Quebec in asking for tenders for public works; and we have thought it advisable to give some encouragement to other reliable firms in Quebec, provided the public interest is safeguarded.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not quite sure that
what the minister has said justifies this government in not following the practice which the Minister of Public Works himself has considered to be a sound one, namely, calling for public tenders. I do not know that all the bad example which might have been given by the government of the province of Quebec would justify the Minister of Marine in the contention which he now makes that this Public Works Construction Act is for the purpose of encouraging his friends. I thought it was to provide relief.


Alfred Duranleau: I never said that, sir.


Charles Gavan Power: I understood the minister
to say-I think I heard him rightly-that for the past five years in the province of Quebec contracts have been let in the manner in which this present contract has been.


Alfred Duranleau: The last fifteen or
twenty years.


Charles Gavan Power: At any rate, for the last
five years. Am I right in saying that the minister stated that for the past five years that has been the method?


Alfred Duranleau: Perhaps fifteen or
twenty years.


Charles Gavan Power: I took the trouble at six
o'clock to call up the Minister of Public Works of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Francoeur, and asked him to allow me to state on his behalf what was the policy and procedure followed in awarding contracts for public buildings in the public works department of Quebec, and he told me that with one exception, the details of which he could not give at the moment, all public buildings erected since he became minister, in 1930 or 1931. had been erected after tenders had been called for publicly in the newspapers of the province. I have no reason to doubt his word, and if the Minister of Marine has any reason for doubting it I have no doubt the Hon. Mr. Francoeur will write him. Mr. Francoeur stated that in connection with the most recent public building for which a contract was let in the city of Quebec, the extension to the parliament buildings, public tenders were called for, and the same with the Quebec gaol, a building constructed in recent years-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, there is no chance for
the minister or any of his friends to get in; it is a women's gaol and we are careful. That was built after public tenders had been called for. In connection with the extension to the parliament buildings on St. Augustine street, public tenders were called for in the newspapers, and he mentioned two or three others. He said he had not the facts of every case before him but he could authorize me to say that with one exception tenders were called for in the newspapers. That was a good example to follow. I would suggest that the minister instead of following the bad old example of fifteen years ago, with reforming which he no doubt had a lot to do when he was a member of the Quebec legislature -instead of following that bad old system I suggest that if he would follow the good, modern, up to date system which is in effect in Quebec we would all agree, and both he and I would support that government in Quebec which he blames us for supporting at the moment.
But I have a little grievance of my own against the minister. Away back in February some time I asked for a return of all orders in council passed under the Public Works Construction Act by the Department of Marine. I had also asked for orders in council passed by the Department of Public Works, and the Minister of Public Works, who had far more business to do, was kind and courteous enough to produce a large file of them-they spread all over these desks.


John Campbell Elliott: Too big.


Charles Gavan Power: As a matter of fact the
ex-Minister of Public Works has not slept nights for looking through this file. The Minister of National Defence also produced orders in council and the Minister of the Interior produced some. But of all those that were carried out by the Department of Marine we have five, whereas I think I have a list of some twenty-five orders in council that were passed in connection with these public works. I am well aware that the minister will say to me that under the act he is not obliged to do anything more than publish a precis of these orders in council in the Canada Gazette if they were passed when the house was not sitting, and that he must produce them forthwith if the house
Supply-Public Works

is sitting. That is the proper interpretation of the act, I believe. But I call his attention to the fact that I asked him for the production of these orders in council and he has delayed for a period of well over six weeks. The minister had all these orders in council, a number of which were passed as far back as August-for instance, the painting of the harbour bridge was passed in August, and the Quebec transit sheds in November. That was the second order in council.


Alfred Duranleau: Did my hon. friend
ask by letter?


Charles Gavan Power: No, it was a return of the
house, a long time ago.


Alfred Duranleau: A motion for the production of papers?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. I asked for all orders under the Public Works Construction Act, and I think I asked specifically in connection with the Marine department. I asked for all orders in council passed under the Public Works Construction Act. But not only that; I have been in communication with the minister's department for the past week or so, asking that they be hustled. I did not want to rise on the orders of the day as a matter of privilege; I know the minister does not like that and I do not like it either. But it would have been only fair to have these orders in council ready for the time we were to have a discussion on these matters. I do not want to make individious comparisons, but the Minister of Public Works has presented all his orders passed prior to the opening of the session, and as soon as any other order in council is passed while the house is in session it is produced. He is producing them every day and the orders in council in the Public Works department must run into the hundreds.
Mr. E'LLIOTT: He is passing far too many.


Charles Gavan Power: As a matter of fact he is
passing far too many for our convenience. I will ask the Minister of Marine to produce the following orders:



P.C. 1781.

[Stage Direction]
Also one about Whitehead, the number of which the minister forgot, but it is dated October 25.

[Stage Direction]
And will he explain how it is that order was passed on January 14, 1935.

[Stage Direction]
Also, if he will be so kind, will he produce the correspondence and in particular the tenders filed with the department at both the first call and the second call for tenders in the case of the Quebec transit sheds, the item which we are now discussing, marked in the appropriations of last year as $463,000? We would be glad if the minister would produce these before we have any further discussion of this matter some other evening.
Ernest Lapointe: Would it also be possible for the minister to bring down the correspondence with regard to the first tenders that were asked for and before the granting of the contract, that is -the correspondence exchanged between my hon. friend and various firms of Quebec city and I understand there is some correspondence from some of his colleagues. Of course there is nothing personal in that, and it would be very helpful in the discussion of this matter.


Alfred Duranleau: Answering the hon.
member for Quebec South, I have no objection whatever to filing not only the orders in council mentioned by my hon. friend, but all (the orders in council passed under the Public Works Construction Act. I think -the motion of my hon. friend did not mention the Department of Marine, because it was not brought to the attention of my officials. I am quite sure if that motion had been brought to their attention, all the orders in council would have been filed right away. As soon as they are certified, I will file copies of all the orders in council.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the minister also inquire from the officials whether they are aware of the fact that an order for a return was passed by this house long ago?


Alfred Duranleau: I remember a few days ago my assistant deputy minister discussed the matter with me and spoke about the meaning of that section of the legislation about filing all those orders in council. He was not sure whether we were bound to file all -the orders in council or only those passed under general items of the schedule.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want to give the minister a lesson in constitutional law, but

Supply-Public Works
he ought to know that if there is an order of the house calling for filing all the orders in council, it does not matter what the act says; he has to file them.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that, but the hon. member's motion was not brought to the attention of my officials or I would have complied immediately with the order.


Charles Gavan Power: When an order of the house is passed calling for the tabling of certain orders in council, it is not necessary to discuss the interpretation of a statute with the officials of the department.


Alfred Duranleau: That is what I am saying to my hon. friend. Probably my officials were not aware of that order, because they came to me and discussed the interpretation of the act. Had they known1 of that order, they would not have discussed that interpretation; they would have tabled the orders in council. They will be tabled anyway within a day or two.
As regards what the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has said about the Cummins Construction Company Limited of Montebello, that firm did not file any tender, so that it does not matter whether they were asked to tender or not.


Charles Gavan Power: There must be some good contracting firms in Timbuctoo from whom the minister might call for tenders the next time, and then he would have a very respectable list.


Ernest Lapointe: Could my hon. friend bring down the correspondence?


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be pleased to .bring down everything we have in connection with those works.


Ernest Lapointe: That would be better than discussing the deeds or misdeeds of the Taschere.au government.


Charles Gavan Power: The statement of the Minister of Marine is not finished yet.


Alfred Duranleau: 
Charles Gavan Power: What is the number of the order in council?


Alfred Duranleau: It is No. 844. I might give immediately an explanation of the reason why the contract has been awarded to a Montreal firm. This is a very special work.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member for Quebec East may laugh-


Ernest Lapointe: That seems to be all I can do.


Alfred Duranleau: -my hon. friend may know more than the engineers in that respect. I will bring down the correspondence if my hon. friend wants it. I will show him a report from the engineers that only three firms can do that work properly, namely: Concrete Repairs Limited; Gunite and Waterproofing Company, and Western Waterproofing Company Limited, Montreal.


Milton Neil Campbell: What engineer gave
advice?


Alfred Duranleau: Consulting engineer Ernest Gohier of Montreal. He is an outstanding engineer.


Charles Gavan Power: His picture was in the paper.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know that, but he is a first class engineer and his report was to that effect.


Charles Gavan Power: When was the order in council passed?


Alfred Duranleau: On April 2, 1935.


Charles Gavan Power: Has it been tabled and, if not, why not?


Alfred Duranleau: It will be tabled with the others.


Charles Gavan Power: It is all very well to lie down on the job of tabling those passed before the session, but those passed during the session must be tabled forthwith. That is the law.


Alfred Duranleau: It might have been tabled; I am not sure.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister said it was not. It is not my job to teach the minister the law; he ought to know what the law is. I would call his attention to the fact that he has to observe some rules; peace, order and good government must be observed here. I think this is a terrible thing.


Alfred Duranleau: That was passed only on April 2.


Charles Gavan Power: It has not been tabled. Next one?


Alfred Duranleau: Saint John, NJ3.


Charles Gavan Power: Are there no more in Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: No more in Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: What about the $730,000?
Supply-Public Works


Alfred Duranleau: No tenders are asked for yet.


Charles Gavan Power: It is marked "contract" here in the report given by the Minister of Finance, statement of moneys expended under the authority of the Public Works Construction Act, 1934, chapter 59 of the statutes of 1934, in the fiscal year 1934-35 up to February 28, 1935. Amongst other things it says: "Quebec, new quay wall to widen pier No. 1, west side, $730,000," and under "contract or day labour," it says, "contract." Expenditure $1000; commitments outstanding $14,000. Now what is that all about?


Alfred Duranleau: I am sure that the plans and specifications were in only lately, and no tenders have been asked for yet. Probably there was some preparatory work done by the harbour commission.


Charles Gavan Power: Apart from admonishing the minister to keep the house advised, he ought to keep his colleague the Minister of Finance advised as to what he is doing, because I am sure the Minister of Finance does not want to deceive the house, and he has it here in his statement.


Ernest Lapointe: Next?


Alfred Duranleau: Saint John, N.B., item 153, $2,000,000. work not started yet, and no tenders asked for yet. There are works of demolition which have been done last year and not completed yet, done by day labour.


Charles Gavan Power: Again the statement of the Minister of Finance filed in the house shows expenditure and outstanding commitments from inception to February 28, 1935, Saint John. N.B.. reconstruction of berths 1, 2, 3 and 4, $2,000,000. Is that the item to which the minister refers? Under the heading "contract or day labour" it says "cost plus contract"; under the heading, "expenditure," $119.967.61; under the heading, "commitments outstanding," $155,032.39. That seems a lot of money.


Alfred Duranleau: These are demolition works which have been awarded to a firm in Saint John at cost plus.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a pretty nifty little contract, $155,000.


Alfred Duranleau: These works are done by day labour by the Saint John Dry dock Company Limited.


Charles Gavan Power: But it is all under this $2,000,000. Was it a contract?


Alfred Duranleau: There was a contract given to the Saint John Drydock Company Limited for the demolition of the old pier at cost plus. But as to the reconstruction, no contracts have been awarded yet and no tenders asked for.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the minister in a position to tell us who was the contractor?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, I have just stated, Saint John Drydock Company Limited under an order in council.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the percentage on the demolition contract?


Alfred Duranleau: I think it is four per cent, I am not sure. I shall have the order in council at the next sitting and give the information to my hon. friend.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Were any tenders called for the demolition of these piers and works?


Alfred Duranleau: No, I do not think so. It was given "cost plus" because we considered that the Saint John Drydock Company was the best firm in Saint John to do the work. Also they are good Grits.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the reason they get four per cent.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am not concerned with that aspect of the question; I am more concerned about the cost and the saving that could be made. I would like to know why no tenders were called for that kind of work. It is a very substantial amount. So far about $300,000 is involved and we do not know whether this will complete the work of demolishing these structures; it may amount to half a million or a million. We should know why no tenders were called for that large amount of work. I think the law provides for the calling of tenders for works above a certain amount.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 12, 1935
The house- met at three o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I make an explanation to the house with refer-

Price Spreads Commission
ence to remarks I made yesterday in referring to the price spreads report? I referred to having compared what appeared in the press with what was in the report and stated that there was evidence that whoever had "given the report to the press had had an intimate association with it. I had not known at the time that the report had not been tabled. The comparison that I had made was between what appeared in the press on Monday night and a fuller account which appeared on a subsequent day in the press elsewhere, and which spoke of matters following as "major points contained in the report."
I assumed that when the report had been signed and presented to the minister it had been immediately tabled and that what I was reading in the press was from what the minister himself had tabled. I need not say that I have not seen the report itself, and in fact it was not until after I had spoken that I discovered that the report had not been tabled.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was not in the house when the right hon. leader of the opposition brought to the attention of the house the .matter which he described as of very grave importance to the liberties and dignities of the House of Commons. I am not going into any great discussion of that phase of the matter.
The right hon. gentleman made two statements to the house. His first statement was made on Tuesday and I propose not to deal with that, statement to-day. In that statement the right hon. gentleman by innuendo reflected upon myself, but I shall deal with that amply and fully at a future time.
Yesterday the right hon. gentleman raised again the question to which he has now just referred; that is, the publication in the press of Monday of what was undoubtedly a summary of the findings of the commission. I have listened with some interest to the explanation which the right hon. gentleman gives of what is recorded in Hansard of yesterday. I shall not seek to follow that method of explanation. What I shall say will be very direct and very definite and will leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to the accuracy of my statement.
In the first place before I make this statement I draw the attention of the house to several somewhat singular things, and the first is this, that there has been a singular excitement about one particular disclosure. The second is this, that during the past six weeks there have been continuous leaks from the commission, responsibility for which I absolutely and unreservedly disclaim. Personally
I was not much concerned about it. I knew, as hon. members sitting within my hearing now know, that much of the deliberations of the commission were necessarily and properly discussed with those not members of the commission. But I was curious as I read the Hansard report of yesterday to know why no reference was made to the publication on Friday last of almost the full verbatim minority report; and why no question was raised as to the publication last week of a fairly complete summary; and why no question was raised as to the publication of a summary nearly two weeks ago and as to many other incidents of leakage for which I state without reserve I accept no responsibility.
As regards the summary to which the right hon. gentleman has drawn attention and in reference to which he himself said yesterday, and explains it away to-day, that he had .compared it with the report, I have this to say: I was as much surprised as any hon. member of the house when I learned of the publication of this information on Monday last, nor did I know until to-day how it had reached the press. However, I find that I must take the responsibility for this information having reached the hands of the press. No one regrets more than I do its premature publication.
I have one further word to say. Yesterday one hon. gentleman interjected into the Lilliputian discussion a reference or insinuation that there had been a violation of an oath of office. I think I owe it to myself and others to quote the oath of the commissioners which was as follows:
You do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that you will duly and faithfully and to to the best of your skill and knowledge execute and perform the office of commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act and upon the authority of order in council No. 1461 of the 7th of July, 1934, to continue, complete and report upon the investigation of the select special committee of the House of Commons in the question of the spread of prices for commodities.
There is no reference in part I of the Inquiries Act to the release of information. I am not attempting to justify anything on that score but I want to remove any doubt from the mind of anyone who may have heard the suggestion that there was a violation of an oath of office by any member of the commission who may have disclosed what went on. I notice also that in answering the roll call yesterday several .members of the commission did not in any sense disclaim responsibility. One asked for a commission, another endorsed his observation, a third did likewise while others made statements regarding the
Price Spreads Commission

release of information. I repeat that as far as I am concerned I regret the premature publication of this summary and while I take full responsibility for it, I do so with the knowledge and a clear conscience that there was no intention of violating any confidence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has just dealt with my remarks of yesterday in relation to the report of the royal commission. He said he would deal later with what he regarded as a reflection upon himself as chairman of the committee which had to do with the price spreads investigation. May I say to him that the ground upon which I based my remarks in that connection was the correspondence tabled in this house some .time ago, and which contained a communication dated October 26, 1934, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the hon. gentleman in which the following paragraph appears:
It is fundamentally unsound that the chairman of a select committee and of a royal commission, whether or not a member of the government, should publicly discuss the committee's proceedings before the evidence had been completed' and a report thereon made by the royal commission, especially in view of the rule that prevents members of the House of Commons from discussing in the house proceedings before its committees until final report has been made. Conclusions or judgments should not be pronounced until taking of evidence is completed and arguments heard thereon.
That is the correspondence upon which my remark was based. I had also as authority what is known to every hon. member of the house as to the extent to which my hon. friend would be violating the rules in publishing proceedings before a committee before any report thereon had been made to the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to a question of privilege but I do not know what the right hon. gentleman has spoken to. I hope the house will indulge me while I make a brief further statement. I had no desire to go into the discussion of Tuesday last but the right hon. gentleman has made necessary a further reply. As a member of twenty-four years' standing in this house, I claim the liberty of replying. On Tuesday last the right hon. gentleman said:
I should like to suggest also that when the government are considering the legislation that is to be based upon the recommendations of this commission, with respect to unfair practices and unethical proceedings, it might consider whether it is not possible to enact some legislation _ which will prevent unfair practices and unethical proceedings on the part of the chairmen of committees of this House of
[Mr. Stevens.J
Commons when dealing with price spreads and mass buying.
The right hon. gentleman made no specific reference to myself but as I was the only chairrfian of a price spreads and mass buying committee of this house the suggestion or innuendo is that I was unfair as chairman and unethical in my practices in connection with the discharge of that duty. Outside of the house the right hon. gentleman has described me as a hypocrite because of my attitude and the speeches I delivered in connection with this matter.
At the outset I must say that I have no apology to offer to the right hon. gentleman or to any other man, firm or group in this country as to my attitude on this subject. I should like to ask this question: To whom have I been unfair? I think the answer is clear, and I should like to review it. I was charged with being unfair while chairman of the commission to Mr. Stanley McLean, president of the Canada Packers Limited. I have been charged with being unfair to Sir Joseph Flavelle and the Robert Simpson Company. I have been charged with being unfair to the T. Eaton Company. I have been charged with being unfair to the tobacco industry and the National Fish Company as well as to some others. 'Charges have been made that I was prejudiced and unfair to these people and to these concerns.
I now ask this question: Has anyone during the last fifteen months, five of which I was chairman of the committee and*subsequently a private member of the commission, charged me with being unfair to the workers, to the farmers, to the growers of vegetables and fruits, to the small merchants from one end of Canada to the other or to the cattlemen who appeared before that committee? If anybody is prepared to point out a single instance where I failed to give fair treatment to him, then I should be alarmed and ready to make amends. 'But these, sir, are not my accusers. The accuser, in regard to the quotation from some of the correspondence read by the right hon. gentleman a moment ago, was Mr. Burton of The Robert Simpson Company. He was the accuser; he is the gentleman whom the right hon. gentleman cites to-day as being-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -the one-


An hon. MEMBER:: Your own leader.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Absolute
rot.

Price Spreads Commission


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is the one whom the right hon. gentleman cites to-day in giving grounds for my unfairness. No other person made any accusation at that time in regard to the correspondence to which the right hon. gentleman alluded.
And now I turn to the correspondence, which referred to the pamphlet that was issued last July. I have kept pretty silent about this matter. I have not up to the present resented or explained or answered accusations in regard to the issue of that so-called pamphlet. I shall do so now as clearly as I can, and I venture to say there sit in this house fifty members who can verify the accuracy of my statement.
There is in this parliament a club known as the study club, under the chairmanship of a distinguished member of this house. It consists solely of members of parliament and I think the object of the club is a good one. I have had the honour of addressing it on two or more occasions. On the occasion in question, it was at the end of the last session. I am not quite certain whether the price spreads committee had completed its work, but it was within a day or so of the end of the session. I was asked to address them on the subject and to analyze and summarize the work of the committee. I saw nothing that was wrong in doing that, and I did it and did it very frankly. It has been the practice of that club to have a reporter present who takes down the speech of whoever happens to be the guest speaker. This was done, not at my request; it was done and later the report was submitted to me. There sit in this house a number of hon. gentlemen who urged me to furnish them with a number of copies of that speech. I intimated that I did not care to have the speech published as it was delivered extemporaneously. However, I corrected the copy and it was mimeographed at my own expense. I did not circulate it. It has never been circulated yet as far as I know, and in so far as the mimeograph to which I refer is concerned, with the exception of a certain number of copies that were sent to a few representative press men in this country, in confidence, and not by myself. The speech got into the press subsequently.
I have no apologies to make for anything that was in that speech-none whatever. The speech was accurate in the main. When it appeared however Mr. Burton of the Robert Simpson 'Company and his associates came to Ottawa and placed their views before the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister telephoned me at Winnipeg where I was on my 92582-170
way west, and I told him what it was. I heard no more regarding that speech except what appeared in the press; I heard no more of it until the 25th day of October last. The subject matter then came up.
I would not be at liberty to say what happened on that occasion except for this fact- and in this regard I should like to refer to an oath of office of a different character. There was given to the press what happened in cabinet council. The oath of office in that respect is rather complete. Without reading all, I will read a portion:
You will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated, resolved on in privy council-
Etcetera, etcetera. I did not give out a single syllable, in any way, shape or form, of what happened there. The press had the story, and it was represented that I should either make apology or resign. I declined. There "is a question of misunderstanding. I am not going to debate that. The long and short of it was, I resigned from my seat in the cabinet, and I resigned as chairman of the commission because, as I stated in the correspondence that has been cited this afternoon, I felt it was desirable that the chairman of the commission should be one in harmony with the views of the government.
Now it has also been stated and charged by the right hon. gentleman-and it was suggested to-day-that I had made speeches regarding the work that was being carried on in the price spreads committee. That is perfectly true, and I did it deliberately. It was not done in a corner; I did it purposely. I knew very well that as a general rule matters of this kind referred to a committee of the House of Commons were bom to die, and I made up my mind that would not die. And it did not die. Again I say, sir, to you and to this house, that I make no apologies to anyone for the course I have pursued for the last fifteen months. I told the Prime Minister in January, 1934, a year ago last January, that knowing the conditions as I did, first among the agriculturists of this country, and the manner in which live stock particularly was under the dictation of large packing concerns, and having learned, secondly, the extent to which the sweatshop conditions of Canada had developed, I refused longer to remain silent on the subject. I declared to him, as I declared elsewhere on more than one occasion, that I proposed to raise my voice on every possible occasion so that the people of the country might know what the conditions were.

Price Spreads Commission

I have followed that policy deliberately and I propose still to follow it. It is said, sir, that I have violated-and this reference was made yesterday in an indirect way- judicial procedure. My answer to that is this: This was not a judicial inquiry. When this question first arose in January, 1934, following my speech in Toronto and following the protests of the T. Eaton Company regarding that speech, I asked for a judicial commission of inquiry, presided over by a judge. It was considered not advisable to appoint such a commission and the suggestion was made to me that a committee of the house should be set up, with myself as chairman, with full liberty to go into the matter as completely and freely as desired, and I accepted that responsibility. Had I done otherwise, I would have laid myself open to the charge that I was running away from a problem which I myself had cited. So I accepted -the responsibility, not as a .matter of choice, because I would have preferred a judicial inquiry.
But what happened? What happened was the appointment of a select special committee of the House of Commons of the ordinary type frequently appointed. That committee met and I was appointed its chairman. We carried on our work from February IS, I think it was, until the end of June. I believe hon. gentlemen will at least give that committee credit for this, that it was unremitting in its toil and devoted in its efforts to work out the problem submitted to it. It was appointed not as a judical inquiry with respect to any man, firm or business, but to investigate the cause of the low prices to the producer and the low wages to the worker, in addition to a number of other things that were recited. It was an investigation committee and I was chairman of that investigation committee. My duty was to investigate and not to sit as judge.
The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said as well that I had acted as judge, jury and prosecutor, and some of his followers have echoed that, shall I say, denunciation, the suggestion being that I had forgotten the duties of a judicial character and had been a prosecutor. Again I ask him or any other hon. member, in so far as I have acted as a prosecutor, to show me a single instance where I have been unjust to those who were brought before the tribunal? One thing I will say is: Whether they were rich or poor, whether they represented a great corporation or were employees of a great corporation, they got a fair deal before that committee but they got no more. It is true as I have said

that I have made a number, as a matter of fact, a great number of speeches, in Canada in which I reviewed those conditions. First I have tried to show to the public the facts of the case and the conditions which exist; second, I have endeavoured to suggest to the public possible remedial courses that might be adopted, and I have no hesitation in saying that to a measure at least the publicity which has been given to those speeches and to my activities in this respect has done something to mould public opinion along this line. To the extent that that has been done, I am content. My fate in this matter amounts to nothing. Whatever the right hon. gentleman's animus may be, I do not know what the cause of it is. I think I have sought to treat him, as I have tried to treat this house, with courtesy. I certainly differ on some subjects with some hon. gentlemen, some on this side and some on the other. There are viewpoints that are widely divergent. I respect their views, but I hold tenaciously to my own and I refuse at any time, as I have always done for the twenty-four years I have been in this house, to be a mere rubber stamp; if I have views, I will express them.
Since the committee was appointed in January, 1934, I have been subjected to all manner of criticism and opposition, and obstacles have been thrown in my way. I happen to know that thousands of dollars have been spent to try to find something that would discredit me. As I say, I have been in this house for twenty-four years; I have lived in Canada nearly all my life, about fifty years; I have lived in British Columbia for forty-one years, and I say to the right hon. gentleman now-and he has known me for a great many years-when he rises as a leader of a great party and impugns my honour, suggesting unethical and unfair practices, as he has done, I can look him or any other hon. member or anyone outside the house in the eye and say this:	While I am conscious of having made
many blunders and mistakes of which I am not proud, I can look the world in the face and assert: In so far as I have been able, I have conducted my course with at least a view to the honesty and decency of the game. It is true I have denounced certain practices. I have spoken, given expressions to views, and if I have an opportunity on a bill which I think is coming up here to-night in regard to amendments in connection with interest, I expect then to express views that will be distasteful to some of my friends through the country. I shall do this, because I feel it is in the interest of the country to do so, and I shall continue in that course. But because one remains silent as I have done for fifteen months

Price Spreads Commission
in regard to these matters, it does not follow that one is going to continue to do so and to allow others with impunity to attack one. No, I have no apologies to make to the right hon. gentleman, to this house or to anyone else for my conduct in connection with the price spreads committee last year or on the price spreads commission. I may have made mistakes, but I certainly have tried to do my duty as fearlessly and as frankly as I could do it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This question is raised as a matter of privilege and any member of the house concerned has a right to state his position. Yesterday I called attention to the fact that members of a royal commission are sworn in connection with the performance of their duties. Hon. members can read on the records of this house the form of oath which is administered. I wish to make one further reference in that connection, and that is that the order in council appointing the royal commission of which the hon. gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Stevens) was a member, provided that its members were to report their findings to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That was their express duty, and they were not to report their findings to representatives of the Toronto press.
With regard to other matters which were mentioned and in which I feel somewhat concerned, especially because the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is not here to justify the position which he took when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) resigned from the ministry, I desire to read from the correspondence in that connection something additional to what has been stated in the house. The Prime Minister in his letter dated October 26, 1934, addressed to the hon. gentleman who last spoke, which letter forms sessional paper No. 99 of the records of this house, said:
In consequence of my investigations and perusal of the pamphlet, I endeavoured to prevent its further circulation. I did so for two reasons:
1.	It is fundamentally unsound that the chairman of a select committee and of a royal commission, whether or not a member of the government, should publicly discuss the committee's proceedings before the evidence had been completed and' a report thereon made by the royal commission, especially in view of the rule that prevents members of the House of Commons from discussing in the house proceedings before its committees until final report has been made. Conclusions or judgments should not be pronounced until taking of evidence is completed and arguments heard thereon.
2.	Representations were made to me that statements contained in the pamphlet were at variance with the evidence given before the select committee, and were without any basis in fact. Circulation of such statements was
injurious not only to individuals and business institutions aggrieved thereby but also to yourself, and prejudicial to the effective work of the commission and' the cause you have so much at heart. I think you will agree that the circulation of a pamphlet containing untrue statements is contrary to every principle of British justice, and to pillory your fellow citizens in the court of public opinion on statements which are not supported by the evidence placed the commission as well as yourself and your colleagues in a most difficult position.
I do not propose to do more than direct your attention to the fact that it is now clear that the statements contained in your pamphlet with respect to several Canadian enterprises and individuals are untrue in whole or in part. About that, I think there can be not the slightest doubt. It is one thing for a private individual to express his opinion with respect to the solvency or insolvency of companies or persons or with respect to the value or lack of value of property owned by others; but when a minister of the crown, with all the authority and power of his position, makes statements which are at variance with the facts and which are not supported' by the evidence taken by the committee of which he is chairman, it is calculated to be most injurious to those concerned, and, as the minister is presumed to be speaking for the government, such action places upon the administration a grave and serious responsibility.
It is impossible to justify the publication and circulation of untrue statements by a minister of the crown which are calculated to have the effect of destroying the reputation or property of any citizen of the country. I do not propose to refer in detail to the inaccurate statements in question, to which your attention has already been directed.
And if it were not because of the privy council oath to which the hon. gentleman has referred one might state very clearly the matter to which the right hon. Prime Minister then referred; and he then continued:
Yesterday, in view of our previous discussions, I brought these matters to your attention as I deemed it desirable that you should indicate to me and to my colleague^ what course you proposed to pursue when the royal commission should meet next week. You were asked to state your views in the light of complaints that had been made by those who claim^ to have bben injured by misstatements contained in the pamphlet. You will recall that your colleagues were unanimously of the opinion that, in view of the inaccurate statements contained in the pamphlet, it was desirable, when the commission meets next week, that you should make a statement indicating the circumstances under which the pamphlet came into being, and expressing regret for any injury that such misstatements have caused to the reputation of any individual or business, and also indicating that the commission would afford complainants every opportunity to refute such misstatements.
I only wish to add that I can confirm from personal knowledge through being present on that occasion that what the Prime Minister there stated in that letter is entirely accurate.
Price Spreads Commission


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker:, I claim again the right and privilege of a member of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) 'has read a lengthy extract from a letter, part of a correspondence regarding my retirement from the cabinet, laying special emphasis on certain paragraphs in that letter, which by the way has been on the table of the house for some months. I now claim the privilege of reading my reply to that letter. I did not invite this but I will not run away from it.
This is a letter dated October 30, 1934, and directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada:
Dear Prime Minister:-
Your letter dated October 26, accepting my resignation, was delivered to me at my home by special messenger at 4.30 Saturday afternoon, the 27th instant.
In your letter you seek to establish that in my work -as chairman of the "price spreads and mass buying committee" I had enjoyed the full support of my colleagues of the government. This, sir, you know is not true.
From the moment of the organization of the committee, following my speech in Toronto on January 15 last, almost daily throughout the long period of the last session I was subjected to -irritating criticisms. One day it would be regarding my manner as chairman, the next the treatment of witnesses, particularly that of Stanley McLean of Canada Packers and of the heads of the Imperial Tobacco. Then the question of cost was constantly thrown in my face, and through it all from one of your senior members ran the constant refrain in a minor key "What can you do about it anyway?"
The fact that I refused to be influenced by these mischievous interferences is now advanced by you as evidence that I had an "absolutely free hand." In the interests of simple truth I must protest your claim in that respect, for, on the contrary, there has been constant criticism emanating almost exclusively from a small minority of the cabinet who, together with yourself, now seize on the "pamphlet" as a culminating excuse for an unwarranted attack on me as chairman of the commission and as a minister of the crown.
You express regret that I did not take the course suggested by you and your colleagues. It is always proper to make amends for any injustice done and none would be more ready to do this than I would be. For me, however, to have acted on your suggestion would have effectively destroyed my usefulness in the task I have set myself, and I would have been false to what I believed to be true and in the public interest. It would have been tantamount to a complete capitulation to those interests whose business practices are in my opinion responsible for untold suffering amongst the agricultural and industrial population of this country.
Making the apology you suggested would have been an easy way for me to have retained my seat in the cabinet but I prize my liberty of action and my sense of duty to the public of

Canada more than the mere retention of office.
It was not this only that caused me to tender my resignation; but rather the intolerable conditions which had developed in connection with my work as chairman of the commission and a minister of the crown.
I deeply resent-
As I do now.
[DOT]-your thinly veiled insinuation that I have been deliberately untruthful. In this respect you base your judgment on representations from one whom you fail to name in your communication, nor have you offered a scintilla of evidence to support your innuendo. In conversation, but n-ot in your letter, you told me that you rest your case on representations made to you in the early part of August last by C. L. Burton, head of the Simpson Company^ Limited. You further stated that he had submitted to you documentary support for his allegations. Would it not have been an act of courtesy to have submitted these documents to me for answer?
And I interject that up to the present moment I have not been accorded the courtesy of the alleged documentary evidence.
Furthermore, you did not speak to me about this matter from August 4 until Thursday afternoon last-
That was October 25.
-which again, I suggest, is a singular course of action to adopt towards a colleague.
My public utterances have been made for the purpose of informing the people of Canada of grave social and economic wrongs which, as a result of my study of their causes, I believe are due largely to certain practices indulged in by large merchandising concerns.
I have under my hand indubitable support for what I have said but I choose to reserve extended and detailed discussions for the public platform and the floor of parliament.
As to the propriety of my actions as chairman of the price spreads committee last session, I prefer to leave this to the judgment of the public for whose opinion I still entertain great respect. But, sir, why all the reticence about discussing these subjects? As a matter of fact full account of the evidence

I ask the house to note this.
-had already been exhaustively reported and reviewed in the public press.
That is a matter which is ignored to-day. Full reports of the proceedings of the committee were published on the front pages of all the papers of Canada, and all I did was deal with matters that already had been in the public press to a very wide extent.
The front page of every large daily -in Canada had from week to week carried' the story, and all of this, months before the "pamphlet" was ever heard of.
In your letter to me you were good enough to express some words of appreciation-
Which, by the way, were carefully excluded by the hon. gentleman who just spoke.

Price Spreads Commission
-of my work as a minister. These words I acknowledge with thanks. But, sir, when you refer in your closing words to "British justice and fair play" I cannot hut bring to my mind the countless thousands of citizens of Canada who are patiently suffering while others whom you champion in such eloquent terms have been reaping rewards far beyond that which any citizen might reasonably expect to win. It is for those inarticulate sufferers that I have been striving with the hope that remedial measures might be found.
There was a further letter which in justice to the Prime Minister I will also read. I regret that this correspondence between the Prime Minister and myself should be introduced while he was absent, but it was not done by me; let that be noted. The Prime Minister's reply was dated October 31:
I received your letter of yesterday in due course.
As you resigned _ as Minister of Trade and Commerce and chairman of the royal commission rather than resume, as proposed, the amicable discussion with your then colleagues, which, by consent, -was adjourned on Thursday last-
I will deal with that in a moment.
-when all relevant papers to which you refer were available to you, no useful purpose will be served by anticipating parliamentary discussion and containing the correspondence with respect to events of which I think it proper to state that your indicated memory is at variance with the recollection of my colleagues and myself.
I wish to refer to these words:
*-the amicable discussion with your then colleagues-
It has been stated, and I welcome this opportunity of making a statement in this regard, that my colleagues desired me to return and discuss the matter further, or to put it more accurately, perhaps, that cabinet council adjourned with the expectation of meeting again the next day and continuing the discussion. That is perfectly true, but on the morning of the 26th, before noon-and the cabinet council was to reassemble in the afternoon-to my annoyance I found that there appeared in the press a fairly complete resume of wlhat had happened in council, in regard to which a very solemn oath had been taken. The gist of this publication was that I had been asked to make some amends, and to whom? To Mr. C. L. Burton, of the Robert Simpson Company, and one other firm that was never mentioned in- the price spreads committee but which I mentioned here in the House of Commons during the debate on the budget last year. I will leave them out. I was asked to make amends to C. L. Burton, of the Robert Simpson Company, who had complained to the Prime
Minister regarding the utterances in the pamphlet, to which I shall make further reference in a moment. And the newspaper account of the meeting of the cabinet was to the effect that if I did not make these amends I would be asked to resign. Sir,
I would not take that position for anybody, and I resigned and refused to go back to cabinet under those conditions. I resigned for that purpose and for that reason, that the secret and private discussions of cabinet had been spread upon the pages of the press. Had I gone back and had an amicable arrangement been made between my colleagues and myself it would have been on record that I had gone back because I had been publicly spanlked in the press, and I had no intention of placing myself in that humiliating position. That was why I did not go back to cabinet council.
Now I should like to say a word with reference to the Robert Simpson Company and Mr. Burton. The Prime Minister, in the correspondence read by the Secretary of State with such unction, said there were certain misstatements in the pamphlet. I have the pamphlet here. One of the alleged misstatements was this, that the Robert Simpson Company, who at the time they did that splendid piece of financing-from the standpoint of Sir Joseph Flavelle and all the crowd-which permitted the original group to take $10,000,000 out of the company and substitute for it a lot of mortgage bonds, all of which is in this report which will be tabled to-day, bearing out to the letter what I am saying and what I said in this pamphlet; in that financial set-up they issued $10,000,000 of bonds, and then they issued A and B stock-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Might I interrupt the hon. member. After all, there is a report coming down in connection with this matter, and I do not think the hon. member should carry on a detailed discussion of it now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I ask only one thing before I am ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that I am as well acquainted with the rules of this house as any member in it, and I wish to observe them, but I ask one thing before you rule me out of order. The Secretary of State has read paragraphs which impugn the truthfulness and accuracy of my statement. Am I allowed to reply? I await your ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have no hesitation whatever in ruling in regard to this matter; my mind has been clear for some time. May I give the incidents that have occurred since this debate, more or less, began. First of all
Price Spreads Commission

the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) rose to a question of privilege, and quite properly so. Then the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), rose to a question of privilege, and properly so. Subsequently the right hon. leader of the opposition replied, quoting from a letter. Then the hon. member for East Kootenay rose in his seat and craved the indulgence of the house to make a reply, and that indulgence was granted. From that time on more or less of a debate has continued in the house, I am satisfied quite contrary to the rules of the house but with the unanimous consent of the house, no one objecting. I have only intervened at this last moment, certainly not with the idea of in any way restricting any question of privilege, but in anticipation of the debate continuing further, having in mind what is covered1 by a report which the hon. member states will be tabled this afternoon.
I think the hon. member will agree with me that if the debate has continued it has been with the unanimous consent of the house. If it continues further it must be with the unanimous consent of the house. If that is desired I am in the judgment of the house. I am simply making the request that the hon. member would not continue along that line because of the fact, as he stated a moment ago, that the report in question will be tabled in the ordinary way and be debated in due course in accordance with the rules of the house. I am entirely in the judgment of the house in the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to finish the sentence I had begun, and then I will say no more.
4 Some hon. MEMBERS: Go ahead; go to it.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is too important to drop now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the latitude given to the Secretary of State, I am entitled at least to the opportunity of reply.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not wish to interrupt the hon, member, and I only did so for the express purpose, as I say, of preventing a further widening of the discussion, which of course can only be continued with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was in the middle of a sentence referring to the refinancing of the Robert Simpson Company, to which

reference was made in this pamphlet which is the basis of all the accusations made in that letter regarding truthfulness or otherwise. I had said that in that refinancing structure they issued $10,000,000 of bonds, $10,000,000 of preference stocks, and two other classes of stock, one A common and one B common, one at $50 a share and the other I think at $100 a share. In any .case there was a class A and a class B common, about $2,000,000 of that, and speaking from memory $1,800,000 was sold to the employees, and was sold to the employees under conditions which were anything but fair to them or a credit to the company. Many of those employees are still paying for that stock at $50 a share although the stock to-day is virtually worthless, being quoted on occasion at $5 for the class B and $10 for .the class A, but I am told by brokers upon inquiry, and I have made inquiries, that it was without real value because there is no sale for it. But in my pamphlet I said that it was class B stock that the employees got. The truth is that it was class A stock, and so I am branded as being untruthful for the difference between A and B. I will admit it.
Another statement that I was charged with being untruthful in is this. In my speech before hon. members of the study club, referring to this matter I said that this stock was not worth a snap of your finger; that is the way I described it. I was told afterwards that that was a grossly unfair statement because the stock was worth $5 in the one case and $10 in the other, although it had been sold to these poor employees at $50 a share. I said it was not worth a snap of your finger, and again I was branded with being untruthful for that.
I went through this pamphlet, and I have here a list of the statements I made, but I shall not go into that now. I went back over the auditors' report and I took every one of these statements, and with the exception of these two to which I have referred, the transposing of A for B and the failure to interpret in printed form a snap of the finger, for that I was branded.
The other instance was where I referred to the Steelwares Company. That had nothing to do with the commission, nothing whatever to do with it, never was before it. I said in my place in the house beside the Prime Minister last session, speaking in the budget debate, that there had been 120 mergers in this country between 1920 and 1930. I made an analysis of them and I cited about a dozen, and among the companies I cited was the Steelwares Company. It was referred to again

Price Spreads Commission
in that speech which I made and which later became this pamphlet, and on that account again I was branded as being untruthful. I take back nothing that I said there. This thing has been before the public for six months, and I take nothing back. What I was arguing for is this, and I shall argue it further; I was arguing against the growing tendency in Canada of the concentration of the control of credit and the control of industry in the hands of a few, which makes it impossible for the agriculturist or for the individualist successfully to compete.
Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I was absent from my seat in the house when this question was raised. I was in my office discussing with one of the outstanding private manufacturers of Canada-what? This man has built up an excellent business, has no mortgage on his plants, no bond issues. He has built up an excellent business; he is one of the ablest exporters and manufacturers in Canada, and he stands to-day confronted with a condition which indicates the ruination of his business. Why? Because a great American concern with a branch in this country with twenty or thirty million dollars of assets has gone into the banking business and is furnishing two and three years' credit to customers in Canada and driving this man, who is unable to grant such credit, out of business. And, sir, when he goes to the Canadian banks to borrow money he is asked seven and six per cent for it, while the customers of the American concern with a branch in Canada are getting it for five per cent. How can the Canadian survive? I was sitting in my office discussing that matter when this question came up yesterday or I should have been here. I merely state that, Mr. Speaker, in support of what I say has been behind this thing and what is behind it now, and if this house will address itself to the study of the problem of the concentration of power and wealth in this country, instead of to the Lilliputian performance of yesterday the house would be better off.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, this debate
has been entirely out of order, as Your Honour has stated. I certainly did not wish to suggest that it should not go on, but I regret very much that it should have arisen while the Prime Minister is not here in his seat as it refers very largely to him and to his letters. As far as I am concerned I think we have had a long enough debate on this subject, and if Your Honour will not rule that way, I am going to move that we proceed to the orders of the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker
I am not rising to prolong the debate. I do not want to touch the debate, but the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) made one remark which was in the nature of imputing an unworthy motive to myself, and I wish at once to let him know that there was absolutely no ground for his assumption. He stated that he did not understand what the animus was which I had against him. May I assure him that I have had, and have no animus whatever, and that any criticism I have made of the action or words of my hon. friend or indeed of any hon. member has been made as a part of my duty to seek to uphold the privileges of this house and to seek to uphold the rights and privileges of hon. members of parliament irrespective altogether of the party to which they belong.
My hon. friend has tried as a result of that imputation to have it appear that there was some difference between the opposition and himself in regard to the matters under discussion. I do not think he should have sought to address his remarks to me. I think they would more properly have been addressed to the government as they were, for the most part, in fact; indeed, the only quarter to which they could properly be addressed was the house as a whole.



PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF ROTAL COMMISSION

Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
lay on the table the following documents: Five copies of the report of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying; five copies of the minutes of proceedings and the evidence of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying; five copies of the minutes of proceedings and the evidence of the special committee on price spreads and mass buying, and five copies of the index to the minutes of proceedings and evidence, which index covers both the royal commission and the special committee.
I desire to say that it is my regret that the French version is not yet ready but it will be tabled in the course of a few days. A French version of the resume of the contents of the report in mimeographed form is available to hon. gentlemen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to give notice of the following motion:
That whereas this house on February 13, 1934, appointed a select special committee of the house on price spreads and mass buying;
And whereas said committee had not finished its work at the close of the session of 1934:
Address to His Majesty

And whereas said committee was later continued as a royal commission under part one of the Inquiries Act;
. And whereas the report of the said commission, based upon evidence taken before both the committee and the commission, was laid on the table of the house on April 12, 1935;
Be it resolved that the report of the royal commission on price spreads be adopted.



FAIR TRADE BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders for motions;
Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition signed by Mr. Frank S. Scott and approximately
30,000	retail merchants throughout Canada praying for the creation of a fair trade board to work in conjunction with the provincial governments but to funotion under continuous federal government supervision and control, to adopt and maintain fair trade practices throughout Canada.
PRIVILEGE-MR. STEWART (Leeds)
On the order for motions:


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on a question of
privilege I desire to refer to page 2643 of Hansard. The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) asked a question to which I made the following reply:
I think I can give that, but if I may be allowed to complete the whole statement, I shall be glad to do that. So far the contracts have all been let to the lowest tenderer. The list continues:
I should have stated that the contracts had been let either to the lowest tenderer or at the amount of the lowest tender. When the matter comes up again, I propose to accede to my hon. friend's request and give a list of the cases in which contracts were awarded to other than the lowest tenderer but at the amount of the lowest tender.



ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
_ Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, in rising
to move that a loyal address be voted to His Majesty the King, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession to the throne, I feel I should begin by expressing my genuine regret at the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself is not here to perform this duty. It would be most fitting, of course, that the leader of this house should move such an address, and I am sure that the house will agree with me when I state that no person could do it better or with more feeling than the Prime Minister.
IMr. Stevens,]
I consider myself fortunate in being called upon in his stead on this occasion. Representing Canada as I did for some years in the United Kingdom, I had the great privilege of coming into frequent personal contact with His Majesty, and I share with all those who have had a similar privilege, feelings of great admiration and profound respect as well as of loyal devotion. As the house may know, I was High Commissioner and Minister of Overseas Military Forces of Canada during a very trying period of His Majesty's rule; a period when the fortunes of his throne and of his empire were put to the stern test of armed conflict.
In the storm and stress of those difficult times, His Majesty gave his people the inspiration of great leadership, steady optimism and self-sacrificing devotion. Without ostentation, he kept in the closest possible touch with all the activities of his people. He visited the training camps, the armies in France and Belgium, the fleet at S'capa Flow, munitions plants throughout the country, and hospitals and convalescent homes. As I was privileged to be present on many of these occasions I can assure the house from personal knowledge that his simple human sympathy and his calm unremitting devotion to duty cheered and steadied the country. In all these things the king was always assisted and supported by Her Gracious Majesty the Queen and so in those dark days of war, as well as in the even more difficult tests of peace that followed, Their Majesties won for themselves, once and for all, an imperishable place in the hearts and minds of the people of the whole British commonwealth.
There is no doubt but that it was the character and conduct of His Majesty throughout these testing times that led to the strengthening of the monarchy with us at the very time that it was breaking down elsewhere. Since the war, thrones throughout Europe have toppled and the established order has been uprooted. The throne of His Majesty has remained secure and has in fact become more firmly based. The crown for us is the symbol not of despotism but of constitutional liberty and ordered progress; not of autocratic empire but of the voluntary union of free states.
'Constitutional relations within the empire have changed much since the accession of His Majesty. The relation of the dominions and the United Kingdom is no longer that of colony to mother country, but of self-governing nations freely associated with each other. This development, however, far from weakening the position of the crown has only served to

Address to His Majesty
strengthen, it. The throne now more definitely than ever before binds us to one another and to our past. From whatever part of the empire we may come, we all claim kinship through our common allegiance to Hi3 Majesty the King,
His Majesty's reign has been eventful for more developments than the war and the constitutional evolution of the 'British commonwealth of nations. I shall not attempt to pass in review the events of these crowded twenty-five years, but I think I am safe in saying that there has never been a more dynamic, a more significant, a more difficult quarter century since recorded history began. In dealing with the baffling problems caused by these rapid social and political changes, His Majesty's ministers had at all times the benefit of His Majesty's ripe judgment, long experience and wise advice.
Many years ago a wise commentator on the British constitution, Walter Bagehot, stated " a sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights- the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others-perhaps such powers as these are what a wise man would most seek to exercise and least fear to possess."
It is in the exercise of these powers that our king has played and continues to play his part in guiding the destinies of this great array of peoples who make up the British empire.
I do not feel that I need say any more. Inadequate as my words have been, they are the sincere expression of what I know animates every member of this house and every citizen of this country; loyal and affectionate devotion to His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen.
I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie King:
That an humble address be voted to His Majesty the King in the following words:- To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects,
the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, beg to offer our sincere congratulations on the happy completion of the twenty-fifth year of your illustrious reign.
The eventful years which have passed since Your Majesty's accession to the throne have witnessed great and significant changes in economic, social and political conditions that have constantly demanded the exercise of the highest qualities of courage and of leadership. During these years important and definite developments in the constitutional relations between the several parts of Your Majesty's dominions have more firmly established that unity of which their common allegiance to the
crown is the symbol and inspiration. We rejoice that each year has been marked by an increasing appreciation of Your Majesty's inspiring example of conscientious devotion to duty and of unselfish labour for the welfare of your people. Your Majesty will celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of your accession enjoying the unreserved respect and the loyal affection of the people in all parts of your dominions, which is a striking demonstration of the righteousness and wisdom which Your Majesty has exhibited both in war and in peace through years of unexampled difficulty.
We ask that our loyal and respectful congratulations may be accepted by Her Gracious Majesty the Queen whose untiring interest in every movement for the relief of distress and suffering and' for the welfare of humanity has given her a secure place in the affections of the people of Canada. We rejoice that the queen will share the demonstration of loyalty and devotion which will be shown to Your Majesty on this memorable anniversary.
From time to time during Your Majesty's reign the people of Canada have enjoyed the honour of welcoming to this dominion His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and other members of the Royal family, whose visits have not only deepened the loyal devotion of the [DOT]people of Canada to Your Majesty but have enhanced their appreciation of the interest which is always taken by the members of the Royal family in all that pertains to the progress and welfare of this dominion.
We trust that we may continue for many years to enjoy the benefit of your gracious and peaceful rule. Our earnest prayer is that He who is the Ruler of all nations and the King of Kings may uphold, direct and preserve Your Majesty in health, in happiness, and in the affectionate loyalty of your people.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In rising to
second the motion which has just been made by the right hon. the acting leader of the house (Sir George Perley), may I say immediately that I share with him very sincerely the regret which he has expressed that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is himself prevented from being in the house and having the honour of moving the address which has just been read. I hope, as I know all hon. members of this house also hope, that there may be some compensation to the Prime Minister in the fact that in all probability he will have an opportunity of personally presenting to His Majesty the address which is being voted by both houses of this parliament on the occasion of the celebration of the silver jubilee of His Majesty's accession to the throne. May I say further, seeing that it is impossible for the Prime Minister, to be here to have the honour of moving the address, that I am very pleased, as I am sure all hon. members of this house are, that that honour has fallen to one who has played such a long and honourable part in the public life of our country as my right hon. friend the acting
Address to His Majesty

leader of the house has; and one, moreover, who has been privileged, in the course of his distinguished and self-effacing career, to have the Close official and personal relations with His Majesty the King which my right hon. friend has enjoyed.
It affords me, Mr. Speaker, much pleasure to have the honour of seconding the address which has just been moved by the right hon. the acting leader of the government to His Majesty King George V, congratulating His Majesty upon the completion of the twenty-fifth year of his reign. The sentiments expressed in the address are so completely in accord with those cherished towards His Majesty by the citizens of Canada generally, that it would only detract from the felicity of their expression were I to attempt to supplement, at any length, what appears in the address, and what has been so appropriately said by the acting leader of the government in proposing the motion.
May I say that I nevertheless welcome the courtesy extended by the government, in inviting me to second the address, in that it affords one of those occasions, too rare in our parliamentary life, where it is possible to make apparent that, however much members of the official opposition in this House of Commons may differ from hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the policies which are best suited to the government of our country, as representatives of the people of Canada, we are, at all times, one with them in our allegiance to the crown, and are particularly so to-day, in the congratulations being extended from the parliament of Canada to His Majesty.
In the world's history there has been nothing comparable to the past twenty-five years. In this momentous epoch, the nations of the British commonwealth have indeed been fortunate in having so wise and good a king. I believe it is impossible to over-estimate how much, within this period, British peoples the world over, and indeed the world itself, owe to the personality, and to the personal example of King George, to His Majesty's steadfastness, his understanding, his fidelity and his sagacity.
As the address says, "in war and in peace, through years of unexampled difficulty," King George has been an exemplary sovereign. He has worked with his people, as well as for them. Their fortunes have been his, and his theirs.
In the great war, His Majesty, not less because of his own personal example, than in virtue of his high office, stood as the symbol of the common effort of all parts

of his dominions. He was the rallying centre of all the forces that, in His Majesty's name, and in the name of British liberty, fought for a larger freedom. As other thrones have crashed and crumbled, his throne has become more firmly established.
In the difficult post-war period of reconstruction, as governments have come and gone, and many constitutional changes have been effected, His Majesty, in virtue of his understanding and wisdom, has remained the embodiment of an unswerving constitutional authority in Great Britain and beyond the seas.
Having regard to the times, and to the issues King George and his ministers have been called upon to face, I 'believe it can honestly be said that there has never been a better king.
It is most fitting that, in the address to His Majesty on this occasion, congratulations should be conveyed, as well, to Her Majesty the Queen, and that, as has been done, reference should be made to the place held by Her Majesty in the affections of the people. We are fully conscious of what, in sickness and in health, and in all that pertains to his high office, the life partnership of Her Majesty the Queen has meant to the king.
May I, in conclusion, say within these halls of parliament, what, recently, I was privileged to say beyond its walls:
"We welcome the opportunity, which this anniversary affords, to pay our tribute alike to the king and queen, to their sincere love for the people, their self-sacrificing lives, their definite standards of right and wrong, their simplicity of heart, and their steadfast faith. At this time, we are deeply conscious of what all these have meant to us, to our country, to the British commonwealth of nations, and to the world."


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: It
is indeed with pleasure that I rise to support the motion that an address be presented to His Majesty congratulating him upon the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession to the throne. This motion has been so well spoken to by the acting leader of the house (Sir George Per-ley) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it is not necessary for me to do more than say that on this historic occasion I am sure we as members of the house can forget our differences of opinion in order that we may speak with a united voice. I am certain it is the wish of all that His Majesty will retain his health and strength so that he may long remain in the prominent position which he now occupies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Public Works Program
Sir GEORGE PERLEY moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie King:
That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house has passed an address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King expressing loyal and respectful congratulations on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession to the throne, and requesting their honours to unite with this house in the said address hereto attached,
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.
Motion agreed to.
(The members of the house rose and sang "God Save the King").


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada, and to authorize the government to guarantee equipment securities of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the amount of fifteen million dollars.
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.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps this
is the appropriate time to draw to the attention of the house what seems to me to be a curious procedure with respect to this particular motion. It is in the name of the Prime Minister, but it relates to a measure that is to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada, and also to authorize the government to guarantee equipment securities of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the amount of 815,000,000. My first observation is that the motion relates to two separate and distinct measures, and this house should have two different bills presented to it, one which will deal with the question of the creation of employment by public works and undertakings and the other which relates to the guarantees to the railways of their equipment securities.
I further think the correct procedure would be that any measure relating to the construction of public works should be brought in by the Minister of Public Works, and that
a measure relating to the guarantee of equipment securities of railways should be introduced by the Minister of Railways. I would much rather say what I am about to say with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) present, but it is necessary to speak at once in order to bring out what I think is important in the matter of the procedure that we have been adopting of late. I cannot understand how it is, with the Prime Minister absent, and1 necessarily so, from the house since February 22, and, as we have been told by the acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley), quite unable to take and, I am sure, not taking any part in the business of the government, so many measures should continue to be introduced in the house in the name of the Prime Minister.
The theory of responsible government is that it is a ministry that is responsible, the ministers are responsible. The Prime Minister is simply the first among equals. I do think that if the theory of responsible gov-mmeat is to foe adhered to, measures that immediately affect particular departments of government should appear in the names of the ministers who are -responsible for those departments and who are the only ones present in parliament to discuss those measures. I would draw the attention of my right hon. friend to the fa-ct that since February 22 we have had submitted to this house or introduced a resolution with respect to the Canadian grain board which is in the name of the Prime Minister. I think that measure would more properly appear in the name of either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture. Then there was a resolution with regard to the economic council of Canada; as it refers more particularly to the Prime Minister's department possibly it -might foe supposed to be introduced by the Prime Minister, but in the circumstances I think it might quite properly have been in the name of the Secretary of State. Then we have had several labour measures. We have one on the order -paper still, placed there on March 6, in respect to the creation of minimum wage fixing machinery. This is in the name of the Prime Minister, I think it should have been in the name of the Minister of Labour. We have had a weekly day of rest bill, we have had an eight hour day bill and other measures relating distinctly to labour, which in the circumstances would more properly have been in the name of the minister of the department concerned. Then on March 8 there was introduced a bill respecting the additional protocol -of 1935 to the Canada-
Public Works Program

France trade agreement. That surely was a matter for the Minister -of Trade and Commerce, or, seeing that the Secretary of State had to do with the negotiation of part of it, it might have been in his name, but I think should have appeared in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now we have this particular measure which is certainly public works and railways; why it should be in the name of the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Public Works should take charge of it, I cannot understand.
I sometimes fear -that we are completely changing the character of our political institutions, and amongst other things that little by little in this parliament we are following what I think is a mistaken method becoming common in Europe, of having the leader of a political party assume responsibility for all measures, and other ministers reduced to mere ciphers, in the part which they are to take in the proceedings of parliament and in discussion of public questions. I bring the matter up now because I think it is time that attention should be called to what is certainly an irregular procedure. I know the acting Prime Minister is here, and it is quite right that any measure that pertains to the Prime Minister's office should be introduced by him and dealt with by him, but when it comes to a position such as we have this afternoon, where a measure is in the name of the Prime Minister and the acting Prime Minister leaves it to other .colleagues to deal with, I submit it is obvious that there is something not wholly in aocord with the theory of collective responsibility on the part of the ministry and the direct responsibility of certain ministers.


Right Hon.   S@: I need hardly say that I
think the right hon. gentleman's remarks are not in order just now. However, I did not care to interrupt him. But I do not think he need be at all worried about the fact of some of these bills having been in the name of the Prime Minister. In the first place the greater number of those he mentioned were brought in in the name of the Prime Minister when it was expected that he would be back in the house almost any day to attend to them. I want to tell the right hon. gentleman further that all these measures^have been submitted to the Prime Minister and he is cognizant of them. As far as I am concerned I happen to be a minister without portfolio- the pay of the ordinary minister was not big enough for me, so I am acting without portfolio. Now I have never known a case of a bill being brought into this house in the name of a minister without portfolio. The right hon.

gentleman may happen to know of one but I do not. As far as this particular bill is concerned it refers to various departments, but is all for the purpose of creating employment and so on. It is largely to supplement the Public Works Construction Act of last year, and that will so appear in the bill. The Minister of Public Works is going to take this bill and attend to it, but the various ministers and departments involved will be prepared to discuss their own .part of the schedules and answer questions about them when we come to the schedules. I submit that this is a bill which covers the activities of various departments, and it having been submitted to the Prime Minister and having received his consent I think it was quite properly put in his name.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I
wonder if the acting Prime Minister would be good enough to answer a question at this stage? Has he received any requests from the two railways for the manufacture of this equipment?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This is not the time for questions.


George Halsey Perley: This motion is
not debatable. When the resolution is brought up the hon. gentleman's question can be asked.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to endorse what has been said by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). It does not seem to me that it is a proper form that a general resolution of this kind, involving at least two distinct matters with very distinct principles underlying them, should be brought forward. I would hope that the motion should be divided so that we can deal intelligently with both aspects.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Charles Matthews: Yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) inquired as to the practice of the Department of National Revenue in recording the return to Canada of Canadian butter exported to Great Britain. For the information of the hon. member I may say that butter exported from Canada to Great Britain and returned to Canada falls within two categories:
1.	Canadian butter which has been shipped to England and returned to the exporter in Canada within five years without having

Mounted Police
changed ownership or having advanced in value, on arriving in Canada and being duly identified, a free import entry is made, under the provisions of tariff item 709; but no segregation of the different kinds of goods entered under this item is made for statistical purposes.
2.	Canadian butter exported to Great Britain which has entered into ordinary commerce and has thereby lost its identity or has changed ownership or increased in value. On return to Canada this butter, subject to payment of duty would be recorded as an importation from the United Kingdom, without identification as to country of origin.
When Canadian goods are returned, whether entered free or subject to duty, the original export entry stands without cancellation. This applies to all goods, including butter. It will accordingly be apparent that so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned it is not possible to furnish statistics with respect to the quantity of Canadian butter which may have been returned to Canada during any particular year. The practice I have indicated has been in vogue under tariff item 709 since the year 1906.


Peter John Veniot: I
merely wish to state that I am pleased that the minister has submitted this statement. It bears out what I thought the customs law was, that no goods of any kind enter Canada, either as Canadian goods returned or otherwise, without an import entry. That is the point I wished to make.


Robert Charles Matthews: Quite right.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: On March 29 I asked a question with regard to the reported use by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of bloodhounds to locate persons lost in Nova Scotia forests and to track criminals. I asked whether the full cabinet had given their consent to this method of tracking down criminals, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) replied that the answer was in the negative. I then asked further as to whether this proceeding had been sanctioned by the government, and the Minister of Justice replied it had not. I notice in the Montreal Herald of April 11 a dispatch from Winnipeg, as follows:
"Bloodhounds" are now being used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, General J. H. MacBrien, chief commissioner, said here to-day, but only for tracking purposes. Recently the
matter was brought up in the House of Commons. The dogs, Genera.l MacBrien said, are not used in the manner depicted in dime novel "thrillers" and he deprecated any idea that fugitives might be torn limb from limb by ferocious canines.
My question is this: If the government does not sanction this proceeding, does Major General MacBrien consider himself above the laiw, -or will the government take suitable action to enforce its position upon Major General MacBrien?


Hugh Guthrie: When the question was asked previously I stated that the government had not authorized the use of bloodhounds in connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I can repeat that statement; there are no bloodhounds used by the mounted police. I think a similar statement appeared in another newspaper, in which General MacBrien says these are not bloodhounds. I made inquiries with respect to the matter immediately after it was brought up in the house previously. There are some small dogs- they are down at Rockcliffe and can be seen by anyone-called pinschers, German dogs, and I believe there is a German sheep dog as well. Experience has shown that these are the most valuable dogs for tracing missing persons; it is said they have the most acute sense of smell of any dogs. They are little fellows; they are used chiefly for finding lost children or people who have strayed in the woods. They are not used at all in this country for tracking criminals; they are not set loose but are used exclusively on the leash. The policeman, or whoever is sent to find the lost person, takes the dog and follows it after it has located the scent. We have a few of these dogs down at Rockcliffe and we propose to endeavour to use them in finding lost or strayed persons. A number of them have been successfully used in the west, and we believe it will be of some value to have some of these dogs for the use of the force. I repeat that they are not bloodhounds.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then may I just ask a supplementary question. My first question was based on a dispatch concerning the annual report of H division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which was tabled in the Nova Scotia legislature. I take it that that dispatch was not correct with regard to Nova Scotia?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know anything about the dispatch or what was tabled in Nova Scotia. I state again that bloodhounds are not used, and that any dogs we have are being trained exclusively for the purpose of
Public Works Construction Act

tracking lost persons and not for criminal use at all. They are used exclusively on the leash.



AGRICULTURE-ANALYSTS' REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, the
farmers of the county of Laval-Two Mountains, more particularly those of St. Hermas and St. Eustache, have asked me to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to the following facts: They forwarded samples of clover seed to the office of the Dominion Department of Agriculture at 96 St. Catherine East, Montreal, and they are still awaiting the report of the analysts. They communicated with that office several times, but in vain. I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to be kind enough to see that they get an answer as soon as possible.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) (Translation):: The Minister of Agriculture not being in his seat, I will, if my hon. friend will allow me, draw his attention to this matter, in order that an answer may be given as early as possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you
very much.



PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Gavan Power: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, January 21, at my instance an address was passed to His Excellency the Governor General asking for a copy of all orders in council concerning public works construction under the authority of the statute of 1934. So far as I am aware all departments except the Department of Marine tabled these orders in council yesterday; those of the Department of Marine were tabled to-day.
In this connection, however, I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) to the fact that a number of orders in council mentioned by the minister in the course of the discussion last night as having been passed to cover certain of the public works are not included in those tabled to-day. I could give the minister the numbers in order that he might correct the return should it be found inaccurate; I could send him a list of the numbers in a moment. The important point to which I wish to direct

his attention, however, is this: In connection with order in council No. 1869, dealing with the application of paint to the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal, the names of a number of tenderers are given, but inside in parenthesis is written "schedule attached." Presumably that schedule showed the prices submitted by each of these firms. The order in council, without mentioning the prices submitted by the tenderers, goes on to say that the lowest tenderer-who is not mentioned- did not send an accepted cheque along with his tender, and that his financial position was not satisfactory. Therefore the firm of F. J. Leduc and associates was awarded the contract.
May I point out to the minister that the schedule should be attached to this order in council in order to make it intelligible. I should be very grateful if the minister would be kind enough to inquire from his officers as to what has become of the most essential and important part of this order in council.


Alfred Duranleau: In answer to my hon. friend I desire to state that all the orders in council which were tabled to-day were sent to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) by my department in the usual way on Saturday last. That was my information this morning. I was under the impression yesterday that they had been tabled, but when I found that was not so they were tabled this afternoon.


Charles Gavan Power: They were asked for on January 21.


Alfred Duranleau: As to the schedule mentioned by my hon. friend, I will see that the proper information is tabled so that the order in council will be more intelligible, as he says.


Mr.   BOWER@: And the missing orders in council?


Alfred Duranleau: I was told this morning by my officials that all the orders in council passed under the Public Works Construction Act had been sent to the Secretary of State to be tabled in the house. If my hon. friend thinks that there are other orders in council not included in the file, let him mention them to me and I will see that they are tabled.


Charles Gavan Power: With the consent of the
house, in order to clear up this matter, during the course of the discussion last evening, after listening to the minister and asking him the numbers of the orders in council as he went along, I made up a list which I placed on Hansard. I asked the minister if he would be

Price of Silver
kind enough to furnish us with a list of orders in council, but on checking over those received to-day I find that at least four or five are missing or at all events have not been tabled to-day. If the minister would be kind enough to check the list of those tabled by the Secretary of State to-day with the list he gave me last night, I think the whole matter could be arranged satisfactorily.


Alfred Duranleau: With the permission
of the house, may I say that last night my hon. friend stated that he had in his hand five or six other orders in council which had been filed-


Charles Gavan Power: No, those were apart from this.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be glad to
make inquiries and hope to give my hon. friend a satisfactory answer on Monday.



EASTER RECESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: May I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works. The acting Prime Minister stated the other day that arrangements had been made whereby the staff of the House of Commons would be treated during the coming recess in the same way that they have always been treated. In other words I gathered that they would get full pay and full time. Will the minister say if the same privilege will extend to the Public Works staff, to the elevator attendants and maintenance staff now employed in the House of Commons?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. gentleman intimated to
me last night the nature of his question. I have made some inquiries, and as a result I find that the employees to whom he now refers are not members of the staff of the House of Commons. They are members of the staff of the Public Works department, and they will be dealt with on this occasion in the same way they have been dealt with on similar occasions in the past.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the minister kindly say what that will be?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.
I do not think they get full pay.
PRICE OF SILVER On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (North' Timiskaming):	In view of the heavy increase in the price of silver fixed by the United States I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if any similar action is contemplated by this government, and if the present price of Canadian silver is now equal to the American price.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe, as a matter of fact, that the ruling price has been somewhat below that of the arbitrary price fixed by the United States government. It will be borne in mind that the price fixed by the United States government is only with respect to newly mined silver and has no reference to silver other than newly mined, but the price for other silver has tended to rise somewhat sympathetically with the arbitrary price for newly mined silver in the United States.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then it is not the intention of the government to fix the price of silver here in the same way that we fixed the price for gold following action by the United States government with respect to the price of gold?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A government can only
make known its intention when it has arrived at any decision, in which event of course it would have to be made known. That is the only answer I can give. It is unsatisfactory I dare say to my hon. friend, but he will realize that it is the only answer that anyone speaking with responsibility can give under the conditions.
PUBLIC EXPENDITURES On the orders of the day:


Charles Gavan Power: I
should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance based on an item in to-day's Ottawa Journal, which states a telegram urging that dominion government expenditures be curtailed "at all cost" was forwarded by the Chambre de Commerce of Montreal to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to-day, and the association also suggested the appointment of a royal commission to investigate the possibilities of curtailment. May I ask the minister if he has received any such telegram and if he is disposed to act on the suggestion made by the Chambre de Commerce?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have received a telegram, and, if I mistake not, have acknowledged it. Further than that I do not wish to go at this time.
Salary Deduction Act



SALARY DEDUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hod. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 53, to provide for the deduction from compensation in the public service.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, of course the passing of the second reading means the adoption of the principle of the bill. Proceeding upon the principle as I stated before that half a loaf is better than no bread, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance might say, my colleague from Ottawa and I will not oppose the second reading, but there is one point I should like to take up. The other day the Minister of Finance in reply to a question from the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said at page 2601 of Hansard:
I have a hope that during the recess we may be able to address ourselves to the question of statutory increases.
Then a little lower down on the same page he said:
At all events, it will be our hope and purpose to deal with the question of statutory increases at the earliest possible moment.
My hope is further that between now and the time parliament rises the Minister of Finance will be in a position to restore the other five per cent, making a ten per cent restoration. If the minister is in a position to say now that after the recess some opportunity will be afforded us to discuss the question of statutory increases and the question of promotions, then for the time being we shall be content.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say to my hon. friend that I am quite content that there should be further opportunity to discuss the question of statutory increases. I have nothing to add to the statement I made the other day. These are strenuous days and we have many very heavy problems to cope with, and it is impossible to be definite as to whether a decision can be arrived at with respect to a good many matters of major importance, but I am quite as anxious as my hon. friend that we should address ourselves to this subject during the recess, and if not, at all events prior to prorogation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair,
Section 1 agreed to. .

On section 2-Definitions.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is the minister aware that in some departments there have been three separate outs of ten per cent of civil service salaries? I believe I was correctly informed when I was given the instance of a man receiving a salary of 82,400 per year. He received a ten per cent cut on April 1, 1932, which amounted to $240 and brought his salary down to $2,160. The next year he received a further cut of ten per cent or $216, which brought his salary down to $1,944. On April 1, 1933, he received another cut of ten per cent or $194.40, bringing his salary down to $1,749.60. His total cuts amount to $650.40 and based on his original salary amount to 36-9 per cent. Is it the intention of the government to take an additional five per cent from this man's original salary?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very glad to inquire into the individual case referred to by my hon. friend but 1 would point out that there have not been three, cuts. There has been only one cut of ten per cent. This deduction has been uniform except that last year we excluded those in receipt of salarie? of $1,000 and under. This year we are restoring five per cent of the original ten per cent cut and we are raising the exemptions from $1,000 to $1,200. The Salary Deduction Act has no bearing upon such a case as that suggested by my hon. friend. The five per cent we are restoring is one-half of the ten per cent deduction, which is all that has ever been made by virtue of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 54, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Special income tax on certain salaries.
Jean-François Pouliot: There would seem to be
considerable discrimination in favour of the military forces. These men receive pay and allowances and the deduction is taken from their pay but not from their allowances. Their superannuation is based upon both the

Income War Tax Act
pay and allowances. I should like to know the amount of allowances paid to military officers, what they are for and why they have not been made subject to the act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will appreciate that I cannot give him a detailed answer with respect to the nature of the allowances because they have been regulated by statute for a number of years and there has been no change for a long period of time. All that I am concerned about is whether we should make the same deduction in the case of the military service as we are making in the case of the civil service. We have applied one principle all the way through in the application of this act. We do not touch allowances made in connection with the civil service except when they are deemed to be a portion of the remuneration of the position.


Jean-François Pouliot: For superannuation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. I would take it that the allowances made to the military are not deemed to be a portion of the salary and if they are not subject to the deduction, it is because the principle has been uniformly applied. It would appear that these allowances are not made by way of salary but because of the peculiar nature of the employment. In the civil service there are certain allowances which are deemed to be a portion of the salaries for purposes of superannuation, as was pointed out the other night by the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). On the other hand, there are allowances which are not deemed to be part of the salaries and hitherto' they have not been subject to the deduction of ten per cent. I hope I have made it clear to my hon. friend that irrespective of the question as to whether or not the allowances made to the permanent force may or may not be too large, we have done all that we can in so far as this bill is concerned, namely, apply the deduction uniformly to both the civil service and the permanent forces.


Jean-François Pouliot: No d-oubt there is a difference between an allowance paid, say, to an engineer in the Department of Public Works who must travel around and be put to considerable expense and that paid to an officer of the permanent force for lodging, heat, light and so on. A civil servant has to pay these expenses out of his salary and it would appear that the officer is in a privileged position. I shall not press this matter further at the moment but I should like to be assured that when I place a question regarding this matter on the order paper I shall receive a full reply.
92582-in


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will appreciate that there has been no change in the consideration of allowances paid to members of the permanent force for some time. The payment of these allowances is a question of general policy and has no reference to the uniform application of the Salary Deduction Act. The question whether we ought to consider allowances to the permanent force as a portion of the salary is another question, to be considered apart altogether from the application of this bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: I always learn something when I listen to the Minister of Finance, and he has the gift of evading an answer with the greatest ability. My question was simple. I asked whether he was ready to supply the information requested if a question to that effect were put on the order paper.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not make any reply to that question for the obvious reason that, subject to the rules of the house with respect to certain privileged communications, it is the right of the hon. member to receive information. That being so, if he places on the order paper a question which is in conformity with the practice of parliament, certainly it will be answered.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister. I may inform him that I have been told that orders in council have been passed with regard to that matter of allowances during the past four or five years and it is in view of that fact that I ask for the information.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I speak not only from personal information but after inquiry of one of the officials, who has an intimate knowledge of these matters, when I tell the hon. gentleman that there has been no -change in the practice in this respect since this government came into office.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Taxpayer may elect to be subject to Salary Deduction Act.
Mr. MacINNIS:: It is not mentioned anywhere in the bill, but I assume that this will apply only to salaries in excess of SI,200, as in connection with other salary deductions.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; they will all be treated precisely on the same basis.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Mounted Police
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the bill be now passed.


William Duff: On division.


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


Hugh Guthrie: (Minister of
Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 9, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: I regret to say that the Senate has seen fit to amend the bill in respect of one clause passed last year and stricken out by the Senate, and passed again this year. It applies to three men in the mounted police who served in the South African war. The bill provided that they should 'be enabled to count time served in South Africa as part of service for pension purposes, but the Senate has struck out that provision. I will not press the matter. It involves only three men who are almost at the retiring age, having served thirty-five years, and they are at the top in any event. I will not press objection to the amendment.


Mr. OHEVRIER:: I have no objection at all to these amendments allowing these three officers to benefit. I congratulate them on their good good fortune, but I would ask that consistency be observed throughout .the service. I see no good reason why we should make fish of one and flesh of the other. There are many other changes that ought to be made in a general way, and I think that what I said some time ago has come true; there has been considerable discrimination in that regard. It would be only fair that the superannuation law should be revised so as to make it applicable to all members of the service, instead of having to change one act one day and another act another day in order to allow people to come within the purview of its provisions. These .three men are to be congratulated.


Hugh Guthrie: But that provision has been struck out.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Mr. Rhodes,)



MINIMUM WAGE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 40, to provide for minimum wages pursuant to the convention concerning minimum wages adopted by the international labour organization in accordance with the provisions of part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: The bill is drawn pursuant to the draft convention of the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations, which convention has been adopted by this house during the present session. The bill professes to follow as closely as possible, having regard to the situation, the draft convention which was submitted, and the plan under the bill is, briefly, to appoint a committee to consist of a minister, being the Minister of Labour, a representative of the employer and a representative of the employees in each particular trade, to fix a minimum wage to be paid in respect of that trade throughout the dominion. The treaty itself provides that the bill shall not became operative until after the lapse of one year after its deposit at Geneva, and a special clause is inserted to provide that in the interval before it becomes law, in any exceptional case, the governor in council may provide a minimum wage after having made inquiry as set out in the terms of the bill. Otherwise I think the bill follows pretty closely the language of the treaty which was approved by the house at the present session.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have listened to the
minister's explanation with regard to this bill. I wish to assure hon. members that I am among the first members of the house who have studied the question of minimum wages. I did so away back in 1928 with the assistance of Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour at that time, and also the very valuable help of my revered leader, because I was just starting to make a study of statistics and very often I had to go to the right hon. gentleman for advice. I wish to express my thanks to him in that- connection.
This bill is supposed to be based upon a draft convention which appeared on the orders

Minimum Wage
of the day of March 11 of this year. It is a draft convention and just a moment ago I heard the Minister of Justice repeat the statement that it was. I have asked for the book in which that draft convention could be found and my first question was to the acting Prime Minister. My question was asked on March 11 last, as reported on page 1573 of Hansard, and the fact that the right hon. gentleman had time enough to think before answering me is apparent in that the answer was given on the following day as reported on page 1616. He read an answer in which it was stated:
The texts of draft conventions and recommendations adopted by international labour conferences are not printed in the official journal of the League of Nations but are to be found in the official bulletin of the international labour office where, on page 121 of the issue of the 31st July, 1928, he will find the text of _ the convention concerning the creation of minimum wage fixing machinery.
This was not in the journals of the League of Nations. I have the official bulletin referred to by the right hon. gentleman, and at page 121, the page he mentioned, there are only three lines and four words, as follows:
Minimum wage fixing machinery.
And they refer to another booklet entitled:
Second discussion; international labour convention; eleventh session, Geneva, May 1928; report on minimum wage fixing machinery; first item on the agenda; international labour office, Geneva, 1928.
This booklet, which has 149 pages, I have procured from the library.
On March 19, a week after I had received the answer from the acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice referred me to another book which he was kind enough to lend me, but it was not the book mentioned by the acting Prime Minister, nor the one that I hold in my hand. He mentioned another book, and he brought into the matter a dark horse, a third book which contained draft conventions; in fact it was called, Draft Conventions and Recommendations Adopted by the International Labour Conference at its sessions from 1919 to 1932.
But the most important point that I wish to stress is this: that the acting Prime Minister, the present leader of the government, has referred me to the page of that booklet, the official bulletin of the international labour office of July 31, 1928, which refers to the book already described that I now hold in my hand, this one containing 149 pages. This means that this book is the basis of the legislation which is now before us. The importance of this is the way in which this country has
answered the questions which have been put by the international labour conference. These are several questions which appear on page 2:
Principle of the creation of machinery and scope of its application.
1.	Do you consider that the conference should adopt proposals dealing with methods of minimum wage fixing in home working and other trades or in parts of such trades in which:
(a)	No arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by collective agreement or otherwise, and
(b)	Wages are exceptionally low?
2.	Do you consider that a definition of (a) home working trades, and (b) other trades, should be included in any proposals which may be adopted by the conference? What definitions do you propose?
3.	Do you consider that it is for the government of each country to decide, having regard to the conditions of the country, which are the home working and other trades covered by question one?
4.	What criteria (if any) would you propose to adopt for determining in which trades there are:
(a)	No arrangements for the effective regulation of wages;
(b)	Exceptionally low wages?
There are first answers from Austria and Belgium, then the answer from Canada. Was it given by the Canadian government? No, It was given first by British Columbia; second, by Manitoba; third, by Ontario and, fourth, by Quebec. This means that the government of that day, respecting the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, had decided not themselves to answer the question on behalf of the federal government, but to submit the questions to the provinces, and then the answers were sent back to the federal government and later forwarded to Geneva. This shows that the former Liberal government respected the confederation pact and acted under its provisions in regard to this important matter.
This is not the only question which was asked. There are several others, and I shall read a few of them to show that the former Liberal government were sincere in saying that when those matters were to be settled, they had to be settled in conformity with the law of the land. Another question is as follows:
Question 5:
Basis for fixing minimum wages.
Do you consider that some provision should be made for a basis for fixing minimum wages? If so, what basis do you suggest?
This is answered by Austria, Belgium, Canada. The answer for Canada is given by British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, as reported on pages 38 and 39 of this book.
2688
Minimum Wage

Other questions of similar importance come afterward:
Determination of the minimum wage fixing methods.
6.	Do you consider that the conference should:
(a)	Lay down the method or methods upon which the minimum wages should he fixed? If so, what method or methods do you propose? Or
(b)	Confine itself to laying down general principles? If so, what principles do you suggest?
7.	If not, do you consider that it is for the government of each country to decide, having regard to the administrative practice of the country, the method or methods to be introduced in fixing minimum wages in the home working or other trades covered by question one?
This is answered by Austria, Belgium and Canada. For Canada the answer is not given by the federal government. It is given for Canada by the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. And there are other questions of some importance with regard to the same matter; question 8 on page 52:
Do you consider that any such method should make provision for full preliminary consultation with representatives of the trade concerned, including representatives of organizations of employers and workers (if any), and with any other persons specially qualified by their trade or functions to be usefully consulted?
Answered for Canada by British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
9.	Do you consider that employers and workers should be represented on the wage fixing body? If so, do you consider that they should be represented' in equal numbers?
10.	Do you consider that any minimum wage fixing body should contain an independent person or persons?
11.	What methods do you consider should be adopted in selecting and appointing:
(a)	the representatives of employers and workers;
(b)	the independent person or persons?
Answered for Canada by the four provinces already named.
12.	What systems of inspection, general supervision and enforcement do you propose for insuring the payment of wages in the trades concerned at not less than the rates fixed?
The same answer, by the four provinces already mentioned.
13.	Do you consider that the government should communicate to the international labour office, either in the annual report furnished in accordance with article 408 of the treaty or otherwise in the case of a recommendation, the list of trades in which the system of fixing minimum wages has been applied, together with the approximate number of workers covered, and a general statement on the minimum rates of wages and other conditions established in the trades concerned?

The same answer for Canada by the four provinces already mentioned.
14.	Do you consider that the conference should proceed by way of a draft convention or a recommendation or both? If the latter, in what respects should either form of decision be adopted?
The same answer for Canada by the four provinces already mentioned.
Then there is a general survey of the question in the light of the replies of the governments. But the government in this instance was not the federal government, it was each provincial government. Some of them did not answer, but the answers which were given were in accordance with the ruling of the supreme court of this country. It is all very well to say, "We will change the social order." The social order cannot be changed so easily as that; it cannot be changed by the will of one man, however powerful he may be. It is a matter of great importance that things be done rightly; no one can escape the obligation to follow the right path. It would have been easy for the previous government to pass legislation such as this, but it was repugnant to their sense of duty to the people of this country. I believe in minimum wages; I have advocated them, and it was after the statistics which I compiled were submitted to this house and studied by the Minister of Labour of the time, who was very earnest in that regard, that an act was passed by this parliament to establish minimum wages for the men employed directly by the federal government. The federal government could not go further than that on account of the ruling of the court.
Sir, I am strongly in favour of minimum wages being applied throughout the country from one ocean to the other, and the sooner it becomes a reality the better. But if it comes it must come to serve a useful purpose, not to deceive the people. As this legislation is drafted it rests upon nothing. The very fact that it is based on the report which I have just read shows that this parliament has no jurisdiction at all in the matter. The very basis of it is the reference which has been given by the acting Prime Minister. It is most interesting to go to the rock bottom of things; there we find the truth, but at times it takes a lot of digging and excavation to discover it. When the truth is discovered no one can do otherwise than fight for it. The truth is that this legislation is- built on sand, on the sand of d(?beit. I know very well what will happen in the next election; hon. members to your right, sir, will tell the working men of this country, who are exploited: "Here we are to save you with new legislation which will increase your wages." But as soon as a

Minimum Wage
manufacturer attacks this legislation before the courts, the judiciary will do the same work as I have done; he will go to the bottom of it-if he does not he will not fulfil his duty- and he will see that this parliament has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter. Sir, that is a very serious statement to make; I make it only after having gone to the source of this legislation as presented by the acting Prime Minister. There may be some harebrained clerks in the civil service who pretend to do more than they are capable of, who bring to this government half-baked legislation, telling them that they have gone through all the previous legislation, but that serves no useful purpose. It is only deceit, and those men who have drafted this legislation deserve to be discharged at once, because it is bad, it is not even sensible, it rests on nothing and is just misleading to the working men of this country.
The government complain that there have been profiteers who have taken advantage of the working men in order to pay small wages. I admit that. But who protected these manufacturers by high tariffs since 1930? The government have done the same as the packing business; they have been fattening hogs since 1930, and now that the hogs are fat they try to kill them. We heard the Prime Minister declare at the special session of 1930 that as a result of raising the tariff there would be no unemployment in this country. The reason the tariff was raised was to decrease unemployment, we were told. What was the result? To-day the figures of unemployment are astounding. We have not yet got the whole truth in that matter, but we shall get it, and we shall see that it is most important to follow the right path of law and jurisprudence in order to do something for the working men of this country who need help. But the very best way to come to their assistance is to take some advantage of interprovincial conferences or the occasions on which the representatives of the Department of Labour have to meet the representatives of labour in the provinces and discuss these matters with them in order to come to mutual understanding.
There is something else which strikes me. According to the British North America Act the federal parliament has exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters; the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in others. Both of them are masters within their own bounds; they are not subject to interference from the other side. What has been said here-and I regret to be unable to agree with it-is that when the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction and this parliament has no jurisdiction at all;
when on the other hand this parliament has exclusive jurisdiction and the provinces have no jurisdiction at all, although according to our constitution neither has jurisdiction in the other field, when they meet together they say, "Well, there has been an agreement about it," and it is considered just as though they had concurrent jurisdiction.
Surely the Minister of Justice has had too much parliamentary experience to insist on this legislation any longer. In addition, after having read the summary of the report of the price spreads committee as it appeared in the press, I submit that this legislation would have to be changed in order to meet the recommendations contained in that report, if it is accepted. To me it is astounding that such a tree should grow from such a seed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Regulations.
Mr. MALONEY:: In connection with this
section, a week or two ago a former president of the Weekly Newspapers' Association of Canada drew to my attention the fact that the weekly newspapers are the training ground for printers of all classes throughout our country, and he mentioned the fact that the apprentice starts in and must spend three or four years at the work before he becomes competent. Surely the minimum wage should not apply in that case. I notice that subsection (c) reads as follows:
-authorize the minister to permit an employer to pay wages less than the minimum rates of wages in the case_ of a worker who, by reason of his age, infirmity or inexperience, is incapable of doing the work of a, competent worker.
It will be understood that an apprentice, who is employed for the same hours as the regular employee, really is not entitled to nor can he earn the same rate of pay. I should like to ask the minister if the subsection to which I referred meets the situation about which I was consulted.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is intended to meet circumstances of that kind. My hon. friend read subsection (c) of section 6. Under section 2, the definition of a worker is, " a male or female worker over the age of sixteen years." I think exceptional cases might arise in which exceptional treatment must be given, such as the case cited by my hon. friend.


Angus MacInnis: There is some confusion
in my mind as to how the minimum wages are to be set, and who is to be authorized to
Minimum Wage

set them. Under section 4 the governor in council may set up a committee consisting of the minister and a person representing employers and a person representing workers.


Hugh Guthrie: I fancy my hon. friend
did not listen when I explained that point. That is a special section. This act cannot go into force until one year after the treaty is deposited at Geneva. There is to be a hiatus, and during the year it may become necessary to fix minimum rates before the board authorized by this act has any authority, so for that year power is given the governor in council.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: In any given community will the minimum rate be the prevailing rate?


Hugh Guthrie: The minimum rate will
be the lowest wage that may be paid in the particular trade or occupation, but if in any province the standard is higher than that fixed under this act, the higher provincial standard shall apply.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Inquiry by minister as to minimum wages required.
Angus MacInnis: This section states:
The minister may at_ any time on the application of representatives of employers or workers conduct an inquiry as to the minimum rates of wages required to enable a worker to obtain the necessities of life according to a decent standard.
Who is to define a decent standard of living? Will the government define the income necessary for a decent standard of living or will that be left to the committee that sets the minimum wage?
Mr. GUTHRIE.: On the committee there will be a representative chosen by the workmen and a representative of the employers. If the minister has any doubt about it he may appoint a commission to inquire into what is a fair standard of living, under the Inquiries Act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been trying to connect up this section with section 6 (a). Suppose one district differs very materially from other districts; suppose in one district the cost of living is lower than in another. Will there not still be a minimum wage for that area in which the cost is lower?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is provided for, Geographical areas are provided for in section 6 (a). Undoubtedly there may be districts in Canada in which a trade is carried on under very different conditions and where

standards are very different from those in other districts. These may be taken into consideration by the commission fixing the standards and the wages in those districts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My understanding was that such an area might be excepted, but in the case of such exception is there not still a minimum that will be required in that area?


Hugh Guthrie: There is; that area will have a minimum.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Provincial rates to prevail if higher than relevant rates under this act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the minister a question at this point. This section recognizes that the provinces may have minimum wage boards and that they have the right to fix minimum wages. Is it now to be understood that the government take the view that there is concurrent jurisdiction with respect to the fixation of minimum wages, as between the dominion and the provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: No, that view will not prevail when this bill becomes law. My opinion and the opinion of the government is that when this bill becomes law it will override any provincial minimum wage law in Canada, under our treaty making power. But the bill recognizes that should a legislature or commission in any province fix a minimum wage, they being in a special position to understand what the minimum wage in that province should be, if the standard they have adopted or fixed is higher than the standard which might be fixed under this bill, the provincial standard shall be the minimum wage under this bill; that rate shall be adopted under this bill. It is not a recognition of jurisdiction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the provincial rate is lower, what happens?


Hugh Guthrie: Then this bill prevails.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Agriculture and immigration are mentioned in the British North America Act as subjects on which both the dominion and the provinces have the right to legislate, and there would be no question as to concurrent jurisdiction there. It would seem that the government is assuming the same position here with respect to labour.


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is hardly the meaning. I realize that the provinces, if they have fixed a standard, are likely to know

Insurance Companies Act
the conditions in that particular area, and if in the judgment of that particular province a higher rate is suitable to that locality than is prescribed by any board under this bill, that higher rate shall be the minimum rate under this bill. It is not recognizing jurisdiction. It is merely accepting the provincial view as the proper view as to conditions in that province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Recognizing that there is that possibility of conflict of view as to what would constitute the fairer minimum wage as between the rate fixed by the dominion and the rate fixed by the province, and that some question therefore may arise, as to federal legislation over-riding that of the provinces, has the minister or the government thought of taking an opinion from the supreme court as to whether or not this particular .measure is intra vires of this parliament?	,


Hugh Guthrie: No. The government is satisfied that it is within the power of this parliament, if for no other reason, under its treaty making power, having adopted the convention. I listened with attention to my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) on that question, but the argument has been gone over so frequently that I did not think it necessary to repeat it. The view of the government is that having adopted the convention we have all power to carry it out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that our view has been expressed on the convention itself and in subsequent statements on this social legislation, and that is the reason we have not spoken of it further.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Emma Gelfman Goldman Stokolsky.-Mr. Heaps.
THE CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES act, 1932
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Surrender of policy.
Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: I move that the word "six" be substituted for the word "five."


Mr. COOTE:: The present insurance act- does not set any maximum rate of interest which may be charged by a company on policy loans. The old act which was in force prior to 1932 provided for a maximum rate of seven per cent but when that act was amended in 1932 that particular section was left out. The companies are now free to charge any rate which may be stipulated. The rates charged on policy loans have varied all the way from five to ten per cent, according to a statement made in committee by the superintendent of insurance. Many companies have been charging seven per cent on their policy loans, while others have been chfc-ging six per cent. In a number of cases an extra charge of four per cent is made for loans automatically advanced under the non-forfeiture clause which appears in most of the policies issued by Canadian companies. This bill will not affect loans of this character. Counsel appearing for the Life Insurance Companies Association argued that the inclusion of a section of this kind would be unconstitutional. While I was not much impressed with that argument, I think the majority of the members of the committee were, and to avoid any possibility of this being considered unconstitutional, loans advanced under the non-forfeiture clause were not brought under the provisions of this bill.
In order that the members of the committee may realize the importance of this matter, I would point out that policy loans now outstanding in Canada amount to something like $250,000,000. A saving of even one per cent to the policyholders who have borrowed would amount to $2,500,000 per year. I think it would be just as well if I placed on record the amount of loans outstanding in the different years from 1926 to the present time. They were:
1923		 $ 81,316,648
1924		 90,208,571
1925		 98,780,875
1926		 108,550,314
1927		 119,735,561
1928		 133.697,625
1929		 159,353,195
1930		 188,723.474
1931		 218,579.939
1932		 244,163,978
I am sorry I have not the figures for the last two years, but I think the totals are slightly larger. As I said before, the loans outstanding at the present time are around $250,000,000. Loans of this kind are made on the best security which any life insurance company could have. The company cannot
Insurance Companies Act

possibly have a loss. There is no other form of investment open to companies to-day on which they can make six per cent, the rate asked for in the amendment moved by the hon. member. Last year, I believe, the largest life insurance company in Canada earned 4-08 per cent on their investment. That was the average rate. If that is all they can earn, why should the policyholder be charged a rate practically two per cent in excess of that? On dominion government bonds they cannot earn more than three per cent; and if you take into consideration the cost of administration, there is no other class of investment on which they can earn more than five per cent. Real estate mortgage is the only class of loans on which they can get a better rate than five per cent, and if you deduct the cost of operations you will find that to-day they cannot possibly get *5. return of even five per cent. I have here an article written by the assistant treasurer of Canada Life Insurance Company appearing in Canadian Insurance of February 12, in which he says that at the present time three per cent is about all the companies can earn on dominion government bonds. On British government bonds they can get a yield of approximately two and a half per cent, and on United States bonds less than three per cent. He goes on to say:
Insurance contracts require a certain definite rate of interest to be earned each year, in order that the policy reserves may be built up, which are necessary to make possible the payment of death claims and other policy payments as they fall due. In some companies, the rate of interest which must be earned to guarantee these benefits is three per cent, and in other companies it is three and one-half per cent.
I think that is clear proof that the company does not need a rate of interest in excess of three and a half per cent. When the banking committee, after considering the matter carefully, fixed the rate at five per cent, I certainly think the committee would be well advised to pass it at that rate or even lower. Certainly there is no justification for the members of this house allowing the insurance companies to charge policyholders a rate of six per cent.
One of the main reasons given against this bill in committee was that policyholders would borrow too much from the companies if the rate were reduced to five per cent. That argument is absolutely unsound and is not borne out by the facts. It was stated that if the rate was as low as that the policyholders would borrow against their policies in order to obtain money with which to specu-
late. Well, in the years when speculation was rife in Canada, from 1926 to 1929, policy loans increased, as I stated, from $108,000,000 in 1926 to $119,000,000 in 1927-not a large increase. They jumped to $188,000,000 in 1928, not a large increase, and in 1929 to $159,000,000. That was not a large increase either. In the deflation years which followed they quickly climbed up to $250,000,000. There was an increase in the amount borrowed by policyholders during the years from 1926 to 1930 of approximately, I should say, fifty per cent; but that does not at all correspond to the increase in the amount of insurance carried by the people of Canada during those years. That increased very much more rapidly than the loans which were taken out by policyholders.	.
The other argument advanced in the committee was that in a time of stress policyholders would borrow so much from the company, if the rate were as low as five per cent, that they would bankrupt the company; there would be such a run on the company that they could not find the funds. That is a preposterous idea. Only one-third of the policyholders of Canada are borrowers; the other two-thirds do not need to borrow, and if they did, I cannot possibly imagine that any life insurance company's manager would suppose that all the policyholders would want to borrow to the limit of their policies. But any money that any company has invested in a loan to a policyholder is, I submit, much safer than are a good many of the investments which the companies themselves made in the years 1927, 1928 and 1929. Anyone who reads the insurance bluebook will see many investments which are not worth more than fifty per cent of the money put into them. The money would be much safer invested in the form of loans to policyholders than invested, for instance, in a head office building in Montreal at a cost of over $20,000,000. It would be much safer than certain investments made by one of the largest life insurance companies operating in Canada and the United States, which has a mortgage of $27,000,000 on the Empire State building in New York and $56,000,000 on Radio City building, New York. Another one, through a mortgage, has become the owner of one of the largest night clubs.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Is that the
Mutual Life?


George Gibson Coote: That is the Metropolitan
Life. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee, because I do' not want to delay the passage of my own bill..

Insurance Companies Act
I say to hon. members, however, that we have a duty to perform to policyholders who find themselves in the position of having to borrow to maintain their policies. The higher the rate of interest charged them on these loans, the sooner will their reserves be eaten up by interest on their loans.
One other argument which I may anticipate was advanced by some hon. members. It was stated that, only one-third of the policyholders being borrowers, by limiting the rate of interest to five per cent-the average is something over six per cent-it would be cutting down the profits of the policyholders who do not borrow. I do not think that is an ethical argument. Surely the policyholders who are not borrowers from the company should not want a profit at the expense of any policyholder who is only borrowing against an amount that is guaranteed to him as a loan value under his policy. If the insurance companies can earn only three per cent on high grade dominion government bonds, why should they want more than five per cent from a policyholder when he wishes to borrow a few dollars?
I hope it is not necessary to say anything more to this committee to convince them that when we set a maximum rate of five per cent interest to be charged by insurance companies against loans by policyholders, we are certainly being very liberal so far as the life insurance companies are concerned. Surely the companies exist for the benefit of the policyholders.


Olof Hanson: What is the
percentage charged now on the average by insurance companies?


George Gibson Coote: I do not think I can give
that information, but I have here an article that appeared in Canadian Insurance, written by an insurance man, in which he says that their earnings from loans to policyholders, taking all the companies, average something over six per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that Canadian
and American?


George Gibson Coote: No, that is Canadian business. There is one other point I should mention, and that is that the life insurance companies control practically as large an amount of the savings of the Canadian people as do the chartered banks, and the rate of interest they charge is a determining factor in the general interest structure in this country. We cannot allow it to remain so high. One of the factors retarding the recovery of business in Canada is the high interest rates charged, and I submit that one of the best
things the committee can do is on every possible occasion to insist on lowering the interest rates. Here is one place where we have the right to interfere and to say that on loans to policyholders the maximum rate of interest should not be more than five per cent. I think, as I said a moment ago, we are very liberal to the insurance companies when we fix the rate of interest at five per cent. A good many members have expressed to me the opinion that the rate should be four per cent. I did introduce the bill with a four per cent rate, but I judged from the discussion which took place in the committee that perhaps I would be wise to accept a compromise on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit) which sought to fix the rate at five per cent. I hope this committee will see fit to reject the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White), and to pass the bill providing for a rate of five per cent.


Robert McKenzie: I am heartily in support of the mover of this bill and against the amendment to make the rate [DOT] six per cent. I take this attitude, because I feel the high rate of interest that has prevailed particularly in the western parts of Canada is one of the main causes of the difficulty in which many of our people find themselves; a good deal of the distress is due to the fact that they have had to pay such high rates of interest. Of course I can understand that on a farm mortgage there is a certain amount of risk, and probably for that reason there is some justification for the rates being a little higher than on other types of loans. But in such a case as this where a man is really only borrowing back a part of his own money, it seems to me that the insurance company will take precautions not to allow him to borrow enough to introduce any very great risk. I think, as the sponsor of the bill has said, we are very generous to the life insurance companies in allowing them to charge five per cent. I would have supported him even had the rate been left at four per cent, for the simple reason that there is very little, if any, risk in connection with loans made under these conditions. I am not going to delay the committee any longer except to say that I heartily support the bill providing for a rate of five per cent, and I will oppose the amendment that has been moved in connection therewith.


James J. Donnelly: The general rate of
interest in the Dominion of Canada for the past four or five years has in my opinion been quite out of line with everything else; interest
Insurance Companies Act

rates have been absolutely too high. I remember back in 1928 and 1929, when we in the west were getting 81.60 a bushel for our wheat, we were paying seven and even eight per cent interest for money, but to-day when we are getting somewhere in the neighbourhood of sixty cents a bushel for our wheat, we are still paying these high rates of interest.
The same thing applies to wages. Back in 1928 and 1929 I was paying from $5 to $7 a day for a man to work in the harvest field and paying seven or eight per cent interest for money. To-day a man cannot get a job in a harvest field for SI a day, but we are still paying the same high rates of interest. The price of labour and the price of commodities have come down, but that for money has not, and it is time it should be lowered so as to be somewhat on a parity with the price of everything else.
I am well aware that in order to reduce rates of interest we must begin with our main securities such as our federal, provincial and municipal bonds, and lower the rates on them. After we do that we shall have the rates on mortgages and on private loans from banks and other corporations come down in proportion. But a loan from an insurance company is the best risk there is in the country; there is no other loan that is as secure as that lent by an insurance company. It is really lending a man his own money; in every case a man has paid his money into the insurance company, and when he finds himself in difficulties he asks it to lend him a little of his own money. The insurance company is in no danger whatever of losing that money. Such a loan is better than federal, provincial or any other kind of bonds, and the rate charged by insurance companies should be in some way comparable with rates on federal and provincial bonds. Some will say:	If you begin
to allow a man to borrow on his insurance he will use the insurance companies instead of the banks. Well, people did not do this years ago in western Canada. At that time money could be borrowed from life insurance companies at six per cent, but although we were paying seven, eight, nine and even as high as ten per cent interest for money, we continued to borrow from the banks and did not go to our insurance companies for loans. Why then should we fear that the insurance companies will be used as lending concerns? There is no danger of that. A man does not borrow money on his insurance unless he is having very hard times and is right up against it. The only time he borrows money from insurance companies is when he needs the money in the worst possible way.

I am heartily in agreement with this bill. I say that the rate of interest should be even, lower than five per cent; it should be reduced to four per cent so that it may be in some way comparable with the rate of interest on federal bonds. Formerly the rate on loans by insurance companies was six per cent, but there is a service charge on top of that. Many of the companies were charging six per cent and two per cent in addition for service. One of the biggest insurance companies in the dominion was charging six per cent for the loan and two per cent for service; some were charging as high as four per cent for service, making the rate of interest ten per cent. This is outrageous and it is time that this practice should be checked. We have to begin somewhere to reduce the rate of interest. In the banking and commerce committee two years ago we discussed the whole debt structure of the dominion. Where did we get? We got nowhere; we did nothing; we came back to the house, and all we had was some nice literature describing the financial condition of the provinces and the dominion. But we did not do anything, and it is high time that a beginning was made somewhere. We might as well begin with our main, first class securities, such as insurance loans where we are borrowing money on our life insurance to tide us over times of difficulty and distress. If we cannot borrow that at a lower rate of interest, it is time we should, and I am heartily in agreement with the reduction in the rate to five per cent and even lower.


Henry Herbert Stevens: allowed. It was admitted by the representatives of the companies the other day that a rate of six per cent certainly should be fixed.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It was only on automatic loans that the rate of ten per cent was charged.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I am not quite sure of that. The chairman of the committee reminds me that the ten per cent rate was only in connection with automatic loans, where there was an additional two per cent or in some cases four per cent added. He is quite correct in that, except that I believe there were a few companies-I think they were in the minority-which charged eight and ten per cent. However, I stand corrected by my hon. friend. The point is that many companies did charge rates higher than six per cent, and it was admitted that those rates were not sound. However, I make the point that when the policy is sold to the insured it is a part of the contract that the policyholder may borrow as and when he wishes within the terms of the policy.
I suggest to the committee that in the passing of this bill we shall do no serious injury to the companies. It will simply bring forcibly to their attention the necessity of addressing themselves to the general lowering of interest rates so far as they are concerned. I have at hand a number of illustrations of insurance company loans of different classes, but I shall not deal with them- tonight; it would take too long. I would add just a word in connection with what an hon. gentleman said a moment ago. The insurance companies have grown into such a strong position in connection with the finance and credit of the country that they are, not a dominating factor, but one of a very few dominating factors in this respect. These are the choicest of all securities, and unless these interest rates are lower than six per cent there is very little hope for a general lowering of interest rates in this country.	I urge this committee and this
parliament to give careful consideration to the recommendations of the banking and commerce committee and to allow this bill to pass as it came from that committee, with the five per cent rate.


Charles A. Stewart: Not being a member of the banking and commerce committee I did not have the advantage of hearing all the evidence produced, and I do not rise to argue for or against the interest rate recommended by the committee. I rise for
[Mr. Stevens.!
another purpose. From what little I know of life insurance I should like to see borrowing against policies prohibited except for the purpose of carrying the premium. I think if I had time this evening I could prove to the committee that in a great many cases where borrowings are made by the policyholders it means the eventual cancellation of the policies.


James Dew Chaplin: Nearly always a lapse follows a loan.


Charles A. Stewart: I say I have not the statistics under my hand to prove that, but in the long run the family of the policyholder is the sufferer. I have no objection in the world to loans being made at a reasonable rate of interest in order to carry the premiums if the insured are unable to meet them at due dates, but the practice that has grown so rapidly within the last three or four years of borrowing heavily against policies in my opinion has been absolutely disastrous to those whom the insured sought to protect, and after all that is the only purpose for which insurance' should be issued. It may be that rates are too high; I am not dealing with that at all. I would support my hon. friend in a moment if he added to his bill-though he has not done so-a total prohibition against borrowing on life insurance policies except for the purpose I have mentioned. I know that my hon. friend who has just taken his seat argues that bond interest is somewhere between three per cent and four per cent and that the interest on borrowings on life insurance policies should be at a like rate, because of the security behind the loans. There is no question about that, but there is this point. I think much can be said for a rate of interest commensurate with other borrowings, if you are to borrow against these policies. However, I do not desire to delay the committee. So far as I am concerned from now on I am going to advocate the abolition of the right of insurance companies [DOT]to lend on policies. I want to repeat that from what little I know about insurance I have (become convinced that except for the single purpose of maintaining the policies in force, loans should be prohibited, or the companies should be prohibited from lending on policies for commercial or other purposes, for the reason I have mentioned, that in a great many cases, far too many, in the long run, the beneficiaries are the losers.


Mr. LOUCKS:: I wish to say just a word in support of this measure. I think enough has been said already to convince the committee that we should endorse the recommendation of the banking and commerce committee. We

Insurance Companies Act
seem to be almost unanimous on this point, but after listening attentively to some of the arguments advanced as to why this interest should not be lowered to five per cent I think the weakest of all is that it might drive the borrowers away from the banks. I want to assure the committee that the people in *my section of the country would not worry if this did take place, since the attitude of the banks has resulted in the credit of the people *being so greatly restricted. So far as my part of the country is concerned the people have not much sympathy with the attitude the banks have taken towards the farmers. I only regret that the rate is not four per cent instead of five, because we have reached the point-as I believe the committee is convinced-where we cannot afford to pay more that five per cent. Therefore I heartily endorse this measure.


Robert Smeaton White: As mover of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a word or two. The suggestion of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) that all loans on life insurance policies should be prohibited is novel, but it has no relation to the bill under discussion. There is this point to be considered, however, that if loans on policies should be totally prohibited except in respect of what I understand are called automatic loans, the result would be the expiration of the policies and the beneficiaries, whom the hon. member would safeguard, would not derive any benefit whatsoever.
I regret that I cannot share the view, certainly not in its entirety, expressed by the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens). I agree with him that one of the most serious deterrents to the recovery of business in Canada to-day, possibly, is not the heavy weight of interest so much as the heavy weight of debt and the taxation that arises therefrom. The public have not very much control over the matter of debt; what we call the power of the people in respect of government is somewhat illusory. Our debt has been created, in the main, through the great war, over which the people of Canada certainly had no control. It has been created in no small part through railway policies which are now generally admitted to have been misconceived, and the weight of taxation consequent upon this debt presses upon business seriously whether the rate of commercial or other loans be three per cent, four per cent, five per cent, or six per cent.
I should like to point out that loans made by insurance companies on policies in past years have borne interest, as has been stated, as high as ten per cent, which I agree is an
extremely high rate. The nominal rate was six or seven per cent, and upon that nominal rate was piled a service charge of two and three and I am told, even four per cent. It appeared from the evidence before the banking and commerce committee that at present the rate of interest on loans upon policies is about eight per cent. It is now proposed by the amendment which I have moved, to reduce that rate to six per cent. That is a cut of twenty-five per cent-no mean reduction-and it will to that extent relieve those who borrow upon policies.
However, to my mind this is the very strongest argument that can be put forward against the reduction in the rate of interest or against even a six per cent rate, namely, that the insurance companies do not cultivate this type of business. It is true that as an inducement to prospective policyholders a clause is inserted in the policy to the effect that after a certain period, when sufficient premiums have been paid to give a stated value to the policy, a loan may be obtained upon it. That may be, I presume it is, an excellent selling point, but the companies do not cultivate this class of business at all, and when the companies are not wanting that class of business I submit that it is a fair deduction to say that it is not a desirable business for the companies.
An impressive argument upon the other side is that the insurance companies net from their investments to-day a figure somewhere in the neighbourhood of three and a half per cent, therefore, say those who would fix the rate at four per cent, why charge the poor policyholder who wants a loan six per cent or even five per cent? But the difference is this: When the companies invest in a dominion bond, a provincial or a municipal government bond, they know that they have an asset in their strong box which is good over a long term of years, and which costs them not a penny to administer beyond the wear and tear on the scissors which cut the coupons, whereas when they make a loan on a policy there is annually, and I dare say in most cases semi-annually, a certain amount of clerical work to be done and a certain expenditure imposed upon the company in connection with that loan, which expenditure reduces very substantially the net amount received from the loan.
I said a moment ago that the service charge is two per cent. If we make the rate six per cent now without a service charge, that makes it equivalent to a rate of four per cent. Is that not clear? Is that not logical? Is that not so? There are some $250,000,000 of loans outstanding upon the
Copyright Act

insurance policies of the Canadian companies, a figure which represents I think about thirty per cent of the total amount of insurance in force with these companies. Now my interest in this whole question is that of a policyholder, and no other whatsoever. I have only the interest of a policyholder. I am one of the other seventy per cent of the insurance policyholders in this country. The gentleman who wants a five per cent rate, and would prefer a four per cent rate, represents only thirty per cent of the policyholders of this country. I object to a lower rate than six per cent because under that rate the companies will have a stronger financial structure and will be upon a surer foundation, and I as one of seventy per cent of the policyholders have in mind first and last only the interest and solvency of the insurance companies.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



COPYRIGHT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 58, to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Right of action barred when fees paid or tendered.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I explained this bill quite fully on its introduction, but I desire to call attention to a misprint on line 15. The word "presented" should be "prescribed," and I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to move an amendment accordingly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the word "prescribed" be substituted' for the word "presented" in the fifteenth line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 15-Mr. Rhodes-to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
I Mr. R. S. White.]
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the amendments made by the Senate to this bill will be found in votes and proceedings of yesterday. In addition they have been incorporated1 in the bill itself, which has been circulated and I believe is now either on the file or in the post office box of every hon. member. I do not propose to go into the details of the various amendments, which are numerous, but I shall refer to one or two.
It will be recalled that- in the bill passed by this house it was provided that the maximum amount of a loan upon first mortgage would be $7,500. The Senate has reduced this figure to $5,000. In connection with the combination of first and second mortgages plus the added security provided1 in the bill, the maximum amount in the bill as it left this house was $7,500, but the Senate has reduced this to $6,000. No doubt there will be a difference of opinion as to which is preferable, but I understand that the argument which resulted in this amendment was to the effect that to the extent the amount of individual loans was reduced, there would be an increase in the amount available and in the number who would have an opportunity of participating in the total amount whidh the board would have to pay out by way of loans. In the circumstances I am prepared to concur in that amendment.
However there is one amendment made by the Senate to which I take exception. The bill as it left this house provided that the maximum amount which could be lent upon a combination of the real estate, the buildings and the collateral security by way of chattel mortgage would be sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the appraised value in every province save Quebec. In Quebec where they have no chattel1 mortgages the figure was to by sixty per cent. The Senate amendments provide that the maximum amount of loan in the first case would be sixty per cent and in the province of Quebec, fifty-five per cent. My main reason for taking exception to these amendments is that we have the right to assume, I think, that farm property at the present time is about at its lowest value. If a farmer should secure a total advance of sixty six and two-thirds per cent of a fair appraisal of the value of his farm he would in effect be securing a much smaller loan than he would have secured under a fifty per cent valuation a few years ago. For that reason, if for none other, we feel that we should adhere to the larger percentages.
After all is said and done, much will depend upon the valuation. It would take a very skilful valuator to value a property within six and two-thirds per cent. I have the feel-

Farm Loan Act
ing with respect to the larger figure that there will be an opportunity presented to the deserving farmer who is a good moral risk. He will be more apt to obtain his loan with the larger figure than he would if the valuator were faced with the difficulty of appraising the value of a farm at a sufficient figure to enable a loan to be advanced. Without labouring the matter any further, I move, seconded by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland):
That all the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill No. 15, an act to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act, be concurred in, with the exception of amendments Nos. 13 and 14, in which amendments this house does not concur for the following reason: That farm property being at the present time at its lowest value, a total advance of sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the appraised value of a farm would secure a much smaller loan than would' have been secured at fifty per cent valuation a few years ago.
I hope I have made it clear that my motion provides for the acceptance of all the amendments with the exception of the two noted.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would submit to the Minister of Finance that these amendments appeared only yesterday in the votes and proceedings. They are extensive and in many cases very important, and I suggest to the minister that further consideration be permitted until Monday. While I agree with the two exceptions which the minister has made in his general acceptance, I believe there should be other exceptions included in his motion. I disagree with the action of the Senate in reducing the total amount of loan on the land and buildings to $5,000. In the original bill the amount provided was $10,000. Last year's amendments provided for a reduction to $7,500, and now the Senate has proposed a further reduction to $5,000. That is going a little too far. Next, they have stricken out the option of the borrower with regard to the amortization principle in connection with the repayment of the loan. That in itself may not be of extreme importance but it did have some merit in so far as certain borrowers were concerned.
I am at a loss to understand fully all that is meant in the substitution for the original subsection (h) of section 7 of the proposal now made in the senate amendments. It reads:
(h) Except as provided in, and subject to, such regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Interest Act, as the board may prescribe, any borrower may at any time repay the whole or part of his loan on any date on which an instalment becomes due.
When the payment is part of the loan only it shall be credited to the borrower in such manner as the board may by regulation prescribe, but so that no such payment shall relieve the borrower from liability to pay or from continuing to pay, at the times agreed upon, the various instalments next ensuing due after such partial payment is made, and until the loan and interest is repaid in full.
My reading of that clause would lead me to believe that it would mean that any prepayment of any portion of the amount due would apply at the end of the loan and not to subsequently ensuing payments of the loan. I believe that this again should be at the option of the borrower; he should have the right to say, "I may want this amount applied on my next payment." Take the farmer who has an exceptionally favourable crop or who has touched an exceptionally favourable market: he may want, as a matter of precaution against possible ensuing failures, to apply the amount on the loan either on next ensuing payments or on payments beyond that. But this clause would appear to give power to the board to determine that the payment shall apply at the expiry of the mortgage and not at any time designated by the borrower.
I object also to the amendment proposed in subsection (j) of section 7. The new subsection (j) reads:
It shall be a term of any mortgage taken as security for a loan that upon the sale or lease of the farm land mortgaged the loan shall, at the option of the board, immediately become due and payable.
The Senate has included the words "or lease," which now makes it imperative on the man to recognize that the board may compel him to accept the mortgage as having matured in the event of his leasing the land. Someone says, Why not? For this reason- that in many instances a farmer, during the term of the loan, becomes incapable through illness or because of age of carrying on as the actual operator and occupant of the farm. His loan may still have a period to run, and yet this clause would give power to the board to compel him to meet the full obligation under the loan at that time, and his property would become subject to the board. That is extremely unfair. So far as I can ascertain, the farm loan act loses its value to those who want to borrow under it-those, for example, who have become aged, those who have become ill during the occupancy of the farm, and, of course, members of parliament who find it difficult to carry on both occupations. No member who leases his farm is in a position to secure a loan under the act
Farm Loan Act

because, if he is not in occupancy of the farm, he does not get a loan.
I take gravest exception to the amendments to section 8 of the act. Subsection 3 of the new provisions, and indeed all the new provisions-and by the way they cover nearly two pages of the votes and proceedings-are directed to the strange purpose of removing from under the provinces all lands in connection with which money is borrowed from the board. They remove from the jurisdiction of all provincial legislatures, with respect to lands, anyone who borrows money from the board. That was not done under the old act. It is an entirely new conception on the part of the Senate; and to make it perfectly clear that this was their purpose, it is provided that such moneys as may be due, such lands as may be hypothecated, shall be regarded as the land or property or money of His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada. Subsection 3, however, removes any difficulty in understanding the purpose of the Senate with respect to these amendments. It reads:
(3) Notwithstanding any law, -whether statute or other, now in force or which hereafter may be in force in any province, no mechanics' lien law, taxation lien law or other law or privilege of any species whatever where-under liens, charges or privileges upon or against land or other property of any species whatever erected, arise or exist shall, without the consent in writing of the board, which consent shall be revocable, affect or apply to any land or other property of any species whatever or any part thereof or interest therein, to which any mortgage or other security, lien, charge or privilege made or given to the board under this act after the thirtieth day of June, 1935, shall relate, in prejudice of the board as the holder of any such mortgage or other security, lien, charge or privilege so made or given, but every such mortgage or other security, lien, charge or privilege thereafter made or given to the board shall, for so long as it shall remain wholly or partially unpaid, rank upon such land or other property or part thereof or interest therein, as the case may be, in priority to all other securities, liens, charges or privileges, whatsoever.
It shall rank in priority to school taxes and to all .other taxes; and indeed anyone who borrows under this act may lose any privilege or protection he now has under any debt adjustment law of any province. This was never intended by this house. When the House of Commons accepted the farm loan act some years ago and the amendments of last year as well as those of this year, there was never, in my opinion, the thought in the mind of any member that the borrower under the act should lose any of his rights or privileges under provincial laws in respect of chattel mortgages, farm mortgages or land

hens. The Senate has taken away from the borrower any privilege or right he has to-day under the lien laws of the respective provinces. These are my chief objections to the amendments provided by the Senate; but the whole thing is so involved, the terminology is so complex and legal that the average lay member must have great difficulty in understanding it after the brief opportunity we have had for its perusal. I suggest therefore that the minister might allow the matter to stand over until Monday.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not entitled to speak at this stage, but I would ask unanimous consent to do so, not to reply to my hon. friend, as I should like to, but to indicate my appreciation of his difficulty. I spent as much time as I could spare from my other work this morning going through the various amendments and I could demonstrate that the hon. gentleman's fears with respect to them are unfounded. As a matter of fact the amendment to which he. took greatest exception was designed solely for the benefit and protection of the borrower. My concern, however, is to get the bill back to the Senate and to have it become law. So far as I am personally concerned I should be happy to facilitate my hon. friend from Bow River. But assuming that his argument were sound, it would be far better to have the bill completed, even if not altogether satisfactory in terms, have royal assent given to it next week and have the money made available to the farmers than, by delaying it until Monday with an adjournment coming on Wednesday, to come to the point where we may have to adjourn without this bill passing, thus denying the farmers of this country over a period of the year when they need loans more than at any other time, an opportunity to secure them. I had that in mind in reducing my opposition to the Senate amendments in the hope that the Senate might concur so as to enable the bill to pass there and receive royal assent on Wednesday.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not think we would be delaying the bill by letting it stand over until Monday.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no objection.


Charles A. Stewart: -for the simple reason that the Senate will not meet until Tuesday, and if we dispose of the bill on Monday they will be in a position to take it up in the Senate on Tuesday in any case. I agree with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). This looks pretty much like a Chinese puzzle to me and I would like to have time to give it some consideration. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: May I ask another question of the minister before the debate is adjourned? In the bill it is mentioned that the loan provisions shall come into effect when royal assent is posted in the Canada Gazette. We are assuming royal assent will be given before we adjourn on Wednesday next. I wonder whether the minister between now and Monday, if he cannot do so now, could advise us when the bill is likely to come into operation. The reason I ask the question is that I have had a number of letters from farmers of my constituency who are very anxious to know when the bill will come into operation in Saskatchewan and what the procedure will be to make application for a loan. If the minister cannot answer that now, possibly between to-night and Monday he might give it consideration and be able to tell us on Monday when the bill will be in operation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can answer only by
courtesy of the chair and the house. The only answer I can give is this, that new machinery will have to be set up in Saskatchewan and in two other provinces, but the legislation will be brought into operation as speedily as we can possibly get the machinery working. That is the best answer I can give. I can give no answer now or on Monday as to the exact date.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



PRIVILEGE-MR. STEVENS

Henry Herbert Stevens: I apologize to the house for craving its indulgence for just one moment. There appears in to-night's newspapers a Canadian Press dispatch, and I am reading from page 21 of the five o'clock edition of the Ottawa Journal these words:
After his resignation, Mr. Stevens said, the Prime Minister divulged' to the public details of privy council discussions which is contrary, he claimed, to the oath of office.
I cannot conceive how anyone could have placed such words in my mouth. The nearest approach to them that I find in the Hansard report of my remarks is this:
I resigned for that purpose and for that reason, that the secret and private discussions of cabinet had been spread upon the pages of the press.
I wish to thank the house for this opportunity of making that brief denial or correction, because of the significance of the words which were wrongfully published.
12, 1935	2701
________Supply-Agriculture-Farms



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bury in the chair.
Experimental farms, including investigations concerning plant diseases, $1,937,898.
Edward Joseph Garland: Has the
minister given any further consideration to the suggestion that has been made so often in the house that one of these experimental farms should be put on an ordinary operating basis and that the minister should provide the house from time to time with information as to the possibility or otherwise of attempting to carry on an experimental farm under ordinary conditions? This suggestion, which as I recall it was made many years ago, would, if carried out, prove of immense value as a fair test of whether agriculture, at least in certain sections of the country, could be regarded as a profitable profession. It would certainly be a better means of informing governments of actual conditions than the varying reports on costs and so forth that come from all parts of the country. Has the minister given any consideration to this?


Robert Weir: I agree entirely with the hon. member for Bow River that it is very important as far as we are able to get accurate costs of production. It is the purpose on at least one farm, or possibly more than one, to carry out, in a little different way from what has formerly been the case, a scheme based on costs of production. But even in that case the hon. member will realize that there will be overhead expenses like those of a superintendent of the farm and perhaps a clerk to keep accurate costs. On such a farm, however, we shall be able to get accurate information as to the profit or lack of it in farming in the locality in which the farm is situated. At the same time surveys are being conducted of the costs of operation of farms in different localities throughout the country. But I agree with the hon. member that it is desirable so far as possible to get the most accurate information as to the cost of farming using the methods I believe the hon. member has in mind, advocated by the experimental farm system.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has any
experimental work in that connection been so far undertaken?

Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Robert Weir: It is the intention
to undertake work of that kind in the new farm that we set up at Melfort, to make it as nearly as possible a farm operated by a fanner.


Edward Joseph Garland: Nothing has yet been done?


Robert Weir: Nothing except surveys of individual farms.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the minister give the committee any accurate figures on production costs based on the results so far secured in connection with the individual test farms that he is speaking about? Eor instance, can he give the cost of wheat?


Robert Weir: Illustration station cost figures are published annually. There are several reports that deal with that. In addition, the head of the farm management department in the university of Saskatchewan, Professor Allen, has devoted a great deal of time to that, but I have not his report under my hand at the moment.


Edward Joseph Garland: He is doing it for the university?


Robert Weir: Yes, it is outside the illustration farm system.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, I have known for some years of Doctor Allen's work; it probably is the outstanding example of the thing we are trying to get. What he is doing is surveying conditions as they are to-day and basing conclusions on that. I believe he is now undertaking similar work for Alberta. But I was speaking of the type of farms to which the minister referred a minute ago.


Robert Weir: Our work has to do with illustration stations and also the economic survey.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Last year on the public works program passed towards the end of the session the Minister of Agriculture promised me that some of that money would be spent on the experimental farm at Kapuskasmg. I gave him then certain facts of which I had personal knowledge, because I visit that farm every year; I knew of certain improvements that were necessary to* buildings. We are thankful that some of the money was spent there, but having made further personal inspection I would again ask the minister if he can find it possible to proceed a little further with such improvements. The experimental farm at Kapuskasing is a great asset to that section and is very well administered. Every

section of our population would highly appreciate the continuation of the work that was started there last year under the public works program. Will the minister give me an answer the same as last year?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The Swift Current experimental farm has been without a superintendent for some considerable time, I believe since last June. Would the minister care to tell the committee what the plan is in connection with that farm, particularly in regard to the policy that is to be pursued? The Swift Current farm has been working along the lines of dry farming, with special reference to the needs of the open prairie section. Is there to be a continuation of that policy, or what is the attitude of the department towards the Swift Current farm?


Robert Weir: The delay in the appointment of a superintendent has been occasioned to a certain extent by a stepping up of the grade of the superintendent The man we hope to make superintendent will have the supervision not only of the Swift Current station but also of other works connected with it, that is range work and so on. The matter is now in the hands of the civil service commission. The position has been advertised and applications are being received, and as soon as the time expires an appointment will be made.


Archibald M. Carmichael: It is not contemplated to make any change in the policy that has been pursued there for a number of years?


Robert Weir: No, just to widen it and connect it up with the range work.


Edward Joseph Garland: I take it that the increase in this item is due to the launching of the new farm at Melfort?


Robert Weir: No, it is due to a
number of causes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could the
minister give the details of the increase?


Robert Weir: It is spread over
a wide range-increased grant for fruit investigations, for range investigations, particularly in British Columbia; soil surveys will be extended; black soil investigations in the east; general equipment for laboratories, and increased building equipment.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the total amount required for the new farm?


Robert Weir: $25,000.

Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Edward Joseph Garland: Where did the minister say it was-?


Robert Weir: Melfort.


Mr. REID:: Has the minister the information before him as to the cost of the farm at Agassiz, how many persons are employed, and the number of persons that visit that farm?


Robert Weir: The appropriation
is $37,000. There is a classified staff of five. We have not a record here of the number of visitors, but as the hon. member knows it is one of the farms that perhaps has the greatest number of visitors.


Thomas Reid: I made a suggestion last year
-I do not know whether the minister ever looked into it-as to the advisability of moving that farm into the Chilliwack district, where it would be of far more advantage than it is in its present location. An experimental farm is of no use unless it is accessible to the people. This farm was established in the early days of settlement, and now the population is all on the other side of the river, so that if the farm were moved there the people could easily inspect it and thereby get some advantage from it.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister
if there is a butter factory at the central experimental farm?


Robert Weir: Just for making
home butter.


Jean-François Pouliot: As experiments in butter
making are carried on in most experimental farms, it would be in order to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on Friday last about our dairy trade with Great Britain. I will tell the minister exactly what happened. Referring to a previous debate, the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) said to the minister-I have this distinctly in mind; I have it upstairs in print and could get it in a moment- that the minister had declared that the United Kingdom was the best market for dairy products. The minister replied, " I did not say that." Now, without using anew the word " that," may I ask what the minister meant by such a reply. I stated the case to him very clearly last Friday, as recorded at page 2497 of Hansard. Now I have Hansard of last year, and at page 1590 it reads:
Mr. Weir (Melfort): Did the hon. member say I stated this afternoon that the United Kingdom was the best market for our dairy-produce?
Mr. Parent: I understood the minister to say that.
Mr. Weir (Melfort): I did' not say it.
Mr. Parent: I accept the minister's statement.
Mr. Pouliot: Therefore the Ottawa agreements are of no use.
May I ask the hon. gentleman what he meant when he declared that he had not said the words mentioned by the hon. member for Terrebonne?


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, this subject would I believe rightly come under the second next item that we are going to take, namely, cold storage and dairying, and in case further information should be asked for, I will ask that the matter referred to by the hon. member for Temiscouata be left until that item is under discussion. But since the hon. member has asked the question, and to make it clear that there is no desire to evade answering, I would say that what I said I do not think could be put in simpler language-that I did not say in the statement I made that the United Kingdom was the best market. It might be considered the best market; it might be the best market, but the point I made was that I did not make that statement, and the hon. member for Terrebonne accepted my statement in that connection. That deals only with the fact that I said I did not make the statement the hon. member suggested I had made; there was no controversy other than that.


Jean-François Pouliot: But there is a reason for everything, and I am going to ask one more question of the minister; after that he will be through with me at least so far as this item is concerned. Why did he say he had not made the statement?


Robert Weir: Because I had not made it. [DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: This is quite amusing,
but it is not illuminating. If the matter was of no importance I do not see why a minister of the crown should say he never made the statement. When a minister says he did not make a previous declaration it is because that declaration is of great importance. When the minister is himself he is most agreeable to deal with; when he spoke in that way he was true to himself and he did not want to give the Canadian public the impression that the United Kingdom was our best market for Canadian dairy products. I may be wrong but it is my humble view that when that statement was imputed to the minister by the hon. member for Terrebonne, the minister knew that Canadian butter had been shipped back tu

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
Canada after having been in the United Kingdom for some time, and found it impossible to let it go like that when the hon. member for Terrebonne mentioned that statement. I am sure the minister realized that the United Kingdom is not our best .market for dairy products, and that was why he rose in reply to the hon. member for Terrebonne and denied the statement that had been imputed to him.


Robert Weir: If the debate is
resolving itself into a question whether I know why I gave the answer or whether the hon. member knows, I do not think anything is to be gained by prolonging the discussion. I was only keeping the hon. member for Terrebonne, who was very sincere in his discussion, straight so far as a statement I made was concerned. If the hon. member for Terrebonne had wished to find out what in my opinion, which after all is only my opinion as an individual, is the best market for our butter, he would have asked me that direct question and I would have given him my opinion. It was because I thought he had misunderstood something I had said that I stated I had not made that statement, without any attempt to evade giving information. There is nothing to be gained in attempting to do that, because all infoma-tion has to be brought forward and it is our desire to do so. So far as our butter is concerned I think it is generally admitted that our home market is the best market; that is why we have given protection to our own farmers. So far as my answer to the hon. member for Terrebonne is concerned certainly there was no evasion; it was simply a desire on my part to make certain that he was not making his statement feeling that I had said something I had not said.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not a mind reader, of course, though the minister said at first I had answered for him. I need not insist further; I thank the minister for his very frank statement to the effect that our home market is our best market for dairy products.


Robert Weir: I said for butter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well, for butter. I will not speak of cheese or other dairy products; the facts and figures are on record. According to the statement just made by the Minister of Agriculture our home market is the best market for butter; it is better than the British market. I am satisfied with that answer, and there is only one thing I regret. It is that at present the price of butter in the United States is much higher than it is in Canada, so much so that butter has to be

smuggled from Canada to the United States. I regret also that in Canada there is a smaller consumption of farm products, some of which are grown and advertised by our experimental farms. We have no local market as it was in previous days; the farmer has lost even his home market, and I regret it, though the minister says our home market is the best market for butter.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I should like to direct a few questions to the minister, and first I should like to ask him something about the Rosthem farm and the Seager Wheeler property. I would like the minister to tell me also who is the superintendent of that farm at the present time and what in particular is being done at the Rosthern farm and the Seager Wheeler property.


Robert Weir: Mr. Hutton is the officer in charge of the Rosthern experimental farm. The work that is being carried on there is in connection with dairying and live stock, especially pigs, and one of the chief projects carried on there is horticulture. On Seager Wheeler's farm the work is of a demonstrative nature in grains, in plant breeding, of cereals and horticultural plants. We have the use of Doctor Wheeler's farm, his own time and the labour on the farm for, I think $2,100 a year.


John Vallance: If the minister has it I wonder if he could give a comparative statement as to the cost of operating the different experimental farms.


Robert Weir: I have the estimates for this year. Does the hon. member want them for all the farms throughout Canada?


John Vallance: The hon. member for Macdonald tells me that a return giving this information has been brought down and is available.


Robert Weir: I thought I brought it down.


John Vallance: The hon. member says it has been brought down, so the minister need not answer that question; I can find the information elsewhere. Something has been said about the new farm about to be set up, if not already in operation, at Melfort. For the information of the committee would the minister tell us the distance in miles between the Rosthem experimental farm and the proposed new farm at Melfort? I understand that is the closest farm to the new farm.

Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Robert Weir: I have not the mileage here, but if my memory serves me aright it is eighty or eighty-five miles from Rosthern to my own farm and about thirty-five miles from there to Melfort, but by direct road the distance would be somewhat less than that. I assume the hon. member is trying to get at why a farm should be placed as close, comparatively, to the Rosthern farm as it is proposed that the Melfort farm should be. It is not as close to the Rosthern farm as the farm at Saskatoon. It is about the same distance as the Scott experimental farm. But it is not a question of miles. It is because there is no experimental farm situated on soil typical of that at Melfort, and that is typical of the greater part of the soil all the way from Dauphin to the Alberta boundary. In order that hon. members may realize the extent of that very large area I may say that the Carrot river valley is situated practically in the centre of that whole area, and it is the largest area of cultivated soil that is in a reasonably close compass. The Melfort farm is situated pretty much in the centre of that area, and in order that hon. members may have some idea of the extent and production of that area in the. Carrot river valley alone I think it advisable that I should put this information on Hansard.
The area under cultivation in the Carrot river valley is 1,130,825 acres, almost three times the area of the cultivated land in British Columbia, and greater than the total area of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. The production in this area in 1931, the census year which gives us the most accurate figures, was as follows: Melfort produced 10,927,916 bushels of wheat, while Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia combined produced only 2,898,000 bushels of wheat; that is, in the Carrot river valley approximately four times as much was produced as in all these other provinces combined.
There was also produced in that area one and a half times as much barley as was produced in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and British Columbia combined, the Carrot river valley producing 5,303,584 bushels of barley while these other provinces combined produced only
3,350,000	bushels. The Carrot river valley produced almost thirty-seven per cent of the barley produced in Saskatchewan; it produced almost eight per cent of all the barley produced in the Dominion of Canada. It produced 25-5 per cent as much barley as Alberta; it produced 34-4 per cent as much barley as
Manitoba, and 39-3 per cent as much barley as Ontario produced. In 1931 the Carrot river valley produced almost one-thirtieth of the total wheat produced in Canada; more than one-twelfth of the wheat produced in Saskatchewan; almost one-thirteenth as much wheat as Alberta produced, and over one-third as much wheat as the whole of Manitoba produced.
In 1932 there was marketed in the Carrot river valley one out of every seven hogs marketed in Saskatchewan, and more than one out of every forty-five hogs marketed in Canada.
I think I heard one hon. member suggest that when we were having such excellent results there why was it necessary to put in an experimental farm? The reason is I think self-evident. That large area to the north, because of the high price of wheat, went almost entirely into the production of wheat, although later it went into the production of some of the coarse grains. We believe that that whole belt of country from Dauphin to Alberta is particularly suited for mixed farming-not just wheat alone; there must be experiments made somewhere in that area, and it was natural that that district should have been decided upon as the largest cultivated district to give leadership to the farmers there who wished to change their methods of farming.
The population of the Carrot river valley is perhaps the most cosmopolitan of any similar district in the dominion. There are large numbers of settlers there from Scandinavian countries. For eight miles west of my own farm on both sides of the road every farmer is Scandinavian by race, and for six miles east all but three are of that same race. There is also a very large settlement of French-speaking people from the province of Quebec and some from the old land. We have as well settlers from every province in the dominion. This is I think the best compliment that I can pay them as farmers:	In
1930	out of the total number of hogs marketed from the Carrot river valley 16-9 per cent were bacons and selects; in 1934 57-7 per cent were bacons and selects. That is of special interest to those who are engaged in farming because it enables them to realize the intelligence and thought that these farmers must have put into their work in order to recast almost their whole live stock industry as they have done, and that is true of western Canada particularly. It is also true of the far northern part of Alberta, where the farmers were engaged almost entirely in the production
Supply-Agriculture-Farms

of wheat and had made such a success of high quality wheat. But now they are turning more to live stock and demonstrating that the same intelligence can bring about these almost unbelievable results.


John Vallance: It has been very interesting to hear the minister give this statement, and I hope he will not think I am facetious in what I am about to say. I wonder if he can give us the same line-up for all the other .experimental farms. But perhaps that is asking too much because I think that almost as much can be said for the other experimental farms as the minister has said about this Melfort- farm. I am not objecting to this Melfort farm; I think it is very necessary. I have heard some criticism of it, which, after the statement of the minister, I think probably was not warranted. Can the minister tell us who is to be the superintendent of that farm, and is the staff to be moved in from the Rosthern farm? Why has not a permanent superintendent been appointed for the Rosthern farm? It is quite a considerable time since Mr. Munroe left that farm.


Robert Weir: Mr. Colbert is in charge of the farm under Mr. Hutton. Mr. Hutton is temporarily in charge at Rosthern. I frankly admit the difficulty in appointing men to these positions. The difficulty is in getting men who are thoroughly qualified to fill the position because, not only do they have to be scientists, but they must possess qualifications in very many lines outside of that, and! it is very difficult to get men whom we would select at the salary we can offer because these men are usually occupying good positions at the present time.


John Vallance: I would ask the minister if it is possible for, say, your humble servant, coming from the Battlefords which are being served by the Scott experimental farm, to get regarding the Scott experimental farm the same sort of information as the minister has just given to the committee in regard to the Melfort farm, and information as to the numbers it is going to serve. I think the information which the minister gave in regard to the Melfort farm should be made available in regard to the other experimental farms. Has the minister such information available?


Robert Weir: Some of it I have worked out for my own satisfaction and as a matter of comparison. The information the hon. gentleman asks for could be supplied, but it is not at present available.


John Vallance: The minister worked it out in this one case perhaps to justify the establishment of t'he Melfort farm.


Robert Weir: No, I had1 it worked out before that farm was ever established just for my own information as to the work that was being done agriculturally in the Carrot river valley, and to see what progress was being made in the quality of the live stock, especially bacon, being shipped out from that area. Some of the figures I gave were for 1931.


John Vallance: I do not want to be considered catty, but I think it will be wonderful for the minister to be able to go back to his constituency and say, "This is what you are creating; this is what I have done for you." Without wanting to be facetious, I understand that this is to be called the "Weir memorial farm." I hope it is a memorial.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could the minister give me the number of experimental farms, demonstration and illustration stations by provinces?


Robert Weir: We have not it by provinces. The information is available and will be supplied to the hon. member.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could I
have the total number?


Robert Weir: There are twenty-five experimental farms, 204 illustration stations and ten substations. There are no demonstration stations; what are usually called demonstration stations are really illustration stations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Farm economics, including agricultural cooperative marketing, $29,680.
James J. Donnelly: Why the increase?


Robert Weir: There has been an increase in the number of projects carried on which has necessitated an increase in the staff.


James J. Donnelly: There was a special grant of $50,000.


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member referring to the marketing act?


James J. Donnelly: Yes.


Robert Weir: That comes under item number 263.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is meant by agricultural cooperative marketing?


Robert Weir: For a number of years a study has been made of the different types of cooperative marketing efforts which have been undertaken. A record is kept of the operations of all cooperative marketing movements in the dominion.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying______


Edward Joseph Garland: Are there any publications dealing with that?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is this act functioning in northern Ontario? The other night the minister gave me some information in connection with the marketing of hay in my own section.


Robert Weir: There is a special item covering the marketing act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairying, $249,000.
William Richard Motherwell: What are the official export grades for butter?


Robert Weir: First, second and third; there has been no change.


William Richard Motherwell: My recollection is that there used to be a special grade.


Robert Weir: My information is that that was eliminated in 1931.


William Richard Motherwell: We are exporting only a comparatively small amount of butter and it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to have a special grade to fill this overseas demand. I realize that when you have only a small quantity of specials it may not pay to bother with it. A levy on general production has been put into effect in Australia as a bonus on exports. I am not suggesting this, because I think it would be better to have a high class butter which would command an increased price on the export market.


Robert Weir: As the hon. member knows, the special grade was the highest scoring butter in first grade. He himself has suggested the reason why this grade was eliminated; it was because of the small quantity manufactured. The hon. member has suggested having a special grade for export with the idea of obtaining a premium when sold in the old country. The officials of the department have given consideration to this matter but they do not feel sufficiently hopeful of increasing the amount to a point where they could recommend a special grade. Whenever circumstances warrant the creating of a special grade we have the power under the act to do so without referring the matter to parliament.


William Richard Motherwell: I assumed that the small amount of specials produced was the reason for eliminating this grade. My opinion is that quality is going to become more and more important in marketing and I thought it
might be. a good idea to endeavour to encourage having more of this grade produced by maintaining special as top grade and attaining a higher price therefor. Has the minister the total milk production of Canada for the last two or three years?


Robert Weir: It is estimated that the total production last year was 16,024,-
831,000	pounds. The year before it was
15.917.000.	000 pounds; the year before that,
15.772.000.	000 pounds and the year before that, 15,126,000,000 pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: Seeing that the production of cheese is dropping year after year,
I was wondering what other commercial commodities milk was being converted into to take the place of cheese.


Robert Weir: Butter and also milk for fluid consumption. This whole thing is just an estimate.


James J. Donnelly: Is this increase brought about by a better class of stock or is it due to an increase in the number of cattle?


Robert Weir: There is a slight increase in the number of cattle but I believe it is safe to say that there is considerable improvement in the quality of the stock.


Mr. GIROUARD:: I understand that petitions which had been addressed to the Prime Minister, signed by a large number of farmers, asking for minimum prices for farm products and also for a bonus on the export of butter and cheese, were referred back to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he kindly tell us whether it is the intention of the government to pass at this session legislation in accordance with the request made in these petitions?


Robert Weir: The petitions in question were referred to the Department of Agriculture and were given consideration, but I am sure the hon. member appreciates the fact that a member of the government cannot state what legislation will be brought down in this connection. The hon. gentleman himself realizes the results that might follow price fixing. The whole matter is a very delicate one and if it were applied to one product there would be. a demand in connection with other products. Every effort is being made however to work out some policy by which the dairy industry will be stabilized as far as possible, and in that all provinces are cooperating.


Peter John Veniot: You are applying fixed prices to some products of the farm now- minimum' prices. Isn't that so?
Sup-ply-Agriculture-D airying


Robert Weir: The producers themselves are.


Peter John Veniot: But authority is given them under an act of parliament to do so.


Robert Weir: That is under the Marketing Act?


Wilfrid Girouard: Mr. Chairman, last Tuesday I called the attention of the house to the petitions which I have just mentioned. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), when he spoke on the same evening, thought fit to make a statement which I think it is my duty to deny, because when the hon. member made that statement he knew that it was not in conformity with the facts. Here is what the hon. member for Dorchester said:
But now the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is having petitions circulating in our counties asking this government to give a bonus on butter, cheese and eggs.
The hon. member for Dorchester met me about a month or a month and a half ago and asked me some information about these petitions which were being circulated, I think throughout the provinoe of Quebec. I then informed the hon. member for Dorchester about the origin of the movement which allowed these petitions to be made as well as the requests included therein. The hon. member knew perfectly well that, so far as I was concerned, I had no petitions circulated in my riding or in any other Quebec riding.
I regret very much that he thought fit to make such an assertion, knowing for some time that it was not consistent with the facts or the truth.
Now, he read a letter from Mr. Albert Rioux. I had the opportunity, last Wednesday, to deny certain statements made by this gentleman. It is pretty hard, because of that letter, to restrain from saying that this Mr. Rioux was entirely in bad faith when he made such remarks about me, not only by intimating but by stating that I had used the party's funds to pay the cost of the printing of the petitions which were signed in my riding. I also had the opportunity, on the same day, to say that I was glad, whenever I could do so, to help in any possible way, even financially, the farmers of my riding who come to me for help. The fact that Mr. Rioux made that statement shows that, in his duties as president of the Catholic Farmers' Union, he did not always put aside his partisanship, as he should have done when occupying such position. We must not forget that Mr. Rioux was a Conservative candidate

in the last provincial election and that the present government has just rewarded him for his work on behalf of the party by appointing him a member of the revision board in the province of Quebec, at a high salary. I think that this should have been another reason for him to refrain from making malignant insinuations such as he made about me in his letter to the hon. member for Dorchester.
Now, sir, as to the exact contents of these petitions, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has not seen fit to give a definite answer this evening. Everyone admits that the miserable situation in which the farmers find themselves to-day is the consequence of the low prices they are receiving for their products. No matter how much legislation they introduce, the government will find it difficult to reach the root of the trouble if their legislation is not designed to cure the disease at its source. The trouble is that the farmers are selling their products, in most cases, below the cost of production. They have been doing so for many years, and that is why they are asking that minimum prices be fixed, in the same way that this government has maintained a minimum price for wheat without having recourse to the marketing act. This could apply to butter and cheese as well. It would be very difficult, I respectfully submit, to place the cheese produced in our various provinces under the control of the marketing board. The government would certainly not think of doing so, any more than it would think of placing wheat under the marketing act. If I remember the discussion that took place when the marketing act was adopted, it was made to apply to wheat, but I believe the opinion was generally expressed that wheat should not be brought under the act. The same should, I think, apply to cheese. Canada's cheese production fell off to a considerable extent following the imperial trade agreements signed in Ottawa in 1032. Our exports of this commodity are still too high, howerver, for the country's entire production of cheese to be placed under the act. I sincerely hope that during the long adjournment the government has just obtained, they will reconsider the matter in all its aspects. If the hoe. ministers from the province of Quebec will seriously study the subject with a view to providing effective help to the farmers of our province, I am sure that during the month of May the government will bring forward the legislation necessary to raise the price level of farm products in the province of Quebec and in the whole of Canada.

Supply-A griculture-Dairying


Mr. MALCOLM:: I want to ask the minister-and I sent him a note just now out of courtesy-if he could give the committee the annual consumption and production of butter from 1930 onward. He has just informed me that he has the figures for 1934.


Robert Weir: I have only the
figures for production, not for consumption. The production figures are as follows:
Year	Pounds
1929		 170,810,230
1930		 185,751,061
1931		 225,955.246
1932		 214,002,127
1933		 219,232,546
1934	(preliminary report)....	231,448,702


James Malcolm: Is that the total consumption of butter in Canada during those years?


Robert Weir: The total production-creamery butter.


James Malcolm: Not dairy butter?


Robert Weir: No.


James Malcolm: Has the minister any
figures in connection with dairy butter?


Robert Weir: Just an estimate.


James Malcolm: Could we have that
to add to the creamery figures?


Robert Weir: The estimate is
90.000.	000 to 95,000,000 pounds per annum.


James J. Donnelly: Could the minister tell the committee the price set in Australia for butter for home consumption? I understand they have in effect there what is known as the Paterson scheme to provide a certain price for butter for home consumption, and the price of the butter exported is evened up to the producers. What is the spread between the price for butter for home consumption and the price for export?


Robert Weir: The Paterson
scheme as understood is really not now in effect in Australia. I have not the information available, but I shall be glad to get it and give it to the hon. member as accurately as it can be obtained.


James Malcolm: I think the figures
which the minister has given as to the production of butter amply bear out the statements made by hon. members on this side of the house on a very memorable date in 1930. The production of butter does not change very much from year to year, but the consumption of it changes materially. At that time this dominion was consuming about
350.000.	000 pounds of butter annually, or
about thirty-five pounds per capita, because the industrial life of the country was buoyant and the home market was good. Now we have not increased the production of butter very much, but we are not consuming anything like the same quantity. We are on an export basis and the price is down, whereas at the time my hon. friends opposite criticized us, we were on an import basis and the price was up. That is the simple fact of the matter, and it is borne out by the figures given by the minister.


Robert Weir: Just as a matter
of record and not wishing to delay my estimates, I am informed that the highest consumption, not that I am disputing the point raised, is 30-76 pounds per capita.


James Malcolm: In what year was that?


Mr. YENIOT:: At the present time?


Robert Weir: 1931.


James Malcolm: Let the minister go back to 1928.


Robert Weir: This is the per
capita consumption:
Per capita consumption
Year	Pounds
1928		 28.54
1929		 29.26


James Malcolm: Does that include dairy and creamery?


Robert Weir: Yes.


James Malcolm: How could it? We did not have any more than 10,000,000 people and importations were heavy.


Robert Weir: The amount of
dairy butter is estimated, and whatever it is worked out at for one year in this statement, it will be on the same basis for each of the other years.


James Malcolm: Those figures hardly conform to those of the bureau of statistics.


Robert Weir: The figures for the other years are as follows:
Per capita consumption
Year	Pounds
1930		 30.59
1931		 30.76
1932		 30.49
1933		 30.04


James Malcolm: Has the minister the figures for this year per capita?


Robert Weir: Not for 1934. The lowest was 1921-25-79 pounds per capita

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


James Malcolm: Those figures vary from those given by the bureau of statistics.


Robert Weir: I am informed that they are the bureau of statistics figures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous - Natural Products Marketing Act, 1931, $545,500.
Peter John Veniot: I wish to take up a little time of the committee in dealing with the marketing act so far as it applies to the eastern marketing board for potatoes. I wish to submit a certain number of questions to the minister and in doing so I point out to him what I and others in the maritime provinces regard as an injustice to growers of potatoes at least in New Brunswick, and I think the same situation applies to the other two maritime provinces. For instance I find in the price list issued by the board, prices fixed for export, Halifax. $1.50 per barrel, and 65 cents per bag of 90 pounds. But there is no price fixed for export from the port of Saint John. I should like to know why an export price is fixed only from the port of Halifax. 1 do not expect the minister to be able to give me an answer to-night to the various questions that I am going to submit; ha will find them in Hansard to-morrow and I would ask that he look carefully into them and the objections I am going to place on Hansard in regard to this organization, the eastern potato marketing scheme. Having stated this export price at Halifax and pointed out that no price is fixed at Saint John, I want to know if this means that potatoes for export can be shipped only through the port of Halifax. Then in the instructions issued I find that car lot shipments within Canada must have a government inspector's certificate attached to the car. I have no objection to that, but I also find the following in the instructions:
The buyer shall be entitled to inspection at destination, and this privilege shall be so marked on the bill of lading.
The inspection at point of shipment is made by government officials. I understand a fee of S3 is charged for that. I have no objection to a second inspection at point of destination provided that inspection is made by a government official. But as I understand the working of the scheme, that inspection of potatoes from New Brunswick at Montreal, for instance, is made by the purchaser, not by a government official. Now what will happen and what is happening if that is the case? If the purchaser is allowed to disregard the government inspection at
[Mr. R. Weird
point of shipment and base his price in Montreal on his own inspection, it becomes a monopoly for the dealer. He can turn down the potatoes. It is provided under the law that he shall have that- right of inspection, and if he is so minded, if he. is not one of the most honest men in the world, he can say:	"I had these potatoes inspected;
they do not come up to the mark, therefore I will not pay the price agreed upon," which is a price fixed' by the marketing board as a minimum price on the rails at Montreal. I am taking Montreal as an example. I want to know, and our shippers in New Brunswick want to know, why this second inspection is allowed without strict government supervision.
Then in the fixing of prices I find that the price is fixed only as at point of destination. If it is reasonable and right to fix the minimum price at point of destination, say Montreal or Toronto, why is it not right to fix a minimum price for the grower? Today the price is fixed at Montreal, I think at 55 cents or thereabouts for a bag of 90 pounds. Added to that must be the freight and the inspection fee, and the fee, I think it is called1, that is collected by the board to meet certain expenses. Then the price fixed, with these additions, plus the wholesale dealer's profit, is the price to the retail trade.
Since I am dealing with the retail trade at points of destination, how is it that the local marketing board so-called in Toronto can fix a minimum price to the retail trade? What right have they to fix such minimum price? We talk of ethics in business; we have had investigations before the price spreads commission of unethical methods of dealing with sales and purchases. How is it that the local board1-I have it here under date of March 17-can fix a price at Toronto for No. 1 potatoes of 83 cents per 90-pound bag for retail for Ontario potatoes and on potatoes from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick at $1.09 a bag for the same weight? Then this board has entered into an agreement with certain chain stores that they shall keep the retail price of Ontario potatoes at such a figure as to debar the sale of potatoes from the east. If this can go on under this marketing scheme it is readily seen how injurious will be the effect upon the potato growers of eastern Canada. If Ontario as a whole cannot supply the demand in the Toronto market they have to import, but until the Ontario crop is disposed of this semi-monopoly is maintained, detrimental to the interests of potato growers in the east.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Let me draw the attention, of the minister to some other points which I consider should be clarified in the instructions issued. Under the scheme1-
"Dealer" means a person who sells potatoes for resale or negotiates sales of potatoes for resale except persons selling potatoes only of their own production, within the province where produced.
Under that definition a grower may sell potatoes of his own growth within the province where produced. (But in the definition of "marketing" there seems to be a contradiction, because-
"Marketing" includes buying and selling, shipping for sale or storage and offering for sale.
There is no exception of the grower such as is found in the definition of "dealer." That causes a great deal of uneasiness among growers and shippers in New Brunswick, especially in districts where farmers do not devote as much time and attention to the production of potatoes as they do in some of the larger sections of the province, but yet depend a great deal upon the potato market for their living. We find in the instructions issued by the central board, I think it is called, that sales of potatoes for delivery in Montreal, Quebec City and Ontario cities shall be made only to dealers as defined by the eastern Canada potato marketing scheme. This does not apply to potatoes shipped to the prairie provinces and British Columbia.
While I am on that point let me direct the attention of the minister to the fact that there are two grades of potatoes and, according to the instructions issued by the central board, each grade contains four or five different classifications. Under grade 1 there are four classifications, I think, for potatoes to be sold in the province of Ontario and the provinces east of Ontario, which would include Quebec and the maritime provinces. Under grade 2 you find potatoes graded for export, and this is different from the grade for sale in the provinces I have mentioned. That same grade for export, however, applies to potatoes from the east sold in the prairie provinces and British Columbia, and down there we want to know the reason for this difference. We claim that the grade for sale in Ontario, Quebec and the martimes should be the grade for sale in the prairie provinces and British Columbia, and that the growers or producers in the maritime provinces should not be forced to ship to those places potatoes graded for foreign shipment. Under grade 2, which covers potatoes for the west, the prairie provinces and British Columbia, you find nothing but the diameter system applied, while under the grade for Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces, our own potatoes produced in the maritime provinces for sale there are graded not on the diameter system but on the weight system. Our people would like to know the reason for this difference, because it greatly interferes with the sale of their product.
A few weeks ago I asked a question in order to ascertain how many meetings had been held in the province of New Brunswick to explain this new marketing scheme to the potato producers. The minister gave me the number; I think it was eighteen or more, but it does not make very much difference. I have attempted to discover how these meetings were called. Last October or November there was a meeting called in my own county, about sixteen miles from my home. It could not have been very well advertised, because I knew nothing about it and heard nothing about it. I should like to have heard of it; I should like to have attended that meeting. I found that the gentleman who is head of the affair in the northern counties held a meeting at Belkdune, Gloucester county; another at Charlo Station, in Restigouche county, and another meeting at Balmoral, Restigouche county. At those meetings he told the people that the system of grading that was to be introduced would not affect the grading as it was carried on in New Brunswick in the past. What do we find? Those people have been deceived; the grading done to-day in New Brunswick is entirely different from the grading that was done previously under an act of parliament. They were told that there would be no difference, but the difference has been so great that in many places the farmers are unable to grade their potatoes for sale to dealers who buy them for resale, because under the regulations issued under the act and under this scheme when the farmer sells his potatoes to a dealer for resale those potatoes must be graded, and if he has not graded them he is liable to a fine of from $25 to $500, or to imprisonment. Under these rules the grading must be done by using expensive racking machines. In some parts of the province of New Brunswick I have no doubt that can be done to advantage. In the counties along the river St. John, in Carleton county, in Victoria, in Madawaska and in those counties bordering on the state of Maine, they can afford to do that, because they produce veiy large quantities of potatoes. But in other parts of the province, in northern New Brunswick, where the farmer produces for sale only say 150 to

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
200 barrels of potatoes, he cannot possibly grade them under these new regulations. So he must sell them under the condition that the purchaser for resale will grade them, and when that condition is imposed upon him by the purchaser the farmer has to take less per bag or per bushel for the potatoes he sells.
In laying this matter before the minister I was going to direct his attention to another situation which had developed, because up to that time the province of Quebec had not come under the marketing scheme, but the minister informed me the other day that within the last week or so the province of Quebec has come under that scheme.
Now I want to point out conditions which I am informed exist to-day under this scheme in Ontario. No doubt the minister has seen some of this in the press. I have not depended upon the reports appearing in the press; I have gone to some of the largest wholesale dealers and purchasers of potatoes from' the maritimes, in the city of Toronto, in order either to have what I saw in the press verified or to have a definite denial made. From the information I have in my possesion I find that in Ontario the regulations are not enforced with regard to their own production, but they are enforced very strictly in regard to potatoes imported from the maritime provinces. I think the minister will agree that this is correct, because representations were made only a week ago to the central board in Ottawa; this question was discussed and they promised to undertake to see that the situation was corrected. There is also what I consider another very effective means of preventing eastern potatoes from being sold in the province of Ontario or in the large cities as they have been in the past; I refer to the trucking system, the conveyance of potatoes by truck instead of by rail to point of destination, and those trucks not obeying the regulations laid down for transport under the new marketing scheme. My information is that there are constant violations of the regulations under this system of trucking. Not that I wish to argue that the transportation by truck of the farmers' produce should be done away with, but rather that the regulations governing the transportation of potatoes within a province or without a province should be observed. If they are not, what is the use of them? There is no use in having regulations at all if they are not observed, and the violation of these regulations does a great injustice to the producers of potatoes in other parts of Canada. If the price spreads commission had not already made its report, this might well be a

subject worth while investigating, touching as it does the ethics of business.
Another thing. They fix a minimum price in Ontario, and the charge is made both in the press and by reputable wholesale dealers that that price is not being maintained. If that minimum price is not being maintained for Ontario potatoes, and the minimum price is being maintained for potatoes in the maritime provinces, it will readily be seen that an injustice is being done to the producers in other parts of Canada.
Here is another thing that the minister might look into. I do not know if the board has looked into it or not. I understand that the marketing board secured an agreement with the chain stores and larger retailers to maintain a minimum retail price in the city of Toronto. If that is the case, you have a monopoly. There are laws against monopolies, and as a monopoly is against proper business ethics it is time, if such a condition does exist, for the central board to interfere or for the Department of Agriculture to see what should be done under the circumstances.
The minister a few days ago made the statement in the house that New Brunswick or eastern potatoes were being sold to-day at a price far in excess of the price prevailing before this marketing scheme became effective. I hold in my hand a dispatch from the town of Woodstock, New Brunswick, one of the large centres of shipment of New Brunswick potatoes, addressed to the Telegraph-Journal, a newspaper of the city of Saint John, dated March 23, 1935, in which it states that "potatoes on Saturday were selling at twenty cents a barrel," not twenty cents a bag, but twenty cents a barrel. Now it may be said that the minister's statement was correct in regard to the price obtained by the dealer or shipper, but I am referring to the producer, and this dispatch refers to the producer. That is wthy I said that fixing a minimum price at point of destination like Montreal at 55 cents a bag while our growers are receiving only from 15 to 20 cents a bag is not right; it should not be allowed to go on in that way. I claim again that if you fix a minimum price at point of destination you should fix a minimum price also at point of production or point of shipment.
I do not wish to obstruct or prevent the passage of this item to-night, but I feel that I owe a duty to those I represent to bring these matters before the minister, and I felt that I would rather take up the time of the committee in bringing these complaints of the growers of certain sections of the maritime provinces to the attention of the minister himself than lay them before the central

Radio Broadcasting
board. I should like the minister to take into consideration the different points I have made, and if this item does not go through to-night perhaps the minister will be in a position when it comes up again to enlighten me on the different points I have brought to his attention.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) having brought so many of these points to my attention, I am sure he realizes that an answer cannot be given to-night, but I shall immediately have instructions given to prepare an answer. A good deal of the information will be available in tihe office, and I shall send my hon. friend that information immediately and the rest as soon as it can be obtained.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 15, 1935